favourably then a Plea yet is it all one for I agree that a Verdict need not be so formall as a Plea but if it wants substance either on the one party or the other this shall prejudice the party as much as if there had been a pleading for the Court cannot give Iudgment without some matter found and therefore for as much as in our Case the life of Sir Richard makes for the Defendant and all the validity of his Lease depends thereon he ought to prove by evidence that Sir Richard was alive so that the Iury might have found it and because it was not so found the Court will not intend that he is alive and therefore he shall be taken to be dead and so his confirmation is finished But admitting it shall be intended that he is alive yet I conceive that immediatly upon the death of Valentine his Estate which he had by the limitation of the use is determined and vanisht and he is remitted to his Estate-taile and then his confirmation as I have already proved which doth charge the Estate which he hath by limitation of the use cannot endure Yet I will agree that if Tenant in Taile makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his Issue being within age and dies that his Issue shall not be remitted as it is resolved in the Comment 111. Townsends Case and 207. Standbridge and Morgans Case But the diversity is when the Estate-taile is discontinued wherby the Entry of the Issue is taken away and he is put to his Formedon there he shall not be admitted for the limitation of a use to him for if he will take the Estate according to the use he ought to take it in the same manner as he had the use but when no discontinuance is made of the Estate-taile it is otherwise as in Townsends Case Comment 111. Where Amy the wife of Roger Townsend was Tenant in Taile and the Husband the 29. of H. 8. made a Feoffment to the use of himself and his wife for life the Remainder to the use of their eldest Son for life with divers Remainders over the husband and wife died and resolved that neither the wife nor the Son are remitted and the reason there was because that the Feoffment being made before the Statute of 32. of H. 8. was a Discontinuance to the purging of which the wife was driven to her Cui in vita and cannot avoid this by Entry as she might after the Statute of 32 H. 8. and therefore it is there agreed that if a Disseisor make a Feoffment to the use of the Disseisee and he enters he is remitted because his Entry was congeable And so Dyer 191. 2 3 Eliz. Land is given to the husband and wife and to the Heirs of the body of the husband the husband after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Feoffment to the use of himself and his wife for life the Remainder to the first Son for life the Remainder to the right heirs of the husband the husband dies and it was resolved in the Court of Wards that the wife should be remitted notwithstanding the Statute of Vses because that her Entry was congeable and so 11 H. 7. 12. a. If the son disseiseth the Disseisor of his Father and the Father dies now forasmuch as that a right of Entry was in the Father which by his death doth descend to the Son he shall be remitted notwithstanding that he came to the possession by his own proper and wrongfull Act which is as strong against a Remitter as an Agreement is to a Vse And so if the Son and another doth disseise the Father and the Father dies the Son is remitted and shall put out his companion And then Sir Richard being remitted the Confirmation as I have shewed before being but a charge upon the Advowson is meerly determined and so Littleton 148. B. If Tenant in Taile enfeoffs his Issue within age who at full age doth grant a Rent-charge or a Common and the Father dies the Issue shall hold discharged and 40 Ed. 3. 448. If Tenant enfeoff a stranger who grants a Rent and enfeoffs his Son within age and the Tenant in Taile dies the Issue shall hold the Land discharged and the same Law by Catesby in 12 Ed. 4. 13. b. If Tenant in Taile after Discontinuance does repurchase the Land and dies and the reason is because the Statute that was charged is vanisht And although that the opinion of Bromley 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. b. be that the Issue in such case shall not avoid a Lease for years made by him before his Remitter yet the case of a Rent is there also agreed that it is determined by the Remitter and the same Law is in Ioynt-tenancy if one doth make a Lease for years so that he doth dispose of the possession this shall bind the Survivor but otherwise if he charges the Land with a Rent or other thing and so is it where a husband hath a term in right of his wife as in 7 H. 9. 2. 3. And as to the last part of the Case so If the Fine levied by Valentine the Son and Heir of Sir Richard Knightley doth give any force or strength to the confirmation or not and I conceive that it doth not for three causes First the Fine is not with any Proclamations so that it is no bar to the Intail and therefore it is no more then a bare Grant of a Tenant in Tail Secondly As this Fine is found it cannot be intended to be levied by Valentine Knightley the Son of Sir Richard but by a stranger of that name for it is first found that the 27 Eliz. Sir Richard did grant the Advowson to Valentine Knightley then his Son and Heir apparent and that the 36 Eliz. a Fine was levied between B. T. and H. Y. Plaintiffs and Valentine Knightley Esquire Deforceator wihout saying the aforesaid and therefore I conceive that Valentine Knightley Esquire who levied the Fine cannot be intended to be Valentine Knightley Son and Heir of Sir Richard and yet I agree the Case of 21 H. 7. 30. That when Westminster is put into a Plea and then a matter is alledged apud Westmonasterium without praedict it shall be intended the same place but when another addition is given to the person or place it is otherwise and therefore in the second place if it be sayd apud Westmonasterium super Thamesin it shall not be taken for one place 5 Ed. 6. Dyer New Book of Entries 650. 35 36 Eliz In the Kings Bench Vpon a Trespasse for breaking his Close and breaking and spoyling two Gates and three perches of Hedge the Defendants prescribed to go there in perambulation upon which there was a demur c. and adjudged for the Plaintiff 1. Because that he ought to alledge this by custome and not by prescription 2. Because the Bar was that the Plaintiff had obstructed the
time as in 11 Ed. 3. and 8 H. 5. 10. and 2 H. 4. 2. The Successor shall maintain an Action of Waste against such Lessee for life but a Lease for years is meerly determined by the death of the Lessor 38 H. 8. 6. Leases 18. and 24 H. 8. 6. There a diversity is taken and agreed between a Lease for life made by a Parson in which case the acceptance of the Rent or fealty by the Successor shall make it good for his time and a Lease for years which is meerly determined by the death of the Lessor so that no acceptance of the Rent or fealty can make it good and therefore the acceptance of the Rent in our case which is found to be made by the Lessor himself and all the succeeding persons and also by the Rule of these Books is nothing to the purpose and therefore I shall speak no more of that Vide 2 Ed. 6. 33. Dyer 239. And as to the second Point sc If here be any sufficient confirmation of the Lease against the Plaintiff or not The Defendant hath endeavoured to have many things to be found by the Iury to make a confirmation 1. The expresse confirmation by Valentine Knightley the Father of Sir Richard 2. The Grant of the Lease by Sir Richard to Edward Knightley his Son 3. The taking of the Profits by Sir Richard to the use of his Son being within age 4. The Lease made by Sir Richard the 21. of Eliz. to Rogers the Incumbent for I cannot conceive for what cause any of these things are found unlesse it be to opperate as to a confirmation And as to the first third and fourth I do conceive that they nor none of them can make this Lease good for by the first it is found that Valentine at the making of his confirmation had but an Estate for life of Ursula Knightley the which is meerly determined by the death of Valentine and although Ursula be not found dead yet is not that materiall for this Advowson being a thing that lies only in Grant and not in Law cannot go to any Occupant And therefore the death of Valentine hath determined this as fully as if Ursula had been dead And therefore the diversity is when a rent or other thing which lies in grant is granted to one and his heirs for the life of another and the Grantee dies I agree that the heir by speciall limitation shall have this as Littleton 169. 19 Ed. 3. Account 56. but no Estranger can have it and the reason is because that the sole means that the Law doth give to one to gain an Estate of Occupancy is by Entry but no Entry can be in an Advowson Rent or any other thing that lies in Grant and therefore here can be no Occupancy 26. Assise 38. and 12 H. 7. 16. If he in Reversion doth enter after the Occupant and brings an Action against him the Occupant ought to plead the Lease for Cestuy que use whose Estate he hath but for a Rent or an Estate that lies in Grant none can plead a que Estate but ought to entitle himself by the Grant and that cannot any one do in this Case And as to the third matter of confirmation which is the taking of the Profits by Sir Richard Knightley this cannot be any confirmation of the Lease for although the assent of the Patron be sufficient yet it ought to be by Deed otherwise it cannot be good And as to the fourth which is the Lease made by Sir Richard by Rogers the Incumbent that is not any confirmation 1. Because this Lease does not concern the Lease made by Briggs but is an absolute and originall Lease made by Sir Richard himself as Owner of the Rectory 2. Because that at the making of this Sir Richard had nothing in the Rectory for he had granted all his term before to Edward Knightley and therefore his Lease to Rogers is void unlesse it be by way of Estoppell Then as to the second matter of confirmation sc whether the Grant of the Term by Sir Richard to Edward Knightley I will not agree to it at all but according to the resolution in Hodges case that this is a confirmation as good as Sir Richard could make it But this confirmation being in the nature of a charge upon the Advowson ought to be directed by the Estate which Sir Richard then had and being derived out of that Estate it cannot endure longer then the Estate as in Littleton 122. a. If a Parson doth charge the Glebe and the Patron and Ordinary confirm it the Grant shall be in force but in such case the Patron ought to have an Estate in fee for if he hath an Estate but for life or in Taile the Grant is good but during his life and the life of the Parson who grants it 31 Ed. 3. Grants 61. A Parson grants an Annuity to a Pryor which is confirmed by the Tenant in Dower of the Advowson this is not good after the death of the Tenant in Dower and Dyer 252. A Chantry Priest made a Lease for ninety nine years which was confirmed by the Patron who was Tenant in Taile and after the Chantry is dissolved by the 1. of Ed. 6. it is a question if the King shall avoid the Lease but it was agreed clearly that if the Chantry had continued that the Lease should be void against the Incumbent who comes in upon the presentation of the Tenant in Taile And this Rule being clear as I conceive it is that the confirmation shall not bind according to the Estate of the Patron the Estate which Sir Richard had in the Advowson at the time of his assignment which does imply a confirmation is to be considered And as to that the Case is That Valentine being Tenant in Tail of the Advowson by Deed did give and grant the Advowson to one in fee to the use of himself during the life of Ursula the Remainder to the use of Sir Richard being his Issue in Taile and thereupon it follows that Sir Richard had an Advowson in Remainder in Fee-taile depending on an Estate for anothers life but this fee was determinable upon the death of Valentine the Tenant in Taile But objection was made in the Argument against one Object that this Advowson being found to be granted by Valentine shall be intended to passe by Livery for it was said that an Advowson might passe by Livery and then here is a discontinuance But I deny first that an Advowson can passe by Livery Answer but admitting it would yet secondly Shall it not be taken by this Verdict to passe so And as to the first I must confesse that there are some suddain opinions in your Book that an Advowson may passe by Livery as 43 Ed. 3. 5. 11 H. 6. 4. and 20 Ed. 4. 5. yet are there many Authorities against it and so is the true reason of the Law 18 Ed. 3. 16. Shard It was never heard that
him and his heirs for ever if B. shall have issue of his body and if he die without heirs of his body that the Land shall revert to the Donor and his heirs B. had issue which died without issue and it was adjudged that B. had but an Estate in tail and because he died without heirs of his body it was adjudged that the Donor should recover against the collaterall heire of B. And if the Law be so in Deeds or Grants executed in the life of the Donor a fortiori in a Devise which is to be taken more favourably then an estate made by Deed and therefore it is sufficient in a Devise to have the intention of the Devisor understood either to make an estate in fee or in tail although proper words to make such an estate be not used and the intent of the Devisor cannot be more manifest to have an estate in tail then in this case As to the second Point the question will be whether the younger Son hath an estate in Tail or in Fee determinable by this limitation and it seemed to them that he shall have but an Estate in tail In which the question is to which estate these words of limitation to wit living the elder Son shall be referred viz. Whether to the Estate made to the younger Son or to the Estate given to the elder for if they be referred to the Estate made to the younger there is no question but these words do abridge restrain the estate but if to the elder then they make no restraint or restriction as to the estate of the younger Son but onely limit the remainder to the elder Son on this contingency only viz. If he be alive at the time of the death of the youngest Son without issue And to prove that these words shall be referred to the estate devised to the elder brother They said That if the land had been devised to the younger Son and the heirs of his body and if he dyed without issue living the elder that the elder should have the estate to him and his heirs it is clear that the younger hath an absolute estate tail and that then the remainder to the elder shall be on this contingency viz. If he be living when the younger dies without issue And so is Frenchmans Case 1 2. Eliz. who demised land to his wife for life the remainder to Charles Frenchman and the heirs males of his body and if he died without heirs males of his body the remainder to Arthur Frenchman and the heires males of his body Charles had issue a Daughter and died without issue male and it was adjudged that the Daughter should not have the land for this contingency does not alter the Estatetail that was first limited to Charles and although the Devise in the case at Bar be to the youngest Son and his Heirs without any limitation of his body yet the limitation afterwards to wit if he die without issue does explain well enough that the heires of his body are intended and then the subsequent words living the Eldest Son cannot alter the estate first given to the younger Son And Hil. 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench by Walmesly If one deviseth land to his Son and his heirs and further deviseth that if he die without issue that the land shall be sold yet the Son shall have an estate in fee and not in tail but otherwise if he devised that if he died without issue that the lands should remain over for in the first case he disposeth of no more of the estate by the last words then he did at the first but in the last case he disposeth of the estate it self in remainder And this was agreed by Owen 18 19. Eliz. Rot. 354. and 15. 16. Eliz. Rot. 330. where the case was That one Edward Clark being seised in fee of two houses had issue Henry and two Daughters Alice and Thomasin Henry dyed before the two daughters living the Father the Father devised one house to his daughter Alice and her heirs for ever and the other to Thomasin who was at that time but eight years of age and her heirs for ever and if she died before the age of sixteen years Alice then living Alice should have it to her and heirs and if Alice should die having no issue living Thomasin Thomasin should have the house of Alice to her and her heirs and if both of them died without issue he devised the two houses to the two Daughters of his Son Henry and their heirs and if they died without issue he devised the remainder to a stranger Proviso That if Alice should marry I. S. that Thomasin should have her part to her and her heirs and if Thomasin should dye having no Child that the daughters of Henry should have all and if they died having no Child the remainder to a stranger as aforesaid The Devisor dies then Alice marries N. but not I. S. and enters into her house Thomasin after sixteen years of age dies without issue And if Alice or the daughters of Henry should have the estate of Thomasin was the question And it was holden by three Iustices that the daughters of Henry should have it because that Thomasin did not die within the age of sixteen years and that it being objected that there was no estate tail to any of the daughters but a fee simple conditionall upon a contingent it was at last adjudged 14. Eliz. Rot. 340. that they were Tenants in tail by this Devise in Mich. 37 38. Eliz. 42. Mich. 14 15. Eliz. And Michaelmas 18. Jacobi Judgment This Case was argued by Montague cheif Iustice Doderidge Haughton and Chamberlain who all agreed that by this Devise the youngest Son had not an Estate-tail but a limited see so that by his dying without issue living the elder Son his estate was quite determined and all except Doderidge agreed that the Recovery could not hurt the future Devise But Doderidge was much against this opinion by reason of great mischeif that might ensue by making of Perpetuities in Devises and cited Archers Case and Capels Case but notwithstanding Iudgment was affirmed as aforesaid De Termin Trinitat 18 Jacob. Rot. 1198. Dawtree against Dee and others IN an Action on the Case wherein the Plaintiff Declared That he the fifth of July 16 Jacobi was and is seised in Fee of a Capital Messuage called Moor-place with the appurtenances and of 600 Acres of Land meadow and pasture in Petworth with the said Messuage used of the annual value of 100 l. which Messuage he and those whose Estate he hath in the said Messuage and Tenements therein Farmors and Tenants have time out of minde used to keep good hospitality for the relieving of the Poor in Petworth aforesaid and that in the Church of Petworth aforesaid on the said fifth of July and also time out of minde there hath been and is a little Chancel on the North part of
any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments parcel of their Bishopricks or any charge or incumbrance out of the same or of any other thing in their disposition to binde their Successors except onely Leases for 21 years or three lives of such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which have been usually demised or whereupon the usual Rents have been reserved according to the said Act. And although such Lease be made of such Lands usually demised reserving the usual Rent according to the said Statute yet unless all the limitations prescribed by the Statute of the 32 of Hen. 8. be not pursued as if it be not all in possession or that the old Lease be not expired or surrendred within one year which is not prohibited by the first of Eliz. as it was adjudged in Foxes Case then such Lease will not binde the Successor unless it be confirmed by the Dean and Chapter And such construction as aforesaid hath been made to disable a Bishop to make any Estate except Leases for 21 years or for three lives as is aforesaid as concerning the binding of the Successor as the Grant of the next avoydance by a Bishop to another although it be confirmed by the Dean and Chapter is restrained by the said Statute of Elizabeth to binde the Successor as it hath often been judged and the reason is because it is such an Hereditament whereon no Rent may be reserved for all in the Statute that is not permitted in the Exception is restrained as to the Successor by the general purview of the said Act but yet such Grant will binde the Bishop himself although the Statute says that it shall be voyd against all intents and purposes for the makers of the said Act did intend not onely the advancement of Religion but also increase of good Hospitality and avoyding dilapidations and ruine of the Church which the Successor if the Acts of his Predecessor should binde him were not able to remedy and therefore the makers of that Act did rather regard the Successor And these words in the Act viz. Parcel of the possessions of his Archbishoprick or Bishoprick or united belonging or appertaining to the said Archbishoprick or Bishoprick may be very aptly construed That the Gift of this Office and all other such like things that are belonging to the Archbishoprick or Bishoprick for although the Bishop cannot exercise this Office himself yet hath he an inheritance in the gift and disposing thereof and so it is adjudged in Cooks 8 Rep. Earl of Rutlands Case And these words Belonging to the Archbishoprick or Bishoprick shall be expounded for Concerning the Archbishoprick or Bishoprick And therefore if a Writ of Annuity be brought against a Bishop upon a title of prescription or otherwise and Iudgment be given against him upon Verdict or confession this is restrained by this Act because the Bishop is charged with this Annuity in respect of his Bishoprick and therefore the Successor shall be charged with the arrears incurred in the life of the Predecessor 21 H. 7. 4. 48 Ed. 3.26 33 H. 6. 44. and yet is not the Annuity issuing out of the Bishoprick as appears in the 10 H. 6. 10. and 10 Ed. 4. 10. But because this does concern the Bishoprick and does tend to the diminution of the revenues and the impoverishing of the revenues this is restrained by the said Act of the first of Eliz. And therefore to answer to the Objection Wherefore such an Office should be granted to one solely I answer and it was also agreed to by all the Court That if the Office be ancient and necessary the Grant thereof with the ancient fee is no diminution of the Revenue or dispoverishing the Successor and therefore of necessity such Grants are exempted out of the general restraint of the said Act of Elizabeth For as Bracton saith Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur And if Bishops have not power to grant such Offices of service and necessity for the life of the Grantees but that their estates shall depend on incertainties as on the death or transmutation of the Bishop then no able or sufficient persons will be willing to serve them in such Offices or at least will not discharge their Office with any cheerfulness or alacrity if they may not have such estate in certain for the term of their lives as their Predecessors had but when an ancient Office is granted to one it is not of necessity to grant the same to two and therefore such Grant is not exempted out of the general restraint of the Statute no more then if the Bishop should grant an Office with the ancient fee to one and then he grants the Reversion to another this is restrained by the Statute because it is not of necessity and if the Bishop may grant such Offices to two he may grant them without any limitation of lives and by consequence ad infinitum and so if he may grant a Reversion to one so he may to others also without any limitation and by the same reason he may grant them in Tail or in Fee which is quite contrary to the intention of the said Act. And of such opinion was Popham Chief Iustice Michaelm 44 45 Eliz. in Stumblers Case and Dyer 23 Eliz. 370. where Horn Bishop of Winchester did grant to Dr. Dale during his life a Rent out of the Mannor of Waltham pro concilio impendendo the Bishop dyed and because the Rent was arrear Dr. Dale brought an Action of Debt for the arrears incurred in his life against the Executors In which two points are to be observed 1. That the Grant was not voyd against the Bishop himself The other That although the Rent was issuing out of the possessions and not parcel this was voyd by his death And Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 346. in this Court The Bishop of Chester after the Statute of 1 Eliz. did grant to George Boulton an Annuity of five marks per annum pro concilio impenso impendendo which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and then the Bishop dyed and Boulton brought a Writ of Annuity against the Successor and in his Count did aver that the Predecessors of the said Bishop had granted reasonable Fees but did not aver that this Fee had been granted before and did aver that he was homo consiliarius in lege peritus and the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff But there it was resolved that although the said Bishoprick was founded but of late times to wit in the time of Hen. the eight yet a Grant of an Office of necessity to one in possession with reasonable fees the reasonableness whereof is to be decided by the Court of Iustice wherein the same doth depend is good and is restrained out of the general words of the said Act. And in our Case the avowant hath averred this Office to be an ancient Office and which hath
Bartons Case Two Ioynt-tenants are for life and one lets his moyety for years to commence after his death and dies and agreed to be a good Lease against the Survivor for as Litton saith every Ioynt-tenant is seised Per my per tout and hath an Estate in one moyety not only for his own life or his own time but also for the time and life of his Companion and therefore every Estate made by him is good for a moyety so long as the Estate of himself and his Companion continues but a Rent-charge shall not bind his Companion because he claimes by the first Conveyance which is above his Companions Estate And as to the second point it is cleer that when Husband and Wife Part. 2 make a Feoffment in Fee or a Lease for years of the Land of the Wife rendring Rent the Wife after the death of her Husband may accept the Rent and make the Lease good as in 26 H. 8. 2. the case of the Feoffment is agreed and if a Woman after the death of her Husband does accept the Rent she shall be barred in a Cui in vita 11. H. 7. 13. 15. Ed. 4. 17. and Dyer 91. B. Husband and Wife make a Lease for years by Indenture and the Husband dies and she accepts the Rent she shall be bound thereby and shall not avoid the Lease Vpon which two things being as I conceive unquestionable it follows that this Lease at the time of the making thereof is not void but voidable And therefore the sole question will be how this Lease is voidable and if it may be avoided by the surviving Ioynt-tenant or not And I conceive that it is avoidable by the Wife only if she survive her Husband and not by the other Ioynt-tenant and that for two reasons First Because the Survivor comes in above the Lease and therefore cannot take advantage of any imperfection or defect to avoid the Lease 14. Ed. 4. 1. B. If a Feoffment or a Lease for life be made to two and one dies the other may plead the Estate to be made to him only for he is not in by him that is dead but by the Feoffor or Lessor and Dyer 187. a. Two Ioynt-tenants for life one makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and dies the Survivor shall not have the Rent And if Tenant for life makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and surrenders to the Lessor the Lessor shall not have the Rent for he is in by his Reversion which is above the Lease for years and 28. H. 8. 96. a. An Executor had Iudgment to râ—cover a Debt and died intestate whereupon Administration is committed to another he shall not have a Scire facias upon this Iudgment because that he being Administrator immediately to the Testator is above the recovery Secondly There is no privity between the surviving Ioynt-tenant and the Lessor to make him avoid the Lease which is voidable as in 8. Rep. Whittinghams case Privies in blood as Heir generall or speciall shall avoid a voidable estate made by the Ancestor as if an Infant make a Feoffment in Fee his Heir may well enter and avoid the Feoffment but Privies in Law as Lord by escheat Lord of a Villain or Lord who enters for Mortmain shall never take benefit of the Infancy because they are but strangers And therefore if an Infant make a Feoffment in Fee and dies without Heir the Feoffment is unavoidable 49. Ed. 3. 13. 6. H. 4. 3 7. H. 5. 9. 39. H. 6. 42. And as to Privies in Estate as Ioynt-tenants Husband and Wife Donor in Tail and Donee Lessor and Lessee it is there also resolved that they shall not take advantage of Infancy unleâ—â—e it be in some speciall cases And therefore if Tenant in Tail within age makes a Feoffment in Fee and dies without Issue the Donor shall not enter contrary to the opinion of Rick and Frisby 6. H. 4. 3. because that here is only a Privity in Estate between them and no right does accrue to the Donor by the death of the Donee So if two Ioynt-tenants in Fee be and one of them being within age makes a Feoffment in Fee and dies the Survivor shall not enter but if two Ioynt-tenants within age do make a Feoffment one joynt Right remains in them and therefore if one dies the Right will survive and the Survivor may enter in all and the same Law of Covertue or non sanae memoriae as it is said also in Whittinghams case and in Fitzherb N. B. 192. K. If two Ioynt-tenants within age do alien in Fee they must sue severall Writs of Dum fuit infra aetatem because that the cause of their Action is their nonage which is severall for the nonage of the one is not the nonage of the other But if Husband and Wife within age do make a Feoffment of the Wifes land and the Husband dye the Wife shall have a Dum fuit infra aetatem 14. Ed. 3. Dum fuit infra aetatem 6. and 12. H. 7. 18. B. Kelloway In a Formedon by the Lord Brook against the Lord Latimer if an Infant does make a Feoffment none shall avoid this but the Infant himself and his Heirs and no stranger and the same Law of a Feme Covert And as to the case of Harvey and Thomas 33. Eliz. cited in the Lord Cromwells case Where the Husband made a Lease of his Wifes Land for years and then he and his Wife aliened by Fine and the Husband dies the Conusee shall avoid this Lease which I agree to for the Lease being made by the Husband only is utterly void against the Wife and cannot be made good by any Act done by the Wife and the Land passeth all from the woman by the Fine and therefore the Lease cannot bind the Conusee The Survivor in one case cannot make the Lease good by the acceptance of the Rent because that the Rent does not belong unto him and therefore he shall not be received to avoid this Lease as in Nat. B. 138. B. the Heir shall not have a Cessavit for ceasing in the time of his Ancestor for he shall not have the Rent or the arrearages incurred in the life of his Ancestors and the reason is as I conceive because that the Law does give this benefit to the Tenant for the saving of his Tenancy for the tender of arrearages the which cannot be to the Lord because that the Rent is not due to him and therefore the Lord shall lose his action rather then the Tenant shall be deprived of his advantage of saving the land by his tender And by this case also the Aunt and the Neice shall not joyne in a Cessavit for a ceasing made before the Title of the Neice accrued but in Nat. F.B. 139. it is otherwise there of joynt-tenants as I conceive the reason whereof is because as I conceive the Survivor shall have all the Rent and therefore the tender may be made to him
in Bar to wit the Fine with proclamations pleaded by Mary Taylor and the warranty pleaded by Robert Leigh and 28 others of the Ter-tenants or by any of these pleas or not And as to the first If he in remainder depending upon an estate in Tayl may maintain a Writ of Error to reverse a Recovery against the first Tenant in Tayl after his death without issue And I conceive clearly that he in the remainder shall have a Writ of Error for the Writ of Error doth always pursue the nature of the Land and not the privity of the blood And therefore 5 H. 8. the Writ of Error shall go with the Land and therefore the Heir in special tayl shall have it although there be another Heir at the Common-Law And so in Fitz Herb. N. B. 21 K. He who is Heir to the Land that is lost shall have a Writ of Error and not the Heir at Common-Law as if Land in Borough-English be lost by erroneous Iudgment the younger Son shall have a Writ of Error and 3 H. 4. 19. The Heir in special tail shal have the Writ of Error although there be another Heir at the Common Law And 1 Mariae Dyer 90. Verneys Case The Writ of Error shall be brought by him who had the thing whereon erroneous Iudgment was given And as the especial Heir shall have the Writ of Error so shall he also in remainder or reversion upon an Estate for life after the death of the Tenant for life 4 H. 8. 21 H. 6. 29. But the sole Objection that hath any coulor against this was Object that this Writ of Error ought to be given to him in remainder by the Common-Law for it is not given by the Statâ—te of the 9th of Rich. 2. and then there can be no remainder upon an Estate tail at the Common-Law and therefore he in such remainder cannot have any Writ of Error But this is easily answered for the Common-Law being Answer that when an erroneous Recovery is had against a pâ—rticular Tenant that he in the Reversion or Remainder shall have a Writ of Error after the determination of the particular Estate it follows that when this new particular Estate is made by the Statute of Westm 2. he in the remainder shall have the same remedy And this is proved by the case of the Tenant in Tayl for although that his Estate was not at the Common-Law yet now he shall have all Actions which the Common-Law gives to a Tenant in fee which may stand with his Estate and therefore he shall have a Writ of Escheat a Quod permittat Nat. B. 124. 4 Ed. 5. 48. Nat. B. 212. and so he shall have an Assize and many other Writs which lie for a Tenant in fee at the Common-Law And for Authorities in this point Dyer 188. That he in the remainder after the Estate-tail spent shall have a Writ of Error and so is it in Dyer 40. in Verneys Case And in the 3 Rep. fol. 3. B. if is resolved that he who hath a remainder expectant upon an Estate in Tayl shall have a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given against the Tenant in Tayl although there were no such remainder at the Common-Law for when the Statute de Donis Conditionalibus does enable the Donor to limit a remainder upon the Estate-tail all actions which the Common-Law doth give to the privies in Estate are by the same act as incidents tacitly given also according to the rule of the Common-Law and therefore as he in Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate for life shall have a Writ of Error by the Common-Law upon a Iudgment given against a Tenant for life although that they were not parties by Hyde Pryer Voucher c. so since the Statute de Donis conditionalibus shall he have who hath a Reversion or Remainder expectant upon an Estate in Tayl. And therefore I conceive the Writ of Error is good notwithstanding that Objection But now it is to be considered if this Plea of non-tenure shall avoyd the Writ of Error and I conceive it will not for three Reasons 1. I conceive that it is no plea to abate the Writ for the Plaintiffs might have reversed the Recovery against the Lessors of the Reversion onely without having made the Ter-tenants parties for the Writ of Error being grounded upon the Recovery does always lie against the parties to the Iudgment and their Heirs and may be reversed against them although they have nothing in the Land and this is clear by Nat. Brev. 107. and 26 Assis 12. A Writ of Error does lie against him who recovers and after the Error found a Scire facias shall issue against the Tenant and 42 Assis 22. and 44 Ed. 3. and 10 Ed. 4. 13. Non-tenure is no plea in a Writ of Error for the party to the Iudgment or his Heir And here in this case if those who have pleaded Non-tenure are not Tenants they are at no loss for they can lose nothing but this plea does discharge themselves onely and the Scire facias remains good against the Heirs and the other Ter-tenants 2. If Non-tenure could be a good Plea for the Ter-tenants in a Scire facias yet at the least it ought to be in such a Scire facias wherein the Ter-tenants are named and not in such a general Writ as this is For here the Plaintiffs have pursued their Scire facias in as good a form as may be viz. generally against the Heirs and the Ter-tenants and if there be any default it is in the Sheriff who hath returned those to be Tenants who indeed are not so and it shall be very hard if the Writ should abate for default of the Sheriff 20 Ed. 3. Scir facias 121. In a Scire facias on a Recognizance against the Ter-tenants it was said that one of them that ware warned had but a Lease for years of such a one who had the Freehold Iudgment of the Writ c. And there Birton said That the Sheriff had a general command to warn the Ter-tenants wherefore this is no Plea to the Writ And Hill and Wilby answered that it was otherwise for that the Plaintiffs at their peril should name the Ter-tenants in their Writ whereupon there was a new Writ Whereupon I observe that if the Writ be special naming the Ter-tenants as it was anciently then it ought to be so but of late such course hath been changed as appears by the 8 of H. 4. 18. and the Writ awarded generally and therefore such special Non-tenure shall be a good Plea for it is the default of the Plaintiff to pursue his Writ against one who is not Tenant but when the Writ is general Non-tenure is no Plea to the abatement of the Writ 48 Ed. 3 15. 8 H. 18. 48 Assis 2. and the 2 H. 4. 18. B. In a Writ of Account against the Sheriff of Northumberland of a Receit in Newcastle upon Tine and it was pleaded that Newcastle was
James of a house in the Parish of St. Mary Abchurch in the Ward of Candlewick-street Habendum from Michaelm last past for three years and layd the Ejectment to be the 28 Octob. in the same year The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And the Iury found that William Say was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and of two other Messuages in the Parish of St. Johns in Walbrook London and held them in Socage And that the 8 Octob. 1562. the said William having issue Francis his Son and Margaret Agnes and Alice by his Will in writing did devise the said Messuage in these words I bequeath to Francis my Son all my three Houses after the death of my Wife Barbara and his Mother and if Margaret Agnes and Alice and either of them do out-live their Mother and their Brother Francis and his Heirs then they to enjoy the three Houses for their lives and the three Houses then I give freely to my Sisters Sons Iohn Wittinbury and Roger Wittinbury and they to pay unto the Wardens of the Batchelors Company of the Merchant-Taylors 6 l. 10 s. yearly to be given to the poor and needy Brethren of the same Company for ever and if the said Iohn and Roger and their Successors do deny the said payment of 6 l. 10 s. it shall be lawful that the said Wardens to enter into the three Houses and to discharge them for ever William Say the Devisor dyes Barbara enters Francis Agnes and Alice dye without issue Barbara dyes Margaret enters John Wittinbury dyes without issue Roger Wittinbury dyes without issue and the Lessor is Cosin and Heir to him viz. Son of Margaret Pierson Sister of the said Roger. The 18 of August 13 Jacob. Margaret dyed seised having issue John Savage her Son and Heir who entered which Son the 17 February 13 Jacob. did infeoff Edward Jackson in Fee who the second of September 13 Jacob did infeoff Richard Slydhurst in Fee who the third of September 13 Jacob. did make the Lease to the Defendant for four years who entered upon whom the Lessor did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant did enter And prayed the Opinion of the Court c. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant But first as to the Question that hath been made scil What Estate John and Roger Wittingbury shall take if they shall take any Estate at all by this Will I shall not argue for I agree that if they have any Estate it is a Fee-simple in respect of the continual and perpetual charge imposed upon them for the payment of 6 l. 10 s. to the Wardens c. for that is to have a perpetual continuance in respect of the persons to whom it is to be payd scil the Poor And also the persons to pay are the two Wittingburies and their successors who in the Exposition of the Will shall be taken for their Heirs and Assigns and also in respect of the limitation of the payment scil for ever which in a Will makes a Fee-simple and â—â—â—â—s much as the charge is to continue for ever it follows also that the Estate ought to continue for without the Estate the charge cannot be But I conceive that John and Roger shall take nothing by this will or at least that they shall take but a future Estate to begin after the death of Francis without Heir and then their time will never come for John Savage under whom the Defendant doth derive his Estate is Heire to Francis and therefore the Plaintiff nor his Lessor being Heire to Robert Wittingb the Survivor cannot have this house And to prove this here is an Estate limited by expresse words to Francis and his Heirs and no apparent intent by the Devisor that the word Heirs shall be restrained to the Heirs of his body unlesse by reason of the limitation of the Remainders afterwards which cannot be as hath been said if Francis had a Fee-simple But as to this I say that the same reason may be given when a man deviseth Land to A. and his Heires and if he die without Heire that it shall remain to B. and his Heires in which case if the Devise to A. shall be restrained to an Estate in Taile the Remainder to be is good but no such intent can be collected against expresse words and therefore the Remainder is utterly void as in 19 H. 8. 8. B. where the Rule is given that when the intent of the Testator does not agree with the Law his intent shall be void and this is a certain Rule And West 2. cap. 1. where it is provided Quod voluntas donatoris observetur yet it ought alwaies to agree with the Rules of Law as is proved by the 8. Assise 33. where was a Gift in Taile to two and if one dies that the Survivor shall have all to him and the heirs of his body now doth the Law say that they have severall Inheritances but the will of the Donor was that the Survivor should have all which being repugnant to the Rule of Law was adjudged to be a void Clause 35 H. 8. 6. Estates 75. Estates given to the husband and wife for their lives the Remainder to the heires of their bodies is an Estate-taile executed notwithstanding the expresse will of the Donor because an Estate for life and of Inheritance cannot be distinct in one and the same person without a mean Estate in another So that in Wills if the intent be against Law they are void And so is it if the intent be ambiguous and not manifestly to be collected out of the words of the Will And in our Case no manifest intent does appear to make the Estate of Francis an Estate in Tail Câ—ke 6. Rep. Wildes Case One devised land to A. for life the Remainder to B. in Taile the Remainder to R. and his wife and after their deaths to their Children who then had two Children the Devisor dies and A. dies and B. dies without Issue and and it was adjudged that the Children of R. and his wife should have only an Estate for life because that by Iudgment of Law they have but an Estate for life and if R. and his wife should have an Estate in Taile it ought to be by the intent of the Devisor which intent ought to be manifest and certain and so expressed in the Will and in this case no such intent does appear for perhaps his intent was to accord with the Rule of Law 15 16 Eliz. 9. a. A. having three Houses having three Sons and a Daughter did devise to B. his first Son a House paying ten pounds to his Sister and he to enter after the death of the wife of the Devisor and did devise to his second Son another Houses paying to the Daughter ten pounds and he to enter at the age of one and twenty years and did devise the third House to the third Son paying ten pounds to his
Sister and he to enter at the age of one and twenty years and if any of his Sons died before the age of one and twenty years his part should be divided amongst the Sâ—â—vivors and so every one should be heire to the other and all of them came of age and paid the money and it was holden that each of them had an Estate in Fee and not in Taile and Dyer 357. Chick did devise the Fee-simple of a Messuage to A. his wife and after her death to W. his Son which W. was his Heir apparent A. did enter and married again and dyed having Issue by him and adjudged that A. had an Estate for life the Reversion to W. for life the Remainder to A. in Fee and 14 Eliz. a. One seised of Lands in Fee devised them to B. and the heirs of his body and if he died that it should remain to A. in fee yet B. shall have an Estate in Taile by the first words and shall not be restrained by the last words And Trinit 37 Eliz Rot. 382. Bacon against Hill and having three Tenements did devise them to his wife for life and then one of them to each of his three Sons and if any did die his part should remain to the Survivors and if any had Issue and died before he entred his Issue should have it and R. one of the Sons had Issue the wife died and R. died and adjudged that his Issue should have nothing Object But it may be objected that Francis cannot die without heire so long and his Sisters are living and therefore it shall be construed that the Devisor did intend only the heires of his body Answer But it does not appear that the Daughters were of the whole blood to Francis so that they may be heires to him for although where a Brother or Sister is spoken of in pleading it shall be intended of the whole blood because a Brother of the half blood is but half a Brother yet here when the Father onely does call them his Sons and Daughters and is so found by the Iury that they were his Sons and Daughters yet this is no proof that they were of the whole blood for they are daughters to the Father by what ever wife they were had And so I conceive upon the whole matter that the wife does take an Estate for life by the devise and that the Son shall have a Fee-simple but yet subject to this future devise sc if he die without heire that the Wittingb shall have it and so all the Will shall be good except the limitation to the Daughters for their lives and it cannot be intended that the Devisor did intend to prefer the Wittingb being his collaterall Cosins before the Issue of his Daughters which Issues are of his owne body Judgment And before that I argued againe Hillar 14 Jacob. Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for they all agreed that Francis had but an Estate-tail by these words of the Will viz. If M. A. and A. do out live their Mother and their brother Francis and his heires and Francis cannot die without heire so long as his Sisters are living and therefore the word Heirs shall not be intended Heires generall but heires of his body wherefore Iudgment was entred ut supra c. Mich. 14 Jac. Mason against Manning IN an Ejectment upon a Lease made by John Crooker and Christopher Crooker the two and twentieth of May 14 Jac. of two houses forty acres of Land forty of Meadow and forty of Pasture in S. Needs Habendum from the Annunciation last past for three years The Ejectment was the twenty third of May in the same yeare The Defendant as to the force and armes c. pleaded not guilty and as to the residue he said that Queen Elizabeth was seised in Fee of the Mannor of S. Needs whereof the said Tenements are and time out of mind were parcell and that the Queen the ninth of March in the one and thirtieth year of her Raign by her Letters Patents shewed here under the Exchequer Seal did devise the said Tenements to Robert Croker for life the Remainder to Edward Bett for life the Remainder to Edward Adams for life the Queen dies whereby the Reversion does descend to the King Robert Croker dies and the thirtieth of March 14 Jacob. Edward Bet doth devise the said Tenements to the Defendant from the Annunciation last past for three years whereby he entred and was possessed untill the said John and Christopher Croker did oust him and did disseise the said Edward Bet whereby they were seised in fee by disseisin and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon which the Defendant claiming his term did enter and did out him and the Defendant was and yet is possessed of the said Tenements the Reversion to Edward Bet for life the remainder to Edward Adams for life the Reversion to the King unde non intendit quod curia domino Rege inconsulto ulterius procedere vellet aut debeat and prayed ayd of the King and did aver the life of Edward Bet. And I conceive that ayd is not grantable in this case 1. Because that it is but an Action of Trespass 4 H. 6. 10. Tenant for life of a Lease from the King shall not have ayd of the King for that no Freehold is to be recovered and he is able to plead to all matters in a Trespass 2. The Defendant shall not have ayd of the King because he is not his immediate Tenant but he may pray in ayd of Edward Bet his Lessor and he of the King 1 H. 4. 18. In a Scire facias to execute a Fine the Tenant said that the Land was given to him for life the remainder to N. in Tail the remainder to W. in fee who was attaint of Treason whereby his remainder came to the King and he prayed ayd c. And the Court said that he ought to pray ayd of N. and he of the King and after he said that W. was also attaint of Treason whereby he had ayd of the King 33 H. 6. 29. In a Trespass where the Defendant justified as Baily of a Hundred to distrain for amercements and prayed ayd of the King and by Prisot he could not have it for the Sheriff is the immediate Officer to the King and to this agrees 11 H. 6. 39. where such justification was for taking of Toll and 9 H. 6. 26. In a Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Baily of I. who held of the King for life and prayed ayd of the King and adjudged he should not have it for there is no privity betwixt the King and him because he is not immediate and 28 H. 6. 13. A man shall not have ayd of the King and Queen or of the King and his Tenant for life but first of the Queen or Tenant for life and they of the King and a man shall not have ayd of the King but where he is Baily or Servant
an Action of Debt for forty pounds upon the Statute of 2 Edw. 6. For that the Plaintiff is and was for two years past Rector of Bifeild and the Defendant the first of October 12 Jacob. was Occupier of eighteen acres of Land and thirty of Pasture in Bifeild aforesaid and did continue the occupation thereof for a yeare after and the first of Septemb. the 13 Jacob. did mow and reap the Hay growing upon the Meadow and the Grain viz. Barley Wheat Pease Beans and Oates growing upon the Land and the same day did take and carry them away without setting out the Tithes or agreeing with the Plaintiff for them and did aver the value of the Tithes to be thirteen pounds six shillings eight pence The Defendant pleaded Non debet The Iury found that King Henry the eighth was seised in Fee of the Advowson of Bifeild and the five and twentieth of April 34 H. 8. the King granted the same to Sir Edward Knightly and Ursula his wife and to the Heirs Males of the body of Sir Edmund the remainder to Valentine Knightley his brother and the heires males of his body the Remainder to the right heires of Sir Richard Knightley then dead Father of the said Sir Edmund Sir Edmund died seised without Issue Ursula did surrender to Valentine and the fifth of September 4 5 Phil. Mar. Valentine did give and grant the Advowson to Sir John Spencer and others and their heires to the use of himself for the life of Ursula and after the decease of which of them should first die to the use of Richard Knightley his Son and Mary his wife and the heires males of the body of Richard the Remainder to the right heires of Sir Richard Father of Valentine That the twentieth of Febr. 6 Eliz. William Briggs Rector of Bifeild by Indenture did let the Rectory to the said Richard Knightley habendum from the next Annunciation for sixty one yeares rendring 28. pounds Rent And that the twenty fourth of Febr. 6 Eliz. Valentine Knightley did confirm the Lease and the last day of February in the same year the Bishop of Peterborow being ordinary did confirm it That the thirtieth of July in the same year Richard Knightley did grant the Lease to Edward Knightley his second Son and afterwards recovered the profits to the use of Edward being within age That the eighth of May 8 Eliz. Valentine died seised of the Advowson having Issue the said Richard his eldest Son William Briggs did recover the Rent during his life and dies whereby Richard Knightley does present William Reynolds who was admitted instituted and inducted Reynolds did resigne whereupon Richard Knightley did present Richard Burdsale who was admitted c. and Burdsale did resigne wherefore Richard Knightley did present Simon Rogers who was admitted c. And they found that all these persons did accept the Rent And that the first of Septemb. 21 Eliz. Richard Knightley did take the profits to the use of Edward and did devise the Rectory to Rogers the Parson for forty years if he should be so long Parson there That the thirteenth of Novemb. 27 Eliz. Sir Richard Knightley did grant the Advowson to Valentine his Son in Fee That the 34 of Eliz. A Fine was levied between Bartholomew Tate and Henry Yelverton Esquires Plaintiffs and Valentine Knightley Esquire Deforceator of the said Advowson Sur conusans de droit come ceo with Warranty to the use of the Conusees and their heirs Rogers did resigne whereupon the said Valentine did present Jonas Challoner who afterwards died and the Ordinary did present the Plaintiff by Laps who did accept the Rent for divers years And they found the carrying away of the Tithes and to the value of ten pounds And prayed the opinion of the Court upon the whole matter whether the Defendant owed the thirty pound to the Plaintiff or not Vpon which Verdict the case is this Valentine Knightley seised of an Advowson in Taile to him and the Heirs males of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Richard Knightley his Father then dead the 4 5 of Philip and Mary did give and grant the Advowson in Fee to the use of himself for the life of Ursula Knightley the Remainder to Richard his Son and Mary his wife and the heirs males of the body of Richard the Remainder to the right heirs of the said Sir Richard the Father The twentieth of February 6 Eliz. William Briggs the Incumbent does make a Lease of the Rectory by Indenture to Richard the Son for sixty one years from the Annunciation next c. rendring twenty eight pounds Rent And the twenty fourth of Febr. 6 Eliz. Valentine Knightley does confirm the Lease and the last of February in the same year the Ordinary confirms it The thirtieth of July in the same year Richard the Lessee grants the Term to Edward Knightley his second Son within age and takes the profits to his use And the 8. of Eliz. Valentine dies Richard being his eldest Son William Briggs dies whereby Sir Richard does present William Reynolds who was admitted c. And he did resigne whereby Sir Richard did present Burdsale c. who did resigne c. whereby he presented Rogers and all these persons did receive the Rent And the 21 Eliz. Sir Richard did make a Lease of the Rectory to Rogers the Parson for forty yeares if he shall be there Parson so long 27 Eliz. Sir Richard grants the Advowson to Valentine his Son in fee and 34 Eliz. A Fine was levied of the Advowson between Bartholomew Tate and Henry Yelverton Plaintiffs and Valentine Knightley Deforceator to the use of the Conusees and their heirs Rogers did resigne whereby the said Valentine did present John Challoner c. who died and the Ordinary collated the Plaintiff by Laps who for many years accepted the Rent and the Defendant did take and carry the Tithes to the value of ten pounds And whether this Lease be good to bind the Plaintiff or not is the question and I conceive it is not And for the arguing of this Case I will consider these three things The Validity of the Lease without any confirmation If here be any confirmation of this Lease and if it continues in force against the now Plaintiff Admitting here be not any sufficient confirmation of it self if the Fine levied by Valentine Knightley hath given any force and strength to it And as to the first I conceive without any doubt that this Lease without any confirmation is determined by the death of the person who made it and is so determined as no acceptance of Rent by the Successor can make it good and therefore the difference is between a Lease for life and a Lease for years made by a person rendring Rent for the Lease for life is only voidable and not void by the death of the Lessor so that if the Successor does accept the Rent and Fealty he shall be bound for his
one could enter into an Advowson therefore no Livery can be made and 11 H. 4. 3. 6. An Advowson in grosse cannot passe without Deed 9 Ed. 4. 47. a. One cannot grant Proximam advocationem without Deed Dyer 323. Advowson of the Vicaridge of D. doth passe by the Grant of all hereditaments in D. although it lies not in Livery nor is visible and Coke 9. Rep. 96. An Advowson is not manuall but is Haereditas incorporata and so Littleton 3. of things which do not lye in manuall occupation or possession as an Advowson he shall not plead as seised in his Demesne as of fee but as of fee and so Littleton 139. If Tenant in Taile grants the Advowson it is no discontinuance And the reason is apparent because that nothing can passe by Livery but that whereof possession may be taken by the Feoffor or Donor and given to him by the Feoffee or Donee And it is more colourable to say that he in Reversion upon an Estate for life may make Livery for although a Reversion be not visible or mannuall yet Terra revertens which the Grantee shall have after the Estate determined is manuall and yet I conceive that none will hold that such a Reversion so long as it continues a Reversion may passe by Livery If it be admitted that an Advowson may passe by Livery yet it shall be intended by this Verdict that it doth not passe because it is found that Valentine did grant it by Deed and there is no doubt but it may passe by Deed without Livery and therefore no Livery being found Livery shall not be intended for it shall not be intended to be a discontinuance whereby the Tenant in Taile shall do wrong when the Advowson may well passe by Deed which is no wrong And therefore I conceive that notwithstanding this objection that here is no discontinuance but only a grant of an Advowson which is determinable by the death of the Tenant in Taile who made it from whence it follows that Sir Richard at the time of his grant of the Lease had only a Remainder in fee in the Advowson determinable on the death of Valentine his Father which Estate is only charged by his confirmation for as Issue in Taile he cannot make any confirmation because he had nothing in him at that time 10 Ed. 3. 2. Confirmation 22. If the Son confirmes the Estate of the Disseisor in the life of his Father and the Father dies the Son shall not be barred by his confirmation without Warranty 13 Ed. 1. Confirmation 19. If one doth quit Claime for him and his heirs all his Right before that his Right doth happen the quite claim is nothing and so is Littleton 106. Releases and the reason of these Cases is upon the Rule of the Common Law which is that one cannot grant or charge that which one hath not By which it plainly appears that this implyed Confirmation made by Sir Richard does make the Lease good only for so long time as he hath Estate in the Advowson which is determinable by the death of Valentine And to prove that it is so determinable it is a certain Rule that all Grants and Charges made by Tenant in taile are determined with his life and so is Littleton Discontinuance 139. If Tenant in taile of an Advowson or Common does grant this in fee it is no Discontinuance for the Grantee hath no Estate but for life of the Tenant in taile who made the Grant 22 H. 3. Discontinuance 52. If a Rent be granted to husband and wife in fee and the husband grants this in fee and dies yet the wife may distrain and shall not be put to her Action 36. Assise 8. Tenant in taile of a Reversion grants the same in fee with Warranty and dies leaving Assets the Tenant for life dies and the Issue enters and his entry congeable for the Grant is meerly determined by his death so that the Warranty cannot work 38 H. 8. b. Discontinuance 35. If the King Tenant in taile grants the Land for lifâ— it is no discontinuance for a Grant without Livery makes no discontinuance but this shall not bind but during the life of the Grantor 26 H. 7. 4. Fineaux Tenant in taile of Services is like Tenant for life and by his Grant nothing doth passe but for his life and after his death the Issue may distrain but if he brings a Formedon he shall be barred by the Warranty for then he admits it to be a Discontinuance And Hil. 39 Eliz. Rot. 941. In the Common Pleas between Keen and Cox Thomas Jennings Tenant in taile the Remainder to John his Brother made a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. with Warranty and dies without Issue John being his heire who entered and agreed good for the Estate of the Lessee was determined by the death of the Lessor without Issue wherefore the Warranty could be no bar to the Remainder And although the Issue in case of Grant of a Rent by his Ancestor may have a Formedon yet that is no proof that the Grant is not determined for although it be determined yet may he admit himself out of possession if he will and is like to the Case where one takes my Rent yet he gains no possession by this but that I may distrain notwithstanding yet if I will I may admit the possession to be out of me and so maintain an Assise against the Pernor And as to the opinion in the case of Fines in the 3. Rep. That if there be Tenant in taile of a Rent or a thing which lies in Grant who grants the same by Fine and dies before the Proclamations made that the Grant is not determined but that the Proclamations may be made is grounded upon the reasonable construction of the Statute of the 4 H. 7. of Fines for otherwise the provision of the Statute that the fine shall be a bar cannot be for that is the reason there given But it hath been objected Object that because it was not found by the Iury that Sir Richard Knightley was dead it shall be intended that he is alive and then his confirmation remains in force To which I answer 1. That his being alive cannot be presumed Answer because it is not so found for although a Fee-simple being once alledged shall be intended to continue untill the contrary appears yet is it not so of an Estate-taile or such other particular Estate but he who will take advantage of such Estate ought to aver the continuance thereof and that is a certain Rule in pleading as in the 15 Ed. 3. Tenant in Taile of a Rent grants the Rent over the Grantee when he makes Title there ought to aver the life of the Tenant in Taile for by his death the Grant is determined vide Dyer 73. 19 H. 6. 73. 5 H. 7. 39. 15 Ed. 4. 6. And although there is a speciall Verdict in our Case which shall be taken more
Estates yet in Wills the intent of the Devisor is sufficient either to limit the Estate or to describe the person that shall have it And therefore if Land be given to one in perpetuum if it be by Grant or Feoffment yet there passeth but an Estate for life but if it be given by Will it is an Estate in Fee and 4 Ed. 6. Estates 78. If one deviseth his Land to another paying 10 l. to his Executors or any other person the Devisee hath an Estate in Fee so if one deviseth his Land to give or dispose of or sell at his will this is a Fee-simple 19 H. 8. 96. 7 Ed. 6. Devise 38. And the reason in all these cases is because that by these words the intent of the Devisor doth appear that a Fee shall pass and therefore the defect of words shall not defeat his intent And as the intent is sufficient without apt words to make an Estate so is it also to describe the person who shall take the Devise although he be not formally named according to the precise rule in Grants as in 21 R. 2. Devise 17. where one devised Land to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder to the Church of St. Andrews in Holborn and it was adjudged that after the death of the Devisees for life the Parson of the Church shall have the Land for in as much as the Church was not capable it shall be taken that the intent of the Devisor was that the Parson who is as it were the Father of the Church and so the Head of it should have the Estate And in the 13 H. 7. 17. In every Devise the intent of the Devisor shall be taken for if a man deviseth all his goods to his Wife and that after his decease his Son and Heir shall have his House although that no Devise of the House be made to the Wife by express words but by implication because the Heir is not to have the House during the Wifes life yet because the intent of the Devisor was that the Son should not have it during the life of his Wife she shall have the House for her life To which all agreed Then in our case 1. The Devisor willeth that a Chaplain shall celebrate for his Soul and that he shall have eight Marks out of his Tenements yearly for his stipend but if he had stayed there the Devise should have been voyd for the Chaplain is not such a person as may take these eight Marks as a Rent and therefore he goes further and first he limits what service the Preist shall do and this he appoints to be done by the disposition of the Parson 2. He doth dispose of the residue of the profits of the Tenement for such a time viz. until R. shall be 24 years of age and be a Priest and doth devise that he shall be preferred to the Chantery before any other if he will accept it and if not that he shall have nothing 3. He makes provision for the perpetual continuance of the Chaplain in these words scil That the Parson and four of the best of the Parishioners shall present and finde a Chaplain to perform the said Chantery for ever de tenementis meis superius non legat which is the said Tenement out of which the said eight Marks are limited to be payd 4. He doth inflict a penalty upon the Parson if the Chantery should be voyd scil That the other Land devised by him to the Parson shall go to the Wardens of L. Bridg for the reparation thereof 5. He makes a perpetual disposition for the residue of the profits of the Tenement viz. That they shall be put into a Chest under the custody of the Parson and four of the Parishioners to buy ornaments and Books for the Church And these parts of the Will being well considered as I conceive it will be clear that the intent of the Devisor was that the Parson should have this Tenement for here the main scope of his Will is that a Chaplain shall be maintained perpetually and that he shall have eight Marks stipend out of that Tenement and that it shall be provided and found by the Parson and four of the Parishioners and that the residue of the profits shall be bestowed by them to buy ornaments and Books for the Church so that a perpetual charge is imposed upon the Parson scil to finde the Priest and to buy ornaments c. and this charge is to be defrayed with the profits of the Tenement and that can be done by none but by him that shall be owner of the Tenement and therefore it follows that the Parson shall have the Tenement And that such implication in a Will is sufficient to make an Estate is proved by the 15 H. 7. 126. If one devises his Land to be sold for payment of his Debts the Executor shall sell the Land for because the charge to pay Debts lies upon the Executors his intent shall be taken to have them sell the Land and 22 and 23 Elizab. Dyer 171. A man seised in Fee of divers Mannors doth devise them to his Sister in Fee except my Mannor of D. which I do appoint to pay my Debts and makes two Executors and dyes and one Executor dyes and the other sells thâ— Mannor and adjudged good for so his intent shall be taken and not to relinquish it to his Sister and 19 H. 6. 24 and 25. and 1 Edw. 6. Devise 36. If one devise that his Executor shall sell his Land this is no devise of the Land to them but an authority for they may perform the Devisor to sell the Land although they have no Estate therein and the Vendee shall be in by the Devisor but if one devise that his Executors shall grant a Rent-charge out of his Land or that they shall give the Land in Fee or in Tayl to I. S. this is an implyed Devise to them for otherwise they cannot perform the intent of the Devisor Trin. 9 Eliz. 516. and so in the 40 Assis 26. One did devise his Land in L. to A. and his Heirs to finde twelve Marks for two Chaplains and grants that the Parson and the Parish may distrein for this if it be behinde and there it is debated whether the King shall have the twelve Marks or not and it is agreed there that the Chaplains have no Estate in it because they are removable at the will of A. but because the Distress is given to the Parson who is perpetual it was adjudged that the King shall have the twelve Marks whereupon I do observe that by this Distress limited to the Parson and the Parishioners the twelve Marks were vested as a Rent in the Parson and so made it a Mortmain Object But it may be objected That the last clause in the Will for the disposing of the residue of the profits does go onely to the Land devised to Wardens of the Bridg. Answer But this
a Lease for four years the Lessee entred and the Lessor did grant the Land habendum from Midsomer next for life the Lesses after Midsomer did attorn and adjudged that the Grant was void and in Barkwicks Case 5 Rep. the reason thereof is given because that if the Grant should be good the Grantor should have a particular Estate scil during the first day of the date or in the mean time untill the Grant did begin to take effect without any Donor or Lessor which is against the Rules of Law And although this Grant of the Reversion be but for years yet is it all one for the diversity is between a Lease for years made Tenant in Fee or for life to commence in future and a grant of a Reversion for in the first Case it is but a future Charge upon the Land so that the Lessor hath his former Estate untill the Lease doth begin and the Lessee hath no Term but only interesse termin and therefore Hil. 38. Eliz in the Common Pleas between Row and White it was agreed that if the Lessor be disseised before the Lease begins the Lessee after the day of the Commencement may grant the term otherwise where a Lessee for yeares in possession is outed by an estranger for there his Term is turned into a Right but in the first Case he hath not any Term in esse and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right nor any wrong done thereunto And for direct Authorities in this Case 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas the Countesse of Kents Case Where one having a Reversion in Fee does grant this Habendum after the death of I. S. for years and it was adjudged a void Grant And Trin. 39 Eliz. Johnson and Somerset in the Common Pleas Lessee for life grants the Reversion Habendum a die dat for ten years and adjudged a void Grant And in the Comment 155. by Brown If one having a Reversion does grant it habendum after a day to come for years this is a void Grant for if it may be granted from a day to come the Grantor shall have a particular Estate in the mean time by his own making which cannot be that one may be Lessor to himself or diminish his own Estate and there it is taken for a Rule that when there is a Rent in Esse or a Reversion c. a man cannot make this to be in esse for a time and to cease for another time or to grant it to another after the death of any or from a day to come relinquishing to himself an Estate in the mean time And in the Comment 197. b. Adams against Wortesbey agreed there that a Reversion cannot passe as a Reversion according to the common understanding thereof from a day to come But Haughton conceived that this Case being a bargain and sale whereby the use doth passe first this may well passe from a day to come Quod nullus dedixit Thirdly It is not averred that the twenty acres in which the Distresse was taken was not part of the Closes excepted so that it may be part of them and then no Distresse for the Rent can be taken there And although it may be gathered by some words in the Bar to the Avowry that the place where c. was parcell of the Land devised to Wiseman yet this shall not help the Conusans as in Cokes 7. Rep. fol. 24 25. where one having Land in Fee and another Land for years did grant a Rent for life out of both the Grantee distrained for the Rent and avowed that the Rent was granted out of the Lease land amongst other lands whereas he ought to have alledged the Rent to be granted out of the Land in Fee only and although the Plaintiff in his Bar to the Avowry hath shewed the truth of the Case yet this will not make the Avowry which wants substance to be good Judgment And all the Court did agree the Avowry to be naught for this exception Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Replevin Mich. 14 Jac. Webb and Jucks Case against Worfeild Rot. 266. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas for the now Defendant against the now Plaintiffs In which the Plaintiff did declare that the Defendants the fourteenth of Febr. 9 Jac. at Ponick in a place called Brancefords Court did take an Oxe from the Plaintiff ad damnum forty pounds The Defendants did acknowledge the taking of the said Oxe as Bayliffs to Elizabeth Ligon Widow for that the place where c. contained two acres of Land and that one Anne Ligon was seised in Fee of the Scite of the Mannor of Bransford and of seven Messuages three Gardens and a hundred and fifty acres of Land forty two of Meadow sixty six of Pasture five of Wood and seventy of Furzes and Heath in Ponick aforesaid Bransford Leigh Newland and Wick whereof the place where c. is parcell That the sixth of September the twenty fourth of H 8. Anne Ligon did devise this to John Parsons and Anne his Daughter for seventy years after the death of Elizabeth his wife if they or either of them shall so long live rendring five pounds four shillings eight pence Rent at the Annunciation Christmas Midsummer and Michaelmas That the eleventh of August 1554. Elizabeth Parsons died whereupon John and Anne Parsons entred And Ligon dies whereby the Reversion descended to Sir Rich. Ligon her Son and Heir and Sir Richard died wherby the same descended to William Ligon his Son and Heir who died also whereby the same descended to Richard Ligon his Son and Heir who died also and the same descended to Sir Richard Ligon his Son and heire who Hil. 33 Eliz. did levy a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Elizabeth Ligon then his Wife for life the Remainder to the Heirs of the body of Sir William the Remainder to the right Heires of Sir William 10 May 4. Jac. John Parsons died Pasch 6 Jac. Sir William Ligon and Elizabeth his wife did levy a Fine to the Plaintiff to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of Sir William the Remainder to the said Elizabeth for her life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee Sir William dies whereby the Reversion does remain to Elizabeth his Wife And for seventy eight pounds six pence of the said Rent for three quarters of a year ending at Christmas 9 Jacob. they did acknowledge c. and they averred the lives of the said Elizabeth Ligon and the said Anne Parsons Bar. The Plaintiff said that the Fine levied by Sir William and Elizabeth his wife was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs and justified the putting in of the said Oxe by the license of the said Anne Parsons Absque hoc that the said Fine was to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of
the Statute of Fraudulent conveyances c. and it was adjudged that forasmuch as the Feoffment was not found by the Iury to be fraudulent the Court could not adjudge it to be fraudulent although the Iury had found circumstances and inducements to prove the fraud and in the 8. Rep. Lovedays Case In an Information upon the Statute of Vsury the Iury found that the Defendant did accept a certain summe above ten pounds in the hundred for forbearance of the money but no lone of money was found Wherefore it was adjudged that the Verdict was insufficient and a new Venire was awarded Henden The Fine shall be directed onely by the last Indenture for that does controul the first Indenture Count. Rutlands Case Cook Rep. But all the Court agreed that the Count shall be directed by the first Indenture as to the Wife for her disagreement to the second Indenture doth prove enforce her agreement to the first and then the use limited by both Indentures being all one scil to the use of William Worfield and his Heirs and no variance between them in the limitation of the use it is clear that the use shall be to the Plaintiff and his Heirs Wherefore it was adjudged that the Iudgment given in the Common-Pleas should be affirmed But Haughton said that the Verdict was not good for that the use being matter of fact ought to have been found by the Iury and not left to the Court. To which it was answered that the Iury did conclude Judgment That if the Distress was well taken that the Fine was to one use but if not then it was to another use which was sufficient Whereupon he assented to the affirming of the Iudgment Trinit 15 Jac. The King and William Allen against Theophilus Newton Rot. 318. WIlliam Allen as well for the King as for himself did inform against Theophilus Newton for that the Defendant not being assigned named or appointed to keep a Tavern within the Town of Tiverton according to the Statute of the first of November 13 Jacob. and for one hundred day between the first of November and at the day of the Exhibition of the Information to wit the 26 of Octob. the 14 of King James at Tiverton did of his own authority keep and maintain a common Tavern and within the said time did utter and sell Claret-wine and White-wine and Sack and divers other kinds of Wine to divers subjects of the King by retail contrary to the form of the Statute whereby an Action did accrue to the King and the Informer to have of the Defendant 505 l. for every one of the said hundred days whereof the Informer prayed the moyety The Defendant as to the Keeping the Tavern and uttering of the Wines the first of Novemb. 13 Jacob. and all the other days between the said first of Novemb. 13 Jacob. and the said 26 Octob. 14 King James saving fourty of the said hundred days did plead Not guilty And as to the said fourty days he said that the King the fourth of January the 3d Jacob. by his Letters Patents under the great Seal did grant License to Richard King and his Assigns Thomas King and his Assigns and John King and his Assigns that the said Richard and his Assigns during his life for him and themselves their servants deputies and assigns or any of them and that the said Thomas and his assigns after the death of the said Richard for him and themselves their servants and deputies or any of them during the life of the said Thomas and so the said John after the death of Richard and Thomas c. during the life of the said John may have use occupy and hold a Wine-Celler within the Town of Tiverton in the County of Devon in domo mantionali in qua praedictus Richardus Thomas Johannes ad tunc inhabitabant vel ex tunc in posterum inhabitur infra praedict Vill. de Tiverton de tempore in tempus vendere utterare per retail viz. by the Gallon Pottle Quart or Pint or less or greater measure all manner of good and wholesom Wine of what kinde soever as well within their houses as out of their houses at his or their pleasure and at and for such price as from time to time the said Wines for reasonable gain may be afforded without any Impeachment notwithstanding the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. That the first of September 13 Jacob. Richard King dyed The last of August 14 Jacob. Thomas King by Deed shewn did ordain the Defendant to be his Assignee to draw and sell all good and wholesom Wines in the then Mansion House of the said Thomas in Tiverton and to retail them without the said Houses for such prices as for reasonable gain may be afforded for one year wherefore the Defendant after the said last of August and before the Exhibition of the Information scil within the said fourty days parcel of the said hundred days at Tiverton aforesaid in the then Mansion House of the aforesaid Thomas as his Assignee did hold a common Tavern and did sell and utter Claret White-wine and Sack and other Wines by retail And did aver that he sold the said Wines for such prices as he could reasonably afford and that they were good and wholesom Wines and that the said Thomas is alive at Tiverton aforesaid and that Tiverton in the Letters Patents and Tiverton in the Information is all one Town And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the King and the Informer against the Defendant For the License is not pursued for it is to keep a Tavern in the Mansion House in which the three parties did then inhabit or should after inhabit whereby the King hath restrained this liberty to a certain place and the Defendant doth justifie under the License of Thomas King or his Assignee to keep a Tavern in his Mansion House which is not warranted by the Kings License And that every authority ought to be pursued strictly Dyer 177. a. Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27 of Hen. 8. did will that A. B. and C. should sell the Land and dyes B. and C. cannot sell the Land for that it was a joynt authority to them all three and the 27 H. 8. 6. A Warrant of Attorney to three joyntly and severally to make livery one of the three may make livery but not two of them by Baldwin and 30 Ed. 3. 17. The King doth license one to alien his Mannor of D. who doth alien it excepting twelve acres this License will not serve and 3 Ed. 3. 5. One by Fine does grant and render the Mannor of D. to the Abbot of G. and his successors and shewed a Charter whereby the King gave leave to the Conusor to render to finde two Chaplains c. and he would have levyed the Fine without mentioning of the Chaplains whereupon the Court did refuse it because it was disagreeing to the Charter of leave and after