Plea in Abatement of the Writ before the default saved 40 E. 3. 2. In a Writ of Aiel Besaiel and Cosinage one shall not plead to the points of the Writ after he hath pleaded in Barr but it is otherwise in an Assise of Mortd ' ancestor as it seems 40 E. 3. 19. Where the Writ abates in part by the Act of the Court and where it is abated by the Parties own Confession As if an Executor brings an Action de clauso fracto de bonis asportatis in this case the Writ shall abate for part and as to the rest it shall be effectual But where the Writ is abated by the Plaintiff it is reason although that it be of his own Conusans that if it abate that the whole shall abate In Assise against two the one pleads in Barr as to a moiety the other pleads jointenancy with a third person the Plaintiff may choose him who pleads in Barr for his Tenant and confess that his writ is false for the other part In Assise against two the one is Tenant the other is Disseisor which Disseisor makes default the other accepts his Companion Tenant with him and pleads in Barr the Plaintiff dissables the Tenant and doth not answer to the Barr for in this case he hath accepted a Tenant which is not Tenant As if Praecipe quòd reddat be brought by two where one is a Bastard or by two persons as Heirs where one of them in truth is not Heir in these cases the whole Writ shallabate because that that is meerly false whichis supposed to be true Two Executors bring an Action of Trespass of Goods carried away in the life-time of the Testator and also of Trees cut down here the Writ is good notwithstanding that the Executors cannot have the Writ for the Trees cut down and if they pray to have an other Writ for the Trees cut down then the whole Writ shall abate quod nota A Defendant or Tenant cannot abate a Writ by his Act but the Act of the Plaintiff or Demandant and the Act of God and also the Act of an Estranger may abate the Writ In a writ of Ravishment de gard by the death of the Infant the writ shall not abate Tenant by Statute-Merchant is disseised the disseisor lets for life the Tenant by the Statute brings an Assise the Lessee dyes the writ shall not abate because he shall recover all in damages But it is otherwise where he is to recover the Freehold because in that case he cannot have the effect of his Judgment A Writ of Admesurement of Common is brought by one against three depending the writ the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants exchange their Lands to which the common is appendant if the writ shall abate it seems not because that notwithstanding the exchange the Plaintiff may have the effect of his Suit which is that the Common may be admesured and at all times pending the writ the Plaintiff and the Defendant who made the exchange were Tenants and the Writ of Admesurement granted between them by reason of their Tenure for there was no mean-time between the parting from the Free-hold in one Acre and the taking the Free-hold in the other Acre and that very instant that the Freehold of the one Acre was parted from the other was vested so that there was cause of Admesurement between them as well after the exchange as there was before A Writ of Admesurement is brought against three one hath nothing in the Common so that the Writ ought to abate because that non-tenure is a good Plea in this Action yet if he that hath nothing before any exception be taken to the Writ purchaseth an Acre of Land by which he ought to have Common in the same Land the Writ is made good As in Praecipe quod reddat brought against him that hath nothing and pending the Writ he purchaseth the same Lands the writ is good So it seems the writ is good notwithstanding no time between the exchange ergo à forciori when there is no mean instant But by the better opinion it seems that the writ shall abate notwithstanding that the party may have the effect of his Suit for that ground is not obsolutely general as Praecipe quòd reddat is brought against me and I have nothing in the Land and pending the writ the Land descends the writ shall abate I bring an Action of wast by reason of the reversion or a Quid juris clamat depending the writ I alien the same Reversion and after purchase the Reversion again yet the writ is abated If a writ of Partition or Nuper obiit be brought and pending the writ the demandant aliens and retakes the Estate to him yet the writ shall abate And yet in all these cases the Plaintiff may have the effect of his Suit But that which causeth the writ to abate is the Act of the Plaintiff for the writ depending he hath aliened that which gives him his cause of Action and therefore the writ shall abate as in the cases aforesaid for as to the Plaintaiff's part his own Act shall abate the writ and not the Act of God nor of the Law except in some cases and as for the Defendants or the Tenants part his own Act shall not abate the writ but the Act of God or of the Law may for if the Tenant aliens depending the writ yet the writ shall not abate but the Demandant shall recover and he that comes in by the Tenant shall be bound by that Recovery And if an exchange had been made by the Plaintiff with a stranger who had nothing in the Common the writ should have been abated without question So for that Acr◠which he had when the writ was brought he cannot maintain his writ for put the case that the day the writ was purchas'd the Plaintiff had not any Land by which he ought to have common and afterwards pending the writ he purchas'd an Acre of Land to which the Common is appendant this shall not make the writ good which was nought from the beginning When the writ is made abatable by the Act of the Plaintiff or Demandant Videlicet by his aliening of that thing which gives to him the cause of Action if he pending the writ doth purchase the same again it shall not revive the writ nor make it good WHere the Grant shall be good ab initio although it was incertainat the commencement Note If a Parson will Grant to me all the Wooll which he shall have for Tithe the next year to come this Grant is good and yet the quantity of the Wool is incertain at the time of the Grant But because it may be reduced to a certainty after the Grant it was held good enough 21 H. 6. 43. And so if a man will Grant to me the Perquisits of his Court this incertain Grant is good causâ quâ suprà 21 H. 6. 43. The same Law is where a Feoffment is
not an Action for the whole or for part the Writ shall abate de facto as in Quare Impedit if it appears by the plaintiff's shewing that the Church is full by his own Presentation the Writ shall abate de facto Some Pleas abate the Writ in the whole and some but in part As In Trespass against two one appears and pleads that the other was dead die impetrationis brevis or that there was no such person in rerum natura there the whole Writ shall abate But it is otherwise where one of the Defendants dyes after purchasing the Writ 18 E. 4. 1. 2 H. 7. 16. Rast Entr. 126. Trespass against husband and wife after Verdict and before the day in Bank the husband dyes in Cro. Caroli 509. it is doubted if the writ shall abate but it is agreed there That if the wife dyes it shall not abate against the husband But in case for Slander by the wife the writ shall abate after Verdict Heb. 129. Account against two one dyes after the first Judgment the Writ shall abate only against him In Right of Advowson the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was seised of the sixth part die impetrationis brevis this shall abate the whole Writ 5 H. 7. 7. In Debt upon an Obligation the defendant pleads That after the writ purchased the plaintiff had received parcel and shews an Acquittance the whole writ shall abate and yet it is a good plea in barr for that part 5 H. 7. 41. a. Rast Entr. 160. 7 E. 4. 19. 15 H. 7. 10. 3 H. 7. 3. Quere if in Debt upon simple Contract the plaintiff receives part pendente brevi if it shall abate the writ In Debt upon an Obligation with Condition to deliver 20 Quarters of Barley the defendant pleads in Abatement that pendente billa the plaintiff had accepted 15 parcel of the said 20 and adjudged to be an ill Plea because it is collateral and not parcel of the Sum contained in the Obligation 3 Cro. 253. Where the defendant pleads matter that entitles the plaintiff or demandant to a better writ it shall abate the other as in a Writ of Ayel Seisin of the Father So in Mortd ' ancestor his own Seisin c. But in Formedon or Writ of Right darrein Seisin is no Plea for in Formedon the Gift and not the Seisin is the Title and it is not within the Statute of 32 H 8. of Limitations to be brought within 50 years 12 Eliz. Dyer 290. 4 E. 4. 32. b. If the Tenant brings a Writ of Mesne of two Acres and depending the writ he alieneth one of them the writ shall abate The same Law in an Action of Wast brought of two acres if the plaintiff aliens the Reversion of one of them the writ shall abate Where it appears that the writ was never good in part it shall abate in the whole As in Trespass against 3 if one be dead after the writ purchased the writ shall abate in the whole per 7 E. 4. The same Law if Trespass be brought against three and one saith that there is no such Name in Rerum Natura as the third person's name Judicium de Brevi if it be found the Writ shall abate in the whole because that I have joyned with me such a person who hath no colour or cause of affirmance my affirmance shall abate Where the writ is good for part and for part shall abate As in Debt upon Obligation against two they both deny the deed and it is found the deed of one of them and not of the other yet the Plaintiff shall recover against him whose deed it is 40 E. 3. Praecipe quod reddat against Tenant for life the Reversion descends to him depending the writ the writ shall not abate Misnomer in Trespass shall not abate the writ but only against him who pleads the Plea 5 E. 4 2. 13. 2 H. 7. 16. 33 H. 6. 23. A Praecipe is brought by three joyntly several Tenancy in parcel or in the whole is pleaded by one of the Tenants it shall abate the whole Writ and against all Rast Entr. 248. 270 1 2 3. 364 5. 282. In Right of Advowson against two as Jointenants the death of one shall abate the writ but secus in Assise of Novel disseisin or Mortd ancestor for there it sufficeth if there be any Tenant to the Freehold Cro. Car. 574 583 Rast Entr. 107. In an Appeal against two no such person in Rerum Natura as to one shall abate the whole writ but it is otherwise of the death of one as it seems 29 H. 7. 21. 2 H. 7. 8. But it is otherwise in an Assise or Writ of Dower as in Pollard's Case Com' 89. b. In Trespass in F. and H. the defendant said that there is not any such Vill or Hamlet in the said County and the better Opinion was That this Plea shall abate the whole Writ 4 E. 4. 33. a. Co. Lit. 155. b. Rast Entr. 108 298. Co. Entr. 121. But Quaere how it should have been tryed for it seems by a Jury of the Visne or Neighbourhood of F. Debt against two Executors one said That whereas he is nam'd of S. that he was of D. the day of the Writ purchas'd and prayes Judgment of the Writ and agreed That if the Plea was found for him that the Writ should abate against both and yet the other shall answer but the other plea shall be first tryed 21 H. 6. 4. Rast Entr. 108 295 298 299. 160. In Trespass against two one pleads that the place in question is within his Fee and demands Judgment of this writ quare vi et armis the writ shall abate against him only So where the one is Feme covert Jointenancy in the Demandant or Coparcener shall be pleaded in Abatement 22. E. 4. 4. 2 H. 7. 16. Cro. Eliz. 554. Rast Entr. 615. In a Quare Impedit against two one pleads that there was no such Church as was named in the Writ the other pleaded that there was no such Bishop of Lincoln as was there named and Issue was joyned upon the first Plea but to the second Plea the Plaintiffs demurred and the first being found for the Defendant the whole Writ did abate Hobart 250. In a Writ of Error the death of one of the Plaintiffs shall abate the whole writ Some Pleas in Abatement go only to the person of the plaintiff or defendant others to the Writ or Action As Excommunication in the Plaintiff or Demandant may be pleaded in disability of his person but every Excommunication shall not disable As if a Major or Bailiffs and Communalty or any other Body aggregate of many bring their Action Excommunication in the Major or Bailiffs shall not disable them because they sue and answer by Attorney but it is otherwise of a sole Corporation So if Executors or Administrators be Excommunicated they may be disabled for every one that hath to do with aâ—person Excommunicated either by commerce
c. The same law if an Abbot make a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards is deposed and sometime after is made Abbot now he shall have an Action against his Deed which he himself made when he was Abbot because that now he comes in as Successor and not in the place as he was before The same Law of Warden and Schollars But it would have been otherwise if he had disseised a Parson and made Feoffment in Fee with warranty or without warranty and afterwards is made Parson now if he will use an Action his own Feoffment shall be a Barr against him because that all that he shall recover by this Action is to his own use The same Law if a man disseise a woman and makes a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards he takes the woman to Wife in this case the Husband shall be Barred because that he will have advantage of this Recovery to his own use If a man hath right to have Land where his Entry is tolle and releaseth to the Tenant all manner of Actions and dye his Heir shall have his Action and recover the Land because that by such release no right is extinguished and if the Tenant makes Feoffment in Fee or dyes seised he that made the release shall have his Action against the Heir of the Tenant or his Feoffee against his own release and the cause is because that nothing is released but his Action against the same person and not any right If the Son disseise his Father and make a Feoffment with warranty or without warranty and after his Father dyes he cannot ouste his Feoffee because that it was his own Deed. A man hath good cause of Action sometimes and yet by matter ex post facto and by the Act of a Stranger his Action is destroyed As I am disseisee and he is disseisor and I release to the disseisor Also I bail or lend Goods to one a Stranger takes them the bailor sells them to a Stranger c. Action of Debt upon an obligation brought by an Executor the writ shall be detinet and not debet and for this cause they joyn in the same Action for an Horse delivered by themselves to the same Obligor The same Law if a man recover Lands by default in which I have an Estate for life and he recovers by another writ by default Lands wherein I have an Estate Tail I shall have a Quod ei deforceat because the conclusion of the writ serves me And so a man may joyn two or three things in his Action where the conclusion of his Action is pertinent to the several matters and doth not vary If two or three Acres are given severally in tail and the party discontinue the whole his Heir shall have Formedon for the whole because that the writ is le quel un I. dit S. dona and although the Acres are given severally that is not material forasmuch as the common Writ will serve in this case But if the Acres are given by divers or several men or that the one shall be given to the Heirs Males and the other to the Heirs Females and the third to the Heirs General in this case the Heir shall have several writs and not one writ because that one writ cannot serve for such several Gifts If I deliver Goods to one who is indebted to me and he dyes against his Executors I may have a writ for the Goods and for the Debt because that the writ is against the Executors for the Debt in the Detinet and for the detinue it is in the Detinet and therefore the writ well warrants the count to declare partly for debt and partly for Detinue but such an Action he could not have had against the Testator because that for the debt against him the writ ought to have been in the debet and detinet A Feoffment is made upon condition of payment by the Feoffor he commits Trespass and afterwards enters by force of payment c. yet the Feoffee shall have Trespass because his possession is affirm'd 43 E. 3. Assumpsit If he would relinquish such a debt to pay him 30 l. and sayes he did relinquish it c. and after Verdict for the Plaintiff Judgment stayed because he shews not how he relinquished it and it may be by parol which were void Gregory versus Lovell 3 Cro. 292. Assumpsit in Consideration he would discharge him from an Arrest and sayes that exoneravit ipsum moved in Arrest c. he shews not how he discharged him sed non allocatur for they might be per parol or for a time but in Pleading a discharge of a Rent or bond which must be by Deed and perpetual it must be shewed how King versus Hobs. 2. Cro. 930. 960. Assumpsit the Defendant pleads the discharge of the promise whereof Issue taken and found for the Plaintiff and divers defects in the Declaration moved in Arrest of Judgment but by Wrâ—y all these defects tending to the Assumpsit are cured by the collateral Plea Manwood v. Buston 2. Leond. 203 204. Assumpsit If he would make it appear c. and sayes he made it appear by the Court-Roll Good without saying what the Court Rolls were for the Infinitly So a Bond to save harmless from all Estreates good without shewing what for the same reason Vide 9 E. 4. 15. a. 22 E. 4. 41. a Mo. Pl. 1175. 3 Cro. 149 Pl 3. 919. Pl. 3. 3 Bulst 31. Latch 130. H. 2. H. 7. Pl 22. H. 6. H. 7. Pl. 8. 8. 22 E. 4. 15. ab 28. b. 29. a. Assumed he would assign Goods to pay c. and sayes he assigned and shews not how but per scriptum yet good Note after verdict Forth v. Yates Tr. 30 Car. 2. B R. Assumpsit against an Executor who Pleads solvit to such a one on a Bond of 100 l. and to another 100 l. on a Bond and so to divers others which he was forced to do the Payment being post exhibitionem Bille and Pleads a Recognizance in force not satisfied the Plaintiff Pleads non solvit to such a one 100 l. nor to such a one 100 l. Et si de ceteris hoc petit c. and to the Recognizance that it was satisfied and kept in force of Fraud the Defendant demurred quià replicatio multiplyed and double consisting of two matters where one goes to the whole but Judgment for the Plaintiff for the first objection to one 100 l. to another 100 l. make several Issues though que de hoc And in case of an Executor one may answer to every thing alledged by him H. 21 22. Car. 2. B. R. Jeffreys v. Dod. Assumpsit to permit Land to descend breach laid quod non permisit well being in the negative but in the affirmative it ought to be shewed how disposed though they could not descend H. 9. Jac. B. R. rot 3 Bulstr 18. Assumpsit to perform an Award and sets it forth the Defendant pleads
Record Foâ— versus Iucks 2 Cro. 13â— In Debt against an Executor he pleads a Judgment in Barr and because he did not plead prout patet per Recordum it was resolved to be ill 2 Cro. 226. Defendant in Debt to perform an Award which was to enfeoff or Release or pay 20 s. pleads performance ill not shewing which for performance of any one is good excuse wherefore he must shew what he hath performed 27 H. 6. I. b. In Debt against an Executor or Administrator he pleads a Judgment and that he hath not Goods preterquam que non c. Co. 9. Rep. 109 110. 'T is held ill on general demurrer not shewing what summ he has but Hob. 133. More versus Andrews 't is held but form and good on general demurrer and Vide Co. Entr. 446. a. 148. Pl. 27. 152. a. 269. a. 617. b. It is oftner pleaded in the general then to plead a particular summ c. here the Court held it but a form and cured by General demurrer Davies versus Davies Tr. 16. Car. 2. B. R. Debt on a Bond conditioned to pay all c. Defendant pleads he paid all without shewing what the Plaintiff replied he received some summs and has not paid the replication good for the knowledg is on the Defendants side what he received therefore to have been set out by him and not by the Plaintiff in the Replication and therefore the Barr ill Woodcock versus Cole Tr. 16. Car. 2. B. R. Debt super Obligation conditioned to deliver such Letters by such a day plea that he delivered them secundum Conditionem ill for being to do a particular thing by a particular day he ought to have pleaded particularly and not generally secundum conditionem Brook versus Deane P. 16 Car. 2. B. R. Rot. 451. Debt upon a Bond at London conditioned that if a ship do not miscarry c. Defendant pleads she miscarryed in Cornwall ill for he cannot plead transitory matter in another County then the Action is laid and so altered the Trial and if he have local matter to plead he must shew it Collings versus Sutton Tr. 16 Car. 2 B. R. rot 1666. 11 H. 4. 50. a. b. Debt and counts that one possessed of a Term granted him a Rent by mean Conveyances is come to the Defendants and shews not how yet ruled good aliter if the Term be pleaded to come to himself or any that he is privy to Note This was after Verdict but no advantage taken of the Verdict Cotes versus Wade m. 18. Card. B. R. Debt for an Escape and begins with the Writ of Execution and Arrest ill not shewing the Judgment quod cum recuperasset c. Jones versus Pope M. 18. Car. 2 B. R. Debt on a Bond conditioned to save against another Bond Defendant pleads that he did save not shewing how the Plaintiff sayes he was sued at Law pro eo quod the money was not paid and pleads not the Writ c. as he ought the Defendant rejoynes he had not notice which is a departure and not material the Plaintiff demurrs Resolved the Barr ill but if not to have it specially assigned for cause Secondly the eo quod affirmative and Traversable as well as if said in facto Thirdly the Replication ill not pleading the Writ c. Fourthly because the rejoyner is a departure and admits it being but ill for incertainty and circumstance has cured it Cather versus Peirce Soutbres and Falker M 18. Card. 2. in Sci. Debt against an Executor who pleas three Judgments in debt had against him and sayes nor pro vero debo and concludes prout patet per seperalia recorda et inde exeeution tato it for both Cases no resolution Palmer verses Lawson M. 18. Car. 2. R. R. Rot. 302. Debt on a Bond to perform an Award Ita quod it be made before 25 March pleads nul Award replication that ante 27 May they made an Award good without saying infra tempus limitat they may traverse nullum c. without traversing the day if not before the day the Jury is to find it Skinner versus Andrews Hill 20. Car. 2. B. R. Rot. 292. Debt against two Executors they plead a Judgment had against one as Administrator who ultra to satisfie hath not Assets et bene Parker versus Amy. Hill 20 21. Car. 2. B. R. Debt on a Bond against an Executor who pleads a Judgment and a Bond the Plaintiff replies the Judgment satisfied and satisfaction given Et hoc paratus est verificare And to the Bond assets ultra Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Patriam Defendant demurrs and adjudged for the Plaintiff though not said to the first per Recordum for but form and cured by the general demurrer also he has not answered the last issuable Plea Hancock versus Proud M. 21. Card. 2. B. R. Debt on a Bond conditioned to do several things Defendant pleads performed generally and demurr adjudged ill he should have answered to all the particulars expressed in the Action aliter where 't is to perform Covenants Winbleton versus Helderup Trin. 22 Car. B. R. rot 704. Debt on a Bond conditioned to perform Covenants which were within two years to deliver a Mapp of all Land in D. in the possession of A. Lessee of B. and B. pleads performance repl Assigns breach that Lessee did not deliver a Mapp within two years of all the Lands in D. in his Occupation and in the occupation of B. and C. and the replication seems ill first because he does not say Lessee nor his Executors Secondly in his occupation is uncertain what is meant by it Thirdly he ought to shew what Lands were in the possession of B. and C. Q. If the recital not an Estopel to say none were Palmer versus Greenhil Executor of Greenhil Pa. 11 Jac. Rot 688 Bridg. 46. Debt by two Barons and their Femes on an Obligation made to their Femes when sole and say the money was not paid them good and though not said vel licaui eorum for payment to one is payment to both Sparmer versus Stone et ux ' vide Pa. 77 et Latch 49 and Pop. 161 ibm 3. Count jointly and severally in Action against one sufficient to say he paid not but if against all that they nec aliquis eorum Noy 69. Executors sue on a Bond Testat plea non est factum after Verdict for the Plaintiff moved yet he had Judgment Noy 79. A. and B. joyntly and severally bound to stand to an Award betwixt them and I. S. Arbitrators awarded A. to pay B. 3 s. B. to pay 10 s. to I. S. in debt on the Bond in Plea for A. to say he had performed the Award without shewing how and how B. had performed it for he is bound to him also Bendlo 5. Debt on a Contract Defendant pleads payment in a Forraign County and on demurrer adjudged ill he might have pleaded in the County and so
after Judgment where the Plaintiff hath not over-stayed his Time viz. the Year but many have Habeas Corpus or Fieri Facias without Scire Facias If the Prisoner be taken by Capias utlegatum he shall be in Execution for the Party without the Prayer of the Party or Accord of the Court if he will but if it be after the Year not without Prayer 't is the Course upon Outlawry after Judgment if Error be brought to award a Capias utlegatum if he does not assign Error but if it be before Judgment and the Defendant brought in the Plaintiff must declare against him de Novo and if one Outlawed after Judgment bring Error and comes to assign Error he shall be committed to the Marshalsey and find Security to reverse the Outlawry and answer the party Lishton against Garpores 3 Cro. 706 707 850. Co. 5. rep 88. 89. vid. 1 Leon. 51. 263. stat 1 H. 7. pl. 6. Moâ— pl. 772. 817. One recovers in Quare impedit against the Kings Presentee and is Outlawed the King shall have a Scire Facias to have the Presentment for the Church was immediately revested in him before any Writ to the Bishop and though the King be not Party to the Judgment he shall maintain the Scire Facias being Intitled by Act in Law but the Scire Facias must mention the whole Record of the Outlawry And so in Debt on a Bond and Judgment to recover the King shall have a Scire Facias Beverley against Cornwall 1 Leo. 63 64. In Debt on a Bond the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was Outlawed by the name of J. S. of D. the Plaintiff replied that at that time he dwelt at S. absque hoc that he dwelt at D. he avoids the Plea of Outlawry for he shall be intended another Person 1 Leo. 87. Upon an Exigent to Lond. it was return'd that he had proclaimed the party de Com' in Com' and for that the Outlawry on Felony was reversed For it should have been de Hustingo in Hustingum Marshes Case 1 Leo. 326. Outlawry of Murder the King seizes Lands and because the Outlawry was ill for the quinto Exact ' and was ad comitat ' omitting meum Wherefore to affirm the King's Title the Attorney General prayed a Certiorari to the Coroner to certifie what County and on such a President shewed granted Fumes Case Latch 210. Where one is Outlawed before the Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace on an Indictment of Felony the same Justice may award a Capias utlegatum For they that have Process of Outlawry have power also to award a Capias utlegat ' per omnes Justic ' Co. 1â— rep 103. Appeal of the Death of her Husband and because some of the Defendants lived in another County a Capias with a Proclamation issued to that County The King dies and Reattachment sued If it be General then a new Capias and Proclamation must go into the Foreign County if Special not for the Statute has been once satisfied Vid. Co. 7. rep 30. a. b. 1 E. 5. 43. a. In Appeal of Robbery the Defendant was Outlawed and Sued a Pardon and Scire Facias thereupon Dicitur he ought to shew a Release of the Appeal before the Scire Facias be granted then the Pardon to he Special not General but the Appellor not appearing at the day of the Scire Facias returned the Pardon was allowed but at another day came the Appellor and prayed Execution but his Default being Recorded could not have it Note sometimes the Pardon is General sometimes Ita quod stet rectus c. M. 2. R. 3. fol. 8. pl. 17. M. 9 H. 7. pl. 1. One Outlawed of Felony ductus ad Barram to say why Execution c. pleaded that he was in Oxford Castle all the time and because he did not say in what County Oxford is nor did not say he was in any Bodies Custody there the Plea adjudged ill H. 11. H. 7. fo 13. pl. 27. Baron and Feme Outlawed in Debt he brought Error and after a special Pardon Ita quod stet rectus a Scire Facias and prays it may be allowed but the Court would not till his Wife came in also that the Plaintiff may declare against both and then it seems he may declare against them in the Kings Bench within the Equity of the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. tho' it say rendre al Court donec le Exigent fiat sher ' it went out of the Co. B. but now 't is in the Kings Bench by Writ of Error P. 1 H. 7. pl. 7. H. 1. H. 7. pl. 19. One taken by Cap ' utleg ' an Appellee of Felony came in and pleaded that it was against J. S. Gentleman and he is but a Yeoman and the plea allowed and a Scire Facias against the Appellor who not coming in he was discharged so 21 H. 7. pl. 16. Outlawry against J. S. de D. he pleaded that he lived at S. good without Error Vide 21 H. 6. 20 and 23 H. 6. 4. a. Outlawry when reversed by plea when by Writ of Error 37 H. 6. 16. vide M. 21. E. 4. pl. 61. 21 E. 4. 37. H. 5. H. 7. pl. 7. M. 6 H. 7. pl. 2. M. 21 H. 7. pl. 27. Co. Ent. 689. 4 E. 4. pl. 15. A. takes the Goods of B. who was Outlawed if the King may seize the Goods of B. vide M 6 H. 7. pl. 4. vers finem and pl. 5. One that reversed an Outlawry had a Writ de bonis restituend ' to the Bayliff of Westminster who returned that he was not Bayliff not good he must answer to the having the Goods and must deliver them tho' gone out of his Possession or shew Cause M. 6 H. 7. pl. 5. b. H. 4. E. 4. pl. 3. An Outlawry was reversed because the Sheriff said ad Comitat ' tent ' such a day in Comitat ' Midd ' and said not Comitat ' meum seems Error of Outlawry because the Exigent was in R. 3. Time and two Proclamations then and the other three in H. 7. So the Exigent abated but being in Felony he must have Scire Facias against all the Lands tho' dicitur he had no Lands For that must appear Judicially and upon Scire Facias though the Outlawry were reversed for the Default of the Exigent he must answer for the Felony otherwise if at Suit of the party he were discharged against him H. 6. H. 7. pl. 7. M. 11. H. 7. pl. 33. M. 7. H. 7. pl. 7. Writ of Error delivered before the Exigent awarded and the Plaintiff Outlawed yet it is not void but voidable by Error and Issue shall be joyned to try Delivery before the Exigent but not by Jury P. 10. H. 7. pl. 25 31. One may avoid an Outlawry as well by saying he was beyond Sea by the King's Command as that he was a Souldier at Calais under such a Captain and shall not shew the Patent if the party appear upon
Sir John Dryden c. against Yates c. 1 Cro. 423. The way to stop Strangers from Presentment Pendente brevi is to sue a Ne Admittas and then the Plaintiff may remove him by a Quare incumbravit else he is put to his Scir ' Fac ' and if the person present Pendente brevi he shall barr the Plaintiff in a Scir ' Fac ' per Popham and not denyed 2 Cro. 93. The King grants the Mannor the Church Appendant being then void the presentation passes not except by special Words Phane's Case 2 Cro. 198. One sued in the Deligates to avoid an Induction supposing the Institution void was prohibited for Induction being a temporal Act and tryable at Common Law is not avoided but by Quare Impedit but this Prohibition not to be granted having Hutton's Quare Impedit because of his own shewing it should abate it but he must make his Surmise in the Deligates without mentioning that Quare Impedit Hob. 15. Hutton's Case Prohibition to the Incumbent that pending the Quare Impedit felled Timber upon the Gleeb Hob. 36. Kent against Drury Where one brings a Quare Impedit and his Title arises merely by Usurpation he must not declare generally that he was seised in Fee for that was false and so he might be tryed by the Defendant's traverse of the Seisin but he must lay his Case as 't is that A. was seised and the Church voided and he presented and now the Church being void he presents again Hob. 103. Digby against Fitzherbert Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and A. and B. they plead that he has another Quare Impedit depending against the Bishop and A. and aver it to be the same Plaintiff the same Avoidance and Disturbance c. and demand Judgment The Plaintiff says that after the first Writ he presented C. to the Bishop and he refused which is the Disturbance whereupon he new declared the Defendant demurrs whereupon the Writ abates for he shall not have two Suits at once and here was a Disturbance laid in the first Action so the new Disturbance mends not the Plaintiff's Case so if he had new brought an Assise of Darein Presentment the Quare Impedit depending had been a Barr. St. Andrew against Epm ' Ebor. Hob. 184. Noy 18. 9 H. 6. 68. 73. 22. E. 3. 4. Hob. 137. E. Bedford against E. Exeter c. Dy. 93. a Hut 3. 4. Before the Stat. 25. E. 3. Stat. 3. Cap. 7. No Incumbent could counter-plead the Title of the Plaintiff because that was Title to the Patronage and with that he had nothing to do but to avoid the Patron 's Confession of the Action Counter-plea was given by that Stat. but as Amicus Cur ' he may shew false Latine in the Writ c. for that is no pleading and the general Issue every one might plead for thereupon the Plaintiff may pray a Writ to the Bishop p. 3. H. 7. pl. 1. ad ult ' Hob. 61. 62. Co. 7. Rep. 26. 2. If he that has one Benefice in Cure take another if it be not inducted the Patron may at his pleasure take the Church to be void or not void for 't is not within the Stat. 21. H. 8. till Induction Hob. 166. Winchcomb's Case Mo. pl. 45. In Quare Impedit where one of the Defendants pleads himself inducted at the King's presentment and after surmised that he was not Inducted and prayed a Writ from the King to the Bishop and because without Induction the Defendant could not plead and the King could not be made a Defendant therefore a Writ was made for the King with a special Entry in the Judgment that the Defendant was not inducted Hob. 193. Winchcomb against Dobson Presentment pend ' the Quare Impedit does not abate the Writ F. N. B. 35. b. but if the Church be full the day of the Writ brought it abates because 't is false which says quae vacat ' c. Hob. 194. Winchcomb against Pulliston Quare Impedit the Defendant and Ordinary agree in a plea of presentment by lapse the Plaintiff replies that he presented his Clerk and the Ordinary refused him and collated the other Defendant the Plaintiff demurrs for doubleness of the plea because he says he did not present which is an Affirmative against the Ordinary's Negative He says farther that the Ordinary refused and collated but the plea held good For he must lay a Refusal to make good the Disturbance and shewing the Collation is but Aggravation and Surplussage and the only material part of his Replication was that he had presented a Clerk Hob. 197 c. Brickhead against Archbishop of York Quare Impedit laying distress General the Ordinary and Defendant make Title by Collation for Lapse The Plaintiff replies shewing that he presented and the Ordinary refused 29 May whereas his Writ bore date the ninth of May Judgment must be against him for though the count was General yet the Replication applies it to a more particular Disturbance since his Writ brought So of his own shewing he had then no cause of Action and the Court must judge upon the whole Record Ibidem Quare Impedit the Ordinary pleads nothing but his ordinary plea as Ordinary he shall not be amercied making no Disturbance but the Plaintiff shall have Judgment against him pro falso Clamore but if the Ordinary cast an Essoin 't is a Disturbance Ibid. If the Patron bring a Quare Impedit before any Disturbance and after surcease his time per Hob. the Ordinary shall not be debarred of his Lapse Ibid. A. brought a Quare Impedit against B. pend ' the Writ a Stranger gets in C. his Clerk and then A. has a Writ and his Clerk admitted thereupon yet if C. have better Right he shall retain the Benefice Hob. 320. Dy. 364. ibid. 201. 2 Cro. 93. b. 6 rep 52. a. vide H. 21 H. 7. pl. 7. The Church is void A. and B. severally pretend Right present their Clerk the Ordinary refuses both A. brought Quare Impedit against the Ordinary and B. and his Clerk the six Months Incur The Ordinary collates by Lapse A. recovers he shall remove the Ordinary's Clerk Hob. 214. No Infants nor Woman's Release by the Statute Westm ' 2. 5. against Usurpations made against them during Infancy or Coverture but for such Advowsons as they have as Heirs and not as Purchasers or Successors of single Corporations are relievable within the Equity of this Statute an Heir out of the Ward as well as within and an Heir in Soccage upon a double Usurpation before he comes to the Age of 21 Years not if the Guardian surrender to him or Institute in ventre sa mere and the Purchaser may be within the Statute as if the King grant the Advowson and one usurps For he is in loco Haered ' and per Hob. an Heir of him in Remainder as well of him in Reversion vide 2 Inst 359. and so it is of Tenant in Tayl but
is to have Common And here no Land is to be recovered so certain enough Sir Anthony Cope agaiust Temple Yel 146 147. Replevin the Defendant avows Forty shillings Rent for two Acres held of him the Plaintiff replies that he holds them and twenty more of him by 12 s. absque hoc that he holds the two last by Twenty shillings and though objected the plea double traversing that the quantity of the Rent And also that he holds the two Acres only adjudged good because otherwise he could not avoid the false Avowry M. 8. H. 7. pl. 1. Replevin and Avowry for that A. was seized in Jure Ecclesiae and leased good without saying that he was Parson supplied by in Jure Ecclesiae but not in Quare Impedit the Plaintiff that so he is a Parson Imparson ' because till then in that cause he cannot plead in Bar. Rolls against Walters Noy 70. If Cattel or Goods be distrained for Rent or otherwise for Damages then the party whose Goods are fo distrained may make Replevin and must prosecute his Replevin as Plaintiff and the Defendant must avow the taking but if by chance the Plaintiff in Replevin become Non-suit or Judgment against him then shall the Defendant have a Retorn ' hend ' averiorum upon which the Plaintiff in Replevin may bring his Writ of Second Deliverance but if he become Non-suit again or Judgment against him then the Defendant shall have Retorn ' hend ' irrepledgeable and keep the Goods for ever If Live Cattel and Dead Things be Replevied by one Writ as they may the Live Beasts or Cattel must be named before the Dead as thus Quendam Equum suum Catella sua quae B. cepit If a Man distrain Beasts or Goods for his Rent and the Tenants tenders Amends before the Distress is taken The taking the Distress is tortious Mesme le Ley pur Damage fesant But tender after the Distress be taken and before the Impounding the Detainer and not the taking is tortious But tender after the impounding neither the taking nor detaining are tortious for the Tender comes too late In Replevin the Plaintiff is Non-suited and the Defendant had a Writ of Retorn ' hahend ' and enquiry de dampnis the Plaintiff brings Second Deliverance This is a Supersedeas to the Retorn ' hend ' but not to the Enquiry By the Common Law when the Goods or Chattels of any person are taken he may have a Writ out of the Chancery commanding the Sheriff to make Replevin of them and this Writ is Viscontiel and in the nature of a Justicies in which the Sheriff may hold plea to any Value and in all Cases but when the Defendant claims Property and when more than one Live Beast is taken then the Form of the Writ is quod replegiari faceret J. S. averia sua and when only one Beast is taken then the Form is quod replegiari faceret J. S. quendam Juvencum suum vel bovem suum c. And when many Dead Chattels are taken then the Writ shall be quod replegiari faceret Bona Catella sua and the Plaintiff must ascertain them in the Declaration But if but one Dead Chattel be taken then the Writ shall be quod replegiari facias J. S. quoddam Plaustrum cum furnitura c. By the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. the Sheriff upon Plaint made to him in Court or out of Court ought to make Replevin of the Goods or Chattels taken In Replevin the Sheriff ought to take two sorts of Pledges by the Common Law Pledges de prosequendo and by the Statute Pledges de Retorn ' habend ' Co. Com' 145. b. A Man who hath but only a special Property may bring a Replevin as when Goods are pledg'd to him or Beasts are taken by him to compost his Land and the Writ may be General or Special 41 E. 3. 18. b. 22 H. 7. 14 b. 11 H. 4. 17. If this Plea be before the Sheriff by Writ then it may be removed into the Kings Bench or Common Pleas by pone by the Plaintiff without Cause and by the Defendant with Cause mentioned in the Writ But if it be before the Sheriff by plaint then it may be removed by Recordare issuing out of Chancery by the Plaintiff without shewing cause and by the Defendant if he do shew cause in the said Writ A Replevin lies of such things whereof a man hath but a qualified Property as of things that are ferae naturae and are made tame so long as they have Animum revertendi le Case de Swans in Co. 7. rep So Replevin lies of a Leveret or of a Ferret 2 E 2. Fitz. tit Avowry 182. Also Quare cepit quoddam examen Apium c. Register Original fol. 81. In many cases this Action or Trespass lies at the Election of the Plaintiff but against the Lord Trespass lies not 7 H. 4. 28. b. 6 H. 7. 9. A Replevin lies against one de Averiis capt ' per ipsum simul cum alio Co. Ent. 600. 2 Inst 533. So it lies de averiis capt ' detent ' quousque c. de aliis averiis capt ' adhuc detent ' Rast-Entr 567. 572. And in this Case when the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant yet detains the Cattel and the Defendant appears and makes Default the Plaintiff shall recover all in Damages F. N. B. 69. b. Co. Ent. 610. When the Beasts are chased into another County after they are taken the party may have a Replevin in which of the Counties he pleaseth or in both Idem 65. 6. When the Cattel of several men are taken they shall not joyn in Replevin nor is it a Plea to say that the property is to the Plaintiff and another Co. Com. 145 b. In Replevin the Plaintiff ought to alledge a place certain where the Cattel c. were taken When the Plaintiff is Non-suited before Declaration and he sues Second Deliverance and is Non-suited also again before Declararation the Defendant shall have the Cattel irreplegiable without any Avowry c. Dyer 280. Scire Facias SCire Facias by the King to repeal a Patent the Defendant pleads a Plea whereon the Attorney General demurrs the Defendant joyns in Demurrer and pleads over part of a Statute and Informand ' Curiam Co. 8. rep 12. b. Scire Facias against an Administrator who pleads a special Plene administravit Replic ' quod devastavit and says not who devastavit issue quod praedictus J. S. non devastavit found for the Defendant the Plaintiff moved in Arrest c. 't is not said who devastavit so might be the Executor at Age but per nonnullos the Plaintiff shall not after Issue find a Fault in his own Replication Oxford against Rivet and 1 Cro. 135. Plaintiff after Verdict when no Advantage of his own ill Declaration 1 Cro. 56. 66. vide Co. 7. Rep. 4. 6. 5. rep 39. b. 8. rep 59. a. 1 Cr. 39. Scire Facias
of a Recognizance entred by A. and B. returned Terre-tenants come in and plead that C. hath three Acres of A. Land not summoned c. whereof he was seized in Fee Issue that A. was not seized of three Acres Verdict find that he and E. were joyntly seized and infeoffed C. per Popham and Gaudy 't is against the Defendant for now though the moyety of these Lands are subject to the Extent yet upon the special Plea which is false for A. was not seized alone of them in Fee as the Plea alledges he cannot abate the Writ Fenner con ' Dame Needam against Buning Vide 3 Cro. 524. 52. Scire facias against two for Damages recovered in Assize by three one Defendant pleads that one of the Plaintiffs supposed by the Plaintiff to be dead at the time of the Scire Facias was alive and the other pleaded that one of the Plaintiffs now supposed alive is dead ill for they must joyn in Dilatories though objected they might have severed in their Pleas to the first Vide p. 26 H. 8. pl. 7. One imparls the other demands the view in a Precipe quod reddat quaere of that M. 7. H. 7. pl. 8. m. 10. H. 7. pl. 6. m. 12. H. 7. fo 3. Scire Facias to have Restitution of Money or Reversal of Judgment the Defendant pleads Payment not good against a Record without matter of Record or specialty and 't was long before it was agreed that levyed by the Sheriff in a Scire Facias was a good Plea but at last agreed because grounded on the Scire Facias which he cannot withstand Vrse against Harrison sed vide 2 Cro. 29. Ognel against Randal Per Popham bare payment without Writing is no Plea to barr an Execution by Fieri Facias of Scire Facias vide H. 4. 58. 59. In Debt on a Judgment leavyed Fieri Facias and paid to the Plaintiff no Plea because the Sheriff is to bring the Money into Court not to deliver it to the Plaintiff other if the Lands were extended by Elegit 1 Cro. 239. Scire Facias as Cousin and Heir to D. viz. Fitz A. c. Plea that I had no such Son good and he needs not shew who was the Plaintiff's Mother as if it had been pleaded the Plaintiff was not the Son of A. for then the Birth of A was confessed he must when he takes one Mother from him give him another but here the Birth of the Plaintiff is not at all mentioned admitted or granted Vide talem 11 H. 456. b. 74 75. H. 4. 38. 9. E. 3. 30. 31. Plea that he had no such Son not admitted but he for to plead whose Son he was 8 H. 4. 21. a. 9 E. 3. 30 31. Scire Facias on a Recovery against the Heir and Terre-tenants the Sheriff an Heir and four more Terre-tenants the Heir Nil dicit the other four plead that two of them are Joynt-Tenants of part with J. S. not named and resolved that the Joynt-tenancy is a good Plea in this Action but not for all but for that part wherein the Joynt-tenancy is but because all joyned where but two were Joynt-tennants the Plea was ill for all four Holland against Donitree c. 3 Cro. 739. Scire Facias on a Recognizance Defendant pleads an Acquittance Plantiff replies 't is razed in such and such material places and demands Judgment of the Writ per Curiam this being but a matter tryable by the Court is but a Plea in Abatement whereon a respond ' Ouster shall be and lies not peremptory sic de Margine dict in all In all our Books Matters tryable by the Court go only in Abatement and are not peremptory which seems must be intended either of matters of Fact or with some restraint for every Plea in Law is tryable by the Court 5 E. 3. 32 b. Scire Facias on a Judgment against an Executor he pleads a Judgment to J. S. of 100 l. another to himself of 100 l. and that he has but 100 l. to satisfie J. S. and says not ultra to satisfie himself ill for he may pay himself if he have not ultra to pay J. S. and himself he is not bound to pay the Plaintiff Feltham against Executors of Tourston Tr. 8. Car. 2. in Scaccario In Scire Facias on a Recognizance for the Plaintiff 't is sufficient to assign breach that he beat one contra Pacem without saying vi armis aliter in Battery Hutchins against Perryman M. 14. Jac. B. R. 3. Bulstr ' 220. In Scire Facias of a Judgment against an Executor he pleads Plene administravit Jour de brief ill for he might have paid Bonds before so should he have pleaded Riens tempore mortis nec unquam postea but the Plaintiff taking Issue waved the benefit of the ill Plea Harcourt against Wrenham Mo. pl. 11. 78. Sheriff Bailiff c. ALattitat was delivered to the Under-Sheriff to be executed the Defendant being in Company with the Under-Sheriff and the Under-Sheriff lets the Defendant go and returns non est invent ' Whereupon the Plaintiff brings his Action of the Case against the Under-Sheriff setting forth the whole Frand and Falseness of the Under-Sheriff and Judgment by default But upon Motion in Court in Arrest of Judgment the Action did not lye for the Sheriff is the person alone to answer in Court for all Misdemeanors of the Under-Sheriff and Bailiffs Upon a Fieri Facias if the Sheriff return that he hath levyed the Money and do not pay it to the Plaintiff at the Return of the Writ the Plaintiff may have a Scire Facias against the Sheriff to shew cause wherefore the Sum levyed should not be levied of the Goods of the Sheriff The Sheriff cannot break open any man's House or Close upon a Fieri Facias executing and much less the Landlord shall not break open doors to distrein for Rent but where the King is concern'd as upon an Utlary there the Sheriff may justifie the breaking open the doors if he be resited but he must acquaint them in the House with the Cause of his coming before he force them open If a man be in the hands of the Under-Sheriff in Execution for Debt and the Debtee tell the Sheriff that the Prisoner hath satisfied him if the Sheriff release not the Prisoner it is false Imprisonment A Bailiff having a Warrant to attach the Goods of a Person to answer at the Couâ—ty Court doth attach the Goods accâ—rdingly and after delivers them to the Defendant and takes Bond of him to appear at the day or redeliver the Goods to the Bailiff this is not within the Statute of 23 H. 6. A Bailiff of a Liberty cannot execute a Capias Vtlegatum and if the party be in the hands of the Bailiff the Sheriff may take him for it is a Non Omittas in it self Per Curiam Hill 13. Ja. in C. B. Observations upon the Statute of 29 Car. 2. Regis for prevention of
706. Pl. 9. 700. Pl. 7. Feoffment to the use of A. for Life without Impeachment of wast and power to cut and sell Trees and make Leases Remainder for Life to B. with the same power Latch 163. 268. Poph. 193. 706. Pl. 9. A. makes a Lease and dyes quaere whether B. may cut the Trees not agreed but ' t is agreed that the Clause Sans Impeachment gave an Interest and A. might have done what he would with the Trees but not his Executor after his Death because it was an Interest annexed to his Estate and determined with it the doubt of the Remainder chiefly seems to be because the Lease ariseth partly out of the first Feoffment and partly of the Lessors Estate for Life Note the Lease was excepted the Trees and the Exception good because Tenant for Life had an Interest by the Sans Impeachment Secherval versus Dale Latch 163. 268. c. as before Lessor brings wast against Lessee for Trees of the Plaintiff the Lessor himself cut them 't is a good Bar and therefore in Trespass by the Lessee against Lessor for the cutting he shall recover only for the Fruit and Shade because not charged over as if a Stranger had cut them he should Co. 13. r. 96. 70. M. 10. H. 7. Pl. 3. 2 E. 4. 2. or 7. b. In wast for digging Gravel Defendant justifies by Command of the Lessor no plea for 't is the Lessee's Land pur temps not the Lessors so he could not command him also 't is per parol and without Deed and against the Tenant for Life yet dict such a Command to cut Trees good because not the Lessee's but Lessor's and that is agreed in Co. 11. R. 48. b. H. 2. H. 7. Pl. 20. M. 10. H. 7. Pl. 3. Feoffee to use Cestuy que use makes a lease for years according to the Statute R. 3. The Reversion remains in the Feoffee for the Statute does but give Authority to Cestuy que use to dispose as where one wills that his Executor shall sell if Lessee commits wast the Feoffee shall bring the Action tho no Privity because they could not have any so shall the Lord in Escheate maintain Wast yet he had not Privity Mi. 5. H. 7. Pl. 11. H. 8. H. 7. Pl. 1. Tr. 26. H. 8. Pl. 131. or 31. 'T is wast to pull down or suffer a wall to go to Ruine be it made of Wood Mud or Stone or be it within the house for Separation or without for Inclosure so to destroy wood of hasle or willow not to cut them Husbandly To cut Fruit Trees in an Orchard and destroy them is wast not if they grow in Hedges and Closures and if a house be ruinous at the Entry 't is no wast to suffer it to decay otherwise if not ruinous at the Entry but where 't is held ploughing Meadows is no wast 't is no Law Hob. 234. Ow. 66. M. 10. H. 7. Pl. 3. 4. In an Action of Wast in the Tenuit an Accord is a good Plea because only damages to be recovered not in the Tenuit because locum vastatum is to be recovered also Co. Entr. 706. 707. Pl. 9. H. 11. H. 7. Pl. 7. P. 13. H. 7. Pl. 3. Co. 6. R. 44. a. Upon Scire facias of a Judgment in wast one may have a Writ of Estrepement or in any Suit where no Damages are to be recovered but not Scire facias of wast committed after the first Scire facias because he might have had Estrepement at first But for wast after Estrepement a Scire facias lyes to shew Cause why he committed the wast and a Scire facias lyes in Assise for wast done after Judgment not before Judgment because he cannot recover Damages for its after verdict but in a Formedon not because he might have had Estrepement and Pl. 20. Error of a Judgment in Assise and the Piaintiff in the Error prayed an Estrepement and could not have it because he may it seems have Scire facias for damages done after the Judgment c. But questioned per Fennel because by the Statute he finds Security in the Writ specified to answer for all the Damages Mich. 14. H. 7. Pl. 20. but vid. 32 or 33 H. 6. b. a. In Scire facias of a Fine Estrepement lyes Lessee does wast in a corner of a Wood only the part not the whole shall be recovered but if he do in the whole Wood and there be plots of ground within the Wood that shall be recovered with the Wood. Tsin 15. H. 7. Pl. 21. Furnaces Fatts Posts Rails c. fixed to the Free-hold by Lessee for years 't is hâ—ld by some that if he remove them during the Term 't is no Wast quod qu. But agreed that if he leave them there till the Term ended he cannot remove them Vid. 42 E. 3. 6. a. 6. M. 20. H. 7. Pl. 24. Trin. 21. H. 7. Pl. 4. Owen 70. Lease Absque impetitionc vasti in Wast he shall plead that in Excuse but if the Lease at first were given and then a grant after that he shall not be punished in Wast it is not pleadable in Bar but to bind as a Covenant Vide divers such Cases 21 H. 7. 30. Tenant for life grants his Estate to one Parcener in Reversion and her Husband 't is no Surrender and if the Baron and Feme do wast the other Sister shall bring a Writ in all their names and the Baron and Feme shall be summoned and severed M. 2. H. 7. Pl. 60. In wast by Lessor the Lessee pleads not guilty and gives in Evidence a grant to cut c. to repair c. And per Brook Pollard and Elliot it was no wast but ought to have been pleaded and not given in Evidence for thereby the Advantage thereof is lost Ad quod Bradnet concessit but held it wast but not punishable Wast and he held that if a Lessor covenant to repair and do not Lessee may do it and deduct it out of the Rent And if one covenant to repair a ruinous house if he do not 't is wast but he may take Trees else it had not yet in that case he might have repaired it and taken Trees to do it though not bound to do it And at Common law Lessee might take Boots but if excessive it is Wast Lessee suffers Posts Pales c. to decay it is wast Trin. 12. H. 8. Pl. 1. or 4. Wills WIl ls and Testaments were originally proved at the Common Law as Perkins confesses and Leonard says they are by the Curtesie of England proved in the Spiritual Court not de communi jure nor in other Nations and in divers Mannors the Lords have the Probate at this day Co. 5. Rep. 73. b. 16. a. 9. Rep. 38. a. 5. Rep. 30. b. Issue at Common Law for Lands devised by Will and the question whether a Will or not and now they moved at the Spiritual Court to it which will blemish the Evidence at the
made of two Acres the one for Life the other in Fee without determining in certain in which he shall have Fee this incertain Feoffment may be reduced to certainty as if the Feoffee loose both the Acres by default he may have a quod ei deforceat for the one and a Writ of Right for the other Acre and thereby the certainty of the gift shall be determined and known Lit. Fo. 13. a. And so if one Grant a Rent-charge to one now the Grantee may avow or have a writ of Annuity and which of them he will use shall be maintainable and yet at the Commencement it was incertain and yet notwithstanding this incertainty the Grant was good Lit. Tit. Rents Fo. 13. a. In like manner if a man Grant to one 20s or a Robe yearly the Grantee there cannot know the certainty of the Grant for peradventure he shall have alwayes the 20s or perhaps alwayes the Robe and yet the Grant there shall be held good because that it is reducible to a certainty by the Will of the Grantor 9 E. 4. 37 en Dett per Lit. Fo. 13. a. And so a Lease for so many years as I. S. shall name is good and yet it is incertain but if I. S. name a certain number then it is good ab initio Lit. ib. So If I haue two Horses in my Stable a black and a white and I give to I. S. one of these Horses now this gift is good notwithstanding the incertainty because that by the circumstances Viz. by his Election the certainty may be known Lit. ib. Also if a man Let all the Acres of Land which he hath in Dale to I. S. for years rendring for every acre 12d although that the number of the Acres were not known by the Lessor nor by the Lessee and because the Rent is at the commencement incertain yet upon mensuration or other Triall had the Rent reserv'd may be known certainly and then the Lessor may have a writ of Debt for the Rent and so by this possibility of Tryall the reservation is made good which at the commencement was void for the incertainty So if a man Lett Black-Acre and White-Acre for Life the remainder of one of the two Acres in Fee now it is incertain which of the two Acres he in the remainder shall have but if he License the Lessee to cut down Trees in White-Acre then he sâ—all be adjudged to have had the remainder of that Acre ab initio and so thereby that which at the commencement was incertain is afterwards made certain And so was Wheelers case sc one Grants his Term to another upon condition that 〈◊〉 the Grantee shall obtain the Favour of the Lessor and also pay so much as I. S. shall award this was taken for a good Grant after the condition was performed 14 H. 8. 17. 6. b. In Trespass the case was That the Defendant and the Plaintiff had bargained together that the Defendant should go to a place where certain Wheat grew and to see the Wheat and if he lik'd it upon the view that then he should take it from thence paying 40d for every Acre this there was held a good contract notwithstanding the incertainty of the quantity of the Wheat and of the gross Sum which should be paid for it because that upon the circumstance the certainty may appear for although it was a conditional agreement between the parties yet it is held a good Justification if he presently paid for it at the time of his carrying it away P. 17 E 4. Fo. 1. Fo 6 b. Able and Disable SFe the diversity 17 H. 7. where Reg. 1. one sc the Obligee was able at the time of the making of the Obligation and afterwards he is disabled by his own Act and where he was not able at the time of the making of the Obligation For in the first case the Defendant shall be discharged and if a man be bound to another by Obligation upon Condition that if he pay to the Obligee an Annuity of 10 l. at the Feast c. Til he promotes him to a convenable Benefice and afterwards the Obligee takes a Wife or enters into Religion the Obligor shall be discharged of the Annuity because he hath disabled himself from receiving a Benefice But if he be disabled at first when the Obligation is made it is otherwise Acceptance A Man is bound to make a Feoffment of a Mannor to the Value of 20 l. per annum the Obligee accepts a Mannor to the Value of 10 l. he shall have advantage notwithstanding the Acceptance 32 H. 7 Action WHere the principal thing is devested Reg. 1. yet the Plaintiff shall have an Action which is acrued to him by reason thereof If I disseise one and a stranger does Trespass to me the disseisee reenters I shall have an Action of Trespass for the Trespass before And so if a Lord does Trespass and afterwards recovers by Cessavit WHere the Husband shall have Reg. 2. an Action without naming his Wife and where not IF a man be disseised of Lands in right of his Wife he shall have an Assise in his own name Also he shall have a writ of Droit de gard in his own name without his Wife Trin. 8 E. 3. The same Law upon an Obligation to Husband and Wife the Husband shall have the Action without the Wife Trin. 12 R. 2. And in 3 H. 6. adjudged that he might name his Wife if he would The same Law if the Cattle of the woman be taken in the name of distress and I Marry her I shall have Replevin in my own name Mich. 32 E. 2. Also of the disturbance of Advowson which a man hath in the right of his Wife he shall have a Quare impedit in his own name Pasch 7 E. 4. If a man be bound to a woman and afterwards she takes Husband both shall have Action 11 H. 6. The same Law if a man be Receiver to a Feme sole and afterwards she takes Husband both shall have an Action of Account Trin. 9 R. 2. Where the Husband and Wife recover seisin of the Land and damages for the damages they shall join in the Action The same Law if a Feme sole makes a Lease reserving Rent and afterwards takes Husband they shall joyn in an Action for the recovery of the Rent 7 E. 4. A writ of Droit de gard as of the right of the Wife ought to be brought in both their names because it concerns the right and not the possession by Choke Anno predicto If the Beasts of a Feme sole be distrained and she takes Husband the Husband Sues a Replevin in his own name it seems the Action does not lye for in every case where the cause of Action is given to a Feme sole and not to the Husband the Husband ought to joyn his Wife with him as if a contract be made with a Feme sole and she takes Husband c.
So it is of a Lease for years made by a Feme sole reserving Rent and She takes Husband So of an Obligation made to a Feme sole and she takes Husband for otherwise the words of the writ are false But if a Feme sole make a Bailiff of her Mannor of Dale and takes Husband of all the Rent received by the Bailiff after Coverture the Husband shall have an Action of Account in his own name for there the words of the writ are true And when an Action personal is given to the Husband and also to his Wife during the Coverture it is at the Liberty of the Husband to bring the Action in both their names or in his own name if it be so that the Wife may have advantage of it When a thing is given to Husband and Wife by matter of Record then he ought to joyn with her But there is a Diversity when it is of the part of the Plaintiff and when it is on the Defendants part as a Feme sole disseiseth me and takes Husband the Assise lyes against both supposing that they both disseised me So it is of Trespass Note It is at the Election of the Plaintiff to bring his Action of Debt against the Heir or against the Executors A Man marrieth a Wife That hath a Rent Charge out of the Lands of another Rent is arrear before and after marriage The Plaintiff shall recover by Action of Debt against the Grantor or his Heirs Action of Covenant shall not go to the Heir but to the Executors As Action of Debt upon a Bond or a Lease for years the Term goes to the Executors and not the Heir or any thing where damages shall be only recovered for that every Heir may not have Chattels descend and so not this Action A man seized of a House and Goods makes a Lease thereof and after enters and enfeoffs I. S. the Lessee reenters Rent is in arrear I. S. brings his Action of Debt and hath Judgment because the Rent issues out of the House and not out of the goods A man was bound in a Bill Me teneri firmiter obligari in viginti libris solvendum in watches It was questioned whether the Action should be brought for the Watches or the Money But Resolved for the Money Otherwise if the number of Watches had been in the Bill For then it had been for so many Watches to the Value of 20 l. If a man had been indebted to me in a single contract and dyed I could have had no remedy at the Common-Law against his Executors For he might have waged his Law in his Life-time but his Executors could not But now I may have an Action upon the Case against his Executors Assault and Battery and Ejectment will lye both in one Declaration Where two Men are beaten together yet they ought to have several Actions because the Trespass is personal but otherwise it is in real trespasses If you bring your Action for live Cattle it must be Cepit abduxit But if it be dead Goods or Chattels then you must say cepit et asportavit so likewise you say for live Cattle pretii for dead things ad valentiam Divers persons may have an Action of Trespass joyntly for Goods taken or the like But of Battery or such personal Trespass the Action ought to be single unless it be a man and wife And if the man and wife bring an Action of Battery or for Goods taken The writ shall say the Goods of the Husband only For the Wife cannot have property in the Goods during the Coverture An Action lyes against an Executor upon a promise of the Testators upon consideration of forbearing to prosecute but altered since by the late Act to prevent Frauds and Perjuries If there be Three Executors named in the Testament and Two of them refuse the Third may prove the Will alone And yet the other Two may meddle with the Goods when they will and either of them when they will And if an Action be brought it ought to be in all their names notwithstanding such refusal Executors of Executors shall not have an Action of Debt or other Action for any thing due to the first Testator For that they are not Executors to the first Testator or privies to his Will but were Strangers by the Course of the Common-Law But by the Statute of 25 E. 3. Cap. 5. they may Sue and be Sued and shall answer for whatsoever comes to their hands of the first Testator Sr. O. C. seized of an House in Fee and possessed of an other House as Administrator for years Le ts them both for 10 years to the Lady S. who Covenants to keep them in Repair and so Leave them at the end of the Term. Afterwards Sr. O. grants the Reversion of both Houses by several Indentures to I. P. The Lease made to the Lady S. expires and the Houses are left Ruinous Whereupon I. P. brings his Action Nicholls for the Defendant said that the Plaintiff ought to have brought two Writs of Covenant for that the Houses are several and if the Case had been that the Lessor had Covenanted to repair them and had dyed yet the Lessee should have had one Writ against the Heir aad an other Writ against the Executor and when an Action is once severed it can never be joyned again and when Sr. O. hath granted the House of which he was seised in Fee by Deed to P. now the Action is severed and Sr. O. shall have an Action of Covenant for one House and P. for the other And for these Reasons he held the Action not to be well brought Doderidge è contra And first he agreed with the other that two Actions upon this Covenant are maintainable and that if Sr. O. had lett his House the Lessee shall have one Action upon this Covenant and the Lessor another But yet he said this Action will well lye for the Law is excellent in this Point for when the Ground upon which the Action is founded in one notwithstanding the things are several yet all shall be comprised in one Action for frustra fiunt per plura quae fieri possunt per pauciora and with this agrees 14 E. 3. If a man grant a Rent out of his Land to one and sells the same Land and afterwards the vendee grants another Rent-charge out of the same Land to the same person and he is disseised He shall have one Assise for both the Rents So if one distreyn for two Rents and the Tenant rescuos them He shall have but one Writ of Rescous 3 H. 6. 17. 13 H. 7. 12. b. There exception was taken because it supposed a Chasing in two Parks the which ought to have several Punishments Viz. for either Park Imprisonment for 3 years as it is given by the Statute W. 1. and because he joyns the chasing in two Parks together it is not good For a man cannot have a Writ of Ravishment de