Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	abate_v	abatement_n	bring_v	25	3	5.7643	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

Heir in England or to have one My third and last Reason is indeed more general tho' not so conclusive as the two former were upon the particular Reason of the Case tho' not altogether to be neglected viz. The Law of England which is the only ground and must be the only measure of the incapacity of an Alien and of those consequential results that arise from it hath been always very gentle in the construction of the disability and rather contracting than extending it so severely For Instance The Statute de natis ultra Mare 25 E. 3. declares that the Issue born beyond Sea of an English Man upon an English Woman shall be a Denizen yet the construction hath been tho' an English Merchant marries a Foreigner and hath Issue by her beyond the Sea that Issue is a natural born Subject In 16 Cro. Car. in the Dutchy Bacons Case per omnes Justic ' Angl ' And accordingly it hath been more than once Resolved in my Remembrance Pround's Case of Rent The Case of the Postnati commonly called Calvin's Case the Report is grounded upon this gentle Interpretation of the Law tho' there were very witty Reasons urged to the contrary and surely if ever there were reason for a gentle Construction even in the Case in question it concerns us to be guided by such an Interpretation since the Vnion of the two Kingdoms by which many perthance very Considerable and Noble Families of a Scottish Extract may be concerned in the consequence of this Question both in England and Ireland that enjoy their Inheritances in peace I spare to mention particulars So far therefore as the parallel Cases of Attainder warrant this extent of this Ability I shall not dispute but further than that I dare not extend Now as touching the Authorities that favour my Opinion I shall not mention them because they have been fully Repeated and the later Authorities in this very Case are not in my Iudgment to be neglected Touching the Case of Godfrey and Dixon it is true it doth differ from the Case in question and in that the Father was made a Denizen and then had Issue a younger Son who inherited the elder Son an Alien born but Naturalized after the death of his Father yet there is to be observed in that Case either the Naturalization of the elder Son relates to his Birth or relates only to the Time of his Naturalization whether it did relate or not depends upon the words of the Act of Naturalization which I have not seen If it did relate the Cause in effect will be no more but an Alien hath Issue a Natural born Son for so he is as I have Argued by his Naturalization and then is made a Denizen and hath Issue and dies the elder Son purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue the younger Son shall inherit the elder should not have inherited his Father by reason of the Incapacity of the Father But it doth not relate further than the Time of his Naturalization which was after the time of the Death of his Father and consequently he could not divest the Heirship of his younger Brother yet if he purchaseth and dies without Issue his younger Brother shall inherit him tho' there was never Inheritable Blood between the elder Son and his Father so much as in fiction or relation Vpon the whole Case I conclude First That there be two Brochers Natural born in England the Sons of an Alien the one shall inherit the other Secondly That the Naturalization puts them in the same Condition as if born here tho' it does not more Thirdly That John the Son of George stands in the same Condition of inheriting his Vncle the Earl as George should have done had he survived the Earl Fourthly But if the Disability of Robert the Father had disabled the Brothers to have inherited one the other the Naturalization of the Earl or George had not removed that Disability Fifthly But no such Disability of the Father doth disable the Brother George to inherit the Earl it neither doth Consequentially disable John the Son of George to inherit the Earl Consequently as to the Point referred to our Iudgment John the Son of George is Inheritable to the Land of John his Vncle. The End of the First Volume A TABLE OF THE Principal Points Argued and Resolved in the First PART OF THESE REPORTS A. Abatement See Pleadings IN the Ecclesiastical Court a Suit does not abate by the Death of either Party Pag. 134 A Baronet is Sued by the Addition of Knight and Baronet the Action shall abate 154 In all Actions where one Plaintiff of several Dyes the Writ shall abate save in an Action brought by an Executor 235 Acceptance Where Acceptance of Rent from the Assignee shall discharge the Lessee 99 Action See Bail Whether an Action of Debt qui tam upon the Stat. 5 El. c. 4. lies in B. R. 8 Action brought de uxore abducta and concludes contra forman Statuti where there is no Statute in the case yet good 104 Action for a Nusance in stopping of the Lights of his House p. 139 237 248 Action upon the Stat. 13 Car. 2. by one Bookseller against another for Printing his Coppy p. 253 Where the Matter consists of two parts in several Counties the Plaintiff may bring his Action in which he pleases p. 344 Where several Causes may be joyned in one Action and where not 365 366 Action upon the Case See Jurisdiction Way In the Nature of Conspiracy a-against three for Arresting without Cause and only one found Guilty 12 Such an Action lies against one p. 19 Lies for a Justice of Peace against one who Indicts him for Matters in the Execution of his Office p. 23 25 For taking his Wife from him brought against the Womans Father p. 37 Lies not against a Justice of Peace for causing one to be Indicted who was after accquitted 47 Where it lies for Suing one in the Ecclesiastical Court and where not 86 For erecting a Market 7 miles off 98 Upon the Custom of Merchants for a Bill of Exchange accepted 152 For not Grinding at his Mill 167 Where it lies against a Master of a Ship for Goods lost out of the same 138 190 191 Against the Mayor of L. for not Granting a Poll upon a doubtful Election 206 For not repairing a Fence 264 Against a Taylor for Spoiling his Coat in making 268 For Riding over the Plaintiff with an unruly Horse 295 Where Action lies for Defaming the Wife whereby the Husband loses his Customers 348 Action upon the Case For Slander You are a Forger of Bonds a Publisher of Forgery and Sue upon forged Bonds These last Words not Actionable 3 She was with Child by J. S. whereof she miscarried 4 Thou hast received stoln Goods and knew they were stolen J. S. Stole them and thou wert Partner with her 18 Of a Midwife She is an Ignorant Woman and of small Practice and very unfortunate in her Way there

TRin. 20 Car. 2. Rot. 719. A Custom that Lands should descend always to the Heirs Males viz To the Males in the Collateral Line excluding Females in the Lineal was held good Which it was said was allowed anciently in the Marches of Scotland in order to the Defence of the Realm which was there most to be looked to tho' it is said in Davis's Reports That the Custom of Gavelkind which was pretended in Ireland and Wales to divide only between Males was naught But the former Custom was adjudged good in this Court Hill 18 Car. 2. Rot. 718. Foot versus Berkly BErkly had Iudgment in an Ejectment in Communi Banco and Execution of his Damages and Costs Foot brings Error and the Judgment is affirmed Whereupon Berkly prays his Costs for his delay and charges but could not have them For no Costs were in such case at the Common Law and the Statute of 3 H. 7. cap. 10. gives them only where Error is brought in delay of Execution so 19 H. 7. cap. 20. And here tho' he had not Execution of the Term yet he had it of his Costs If one hath Iudgment in a Formedon in Remainder and before Execution the Tenant brings Error the Judgment is affirmed yet he shall pay no Costs because none were recoverable at first 1 Cro. Ante. Weyman versus Smith A Prohibition was prayed to the Mayor and Court of Bristol Suggesting that a Plaint was Entred there for 66 l and that the Cause of Action arose in London and not in Bristol and so out of their Iurisdiction Note An Affidavit was also made thereof and this is upon Westm cap. 35. and so is F.N.B. 45. Vnless the party pleading in Bar or Imparling admits the Iurisdiction of the Court 2 Inst Tarlour and Rous versus Parner AN Account brought by the Plaintiffs as Churchwardens against the Defendant the former Churchwarden for a Bell c. The Defendant pleads That it lacked mending and that by the Assent of the Parishioners it was delivered to a Bell Founder who kept it until he should be paid To which the Plaintiff Demurred For this Plea is no bar of the Account but a good Discharge before Auditors But it was said on the other side That the Matter pleaded shewed that the Defendant was never Accountable therefore it might be in Bar. The contrary whereof is Adjudged in the same Case in terminis 1 Rolls 121. between Methold and Wyn and so was the Opinion of the Court here But then it was alledged that the Declaration was not good for there were two Plaintiffs and yet it is quod reddat ei compotum and it is de bonis Ecclesiae whereas it should have been bonis Parochianorum For the first the Court said that it should be amended for it was the default of the Clerk But the other was doubtful For the Presidents were affirmed to be both ways but they rather inclined that the Declaration was not good for that cause Anonymus AN Indictment of Forcible Entry in unum Messuagium vel domum Mansional ' quaere if not uncertain and other Lands and Tenements tent ' ad voluntat ' Dom ' secundum consuetudinem Manerii and doth not express what Estate For which the Court held it ought to be quashed for the Statutes 8 H. 6. and R. 2. extend only to Freeholds and the Statute in King James's time to Leases for years and Copyholds And here tho' he saith at the Will of the Lord according to the Custom of the Mannor yet 't is not sufficient because he saith not by Copy of Court Roll. And it was Adjudged in 1653 in this Court that none of the Statutes extended to Tenants at Will Martyn versus Delboe IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff Declared That he was a Merchant and the Defendant being also a Merchant was Indebted to him in 1300 l And a Communication being had between them of this Debt the Defenant promised him in Consideration thereof That he should have Share to the Value of his said Debt in a Ship of the Defendants which was then bound for the Barbadoes and that upon the Return of the Ship he would give him a true Account and pay him his proportion And sets forth That the Ship did go the said Voyage and returned to London and that after the Defendant with some other Owners had made an account of the Merchandize returned in the said Ship which amounted to 9000 l and that the Plaintiffs Share thereof came to 1700 l which he had demanded of the Defendant and he refused to pay it c. To this the Defendant pleads the Statue of Limitations and the Plaintiff Demurred Alledging that this Action was grounded upon Merchants Accounts which were excepted out of the Statute Tho' if an Action be brought for a Debt upon an Account stated between Merchants the Statute is pleadable as was Adjudged in this Court last Hillary Term between Webber and Perit yet here there being no Account ever stated between the Plaintiff and Defendant it is directly within the Statute And of that Opinion were Keeling and Rainsford But Twisden inclined otherwise because the Plaintiff declares upon an Account stated and tho' between Strangers yet he bringing his Action upon it admits it Et Adjornatur Nota Every Parish of Common Right ought to Repair the High-ways and no Agreement with any person whatever can take off this Charge which the Law lays upon them Crispe and Jackson versus The Mayor and Commonalty of Berwick IN Covenant after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was a Mis-Trial the Venire being awarded to an adjoyning County Which the Court after Hearing of Arguments in it Ruled it to be well enough but one of the Plaintiffs died before the Court had delivered their Opinions It is prayed notwithstanding that Judgment might be Entred there be no default in the Plaintiffs but a delay which came by the act of the Court and that it was within the Statute of this King That the death of the Party between Verdict and Judgment should not abate the Action and that it was in the discretion of the Court whether they would take notice of the Death in this case for the Defendant hath no Day in Court to plead there being no Continuances entred after the Return of the Postea 1 Leon. 187. Isley's Case Latches Rep. 92. And the Court were of Opinion that Judgment ought to be Entred and there being no Continuances it may be as if immediately upon the Return of the Postea Ante. Lion versus Carew THe Case was A Lease was made to two for 99 years if three Lives should so long live and this to commence after the end of a Lease for Life Reddend ' a certain yearly Rent and two Work-days in Harvest post principium inde reddend ' inde 3 l nom ' Harriotte post mortem of the Lessees or either of them and reddend ' two Capons at Christmass post

King by general words of all Land c. Conditions c. 3 Co. 2. a. b. much less could it pass from the King if it could pass at all by general words but I rest upon this First That it is a Power or kind of Trust to revoke but no Condition Secondly At least not such a Condition as is given to the King Thirdly If it were it ought to have béen executed by the same means as it should have béen by S. M. In Englefields Case there was no pretence to have more than to execute the Condition it ought here to have béen executed in the Life of S. M. and so it appears to be done in Englefields Case and Harding and Warners Case for I caused the Cases to be searched This is like the Case of the Statutes of 15 R. 2. cap. 5. 1 R. 3. cap. 1. 19 H. 7. cap. 15. these Statutes give the same advantage to Lords c. where persons have Uses in Lands respectively as if they had the very Lands but the Lord's c. cannot thereby claim any greater Interest than the cestuy que Uses had respectively in the Uses Now in this Case The Body of the Act and the Proviso fetch back and save the Trusts for all but S.M. As to the Execution for the Kings Debts it differs for the Process for they ever did and do run de terris de quibus illi aut aliquis ad eorum usum c. 'T is true in Sir Charles Hattons Case it was resolved That the Kings Debr should be executed upon Land wherein he had a power of Revocation Vid. Chirtons Case 11 Co. 92. And so Iudgment was affirmed per toram Curiam Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Debt upon a Bond. After Verdict for the Plaintiff the Judgment was entred quod recuperet the Sum pro misis custag ' instead of pro debito praed ' But this was ordered to be amended as the default of the Clerk tho' in another Term The Court having power over their own Entries and Judgments Anonymus IN an Account it was held by the Court that if a man delivers Money to his Bayliff or Factor to lay out for him in Commodities he cannot bring an Assumpsit but only his Action of Account For the Chief Justice said that he knew such an Action once brought and the Jury that were to try the Cause informed him That if they should Examine all the Accounts which were between the Plaintiff and Defendant it would take up three or four days time So that it hath been always holden that in such case he should be driven to his proper Remedy which is an Action of Account and it may be the Factor hath laid out more Mony that he received Eaton versus Barker IN an Action upon the Statute of 17 Car. nunc for residing in a place where he had formerly kept a Conventicle and demands the 40 l penalty After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Costs or Damages given For it was said that where a Statute gave a certain Penalty if this be not paid upon demand he that sues for it shall recover his Costs and Damages as North and Wingate's Case in the 3 Cro. 559. is But the Court held that they ought not to be given in Actions Popular whether the Forfeiture be certain or not but where a certain Penalty is given to the party grieved there he shall recover his Costs and Damages 10 Co. 116. Vide postea Polexphen versus Polexphen IN a Prohibition the Case was that Henry Polexphen died Intestate Andrew his Brother gets Letters of Administration in the Inferiour Diocess One who pretended to be the Wife of H. surmizing Bona notabilia procured Administration from the Prerogative Court Andrew appeals to the Delegates and dies Henry his Son and Heir comes in and gets the Administration committed in the Prerogative Court Repealed and hath Letters granted to himself Vpon this the Wife prayed a Prohibition supposing that the Delegates could not proceed after the death of Andrew but that their Commission was determined For their Authority is by that to proceed in a Case between such parties one of which is dead To which it was Answered That the Commission is to hear and determine the Cause And both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law the Suit shall continue after the death of either party for those which shall be concerned as appears by the Bishop of Carlisle's Case in 2 Cro. 483. and in the 1st Leonard 117 and 178. it is said That if one party dies ante litis conrestationem then it shall abate but if after it is otherwise And there are a number of Presidents of this nature both in the Arches and Admiralty Courts c. And in this very Case Henry Polexphen having obtained Administration de bonis non of his Vncle Andrew in the Country the now Plaintiff got it set aside by the Delegates because granted while an Appeal was depending and that upon full debate before them who would yet now suggest that the Appeal was determined by the death of Andrew The Court were of Opinion that no Prohibition was to be granted and that the Delegates Authority to proceed in that case continued notwithstanding the death of Andrew For the Commission is to proceed in causis Administration c. una cum suis incidentibus vel annexis qualitercunque c. Summariè juxta Juris exigentiam So that the Ecclesiastical Law is appointed to be their Rule by the course of which a Suit doth not abate by the death of the parties And Hale said The Appeal is to the King in Chancery and it is by reason of his Original Jurisdiction and thereupon he grants a Commission to hear it Now if he could hear it in Person none could object but that he might determine the Cause after the death of the parties and by the same Reason they may to whom he hath delegated his Authority But the Attorney General coming in and desiring to be heard in it for the Plaintiff the Court gave further time Eaton versus Barker THe Case was now moved again upon the Statute for coming to a place where he had formerly Preached in a Conventicle And Exception was taken to the Declaration For that it was not averred that the Defendant was in Holy Orders For the words of the Statute are That if any one that hath been Parson Vicar Lecturer c. or within Holy Orders and have taken upon them to Preach c. But to this it was Answered that there is another Clause in the Act That all such persons as shall take upon them to Preach c. which is general and extends to all men whether in Orders or no which have been Preachers And of that Opinion were the Court. It was also Objected That there was no Averment That the Defendant was not there upon Summons Sub

not to be removed out of Corporation Courts where they are held before an Utter Barrister so that 't is far better for the Corporation to have such an one their Recorder Twisden said The case of Bernardiston differed besides that he apprehended he had much of the favour of the times in it for he that was tried before him for having two Wives was arraigned before him not as Recorder of Colchester but as a Commissioner of the Gaol delivery neither was it returned That he was Summoned which was said not to be material because they could not have examined the matter It was returned also That he absented himself for nine Months but not set forth that any Court was held during that time or any occasion for it He said That Cholmley Recorder of Lincoln was turned out of his place for trying the Accessory before the Principal and altho' there be no Special Fact returned here yet it may be tried in an Action upon the Case The Court said They would look upon Bernardistons Case Et Adjornatur Anonymus A Prohibition shall not go to the Admiralty to stay a Suit there for Mariners Wages tho' the Contract were upon the Land For First It is more convenient for them to sue there because they may all joyn Again according to their Law if the Ship perish by the Mariners default they are to lose their Wages therefore in this special Case the Suit shall be suffred to proceed there Dier versus East WHere by the Statute of Ed. 6. It is ordained That striking in the Church-yard shall be Excommunication Ipso facto this tho' it takes away the necessity of any Sentence of Excommunication yet he that Strikes doth not stand Excommunicated until he be thereof convicted at Law and this transmitted to the Ordinary Theodore Morris's Case HE was indicted of Murther in Denbigh and obtained a Certiorari to remove it into this Court in order to have it tryed in an adjacent English County And it was moved whether by Law it might be The Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 6. empowers the next English County to take Indictments of Treasons and Felonies committed in Wales and to try them but here the Indictment was taken in a Welsh County Herbets Case in Latch was cited who was indicted at Montgomery and tryed at Salop and Plowden Matters del corone avenants a Salop and Southley and Prices Case 3 Cro. is That the Statute doth not extend to a Tryal upon an Appeal In Chedleys Case a Certiorari was granted as here to remove an Indictment found in Anglesy which was afterwards tryed in the next English County 3 Cro. 331. And the Court held that so it might be here Large versus Cheshire HIll 22. and 23 Car. 2. Rot. 520. In Covenant the Plaintiff declared upon Articles of Agreement between him and the Defendant whereby the Defendant covenanted to pay him such a Sum the Plaintiff making to him a sufficient Estate in such Lands before the Feast of St. Thomas next ensuing the date of the Deed and then he saith that licet he the Plaintiff semper a tempore confectionis scripti paratus suit ad performand ' all the Agreements of his part usque ad diem Exhibitionis bille the Defendant had not paid the Money The Defendant pleaded quod ipse obtulit solvere the Money aforesaid apud Derby si le Plaintiff faceret ei bonum sufficient ' Statum de in Premissis c. The Plaintiff replied Protestando That the Defendant did not offer the Money pro placito that he the 21 of Decemb. apud Derby fecit sigillavit quandam Chartam Feoffamenti whereby he conveyed the Premisses to the Defendant and that he came to the Premisses an hour before Sun-set the same day paratus ad deliberand ' seisinam c. quod Desendens nec aliquis ex parte illius venit ad recipiend ' c. to which the Defendant demurred and adjudged for him It was held That these words ipso faciente bonum statum were a Condition precedent to the payment of the Money therefore the Plaintiff in his Declaration should have averred the performance of it particularly and not by such general words that he had done all on his part And it differs from the Case where in Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration the Plaintiff should permit him to enjoy such Land for seven years that he would pay him pro quolibet anno 20 s and the Action was held well brought within the seven years for that it was Executory contract for every of the years according to the intention of the Parties It was resolved also That the Replication was insufficient for that the Plaintiff having Election to make what Conveyance he pleaded he ought to have given notice to the Defendant that he would execute this Charter of Feoffment by Livery for it might have béen by Enrollment But Hale said The time when in this Case was not necessary to be in the notice because the Charter was sealed and delivered upon the extream day limited by the Agreement so the Defendant knew it must be upon that day so for the place because it is a local thing and must be done upon the Land But because he had set forth no notice given to the Defendant that he would make Livery the Replication is insufficient as if a Man be bound to Levy a Fine he must shew whether he will do it in Court or by Dedimus and the Court said if the Defendant had refused to accept of Livery the Plaintiff might as well have brought the Action as if he had actually made it Sacheverel versus Frogate IN Covenant the Plaintiff declares That Jacinth Sacheverel was seized in Fee and demised to the Defendant certain Lands for 21 years rendring to him his Executors Administrators and Assigns 120 l Annually during the Term By force of which Lease the Defendant entred and that J. S. Devised the Reversion to the Plaintiff and died and for Non-payment of Rent accrued since his Death he brought the Action and to this Declaration the Defendant demurred And it was argued by Winnington That the Rent determined by the Death of the Lessor as where the Lessor reserves the Rent only to himself 1 E. 4. 18. 27 H. 8. 19. Dier 45. Com. 171. the Heir shall not have it for reservations are taken strongliest against the Lessor so where the reservation is to the Lessor his Executors and Assigns it continues but for his Life Co. Lit. 47. a. 'T is true Here is also added Durante Termino and in Mallories Case 5 Co. where the reservation was to the Abbot or his Successors during the Term it went to the Successor but that was because they expounded or as a Conjunctive for if Successor had béen left out I suppose it would have been resolved otherwise Richmond and Butchers Case 1 Cro. 217. is in point that the Heir shall not have it So 2 Rolls 451.

the Reservation to the Estate Whitlocks Case 8 Co. is very full to this where Tenant for Life the Remainder over so setled by Limitation of uses with power to the Tenant for Life to make Leases who made a Lease reserving Rent to him his Heirs and Assigns Resolved That he in the Remainder might have the Rent upon this Reservation So put the Case That Lessee for a 100 years should let for 50 reserving a Rent to him and his Heirs during the Term I conceive this would go to the Executor 'T is true if the Lessor reserves the Rent to himself 't is held it will neither go to the Heir or Executor But in 27 H. 8. 19. where the Reservation is to him and his Assigns It is said that it will go to the Heir And in the Case at Bar the words Executors and Administrators are void then t is as much as if reserved to him and his Assigns during the Term which are express words declaring the intent and must govern any implied construction which is the true and particular Reason in this Case The Old Books that have been cited have not the words during the Term. Vid. Lane 256. Richmond and Butchers Case indeed is judged contrary in point 3 Cro. 217. but that went upon a mistaken ground which was the Manuscript Report 12 E. 2. Whereas I suppose the Book intended was 12 E. 3. Fitz. Assize 86. for I have appointed the Manuscript of E. 2. which is in Lincolns Inn Library to be searched 6 Co. 62. and there is no such Case in that year of E. 2. The Case in the 12 E. 3. is A Man seized of two Acres let one reserving Rent to him and let the other reserving Rent to him and his Heirs and resolved that the first Reservation should determin with his Life for the Antithesis in the Reservation makes a strong Implication that he intended so In Wotton and Edwins Case 5 Jac. the words of Reservation were Yeilding and Paying to the Lessor and his Assigns And resolved that the Rent determined upon his Death In that case there wanted the effectual and operative Clause during the Term. The Case of Sury and Brown is the same with ours in the words of Reservation and the Assignee of the Reversion brought Debt Lane 255. and did not aver the Life of the Lessor And the Opinion of Jones Croke and Doderidge was for the Plaintiff Latches Rep. 99. The Law will not suffer and Construction to take away the energy of these words during the Term. If a Man reserves a Rent to him or his Heirs 't is void to the Heir 1 Inst 214. a. But in Mallorys Case 5 Co. where an Abbot reserved a Rent during the Term to him or his Successors it was resolved good to the Successor It is said in Brudnels Case 5 Co. that if a Lease be made for years if A. and B. so long live if one of them dies the Lease Determines because not said if either of them so long lives So it is in point of Grant But it is not so in point of Reservation for Pas 4 Jac. in the Common Pleas between Hill and Hill The Case was a Copyholder in Fee where the Custom was for a Widows Estate made a Lease by Licence reserving Rent to him and his Wife during their lives and did not say or either of them and to his Heirs It was resolved First That the Wife might have this Rent tho' not party to the Lease Secondly That tho' the Rent were reserved during their lives yet it should continue for the life of either of them for the Reversion if possible will attract the Rent to it as it were by a kind of Magnetism Hoskins versus Robbins A Replevin for six Sheep The Defendant makes Conusance c. for Damage Fesant The Plaintiff replied That the place where was a great Wast parcel of such a Mannor within which there were time out of mind Copyhold Tenants and that there was a Custom in the Mannor that the said Tenants should have the sole and several Pasture of the Wast as belonging to their Tenements and shews that the Tenants licenced him to put in his Beasts The Defendant Traverses the Custom and found for the Plaintiff The exceptions moved in Arrest of Judgment were now spoken to again First That the Custom to have the sole Pasture and thereby to exclude the Lord is not allowable It hath béen ever held That such a Prescription for Common is not good and why should the same thing in effect be gained by the change of the name That Prescription for Pasture and Prescription for Common is the same thing Vid. 3 Cro. Daniel v. Count de Hertford 542. and Rolls tit Prescription 267. It is held a Man may claim Common for half a year excluding the Lord and that one cannot prescribe to have it always so is not because of the Contradiction of the Term for if the sole Feeding be but for half a year 't is as improper to call it Common but the true reason seems to be because it should in a manner take away the whole profit of the Soil from the Lord and he should by such usage lose his greatest Evidence to prove his Title for it would appear that the Land was always fed by the Beasts of others and it would be very mischievous to Lords who live remote from their Wasts or that seldom put their Beasts there as many times they do not so that by the Tenants solely using to feed it they should lose their Improvements provided for the Lords by the Statute and so come at last for want of Evidence to lose the Soil it self Secondly This Custom is laid To have the sole Feeding belonging to their Tenements and 't is not said for Beasts levant and couchant or averred that the Beasts taken were so 15 E. 4. 32. and Rolls tit Common 398. Fitz. tit Prescription 51. A Man cannot prescribe to take Estovers as belonging to his House unless he Avers them to be spent in his House Noy 145. So 2 Cro. 256. tho' the Prescription was there to take omnes Spinas for it is necessary to apply it to something which agrees in nature to the thing Brownlow 35. Thirdly Here the Plaintiff justifies the putting in his Beasts by a Licence and doth not say it was by Deed whereas it could not be without Deed and so is the 2 Cro. 575. Fourthly Those defects are not aided by the Verdict for they are in the right and of substance But the Court were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff First They held the Prescription to be good and being laid as a Custom in the Mannor it was not needful to express the Copy-hold Estates it doth not take away all the profit of the Land from the Lord for his interest in the Trees Mines Bushes c. continues Co. Inst 122. a. is express that a Prescription may be for sola separalis pastura ' and if

the first Man for he is only to compound the business if he can Twisden The discharge being set forth in an Order we must intend it duly made 't is the common practice to go to the Sessions first It was moved at first that it did not appear that the Plaintiff had Notice but that Point was waided for being in a judicial proceeding it shall be intended Et Adjurnatur Lucy versus Levington PAsch ult Rot. 96. Covenant by the Plaintiff as Executor of J. S. for that the Defendant covenanted with J.S. his Heirs and Assigns to levy a Fine c. and that they should enjoy the Lands against all persons claiming under Sir Peter Vanlore and then he says that Sir Robert Crooke and Peter Vandebendy in the Testators life time did enter claiming under Sir P. Vanlore c. The Defendant pleads That he had a good and indefeasible Title in the Lands at the time of the Covenant by vertue of certain Fines from Sir Ed. Powel and his Wife but that in 13 Regis nunc there was an Act of Parliament by which these Fines were made and declared to be void and that Sir R. C. and P. Vandebendy had Title and entred by reason of the Act and not otherwise The Act which was pleaded in haec verba recites that certain Men came with armed force and thereby extorted and took the Fines c. And to this the Plaintiff demurred It was urged for the Defendant That this Title was by matter subsequent to the Covenant and not any thing which was in being then as 9 Co. 106. Sir T. Gresham conveys Land to certain uses with power of Revocation and then does revoke and Aliens and dies the Revocation was not warranted by his power but was after made good by Act of Parliament and then Process went out against his Widow for a Fine for the Alienation of Sir T. G. the Lands being of capite tenure but she was discharged because the Alienation had its effectt by an Act of Parliament which can do no wrong Twisden 'T is hard this should be a breach for the Defendant cannot be intended to Covenant against an Act of Parliament a thing out of his power Baron and Feme levied a Fine J. S. Covenants that the Conusee shall enjoy it against all lawfully claiming from B. and F. brings Dower after the Death of B. the Conusee does not plead the Fine but suffers Judgment and brings Covenant against J.S. and adjudged against him for the Covenant shall not extend to a Right which is barred and besides she did not claim lawfully There is an Old Book which says that if an Attainder be reversed by Parliament the person shall have Trespass against him which took the profits of his Land in the interim Hale My Lady Greshams Case is not like this for there the party was in by the Queens consent to the Alienation by the Act she passed but here the Covenant is broken as much as if a Man recover Land and then sell and Covenant thus and then it be evicted in a Writ of Right for this is in the nature of a Judgment Tho' it be by the Legislative power it may be the prospect of this Act was the reason of the Covenant nor has the Defendant reason to complain for the Act was made because of his own fraud and force Every Man is so farr party to a private Act of Parliament as not to gainsay it but not so as to give up his Interest 't is the great question in Barringtons Case 8 Co. the matter of the Act there directs it to be between the Forresters and the Proprietors of the Soil and therefore it shall not extend to the Commoners to take away their Common Suppose an Act says Whereas there is a Controversie concerning Land between A. and B. 'T is Enacted That A. shall enjoy it This does not bind others tho' there be no saving because it was only intended to end the difference between them two Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff It was agreed by all the Justices that tho' the Covenant were made only to J. S. his Heirs and Assigns and it were an Estate of Inheritance yet the Breach being in the Testators Life time the Executor had well brought the Action for the Damages Peter versus Opie IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That there was an Agreement between him and the Defendant that be the Plaintiff should pull down two Walls and build an House c. for the Defendant and that the Defendant should pay him pro labore suo in circa divulsionem c. 8 l and that in consideration that the Plaintiff assumed to perform his part the Defendant assumed to perform his and the Plaintiff avers that he was paratus to perform all on his part but that Defendant had not paid him the Money And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That he did not aver that he had done the work Hale Pro labore here makes a Condition precedent and therefore the performance of the work ought to have been averred for tho' in case of a Reciprocal Promise performance need not be averred yet if the Promise refers to an Agreement which contains a Condition precedent the performance of that must be averred as if I should promise one to go to York and in consideration of that he promise to pay me 10 l there needs no averment of my going to York otherwise if the Counter promise were to pay 10 l for my going to York So if the Counter promise were to do a thing after a time ascertained or to be ascertained it must be averred that the time is past Therefore that it is said by way of Reciprocal promise will not concern much for every Agreement is a Reciprocal promise but the matter is what the Agreement is Here tho' the Reciprocal promise be the foundation of the Consideration yet 't is to be considered that it refers to a Conditional promise or an Agreement and the Promise obliges not the Defendant to do it otherwise than according to the Agreement Now to shew this pro labore makes a Condition precedent Suppose the Agreement to be in writing thus Memorand that J.S. agrees and promises to build and J. N. promises to pay him so much for his pains it cannot be taken but that the building must be precedent to the payment 'T is the common way of Bargaining and in common dealing men do not use to pay before the work be done it would be inconvenient to give cross Actions in such cases especially since 't is likely that the Workman is a poor Man 'T is true if there be a time limited for the payment which time may fall out before the work or thing be done there the doing it is not a precedent Condition Vivian and Shipping 3 Cro. An Award that one should pay 10 l and in Consideration thereof the other should become bound

appearing that B. had made this Discovery to him of which he was now about to give Evidencee before such time as he had Retained him the Court were of Opinion that he might be Sworn Otherwise if he had been retained his Solicitor before The same Law of an Attorney or Counsel Sir Samuel Jones versus the Countess of Manchester IN an Ejectment upon a Trial at the Bar the Evidences which as the Plaintiff pretended would have made out his Title and would have avoided the Settlement in Joynture which the Countess of Manchester claimed were locked up in a Box which was in the Custody of a Stranger who before the Trial delivered the Key to the Earl of Bedford Brother to the Countess of Manchester and Trustee for her who being present in Court and requested to deliver the Key that the Box might be opened which was brought into Court He said being a Trustee in the behalf of his Sister He conceived he was not obliged to shew forth any Writings that might impeach her Estate and if he should it would be a breach of the Trust reposed in him which he held sacred and inviolable The Court told him That they could not compel him to deliver the Key But Hales said It were more advisable for him to do it For he held tho' it is against the Duty of a Counsellor or Solicitor c. to discover the Evidence which he which retains him acquaints him with yet a Trustee may and ought to produce Writings c. But they could not Rule him to do it here and the Earl declaring his Resolution not to do it the Plaintiffs Counsel desired leave of the Court to break open the Box. The Court said that they would make no Order in it nor would determine how far the Title to the Writings drew in the property of the Box or whether the delivering the Key to the E. did not amount to a Pledge of the Box. Serjeant Maynard said It was the course of the Chancery when a Bill was Exhibited against a Joyntress to discover Writings not to compel her to do it till such time as the Plaintiff agrees to confirm her Joynture And he knew a Bill of Discovery brought against a Purchasor upon a valuable Consideration and the Court would not compel him to Answer tho' it was proved there was a Deed and a real Settlement Vpon opening the Evidence in the Case at Bar these Points were stirred and Resolved by the Court That where a man makes a Feoffment c. to Uses with power of Revocation when he hath executed that Power he cannot limit New Uses but if it had been with a Power to revoke and limit New then he might revoke and limit New with a power of Revocation annexed to those New which if he doth afterwards revoke he may again limit New Uses according to the first Power and so in infinitum But always the New Uses must correspond to those Circumstances c. which the first Power appoints for that is the Foundation 2 Rolls 262. Beckett's Case The Plaintiff being at a loss for his Writings was Nonsuit Seaman versus Dee AN Indebitat ' Assumpsit as Executor of S. was brought against the Defendant by the Plaintiff as an Attorney of this Court by Original The Defendant pleads four Judgments against him One in an Action of Debt upon which the Question was for Money borrowed by the Testator upon Interest which Debt with the Interest at the time of the Action brought amounted to such a Sum which was recovered against him And pleads three Judgments besides ultra quae he had not to satisfie The Plaintiff Demurs and after being divers times spoken to the Court Resolved for the Plaintiff First For that Hale said No Action of Debt lies for the Interest of Money tho' he which borrows it Promises to pay after the rate of 6 l per Cent. for it but it is to be recovered by Assumpsit in Damages So where by Deed the party Covenants or Binds himself to pay the Principal with Interest the Interest is not to be included with the Principal in an Action of Debt but shall be turned into Damages which the Jury is to measure to what the Interest amounts to which is allowed to be done tho' indeed the Statutes which permit the taking of Interest say That Usury is damned and forbidden by the Law of God And tho' it was Objected That the Judgment is but Erroneous and the Executor liable while Reversed and it cannot be said it was the Executor's fault to suffer it For an Executor may plead a Judgment against him in Debt upon a simple Contract tho' it could not have been recovered if he had pleaded to the Action or without his voluntary Consent To that Hale said That Debt upon a Simple Contract lies against an Executor if he please nay it hath been Adjudged that an Executor may retain for a Debt but to him from the Testator upon a Simple Contract But in this Case no Action lies by the Law nor any admission of the Executor can make it good Secondly It appears that part of the Interest accrued after the Testator's death which is the Executors proper Debt being his own default to suffer the Interest to run on Then the Action being brought both for that which is due in the Testator's time and for that which grew due since is manifestly Erroneous and there is nothing in the Defendants Plea to take away the Intendment that he had Assets to satisfie at the Testator's death To the Objection That the Plaintiff once had abated his Writ for that he declares by Priviledge as an Attorney of the Court. It was Answered That the alledging of his Profession and Priviledge in the Declaration was Surplusage and an impertinent Flourish and that being rejected the Declaration is sufficient upon the Writ and an Attorney is at election to Sue either by Original or by Priviledge Wherefore the Rule was that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment The Lady Anne Fry's Case IN an Ejectment by Williams Lessee of George Porter Esquire against the Lady Anne Fry The Case appeared to be this upon a Special Verdict That Mountjoy Earl of Newport was seised of an House called Newport-House in the County of Middlesex and had three Sons who are yet living and had two Daughters Isabel married to the Earl of Banbury by whom she had Issue Anne the Defendant and Anne married to Porter by whom she had Issue George Porter Lessor of the Plaintiff and made his Will in this manner I give and bequeath to my Dear Wife the Lady Anne Countess of Newport all that my House called Newport House and all other my Lands c. in the County of Middlesex for her Life and after her Death I give and bequeath the Premisses to my Grandchild Anne Knolles viz. the Defendant and the Heirs of her Body Provided always and upon Condition that she Marries with the Consent of my said Wife and

it will be agreed he might have released it or by cutting of the Wood might have taken away all the right of Action Again it does not appear by the Record that the Defendant was here and so no benefit by the forbearing to cut the Wood. Rookwoods Case cited on the other side 1 Cro. 163. 1 Leonard 192. is that the Promise was made to the younger Brothers and the Consideration that they would consent but here the Plaintiff who was to have the Money had no share in the Consideration or Meritorious Act as where the Father promises J. S. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will give him 1000 l the Son may bring the Action because the Consideration moves from him Hetlys Rep. 20. the Case was to this effect A Man promises a Woman whom he was to Marry upon a certain Consideration that if he had a Son by her he should have a Term whereof the Woman was then possessed and if it were a Daughter she should have the Moiety of the Goods c. they Intermarry and after the death of the Husband the Daughter born between them brings an Action against the Executor of the Husband and resolved that it would not lie tho' they did not think the Agreement made with the Wife to be discharged by the Intermarriage but only suspended which is a Quaere in my Lord Hobart Yet the Daughter being no Party to the Promise or to the Consideration could not bring an Action The Case of Norris and Pine before cited is stronger for there he that made the Promise had a benefit for it was in Consideration of Marriage On the other side it was said that tho' it doth not appear that the Defendant was Heir yet it may be intended after Verdict however 't is not nudum pactum for if the Defendant had no benefit yet there was a restraint upon the other and that is Consideration enough And for the objection of releasing that holds where J. S. promises J.N. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will pay him 1000 l J.N. may Release but 't is doubtful whether he can after Marriage because then 't is vested in the Son as Scroggs Chief Justice said 1 Roll. 31. The Uncle of an Infant delivered J.S. 12 l who promised to pay the Infant when he came of Age and the Action was well brought by him after his Age. So Goods sold to A. to pay 10 l to B. B. may Sue Vid. 1. Roll. 32 Starkey and Mills The Court said it might be another Case if the Money had béen to have been paid to a Stranger but there is such a nearness of Relation between the Father and Child and 't is a kind of Debt to the Child to be provided for that the Plaintiff is plainly concerned And so by the Opinion of them all viz. Scroggs Wild Jones and Dolben Judicium pro Querente Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London for that an Action was there Commenced to which the Defendant pleaded That the cause of Action did not arise within the Jurisdiction and offered to swear his Plea but it was refused The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected against the Prohibition that the Plea came too late for it was after an Imparlance But it being proved by Affidavit that the Plea was tendred within two days after the Declaration was delivered and that immediately upon delivering the Declaration there is an Imparlance of course The Court granted the Prohibition and said that the other side might Demurr if they thought fit for the liberty of the Subject was infringed by bringing him within a private Jurisdiction when the Matter arises out of it and Attorney's in such places are sworn to advise no Plea to the Jurisdiction nor that none shall be put in by them And whereas 't was said that the Party had not prejudice for he might remove his Case by Habeas Corpus The that the Court answered coming by Habeas Corpus Bail must be put in above tho' the Cause otherwise did not require it Note It appeared here that there was no defence made in this to the Jurisdiction and Co. Inst was quoted that defence should be made tho' not full defence But the Court said it was not necessary and that Presidents were otherwise especially where the Court have no Jurisdiction of the matter otherwise where not of the person James versus Richardson IN Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A. devised the Lands to B. and his Heirs during the Life of J. S. and after to the Heirs of the Body of R. D. now living and to such other Heirs was should after be Born the Devisee for Life levied a Fine in the Life of him to whose Heirs the Remainder was limited but he had a Son at the time of the death of the Testator The question was Whether it was a Contingent Remainder the consequence whereof was to be destroyed by the Fine and that it was vested in the Son Scroggs Chief Justice Wild and Jones held it a Remainder vested by reason of the words now living which was a sufficient Designation of the person that was to take in a Will tho' improper to call him Heir But Dolben Contra for by this Construction the Heirs Born after are excluded and the Son would take but an Estate for Life tho' it were devised to the Heirs in the Plural Number Note Vpon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber this Iudgment was reversed Hillary 31 32. Car. 2. Termino Paschae Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Mandamus was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to grant the Probat of a Will under Seal c. The Case was the Executor named in the Will had taken the usual Oath but after a Caveat entred and then Refused and another endeavoured to obtain Letters of Administration the Executor came after to desire the Will under Probat and contested the granting of Administration Which was Adjudged against him supposing that he was bound by his Refusal And after an Appeal to the Delegates this Mandamus was prayed and granted by the Court for having taken the Oath he could not be admitted to Refuse and the Ecclesiastical Court had no further Authority and the Caveat did not alter the Case Note The Oath was taken before a Surrogate yet it was all one Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes upon the Suggestion that the Lands out of which they were demanded say out of the Parish and the Bounds of Parishes are tryable at the Common Law But the Court denied the Prohibition because it did not appear that a Plea thereof had been offered in the Ecclesiastical Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit against J. S. Lessee of a Rectory out of which a Pension was demanded It was suggested that the Lord Biron had three parts in four of this Rectory upon which the Pension was chargeable and that

Tail was executed by the first Conveyance And in the Case at Bar until the Release of B. the Fee was not executed in B. for the preservation of the Joynture and so the Plight and Condition of the Estate altered by matter subsequent and by consequence the Contingent Remainder destroyed The Court doubted whether there were such alteration of the Estate as to destroy the Remainder for they said to some purposes the Fee was executed before the Release Vid. 1 Inst 184. a. for if the Joynt-tenants had joyned in a Lease for years an Action of Wast would he against the Lessee Et Adjornatur Anonymus A Person who was committed to the Tower for Conspiring the death of the King was brought up by Habeas Corpus and prayed to have Bail taken unless an Indictment were found against her this Term according to the new Act of 31 Car. 2. for Habeas Corpus's The Court said that they which would have the benefit of that Act must pray it before the first week of the Term expires but in regard it appeared that she had prayed it before by her Counsel and her Habeas Corpus was taken out in time the Court said the benefit of the Act should be saved to her for the prayer is not necessary to be made in person But Mr. C. G. was refused the advantage he having omitted to make the prayer during the first week either in Person or by Counsel Sir Robert Peytons's Case HE was brought up by Habeas Corpus from the Tower his Counsel pressed much to have the Return Filed supposing that he would be then a Prisoner to the Court and committed to the Marshalsey but the Court ordered the Return to be Filed and notwithstanding remanded him to the Tower as they said they might do The King versus Plume ANte Hill 29 30 Car. 2. The Case was spoken to again upon the Demurrer to the Indictment for using of the Trade of a Fruiterer contra 5 Eliz. not having been bound an Apprentice Scroggs Chief Justice and Dolben inclined to the Opinion that it was a Mystery within the Statute there being great Art in chusing the times to gather and preserve their Fruit. And that the Cause deserved the more Consideration for that the Fruiterers were an ancient Corporation in London viz. From the time of E. 4. also a Barber Upholster and lately a Coachmaker Ruled to be within the Act. Jones and Pemberton seemed to be of another Opinion for it would be very inconvenient to make every one that sells Fruit by the penny within the Act and majus minus would make no odds surely since the 5 of Eliz. there would have been some Prosecution by the Company of Fruiterers in this case if it would have lain Brewers and Bakers require Skill and yet not within the Act. But the Court took time to deliver their positive Opinions Et Adjornatur Reve versus Cropley AN Indebitat ' Assumpsit was brought for 20 l as Executor to William Burroughs for so much of the said Williams Money had and received by the Defendant in his Life time whereupon the Plaintiff had Iudgment by Nihil Dicit and upon a Writ of Inquiry the Plaintiff not being provided to prove the Debt supposing it to be confessed by the Judgment the Jury found but two pence Damages Ventris moved to set aside this Writ of Enquiry for that the Plaintiff was not obliged in this Action to prove the Debt at the executing of the Writ of Enquiry no more than if he had brought an Action of Debt 2 Cro. 220. In Trespass for taking of Goods the Property is not to be proved upon the Writ of Enquiry after Iudgment Sur Nihil Dicit for said the Court if he should fail thereof it would be in destruction of the first Judgment Vid. Yelv. 152 Curia This being in an Action upon the Case which lies in Damages the Debt ought to have been proved and so let it stand Note If a Verdict be for 30 l and the Iudgment is quod recuperet damna praedicta ad 32 l This surplus will do no hurt because 't is damna praedicta Jones 171. Cooke versus Fountain IN an Ejectment upon a Trial at the Bar the Title of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was upon the Grant of a Rent with power to enter for Non payment The Executor of the Grantor was produced as a Witness for the Defendant And it was objected against him that in the Grant of the Rent the Grantor covenanted for himself and his Heirs to pay it and that the Executor being obliged was no competent Witness Against which it was much insisted upon on the other side that this Covenant annexed to a real Estate would not bind the Executor but only the Heir But the whole Court were against it The Counsel for the Defendant mentioned a Bill of Exceptions and the Court doubted whether it would lie in the Kings Bench so they waved it and shewed that the Executor had fully Administred the Inventory But they gave a further charge on the Plaintiffs side and so that Witness was set aside Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 32 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he kept a Stage-Coach and got his Livelyhood by carrying of Passengers And that the Defendant spoke such Scandalous words of his Wife that so reflected upon him and rendred him so ridiculous that no body would Ride in his Coach and he thereby lost his Customers After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved to stay Iudgment that here was no cause of Action But on the other side a Case was cited of one Bodingly 14 Car. 2. C. B. where the Plaintiff declared That he was an Innkeeper and that the Defendant had presented his Wife at a Leet for a Scold and that such and such Guests in particular had absented from his House upon it and after Verdict he had Judgment But the Court here said that the Cases differed for that quality of the Wives might make the House troublesome to the Guests but a Stage Coachman could receive no probable prejudice in his Trade by defaming of his Wife or at the least the Plaintiff should have declared what Customers he had lost in particular and therefore they ordered quod querens Nils capiat per Biliam Anger versus Brewer IN an Attachment upon a Prohibition the Plaintiff declared That he proceeded in the Court Christian after the Prohibition delivered After Judgment by Nihil dicit and 100 l Damages given to the Plaintiff it was moved to stay Judgment that there was no place laid in the Declaration where the Defendant prosecuted since the Prohibition delivered and so if Issue had been taken upon Non prosecut ' fuit post deliberat ' brevis whence should the Venue have come But it being made appear to the Court that in all the Presidents of these kind of Declarations there is no place found mentioned

of the Proceeding after delivery of the Writ but the place only expressed where the Writ was delivered they thereupon overruled this Specious Exception Post Anonymus ONe A. B. was indicted of High Treason in Conspiring the death of the King and was brought to his Tryal at the Bar this Term and one D. being produced a Witness against him the said A. B. excepted against him for that the said D. had been Outlawed of Felony and Burned in the Hand and produced the Record The Witness to clear himself thereof produced the Kings Pardon whereby he was pardoned of the said Crimes Outlawry c. The Prisoner still objected that the Pardon did not restore him to his Credit and that notwithstanding he was no legal and competent Witness and prayed that he might have Counsel assigned him to argue the Point which was granted And the Court having heard his Counsel and conceived some doubt in the Matter they desired Mr. Justice Raymond to consult with the Judges of the Common Pleas to which Court Raymond immediately went and at his return reported to this Court the Opinion of the said Judges to be that he might be Sworn But if a Man convicted of Perjury were afterwards pardoned yet that would not enable him to be a Witness because it seemed to be an injury to the People to make them subject to the Testimony of such an one Vid. Hob. 81. a Pardon takes away poenam reatum so D. was Sworn Colepeppers's Case HE was indicted of High Treason for Raising Rebellion in Carolina one of the Kings Foreign Plantations in America whereupon he was this Term Tried at the Bar and acquitted Note By 35 H. 8. cap. 2. Foreign Treasons may be either tried by Special Commission or in the Kings Bench by a Jury of the County where that Court Sits Vid. Co. 1 Inst 261. b. Anonymus UPon a Tryal at Nisi prius at Guildhal before my Lord Chief Justice North in Trover and Conversion against an Executor de son tort ' The question came to be Whether the Goods having been taken in Execution upon a Judgment obtained against the Defendant by a Creditor of the Deceased should discharge him against the Plaintiff who brought this Action as Administrator And the Opinion of the Chief Justice was that this Execution was a good Discharge against another Creditor that should Sue him to whom he might plead Riens inter ses mains but it was no Discharge against an Administrator for Men must not be encouraged to meddle with a personsal Estate without Right but to prevent this mischief where the Party dies Intestate and there is contest about the Administration a Man may procure of the Ordinary Letters ad Colligendum Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 32 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus THe Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. that enables Justices of Peace where a Parish is unable to provide for their Poor to Tax the neighbouring Parish the words being any other of any other Parish It was resolved that the Justices might impose the charge upon any of the Inhabitants of the neighbouring Parish and were not obliged to put a general Tax upon the whole Parish Anger versus Brower A Prohibition the Plaintiff declared upon an Attachment that at such a day and place he delivered the Writ to the Defendant and that he had prosecuted the Suit in the Court Christian since and upon Judgment by Nihil dicit and upon a Writ of Enquiry 100 l Damages were found and Judgment given and a Writ of Error brought The Error assigned was that the Plaintiff had laid no Venue where the Suing was since the Writ delivered which was the cause of Damage and not the delivery of the Writ so that place would not serve On the other side it was said that the Presidents were generally this way But to that the Court said that where those Presidents were there was no further Proceeding after Judgment as there seldom was when there was Judgment by Nihil dicit but here they reversed it for this Error Ante. The Case of the City of London concerning the Duty of Water Bailage THe Mayor and Commonalty of London brought an Indebitat ' Assumpsit against A. B. for 5 l for so much due to them for divers Tons of Wine brought from beyond the Seas to the Port of London at Four pence per Ton. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Trial at Bar divers Freemen of London were offered as Witnesses for the Plaintiff But the Counsel of the other side excepted to them for that they were Parties the Commonalty of London comprehending all the Freemen and likewise Interested On the other Side it was said that their Interest was in no sort to be considered it being so very small and remote a small Legatee hath been sworn to prove a Will In an Indictment against the County for not Repairing of a Bridge one of the County may be a Witness and this Justice Dolben said he had known in the Case of Peterburgh Bridge In a Robbery sur Statute de Winton the Plaintiff shall be Sworn a Witness and that for Necessity But it was Replied that there was no Necessity for they might have other Witnesses besides Freemen tho' perhaps with difficulty In an Action against the Hundred upon the Statute of Winton an Hundred or cannot be a Witness Scroggs Chief Justice Dolben and Raymond were of Opinion that they were Witnesses Jones contra And a Bill of Exceptions was tendred by the Counsel for the Defendant which the Court profered to Seal and to allow three or four days time to Draw it up But afterwards the Plaintiffs Counsel offered other Witnesses and set by their Citizens but the Verdict went for the Defendant Note It was said that the Lord Mayor could not Release the Action but under the Common Seal and that for a Duty or Charge upon a Corporation every particular Member thereof is not liable but Process ought to go in their Publick Capacity Note A Sheriff was ordered to attend the Court for demanding an excessive Fee for the execution of an Hab ' fac ' possess the Court saying there was none due Anonymus A Prohibition was granted to the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London for Citing one for calling of her Whore because such words by the Custom of London are punishable in the Courts of Law there Anonymus IF the Plaintiff dies after the Term began tho' before Judgment Entred yet Judgment may be Entred because every Judgment relates to the first Day of the Term. Anonymus A Motion was made to quash an Inquisition taken before the Coroners super visum corporis of one that killed himself which found that he was Felo de se But the Court were Informed that the party was Non compos mentis and that there had been an undue Practice by the Coroner of both which great Proof was made and upon that it was quashed Note The Court said that if the Body

makes a Lease for the Life of the Lessee not warranted by the Statute and dies leaving B. in Remainder his Heir B. let ts for 99 years to commence after the death of the Tenant for Life reserving Rent and then the Tenant for Life surrenders to B. upon Condition and dies B. suffers a Recovery with single Voucher and dies the Lessee for years enters the Heir of B. distrains for the Rent and the Lessee brings a Replevin and upon an Avowry and Pleadings thereupon this Case was disclosed to the Court of Common Bench and Judgment given there for the Avowant and Error thereupon brought in this Court For the Plaintiff in the Error it was Argued That the Lease being derived out of a Reversion in Fee which was Created in A. upon the Discontinuance for Life and the New Fee vanishing by the Surrender of the Tenant for Life for it was urged he was in his Remitter altho' the taking of the Surrender was his own Act that the Lease for years by consequence was become void Again It was Objected against the Common Recovery that the Tenant in Tail and a Stranger which had nothing in the Estate were made Tenants to the Praecipe and therefore no good Recovery Again In case B. were not remitted after acceptance of the Surrender then he was Seised by force of the Tail and so no good Recovery being with single Voucher On the other side it was Argued to be no Remitter because the acceptance of the Surrender was his own Act and the Entry was taken away But admitting it were a Remitter because by the Surrender the Estate for Life which was the Discontinuance was gone and it was no more than a Discontinuance for Life For if Tenant in Tail letts for Life and after grants the Reversion in Fee if the Lessee for Life dies after the Death of the Tenant in Tail so that the Estate was not executed in the Grantee during the Life of the Tenant in Tail the Heir shall immediately Enter upon the Grantee of the Reversion Co. Litt. It seems also to be stronger against the Remitter in this case because 't is not Absolute but only Conditional However the Lease may be good by Estoppel for it appears to have been by Indenture and if the Lessor cannot avoid the Lease the Lessee shall without question be subject to the Rent But it was Objected against the Estoppel that here an Interest passes and the Lease was good for a time As if the Lessee for Ten years makes a Lease for Twenty years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion it shall bind him for no more than Ten. To which Pemberton Chief Justice said The difference is where the party that makes the Estate has a legal Estate and where a Defeasible Estate only for in the latter a Lease may work by Estoppel tho' an Interest passed so long as the Estate out of which the Lease was derived remained undefeated As to the Recovery it was held clearly good altho' a Stranger that had nothing in the Land was made Tenant to the Praecipe with the Tenant in Tail for the Recompence in Value shall go to him that lost the Estate and being a Common Assurance 't is to be favourably Expounded Et Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 33 34 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firmae in the Common Pleas where the Case was That the Bishop of London was seized injure Episcopatus of a Mannor of which the Lands in question were held and time out of mind were demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll for Life in Possession and Reversion and J.S. being Copyholder for Life in Reversion after an Estate for Life in Ann Pitt and J.N. being seized of the Mannor by Disseisin J.S. at a Court holden for the Mannor in the name of J. N. surrendred into the Hands of the said J.N. the Disseisor Lord to the used of the said Lord. Afterwards the Bishop of London entred and avoided the Disseisin Ann Pitt died and an Ejectment was brought by J. S. And it was adjudged in the Common Bench that he had a good Title and now upon a Writ of Error in this Court the Matter in Law was insisted upon by Pollexfen for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Surrender to the Disseisor Lord to the Lords own use was good for all the Books agree a Copyholder may Surrender to a Disseisor of the Mannor to the use of a Stranger and why not to the Lords own use As if Lessee for years be ousted and he in Reversion disseised and the Lessee Releases to the Disseisor this extinguishes his Term. Here is a compleat Disseisin of the Mannor by Attornment of the Freeholders without which the Services cannot be gained and the Copyholders comeing to the Disseisors Court and by making Surrenders c. owning him for their Lords tantamounts Serjeant Maynard contra And he insisted that this Surrender was not good for the Disseisor had no Estate in this Land capable of a Surrender for the Copyholder for Life continuing in Possession and never having been ousted there could be no Disssesin of that And he endeavoured to distinguish it from a Surrender to a Disseisor Lord to the use of another for in such Surrenders the Lord is only an Instrument and does but as it were assent and until admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderer And he resembled it to the Attornment of a Tenant when è converso a Seigniory is granted and he put Cases upon Surrenders of Leases that they must be to one that hath the immediate Reversion as an under Lessee for part of the Term cannot Surrender to the first Lessor and he cited a Case of Lessee for years Remainder for Life Remainder in Fee to a Stranger he that had the Fee enfeoffed the Tenant for years by Deed and made Livery and the Conveyance held void for it could not work by Livery to the Tenant for years who was in Possession before and a Surrender it could not be because of the intermediate Estate for Life and it could not work as a Grant for want of Attornment He said it had been commonly received that a Common Recovery cannot be suffered where the Tail is expectant upon an Estate for Life not made Tenant to the Praecipe which he said was true in a Writ of Entry in the Post which are commonly used And the true reason is because such Writ supposes a Disseisin which cannot be when there is a Tenant for Life in Possession But as he said a Common Recovery in such case in a Writ of Right would be good Pemberton Chief Justice said his reason of Desseisin would overthrow Surrenders to the use of a Stranger for if the Possession of the Copyholder would preserve it from a Disseisin then was it pro tempore lopped off or severed from the Mannor and then no Surrender could be at all Et Adjornatur Berry