Bench. WIlliam Absolon Master of the Savoy and the Chaplains there brought Debt against Anderton The Case was That the said Master and Chaplains leased Lands to the Defendant for certain years and afterwards he accepted of them an Indenture of Bargain and Sale to him and his Heirs by express words of Bargain and Sale without other words And one of the Masters of the Chancery within the 6 months came unto them into their Chapter-house and before him they acknowledged the said Indenture to be their Deed and prayed that it be enrolled which was done accordingly It was moved If that acknowledgment and Enrollment were good or not or if the Master and the Chaplains ought to have appointed one by their Warrant to be their Attorny to acknowledge the said Deed And it was also moved 1 Len. 184. If there needed any Enrollment at all of it because Anderton had then an Interest in the Land for years in which case it is to be considered If the words Barganizavi Vendidi shall be of such effect as the words Dedi Concessi And it was said by the Court That a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed were a strange thing And it was agreed That the Indenture being once Inrolled it was not material by what means it was Inrolled but was good being done CXXV Savell and Badcocks Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvell brought an Action of Trespass against Badcock and declared That Edw. Savell was seised of the Mannor of D. and leased the same for years to Henry Savell who died having made the Plaintiff his Executor who entred and was possessed until the first day of January at which time the Trespass was done The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That the said Ed. Savell was seised and leased to the said Henry Savell for years who so possessed reciting the said Lease Demised the said Mannor to Sir William Cordell Master of the Rolls to have to him immediately after the decease of the said Henry for so many years of the said Term which at the time of his death should be unexpired if Dorothy the Wife of the said Henry should so long live Henry died Sir William Cordell entred Dorothy died within the Term the Plaintiff the Executor of Henry entred and was possessed until the first day of Januarii 23 Eliz. at which day the Trespass was done On the Defendants part it was given in Evidence That after the Grant to Sir William Cordell the said Henry and Edward joyned in a fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to a stranger who granted and rendred the Land to the said Henry and his Heirs who devised the same to the said Dorothy his Wife for life the remainder to Cordell Savell in tail the remainder over and died Dorothy entred and died Cordell Savell 22 Eliz. conveyed the Mannor by Fine to one Williamson who entred and afterwards and before the Trespass aforesaid viz. 14 January 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant for years by force of which the Defendant entred And upon this Evidence there was a Demurrer in Law. And it was argued by Shuttleworth who was made Serjeant the last Term. And he said That the Demise made by Henry Savell is not in the inconveniency of the maxim that Henry by the said Grant should reserve a lesser Estate to himself than he had before For here by this Grant no present interest passeth by Sir William Cordell but the effect of the Grant rests upon a Contingency scil if he himself dieth within the Term c. until which time the whole interest of the Term doth remain in the said Henry Savell subject to the Contingency aforesaid and amounts to so much as if the said Henry had granted the same to Sir William Cordell if he himself should die within the Term in which Case it is a limitation when the said Grant shall take effect As if I grant unto you my Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name the same is a good Grant to take effect upon the naming of J.S. Then the Case being so When Henry Savell the Lessee and Edward Savell the Lessor joyn in a Fine ut supra now the possibility of the remnant of the Term which upon the death of Henry Savell and Dorothy his Wife within the Term might accrue to the Executors of the said Henry Savell is not extinct by the Fine but doth remain Quodam modo in Henry Savell to vest in his Executors if it should happen And here is not any conclusion by the Fine in this Case for Henry at the time of the Fine had not in him any Interest which is now claimed and so cannot be bound by the Fine For the Interest in respect of which the Plaintiff hath cause of Action begineth after the death of Henry who levied the Fine and first accrueth to his Executors and so shall not be touched by the Fine and therefore if such a Lessee for years granteth his Term to J.S. Proviso That if J.S. dieth within the Term that he himself shall have it again and afterwards the Grantor joyns with his Lessor in a Fine and afterwards within the Term J.S. dieth now the Grantor notwithstanding the Fine shall have the residue of the Term Then when the Conusee by the Fine regrants the Land to Henry in Fee that possibility to have after the death of the Donor cannot be drowned in the Fee simple for the reason aforesaid And then when Henry deviseth the same to his Wife that possibility doth pass to Dorothy because it was never in the Devisor and then when Dorothy dieth within the Term the Residue of the said Term shall accrue to the Plaintiff as Executor of Henry Cook contrary And he held The Grant to Sir William Cordell is utterly void And he agreed That Grants although in themselves they be uncertain yet if they may be reduced to certain they are good but here is no expectance of any certainty in the life of Henry for the Term limited to Sir William Cordell is not to begin till the death of Henry and is to end upon the death of Dorothy so as here is not any certain beginning nor certain end and here this Grant cannot be reduced to any Certainty during the life of the Grantor and so for that cause is void See Plow Com. 6 Eliz. Say and Fullers Case 273. by Weston Iustice If A. makes a Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name if J.S. in the life of A. name a certain number of years then the Lease is good but if the Lease had been for so many years as my Executors shall name that can never be made good in my life And upon that reason it is That an Attornment ought to be made in the life of the Grantor or else no Reversion shall pass So 33 E. 3. Entry 79. A Bishop aliens and after his death the Dean Chapter
Len. 55. 1 Len. 333. The Abbot and Covent of D. 29 H. 8. makes a Lease of certain Lands for 3 Lives to begin after the death of one J.S. if they shall so long live And afterwards 30 H. 8. within a year before the Dissolution they make another Lease to JS If the first Lease in the life of J.S. be such an Estate and Interest which by vertue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question For it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason which hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for J.S. by possibility may survive all the 3 Lives and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility c. or otherwise It is such a thing as may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of the said J.S. And Note also the words of the Statute If any Abbot c. within one year next before the first day of the Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Mannors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance or hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of this Lease to J.S. And of that Opinion was the whole Court and all the Barons and divers other of the Iustices And therefore a Decree was made against that Lease c. CCXVII The Master and Chaplains of the Savoy's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Master and Chaplains of the Savoy aliened a parcel of their possessions unto another in Fee and afterwards surrendred their Patents and a Vacat is made of the Enrollment of them It was now moved How the Alienee should be adjudged to make title to the said Lands claiming the same by the Letters Patents For the Clerks would not make a Constat of it For the Patents were cancelled and a Vacat made of the Enrolment And the Case of Sir Robert Sidney was vouched in which Case the Statute of 3 E. 6. was so expounded upon great advise taken by the Lord Chancellor who thereupon commanded That no Constat be made in such case Manwood If Tenant in tail by Letters Patents of the King surrendreth his Patent and cancelleth it and a Vacat be made of the Enrollment by that the Issue in tail shall be bound For no other person at the time of the cancelling hath Interest But in the Case at Bar a third person scil the Alienee hath an Interest And therefore he was of Opinion That he should have a Constat c. CCXVIII Inchely and Robinson's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firmae It was found by Verdict That King E. 6. was seised of the Mannor and Hundred of Fremmington 2 Len. 41. Owen Rep. 88. and granted the same by his Letters Patents to one Barnard in Fee rendring 130 l. per annum and also to be holden by Homage and Fealty And afterwards Queen Mary reciting the said Grant by King Ed. 6. and the Reservation upon it granted unto Gertrude Marchioness of Exeter the Mannor of Fremmington and the said Rent and Services and also the Mannor of Camfield and other Lands and Tenements Tenendum per vicesimam partem unius feodi Militis Gertrude being so seised Devised to the Lord Mountjoy the Mannor of Fremmington the Mannor of Camfield c. And also bequeathed divers sums of Monies to be levied of the premises And further found that the said Rent of 130 l. was the full third part of the yearly value of all the Lands and Tenements of the Devisor The Question was If by these words of the Devise of the Mannor of Fremmington the Rent and the Services pass i.e. the Rent Homage and Fealty reserved upon the Grant made by King Ed. 6. of the Mannor and Hundred of Fremmington And if the said Rent and Services are issuing out of the Mannor For if the Rent doth not pass then the same is descended to the Heir of the Marchioness and then being found the full third part of the value the King is fully answered and satisfied and then the residue of the Inheritance discharged and is settled in the Devisee And if the Rent doth not pass then is the Heir of the Marchioness entituled by the Statute to a third of the whole c. And Shuttleworth conceived That if the Marchioness had Devised by express words the said Rent and Services they could not pass For as to the Services they are things entire as Homage and Fealty they cannot pass by Devise in case where Partition is to follow for such things cannot receive any partition or division therefore not divideable For the Statute enables the Proprietary to give or devise two parts of his Inheritance in three parts to be divided As Catalla Felonum cannot be devised for the reason aforesaid Quod fuit Concessum per totam Curiam But as to the Rent the Court was clear That the same was deviseable by the said Statute and in respect of that the mischief of many distresses which the Common Law abhors is dispensed with and is now become distrainable of common right And as to the Devise he argued much upon the grounds of Devises and put a ground put by Fineux 15 H. 7. 12. Where every Will ought to be construed and taken according as the words purport or as it may be intended or implyed by the words What the intent of the Devisor was so as we ought to enquire the meaning of the Testator out of the words of the Will. And see also a good Case 19 H 8. 8 9. And he much relyed upon the Case of Bret and Rigden Plow Com. 343. See there the Case So in this Case for as much as such Intent of the Devisor doth not appear upon the words of the Will that this Rent shall pass It shall not pass for there is not any mention of any Rent in the whole Will. Fenner argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the favourable Construction which the Law gives to Wills. 14 H. 8. by Reversion for remainder e contra 17 E. 3. 8. A Man may make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor by the name of a Knights Fee a multo fortiori in the Cases of Devises And in our Case the Marchioness conceived That the Rent and Services reserved out of the Mannor of Fremmington was the Mannor of Fremmington and that the Law would give strength to that intent Walmesley conceived That the Rent did not pass by the name of the Mannor c. for this Rent noc in veritate nec in reputatione was ever taken for a Mannor
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
case there is no person to take it and therefore he conceived That the Lease was void Mounson Iustice The Case is as it is recited And he said That the Premisses of a Deed is to limit the person who shall have the Lease and the Habendum shall not declare the person who shall have it or the Lease but to declare the Estate which shall be in the Lease and it is but a limitation of the Estate and if the Premisses do not limit the person who shall have it the Habendum shall not give any thing to the person unless it be expressed in the Premisses what person shall have it and therefore when he saith Habendum to his Executors and Assigns these words Executors and Assigns are void But when a Man makes a Lease to one Habendum to his Executors and Assigns the same is not void for if Livery be made his Heir shall take it after his death Harper By the Lease of the same Land by a new Deed as the Case is here nothing shall pass without an Habendum And if a Lease be made to the Lessee Habendum to his Executors he himself hath no Estate and when no Estate is limited the person in the Premisses gains not any thing and without the Habendum he cannot have any thing Lovelace If I may declare my Opinion This new Lease shall be a Lease in possession as a Confirmation of the first Lease and shall be taken to be a Lease for life and the Habendum shall be void and therefore he prayed the Opinion of Manwood Iustice therein Who said That in every Lease there are 3 Principals as he had said of Lessor Lessee and thing Let And by the Premisses the Lessor and Lessee are expressed and by the Habendum the Interest which the Lessee shall have ought to be set forth and if no Habendum be in the Deed to express any certainty of time the Lessee by the same shall be Tenant of your Opinion Brother Lovelace That the same shall be a Lease for life unless that in the second Deed the words had been That he Leased and Granted by which word Grant it might enure and amount to a Lease for life but if the Deed had been Demise and Grant that cannot be intended for the life of the Lessee And as I have said before by apt words it might enure to a Confirmation and make it a Lease for life but by the Premisses it is not so and by this Deed it is not expressed that the Lessee shall take a Freehold for by the Habendum his mind appeareth to be otherwise by agreement betwixt the parties that his Executors and Assigns should have it for a certain time after his death and that he himself would not have it for he hath sufficiently provided for himself to have if for 40 years if he liveth so long although it cannot be intended that he should live beyond the Term which he hath so as it cannot be taken to be the meaning of the parties that he should have it as a Lease for life and when by the Premisses of the Deed the parties are not named the Habendum shall never bring in a strange person As where a Lease is made to the Husband Habendum to the Wife the Habendum to her is a void because it shall not introduce one who is a stranger to the Premisses of the Deed. And as my Brother Mounson hath said The Office of the Premisses of a Deed is to limit the persons who shall have it and the Office of the Habendum is to limit the Estate of the thing which is granted and therefore when the Habendum is to such a person as was not named in the Premisses of the Deed it is but a Nugation As if he had Leased to J.S. Habendum to the Moon for certain years there the Habendum to that thing is a Nugation and void and therefore then if the words be in the Premisses that he Leaseth to J.S. for 20 years and doth not say that he shall have it for 20 years it shall be intended that the person named in the Premisses shall have it for the Habendum waits upon the Grant before and when he gives an Estate in the Habendum without limiting of the person in it then the person named in the Premisses shall have it and then when he names a strange person who was not named before in the Premisses or which hath no Capacity as the Moon or such like who are not in rerum natura as his Executors of the Lessee or his Assigns these persons or things named in the Habendum are but Nugations and void and then it is like unto the Case where no person is limited in the Habendum And where apt words are there the Law shall construe them strong against the Grantor and therefore the Law couples the Habendum and the Premisses together that the intent of the parties may if by any means it may have a reasonable Construction And therefore if a Man maketh a Lease to two Habendum to one of them and a third person there as to the third person he gets nothing by the Habendum because he was not named in the Premisses and therefore the naming him in the Habendum is but a Nugation And so here the naming of the Executors and Assigns by the Habendum is but a Nugation and so there is no person named in it But I conceive that the Habendum when the years are expressed and the Estate limited by it shall have reference to the person who is named in the Premisses of the Deed and so the Lease shall be good to him to begin after the first Term expired Harper It appeareth that it was the meaning of the parties that he himself would not have any thing but that his Will was That his Executors should have it and the Law shall frame his intent and meaning and shall not subject the Law to his intent and when he doth not so but overthwarts the Law and frames such an Instrument the Law shall be first served and not their meanings when the same doth not agree with the Law. And therefore as to the Case which my Brother Manwood hath put Where no person is named in the Habendum by Construction of Law he who is named in the Premisses shall have it But when the Habendum makes express mention of his intent what person shall have it and another than was named in the Premisses then if those cannot have it the Estate limited shall not be carried over to him who was named in the Premisses And as to the Case put where a Lease is made to two Habendum to one of them and a third person there I well agree That as to the third person it is but a Nugation and the other two who are named with him in the Habendum and have a Capacity to take it shall have it although the other getteth nothing but that is not like to the Case at
he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold the Exception was disallowed Another Exception was taken to the Indictment For these words In unum tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an uncertain word and therefore as to that the party was discharged But the Indictment was further In unum Tenementum decem acras terrae eidem pertinent And therefore as to the 10 Acres the party was enforced to Answer CL. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J.S. died without Issue of his body J.S. died having Issue which Issue died without Issue Dyer said The Grant shall not take effect For J.S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore then the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And by Manwood If the words had been To begin when J.S. is dead without Issue of his body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dieth without Issue c. Dyer If the Donee in tail hath Issue and dieth without Issue The Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue For there is an Interest and there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A. and B. for the Term of their lives if any of them dieth the Survivor shall have the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the life of B. and C. now if B. or C. die all the Estate is determined because but a Limitation and B. and C. had not any Interest See Cook 5 Part Bradnell's Case CLI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Enfeoffed B. upon Condition That if he pay 10. l. to the Feoffee his Executors or Assigns 4 Len. 232. 1 Len. 285 286. Hill. 12. Car. 2 B.R. Goodyer and Clarks Case within 3 yeares next ensuing that then it should be lawful for him and his Heirs to re-enter The Feoffee hath Issue two Sons whom he makes his Executors and dieth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits â—etters of Administration to J.S. during the minority of the Executors Manwood conceived That it is a most sure way for A. to pay the Monies to the Executors for they remain Executors notwithstanding the Administration committed to another For the Administrator in such case is but as Bailiff or Receivor to the Executors and shall be accomptable to them Which Harper and Dyer Concesserunt And Manwood said If in this Case the Monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the same well paid but that Conditional Feoffments are as a Sum in gross and not in nature of a Debt Which the rest of the Iustices granted CLII. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of a Mannor seased the same for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de Droit to the use of himself and his Heirs The Rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although in right the Rent passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for it is without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter c. It was moved further If here the Conusor be Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The Reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re-entry But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claimeth could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by the Act of Law 1 Inst 309. shall avow and shall re-enter without Attornment For the Conusor is in by the Statute of 27 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry the Father demands the Rent which is not paid the Father dieth the Son cannot re-enter For the Rent doth not belong unto him And therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusee cannot avow for the Rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter CLIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT is Enacted by the Statute of 5 Eliz. Cap. 8. That no person shall cut down any Oak Trees but between the first day of April and the last day of June but Timber imployed and bestowed in or about Buildings or Reparations of Houses c. And upon an Information upon that Statute the Defendant pleaded That he cut down the said Oak Trees and thereof made Laths to be bestowed in building and that he had sold them to J.S. who had imployed part of them in building and is imploying the residue in the same manner Windham The intent of the Defendant in cutting down the Oaks was not to have them imployed in building but to sell them Although it is not necessary for the satisfaction of that Statute that the Oaks presently after the cutting be imployed about building For if the Lessee of a Messuage who is to have House-bote seeing that his Messuage will want reparation cutteth down a Tree for such intent although there be not such urgent occasion at present that it ought to be presently repaired the same shall not be said Trespass for it is good Husbandry to have such Timber to be seasonable which cannot be without some reasonable time between the cutting down and the imployment Periam If at the time of the cutting the Vendor or Vendee had an intent to employ them about building it is good enough And it is a strong Case here because the Defendant imploys the Timber himself in Laths which is not of any use but for building and cannot be made but of Timber CLIV. Eve and Finch's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEter Eve and John Finch brought an Action of Trespass against Nathaniel Tracy and Margaret his Wife and upon the pleading the Case was that John Finch Father of J.F. the Plaintiff seised of the Mannor of St. Katherines held the same of the Queen by Knight service in Chief and was also seised of the Land where the Trespass was done being holden in Socage and so seised 6 Junij 20 Eliz. for the preferment of the said Margaret then his Wife enfeoffed of the said Mannor A. and B. unto the use of himself and the said Margaret and their Heirs And that the said John the Father had not any other Land but that before mentioned and that the said Mannor at the time of the said Feoffment and at the death of the said John the Father attingebat ad duas partes of all the Lands and Tenements of the said
been Objected that J. cannot be said to die within the Term because by the descent of the Fee the Term is extinct or suspended and so not in esse at the time of the death of J. therefore nothing did accrue to G. because J. did not die within the Term but that is but a Conceit for the intent of Vincent was that the Heir should not meddle with the Land Devised as Heir until the 31 years be expired and words During or Within the Term extend unto the time of the Term and not unto the Estate And although that the Term as to J. be extinct yet the right or possession of G. shall stand and shall be expectant upon the death of J. before the expiration of the said 31 years As A. leaseth for life to B. and afterwards granteth the Reversion with Warranty to C. who releaseth to B. in Fee who is impleaded in a Praecipe although now B. hath a Feesimple yet during his life he shall not recover in value And in the principal Case This further Interest limited to G. cannot be extinct or prevented See Plow Com. Welden and Elkingtons Case Beaumont contrary And that the Term is extinct because he hath the said Term in his own right and not as Executor but as a Man trusted with payment of Debts and Legacies But the same Term which J. had G. cannot have for some of the years are expired and the words of the Will are He shall have such Term but here the Term is utterly extinct As where a Rent Common or Way c. descendeth upon the Ter-Tenant 2 H. 4. A Prior had an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards he purchaseth the Advowson which is afterwards appropriated to his House now the Annuity is extinct and although the Prior afterwards presenteth to the Advowson yet it is-not revived Br. Extinguishment 54. A Man hath a Lease for years as Executor and purchaseth the Inheritance his Term is extinct yet it is Assets c. And it is said in Bracebridges Case Plow Com. 419. 14 Eliz. that Parson Patron and Ordinary Lease for years the Glebe Lands of the Parsonage the Parson dieth the Lessee for years becomes Parson and dieth his Executors shall not have the residue of the said Term for the Term is extinct 1 Inst 338. b. 2 Roll. 472. although he had the Term in his own right and the Freehold in the right of his Church and so in several Capacities And it was holden by some that if the Term for years comes to the Lessor as Executor who dieth the Term is revived Manwood Chief Baron asked this Case of those who Argued A Lease is made for 21 years Proviso That the Lessee shall suffer the Lessor to enjoy the same or to take the profits thereof during the life of the Lessor or so long as the Lessor shall live if the same were a good Proviso or not Pigot Conceived that the Devise to G. was a new Devise and not dependant upon the first Devise to J. nor any parcel of it but this second Devise to G. did take away the absolute Devise to J. before and qualified it so as it determined with his death The words Such Estate shall be intended an Estate to G. to be granted from the death of the Testator Land is Devised to A. and his Heirs and he if dieth without Heir that it shall remain to another the same is no good Devise But a Devise to one and his Heirs and if J.S. dieth living the Devisee B. shall have it the same is good for it is a new Devise and an Estate created de Novo and doth not depend as a Remainder upon the first Devise or upon the first Estate devised as the Case is 29 Ass 17. Br. Condition 111. and Devise 16. So here are several Estates limited one to J. and another to G. which Estate of G. cannot be extinct by unity of possession in J. These words If he die within the Term shall be construed for Effluxion of the time of 31 years and not for the Termination of the Term. Cooper Serjeant to the contrary J. took this Term as purchasor and not as Executor for that no Term was in the Testator See 14 Eliz. Dyer 309. Granmer's Case G. shall have such Term and Interest as before I have willed unto J. Manwood Such Term that is to say The Residue of the Term. Now at another day the Barons delivered their Opinions that the Plaintiff should recover and that was now G. to whom the second Term was devised And by Manwood in Construction of Wills all the words of the Will are to be compared together so as there by not any repugnancy between all the parts of the Will or between any of them so that all may stand And the Intent of the Testator was That his Son J. should have the Lands for 31 years if he so long lived and if he died within the Term That G. his Son should have such Term. And he held That the same was in J. an Estate by Limitation and he could not sell it nor could it be extinct by Act in Law or of the Law. It was a Lease determinable by his death and so shall be the Lease of G. determinable upon his own death and G. upon the death of J. within the Term shall have the residue of the number of the years limited by the former Devise scil so many in number as were not expired in the life of J. who was first Executor to that special purpose Gent Baron to the same intent here he hath the same Term as Executor and it is not like a-Term devised which the party hath as Legatee but in our Case he hath only authority in this Lease as Executor and the Land was tied to the time and the Authority and when the same determines in his person then the Land departs from him to G. who was a special Executor to that purpose as J. was before And G. had not the same Term which J. had but such a Term. Clerk Baron acc And he said that the Will was further that if G. died before his Debts paid and his Will performed and the Iury finding all the special matter concluded that if the Term limited to J. be extinct then they find for the Defendant And he held clearly that J. had this Term of 21 years as Executor and that by the discent of the Inheritance to J. the Term as to himself was gone But as to Creditors and to the Legatees it shall be said in esse and be Assets in his hands And because that the Term as to that purpose shall be said in esse he died within the Term within the intent of the said Will. And this word Term is Vox polysema Terminus status Terminus temporis Terminus loci And in our Case the word Term hath reference to time and not to estate for the Testator did respect the time in which his Will might be performed
hath not any estate in the later Acre for the cause aforesaid Afterwards It was moved What thing passed to the second Son by that Devise And the Lord Anderson conceived That the words in the Will Usually Occupied with it did amount to as much as Land let with it and then the 60 Acres were not let with it and therefore did not pass Windham Iustice held the contrary and he said Although they do not pass by the words Occupied with it yet it shall pass to the Son by the name of Jacks or the Lands appertaining to Jacks To which Anderson mutata opinione afterwards agreed CLXXXIV Wroth and the Countess of Sussex Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 6. Rep. 33. 1 Len. 35. 4 Len. 61. THe Case was this In Anno 4 5 of King Philip and Queen Mary A private Act of Parliament was made by which it was Enacted That the Mannor of Burnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture with a Proviso in the Act That it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to may a Lease or Leases for 21 years and afterwards a year before the first Lease was ended he made another Lease for 21 years and this second Lease was to begin and take effect from the end of the first Lease And if this second Lease were a good Lease within the intent and meaning of the Act was the Question Popham the Queens Attorny General said That it was not 1. Because it was a Lease to begin at a day to come And 2. Because it was made before the first Lease was ended But he said It may be Objected That the Act saith Lease or Leases It is not the sense of the Act that he might make Leases in the Reversion but the sense and meaning of the Makers of the Act was That he might make Leases in possession and not Leases in futuro for if it should be so then he might make a Lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the meaning of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and Sir Walter Mildmay Knight have a Commission from the Queen to make Leases of the Queens Lands for 21 years because the Queen would not be troubled It was holden That by virtue of that Commission they could not make any Leases but Leases in possession only But all other Leases which did exceed the Term of 21 years and in Reversion were to pass by the hands of the Queen and her Attorny General and not by them only by virtue of their said Commission And if I grant to one power before the Statute to make Leases of my Land for 21 years he cannot make any Lease but only Leases in possession and he cannot Lease upon Lease for by the same reason that he might make one Lease to begin in futuro by the same reason he might make 20 several Leases to begin in futuro and so frustrate the Intent of the Act. It was Marshall's Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops The Bishop of Canturbury made a Lease to him for one and twenty years and afterwards he made a Lease unto another for 21 years to begin at the end of the first Lease And it was holden That the second Lease was void But in the great Case which was in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Point There the second Lease was in possession and to begin presently and to run on with the other Lease and therefore it was adjudged to be good because the Land was charged with more than 21 years in the whole And if the Earl had done so here it had been a good Lease Wray Iustice said That if the second Lease had been made but two or three years before the expiration of the first Lease that then it had been utterly void but being made but 2 or 3 days or months before the expiration of the first Lease he doubted If it should be void or not The Statute of 32 H. 8. makes Leases for 21 years to be good from the day of the date thereof And a Lease was made to begin at a day to come And yet it was holden by two of the Iustices in the Court of Common Pleas That it was a good Lease And by two other Iustices of the same Court it was holden the Lease was not good And Clench Iustice said That there was no difference If it be by one Deed or by two Deeds And therefore he held That if the Earl had made a Lease for 21 years and within a year another the same had been void if it were by one Deed or two Deeds for that he did exceed his authority And he said In the principal Case If there had not been a Proviso he could not have made a Lease and therefore the Proviso which gave a power to make a Lease for 21 years should be taken strictly There was a Case of the Lord Marquess of c. that it should be lawful for him to make Leases for 21 years by a Statute And he made another Lease to begin after the end or expiration of the first Lease and it was doubted Whether it were a good Lease or not because he had not made any Lease before But if both were made by force of the Statute all held That the second Lease was void At another day the Case was argued by Daniel for the Lease in Reversion to begin at a day to come And he said That in a Statute the words alone are not to be considered but also the meaning of the parties and they are not to be severed Also he said That a Statute-Law is to be expounded by the Common-Law And by the Common-Law If one giveth power unto another to make Leases of his Lands he might make Leases in Reversion because an Authority is to be taken most beneficially for them for whose cause it was given So that if a Man grant an authority to another to make Estates of his Lands by those general words he may make Leases for years or for life Gifts in tail Feoffments or any Estates whatsoever If one gives a Commission to another to make Leases for one and twenty years of his Lands he may make a Lease in Reversion and so it was holden in the Dutchy in the Case between Alcock and Hicks Also he said That this Lease was a good Lease by the Statute-Law For the Statute of Rich. 3. gives authority to Cestuy que Use that he may make Estates in Reversion The Statute of 27 H. 8. which gives authority to the Chief Officer of the Court of Surveyors to make Leases if it had stayed there he might have made Leases in Reversion Therefore the Statute goes further and saith Proviso That he shall not make a Lease in Reversion See 19 Eliz. Dyer 357. The Statute of 35 H. 8. of Leases to be made by the Husbands
returned the Court cannot mitigate the damages p. 150 A second Writ of enquiry of damages where not grantable p. 177 The Plaintiff in Replevin is Non-suit the Court may assess damages without a Writ of Enquiry p. 213 Debt Lachess in pleading it where turn to his prejudice p. 63 Against the Heir a general judgment shall be given in it against him by reason of his false Plea p. 70 Lyeth not by an Inn-keeper for Dyet and Lodging in the Inn where there is not a price agreed for it certain p. 161 Where must be in the Debet where in the Detinet and of what p. 206 260 Declaration In Trespass against the Defendant Simul cum J.S. Out-lawed ad Sectam Querentis not good p. 202 Where void for the incertainty of the thing demanded by it p. 228 Deeds Of Assignment made to the King out of Term upon a day in Term which is not dies juridicus if good p. 146 Demurrer Difference between drawing up of a Demurrer upon a Plea and upon a Challenge p. 222 Deprivation Where pleadable specially where generally p. 199 Devastavit Executor of an Enfant not charged with a Devastavit made by the Executor of the first Testator p. 241 Devises Construction of them p. 25 181 Words equally divided in it amount to a Tenancy in Common p. 19 Of Rent of Lands towards education of the Son how to be expounded p. 65 Made good by Averment p. 79 Where void by the Statute of 32 H. 8. p. 105 That his Sons in Law shall sell his Lands how to be construed p. 106 Of a possibility where not good nor shall go to Executors p. 195 Of a Messuage cum pertinentiis the Curtilage and Garden passeth p. 214 Distress Upon the Glebe-Lands for Tenths and First-Fruits and where the Lessee of the Cattel shall be distrained for the same p. 259 E. EJectione Firmae De uno Cubiculo good p. 210 Election Where not transferrable over p. 211 Where the Party hath election to take by Grant or Confirmation p. 127 Entry Of a Stranger upon the Farmer of the Kings Lessee for years he hath gained the Term p. 206 Error Matter not within the Record not to be assigned for Error p. 96 If it lieth to reverse a Judgment given for the King without a Petition first sued p. 155 Lieth to reverse a Judgmene in Covenant because all the Covenanters joyned not in the Action though the Covenant was in quolibet qualibet p. 161 Where lieth not in C. B. upon a recovery had before Justices of Assise p. 159 Eviction Where a Decree in Chancery shall not be said a lawful Eviction by which a Condition shall be broken p. 71 Evidence In a Writ of Right the Tenant shall begin to give Evidence because he is in the affirmative p. 162 Evidence given where shall conclude the Party but not the Jurors ad dicendam veritatem p. 209 Executors Where their Distress for the Arrearages of a Rent Charge is good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Rents p. 263 Where they might satisfie Debts due upon Judgments before Debts due upon Statutes or otherwise p. 271 Executions Sued forth upon a Statute to A. shall be served before a private Statute to B. though the Statute to B. be assigned to the King p. 239 240 By Capias ad Satisfaciendum sued out within the year though not prosecuted for two or three years after together yet the Party may proceed upon it without a Scire Facias p. 259 Debt is recovered by an Administrator durante minore aetate and Execution had and when the Executor comes of age how the Party shall be discharged p. 278 F. FEoffments Livery and Seisin made by Attorny where good to pass the Lands where not p. 37 Of a Mannor An Advowson Appendant shall pass but not the Services if there be no Attornment p. 193 To divers Persons to the use of his Will and afterwards wills the Feoffees shall stand seised till they have levied 100 l. good although in Feoffees at the time of the Devise p. 262 Fines levied Upon a Release not enure to an use p. 36 Where shall make a discontinuance where not p. 74 Where a Bar where not p. 74 Remainder is limited in tail to J. S. and the Heirs of his Body to begin after the death of the Tenant for life If a Fine be levied by him with Proclamation in the life of the Tenant for life shall bar the Issue p. 211 Where a Bar to a Woman in Dower because she pursued not her Claim within five years p. 221 Forfeiture What shall be a forfeiture within the Statute of 11 H. 7. Lessee for years in debt for rent claimed fee by bargain and sale of his Lessor which was traversed by the Lessor yet a forfeiture p. 169 Forprise Where needful to be mentioned where not p. 93 G. GRants of the King p. 10 Void because the King is deceived in them p. 5 119 Not to enure to a double intent p. 75 By the King of Bona Catalla felonum utlagatorum yet the King shall have the Goods of Felo de se p. 113 Where the Church is void by the grant of the King of the Mannor with the Advowson appendant the Advowson shall not pass p. 196 Of Fines pro licentia concordandi doth not extend to Post-Fines p. 234 How to be construed p. 242 to 253 Grants of common persons Where shall enure by way of confirmation Of all Goods and Chattels passeth a Lease for years Restrained and not to extend to things in future p. 29 Of the Office of Register by a Bishop where good where not p. 30 Of a Rent-charge out of his Lands after J. S. dies without issue of his body J.S. dies having issue which issue dies without issue if a good Grant p. 103 Where the mistaking and misrecital in them shall not make void their Grants p. 136 H. HAbeas Corpus Where granted for one committed to the Marshalsey by the Chamberlain of the Houshold one of the Privy Council p. 194 Heir Where he shall be adjudged in by descent notwithstanding a Devise to him p. 118 Of a Copyholder within age not bound to come to any Court during his Non-age to pray admittance or render a Fine p. 221 I. INdictments Upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. Quare Intravit in unum Tenementum not good for the incertainty but if a Tenementum with divers Acres good for the Acres p. 102 Certified and found to be taken before Justices of Assise and Goal-delivery where not good p. 216 Upon the Statute of 5 El. of Perjury question'd because it wanted the word voluntary p. 230 Against three persons for extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiously extorted excessive Fees good though their offences were several p. 268 Informations Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. for cutting down of Trees being a penal Law how to be expounded p. 104 Of intrusion upon the Possession of the King