Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	good_a	life_n	16,696	5	4.8534	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64753	The reports and arguments of that learned judge Sir John Vaughan Kt. late chief justice of His Majesties court of Common Pleas being all of them special cases and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas ; at the time he was chief justice there / published by his son Edward Vaughan, Esq.	England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.; Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.; Vaughan, Edward, d. 1688.	1677 (1677)	Wing V130; ESTC R716	370,241	492

arrear and impounded them And Traverseth the Conversion and taking in other manner Vpon Demurrer to this Plea all the Court held the Plea to be bad and gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff 1. Because the Rent was determined by the death of the Grantee because no Occupant could be of it 2. Because the Feme was no Assignee by her taking of Administration 3. None can make title to a Rent to have it against the terr Tenant unless he be party to the Deed or make sufficient title under it Moore 664. p. 907. Salter vers Boteler The same Case is in Moore reported to be so adjudg'd because the Rent was determined by the death of the Grantee and Popham said That if a Rent be granted pur auter vie the Remainder over to another and the Grantee dies living Cestuy que vie the Remainder shall commence forthwith because the Rent for life determined by the death of the Grantee which last Case is good Law For the particular Estate in the Rent must determine when none could have it and when the particular Estate was determined the Remainder took place And as the Law is of a Rent so must it be of any thing which lies in Grant as a several Tithe doth whereof there can be no Occupant when it is granted pur auter vie and the Grantee dies in the life of Cestuy que vie 20 H. 6. f. 7 8. This is further cleared by a Case in 20 H. 6. A man purchas'd of an Abbot certain Land in Fee-farm rendring to the Abbot and his Successors Twenty pounds yearly Rent If all the Monks dye this Rent determined because there is none that can have it It lies not in Tenure and therefore cannot Escheat and though new Monks may be made it must be by a new Creation wholly In vacancy of a Parson or Vicar the Ordinary ex officio shall cite to pay the Tithes Fitz. N. Br. Consultation Lett. G. This Case agrees exactly with the Grant of a Rent or other thing which lies in Grant pur auter vie the Grantee dying the Rent determines though it were a good Grant and enjoyed at first yet when after none can have it it is determined So was the Rent to the Abbot and his Successors a good Rent and well enjoyed But when after all the Covent died so as none could have the Rent for the Body Politique was destroyed the Rent determined absolutely By this I hold it clear That if a man demise Land to another and his Heirs habendum pur auter vie or grant a Rent to a man and his Heirs pur auter vie though the Heir shall have this Land or Rent after the Grantees death yet he hath it not as a special Occupant as the common expression is for if so such Heir were an Occupant which he is not for a special Occupant must be an Occupant but he takes it as Heir not of a Fee but of a descendible Freehold and not by way of limitation as a Purchase to the Heir but by descent though some Opinions are that the Heir takes it by special limitation as when an Estate for life is made the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. S. the Heir takes it by special limitation if there be an Heir when the particular Estate ends But I see not how when Land or Rent is granted to a man and his Heirs pur auter vie the Heir should take by special limitation after the Grantees death when the whole Estate was so in the first Grantee that he might assign it to whom he pleas'd and so he who was intended to take by special limitation after the Grantees death should take nothing at all But to inherit as Heir a descendible Freehold when the Father or other Ancestor had not dispos'd it agrees with the ancient Law as appears by Bracton which obiter in Argument is denied in Walsinghams Case Si autem fiat donatio sic Bract. l. 2. de acquirendo rerum dominico c. 9. Ad vitam donatoris donatorio haeredibus suis si donatorius praemoriatur haeredes ei succedent tenendum ad vitam donatoris per Assisam mortis Antecessoris recuperabunt qui obiit ut de feodo Here it is evident That Land granted to a man and his Heirs for the life of the Grantor the Grantee dying in the life of the Grantor the Heirs of the Grantee were to succeed him and should recover by a Writ of Mordancester in case of Abatement which infallibly proves the Heir takes by descent who died seis'd as of a Fee but not died seis'd in Fee 1. Hence I conclude That if a man dye seis'd pur auter vie of a Rent a Tithe an Advowson in gross Common in gross or other thing whereof there can be no Occupancy either directly or by consequence as adjuncts of something else by the death of the Grantee in all these Cases the Grant is determined and the Interest stands as before any Grant made 2. If any man dye seis'd of Land pur auter vie as also of many of these things in gross pur auter vie by distinct Grant from the Land The Occupant of the Land shall have none of these things but they are in the same state and the Grants determine as if the Grantee had died seis'd of nothing whereof there could be any occupancy But I must remember you that in this last part of my Discourse where I said That if a Rent a Tithe a Common or Advowson in gross or the like lying in Grant were granted pur auter vie and the Grantee died living Cestuy que vie that these Grants were determin'd my meaning was and is where such Rent Tithe or other things are singly granted and not where they are granted together with Land or any other thing out of which Rent may issue with Reservation of a Rent out of the whole For although a Rent cannot issue out of things which lye in Grant as not distrainable in their nature yet being granted together with Land with reservation of a Rent though the Rent issue properly and only out of the Land and not out of those things lying in Grant as appears by Littleton yet those are part of the Consideration for payment of the Rent Cok. Litt. f. 142. a. 144. a. as well as the Land is In such case when the Rent remains still payable by the Occupant it is unreasonable that the Grant should determine as to the Tithe or as to any other thing lying in Grant which passed with the Land as part of the Consideration for which the Rent was payable and remain to the Lessor as before they were granted for so the Lessor gives a Consideration for paying a Rent which he enjoys and hath notwithstanding the Consideration given back again And this is the present Case being stript and singled from such things as intricate it That Doctor Mallory Prebend of the Prebendary of Woolney consisting of Glebe-land

one Richard Manfell his Clerk who upon his Presentation obtain'd the said Vicaridge and was in actual possession thereof and so being in possession a Statute was made the 25th of April 12. of the King for confirmation and establishing of Ministers in their Ecclesiastick Possessions ordained by any Ecclesiastick Persons before the 25th of December then last past And that the said Richard Manfell by vertue of the said Statute was real and lawful Incumbent and Vicar of the said Vicaridge That the said Lord Wootton and Mary his Wife being seised of the said third part of the said Mannor and Rectory aforesaid for their lives with remainder as aforesaid the said Lord Wootton so seised dyed at Burton Basset aforesaid That the said Mary survived him and was thereof sole seised for term of her life by Survivorship And being thereof so seised with Remainder as aforesaid The said Margaret married the said John Tufton and after the 8th day of August 22. Car. 1. By a writing under her hand and seal produc'd in Court by the said John Tufton dated the same day and year appointed that the said Fine leavyed as aforesaid in the 4th year of the King should be and the Conusees therein named should stand seised of the said third part to the use of the said Margaret and of the said John Tufton for term of his life as by the said writing more fully appears By vertue of the said Fine and Statute of uses the remainder of the said third part after the death of the said Mary belong'd to the said John Tufton and Margaret for term of the said Johns life with remainder as aforesaid That the said Mary being seised of the said third Part with remainder over as aforesaid the said Margaret at Burton Basset aforesaid dyed without issue of her body and the said John Tufton surviv'd her That the said Mary afterwards at Burton Basset aforesaid dyed seised of such her Estate after whose death the said third part remain'd to the said John Tufton who was thereof seised for term of his life with remainder over to the Heirs of the Lord Wootton That the said Tufton being so seised in a Statute made at Westminster begun the 8th day of May in the 13th year of his reign and there continued until the 19th of May in the 14th year of his reign It was among other things enacted That Parsons Vicars and other Churchmen being Incumbents of any Ecclesiastical Living should subscribe the Declaration or Recognition set forth in the said Act in manner as by the said Act is recited which is set forth at large in the Pleading upon pain of forfeiting the said Parsonage Vicaridge or other Ecclesiastical Living and to be ipso facto deprived of the same And the said John Tufton in fact saith that the said Richard Mansell was in possession of the said Vicaridge of Burton Basset and did not as by the Act was required subscribe the said Declaration whereby he stood ipso facto deprived and the said Vicaridge became void That such vacancy of the said Vicaridge is the third vacancy thereof after the aforesaid Presentation of the said Lord Wootton and therefore it belongs to the said John Tufton to present a fit Person to the same and that the said Bishop Richard Temple and Chamberlayne do hinder him so to do to his damage of fifty Pounds The said Bishop and Richard Temple plead in Bar. And first the said Bishop That he claims nothing but as Ordinary Then the said Richard Temple saith the said Tufton ought not to have his Action against him and taking by Protestation that the said Tufton was not seis'd in his Demesn as of Freehold for Term of his life of the third part of the said Mannor of Burton Basset and of the third part of the said Rectory of Burton Basset aforesaid for Plea saith That he the said Richard Temple was and yet is seised of the said two parts of the said Mannor and of the Advowson of the Vicaridge of Burton Basset aforesaid as appertaining to the said two parts of the said Mannor in his Demesne as of Fee and right in the time of the King that now is That being so seised the said Vicaridge became void by the said Deprivation of the said Richard Manfell by reason whereof he the said Richard Temple being seised of the said Advowson as aforesaid presented to the said Vicaridge the said Chamberlain as was lawful for him then traverseth absque hoc That one third Part of the Advowson of the said Vicaridge namely to present a fit person to the same Vicaridge every third turn of the said Vicaridge doth appertain to the said one third part of the said Mannor and to the said one third part of the Rectory Impropriate of Burton Basset as the said John Tufton hath alledg'd which he is ready to aver and demands Judgment And the said Chamberlaine the Clerk taking by Protestation that he doth not know any the matters in the Declaration to be true and taking also by Protestation that before the said Vicaridge became void by the Deprivation of the said Richard Manfell and at the time it was so void the said Richard Temple was and yet is seised of the said two parts of the said Mannor and of the Advowson of the Vicaridge of the said Church of Burton Basset as appertaining to the said two parts of the said Mannor in his Demesne as of Fee and right And for Plea saith That he the said Chamberlain is Vicar of the said Vicaridge by the Presentation of the said Richard Temple and was thereto admitted instituted and inducted Then traverseth absque hoc That the said Thomas Lord Wootton after the death of the said John Reignalds so as aforesaid presented to the said Vicaridge being void in his turn the said John Cragg as the said Tufton hath alledg'd and demands Judgment As to the Bishops Plea his excuse is admitted and the Plaintiff hath Iudgment with a cessat executio against him and a Writ to admit idoneam personam to the Vicaridge non obstante reclamatione To the Defendant Temples Plea the Plaintiff demurs and the Defendant Temple joyns in Demurrer To the Plea of Chamberlain the Incumbent the Plaintiff replys That the said Thomas Lord Wootton after the death of the said John Reignalds Incumbent as aforesaid presented to the said Vicaridge then vacant in his turn as aforesaid the said John Cragg as the Plaintiff hath formerly alleag'd Et de hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam To which the Defendant Chamberlain doth not rejoyn any thing nor joyns in issue and therefore the Plaintiff hath Judgment to recover his Presentation as against him and a Writ to the Bishop non obstante reclamatione and to remove the Defendant Chamberlain from the Vicaridge notwithstanding his Admission Institution and Induction but with a cessat executio until the Plea be determined between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Temple THIS CASE in fact cannot be

of them constituent parts of the Prebendary or Rectory as the Services are of a Mannor for a total severance of the Services and Demesne destroy the Mannor but a severance of the Tithe or Glebe will not destroy the Rectory more than the severance of a Mannor parcel of the possessions of a Bishoprick will destroy the Bishoprick for the Glebe and the Tithe are but several possessions belonging to the Rectory But it is true that in the Case before us and like Cases a Grant of the Prebendary or of the Rectory una cum terra Glebali decimis de Woolney The Tithe which alone cannot pass without Deed doth pass by Livery of the Rectory Browlow part 2. f. 201. Rowles and Masons Case and so pass that though the Deed mentions the Tithe to be pass'd yet if Livery be not given which must be to pass the Land the Tithe will not pass by the Deed because the intention of the parties is not to pass them severally but una cum and together Therefore the Tithe in such Case must pass in time by the Livery which did not pass without it though granted by the Deed. Yet it is a Question Whether in such Case the Tithe passeth by the Livery or by the Deed For though the passing it by Deed is suspended by reason of the intention to pass the Land and Tithe together and not severally it follows not but that the Tithe passeth by the Deed where Livery is given though not until Livery given If a man be seis'd of a Tenement of Land and likewise of a Tithe and agrees to sell them both and without Deed gives Livery in the Tenement to the Bargainee in name of it and of the Tithe I conceive the Tithe doth not pass by that Livery But a Prebend or Church man cannot now by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. make a Lease of the possessions of his Prebendary without Deed. 13 Eliz. c. 10. A Prebendary or Rectory is in truth neither the Glebe nor Tithe nor both for the one or the other may be recover'd and might at Common Law have been aliened the Rectory remaining But the Rectory is the Church Parochial whereof the Incumbent taketh the Cure and Seisin by his Induction after his Institution which is his Charge and without other Seisin then of the Ring or Key of the Church-door by Induction into the Rectory the Parson is seis'd of all the possessions belonging to his Rectory of what kind soever But though by the name of the Rectory the possessions belonging to it of what nature soever actually vest in the Incumbent upon Induction and may pass from the Prebendary by Livery of the Prebend or Rectory to his Lessee according to the parties intention Yet it follows not That therefore an Occupant who can be Occupant but of some natural and permanent thing as Land is should by being Occupant of that whereof occupancy may be have thereby some other thing heterogene to the nature of Land and not capable of occupancy as a Tithe is being neither appendant or appurtenant or necessary part of that whereof he is Occupant nor will it follow that because by giving Seisin of the Rectory the Tithe and Glebe belonging to it will pass that therefore giving Livery of the Glebe will pass the Tithe For it is observable That if a man be Tenant in tayl of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant or of a Tenement to which a Common is belonging and discontinue the Issue in tayl shall never have the Advowson or Common until he hath recontinued the Mannor or Tenement But if a man be seis'd in tayl of a Rectory consisting of Glebe and Tithe and discontinue it after the death of Tenant in tayl the Heir in tayl shall have the Tithe which lay in grant but must recover by Formedon the Rectory and Glebe This was agreed in this Court in a Case between Christopher Baker and Searl in Ejectment Cr. 37 El. f. 407. p. 19. Baker and Searls Case upon a Demise by the Earl of Bedford of the Rectory of D. de decimis inde provenientibus for Lives of three other persons and that Case seems to admit an occupancy of the Tithe the Question being concerning the Tithe only Quest 3 The next Question will be That if Taverner being Occupant of the House and Land shall not have the Tithe whereof Astly was in possession at the time of his death what shall become of this Tithe during the lives of the Cestuy que vies which is the hard question And as to this Question If a Rent be granted to A. for the life of B. and A. dies living B I conceive this Rent to be determined upon the death of A. equally as if granted to him for his own life I say determined because it is not properly extinguish'd nor is it suspended For Extinguishment of a Rent is properly when the Rent is absolutely conveyed to him who hath the Land out of which the Rent issues or the Land is convey'd to him to whom the Rent is granted And Suspension of a Rent is when either the Rent or Land are so convey'd not absolutely and finally but for a certain time after which the Rent will be again reviv'd The Reasons why it is determined are because a thing so granted as none can take by the Grant is a void Grant that is as if no such Grant had been Therefore a Grant to the Bishop of L. and his Successors when there is no Bishop in being at the time or to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls or to the Mayor and Commonalty of such a place when there is no Dean or Mayor living at the time of the Grant is a void Grant that is as if it had not been though such a Grant by way of Remainder may be good By the same Reason it follows That when any thing is so granted that upon some contingent hapning none can take by the Grant nor possibly have the thing granted both the Grant and thing granted must necessarily determine for what difference is there between saying that Rent can no longer be had when it is determined by his death for whose life it was granted and saying none can longer have this Rent when it determines by the death of the Grantee pur auter vie For there is no Assignee Occupant or any other can possibly have it and it is therefore determined In an Action of Trover and Conversion brought by Salter against Boteler Salter versus Boteler 44 El. Cr. 901. the Defendant justifies for that one Robert Bash was seis'd in Fee of Twenty Acres in Stansted and granted a Rent-charge to another Robert Bash his Executors and Assigns during the life of Frances the Grantees Wife of Sixteen pounds per Annum The Grantee dies and Frances his wife takes Letters of Administration and the Defendant as her Servant and by her command took a Distress in the said Twenty Acres for Rent

the said William to be begotten of her the said Anne Infeoffed James Lane and John Lane Gentlemen of the said Premisses Habendum to them their heirs and assigns for ever To the use of the said William Vescy the Feoffer and his assigns for term of his life without impeachment of Waste and after to the use of the said Anne the Tenant if the Marriage succeeded between them for term of her life for her Joynture and after her decease to the use of the heirs males of his body on her body begotten forever and for want of such issue to the use of the heirs females of him the said William Vescy upon her body begotten and for want of such issue to the use of the right heirs of him the said William Vescy And bound him and his heirs to warrant the premisses as aforesaid to the said Feoffees and their Heirs to the uses aforesaid By vertue whereof and of the Statute of Uses the said William was seis'd for term of his life with the Remainder over as aforesaid And after the said marriage was had and solemnized between him and the Tenant Arine That William died so seis'd without any issue of his body and Anne surviv'd him and entred and by vertue of the said Feoffment and the Statute of Uses is seis'd in her Demesne as of Freehold for term of her life And that the said warranty of the said William descended from him to the said Elizabeth and Sarah as Cosins and Coheirs of him the said William the Son that is to say Daughters and Coheirs of John Vescy Brother and Heir of the said William the Son and demands Iudgment if against the said Warranty the Demandants shall be received to demand and avers her self and Anne Hewett named in the Feoffment to be the same person The Replication The Demandants reply and confess the Feoffment to uses of William as is pleaded in Barr to Lane and Lane and their heirs with warranty But further say That the said William Vescy the Son after that is the Four and twentieth of December 14 Car. 2. at Tickhill aforesaid died without any issue of his body which they are ready to aver and demand Iudgment if they shall be barred of their Action against the said Anne by the said Feoffment and warranty The Rejoynder Anne the Tenant rejoyns that the Replication is insufficient and demurs thereupon The matter of the Replication is all set forth in the Defendants Plea in Barr but only the time of William Vescy's death which was not material upon which the Demandants ought to have demur'd and not to have replyed impertinently The Case upon the Pleading William Vescy seis'd of the Land in question in his Demesne as of Fee held of King Charles the First in free Soccage as of his Honour of Tickhill by his last Will and Testament devis'd the same to John Vescy his eldest Son and the heirs males of his body and for default of such to Robert Vescy and the heirs males of his body and for default of such to William Vescy his Son and the heirs males of his body and for default of such to Matthew Vescy and the heirs males of his body and died Then John entred and died seis'd without issue male leaving two daughters Elizabeth and Sarah now Demandants together with their Husbands After his death Robert entred and died seis'd without issue male Then William entred and was seis'd and Matthew in the life of William died without issue male William by his Deed Indented in Consideration of an intended marriage with Anne the now Tenant and for other Considerations infeoffed James Lane and John Lane Habendum to them and their Heirs to the use of William the Feoffor for term of his life and after to the use of Anne Hewet now the Tenant for her life then to the use of the heirs males of his body upon her begotten and for default of such to the use of the heirs females of his body on her begotten and for default of such to the use of his right Heirs And bound him and his Heirs to warrant to the said Feoffees and their Heirs William by vertue of the said Feoffment and of the Statute of Uses was possessed and after he married the now Tenant and died seis'd as of his Freehold without any issue of his body After his death Anne his wife now Tenant by vertue of the said Feoffment and Statute of Uses entred and was posssessed Against whom Elizabeth and Sarah Daughters and Coheirs of John Vescy and Cosins and Coheirs of William the Devisor bring their Formedon in the Reverter Anne the Tenant in possession would rebutt and barr them by the said warranty of William Vescy the Son whose Cosins and Coheirs they are videlicet the Daughters and Coheirs of John eldest Brother of the said William And whether the said Anne Tenant by the said Feoffment and Statute of Uses can rebutt them by the said warranty is the general Question For Resolution of which I must make these previous Questions The first is If before the Statute of 27 H. 8. to Vses Tenant in tayl had made a Feoffment in Fee to uses with warranty to the Feoffees and their Heirs such Feoffees in a Formedon in the Reverter brought against them by the Heirs of the Donor could have rebutted and barr'd them by the warranty of the Tenant in tayl For if the Feoffees to use in such case could not have barr'd the Heirs of the Donor before the Statute by the warranty it is evident the Cestuy que use since the Statute cannot barr them for he can have no more power since the Statute than the Feoffees to use had before the Statute by the warranty I put the Case before the Statute for clearness sake only for though since the Statute there are Feoffees to use as before yet no question can be made upon their rebutter by a warranty because the Estate is out of them by the Statute as soon as it is in them And as to this the Case in effect is no more than Whether the warranty of Tenant in tayl which must be admitted to be a Collateral warranty descending upon the Donor or his Heirs will barr him or them of the Reversion The second Question I make admitting the Heirs of the Donor to be barr'd by the warranty of Tenant in tayl descending upon them is Whether after the Statute of Uses the Cestuy que use can have any benefit of the warranty granted to the Feoffees to use either by way of Voucher or Rebutter Because the Cestuy que use is not in possession in the per by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Uses The third Question is admitting generally that the Cestuy que use shall have benefit of the warranty made to the Feoffees to use Whether yet in this Case Anne the Tenant being a Cestuy que use shall have benefit of the warranty made to the Feoffees Because neither William

pleaded the warranty and that the Heir if a stranger had impleaded him was bound to warrant the Estate and therefore demanded Judgment if the Heir himself should implead him 1. It is there agreed if the warranty had attach'd the Heir before the Lords entry the Heir had been bound but quaere 2. By that Book it seems the Lord impleaded by a Stranger might have vouch'd the Heir if the warranty had attach'd him before the Lords entry But in this Case it appears the Lord was no formal Assignee of the Villains for this warranty must be as to an Assignee for the Estate warranted was but for life and the Lords Estate was only by order of the Law A third Case of this nature is Where the Ancestor granted Lands to a Bastard with warranty but how far the warranty extended as to the Heirs or Heirs and Assigns of the Bastard appears not in the Case the Bastard died without Issue and consequently without Heir the L. by Escheat entred upon whom the Heir entred the warranty of his Ancestor having not attach'd him before the Bastards death for it seems this was in a Case where the Heir might have entred in his Ancestors life time so avoided his warranty as in the former case of the L. of a Villain by the Book the warranty having not attach'd him during the Bastards life the Lord by Escheat could have no benefit of it but if it had attach'd him he might ut videtur In this Case if the warranty were to the Bastard and his Heirs only it determined he dying without Issue and then there could be no Rebutter or Voucher by the Lord by Escheat if the warranty had attach'd the Heir but if it were to him his Heirs and Assigns then the Lord whose title is by the Act and Disposition of the Law and not as Assignee in the per had notwithstanding the benefit of this warranty quod nota These Cases are mentioned in Lincoln Colledge Case and in Spirt and Bences Case in Cr. 1. and in both places admitted for Law Nor seems this very unreasonable That the warranty being an incident to the Estate warranted should accompany it where the Law dispos'd the Estate and Land warranted to all intents 2. In many Cases the Law disposing the Estate if the warranty attended it not the disposition made by the Law were in vain for without the warranty the Estate may be necessarily avoided Such persons who come to the Estate dispositione Legis are not properly in in the post but they modally have the Estate by consent both of the Warranter and Garrantee because they have it by the Act of Law Statute or Common to whose dispose every man is as much consenting and more solemnly than he is to his own private Deed. And after this way if the two last Cases be Law the Cestuy que use having his Estate by operation and appointment of the Statute of Uses of 27 H. 8. may have the benefit of the warranty attending the Estate though he be no formal Assignee or Heir to the Feoffees to use Many other Estates are of this kind as Tenant in Dower if endowed of all the Land warranted An Occupant Tenants by the Statute of 6 R. 2. c. 6. where the Feme consents to the Ravisher Tenant by 4 5 P. M. because the ward consented to her taking away without the Guardians consent Lands warranted which after become forfeited to the King or other Lords c. Quaere in the Cases of 22 Ass p. 37. 29 Ass p. 34. Whether notwithstanding the warranty had descended upon the Heir while the Lands were in the possession of the Villain in the first Case and of the Bastard in the second Case before any entry made by either Lord the Lands could have rebutted or vouched by reason of those warranties being in truth strangers to the warranty and not able to derive it to themselves any way But if after the warranty descended upon the Villain or Bastard the Villain or Bastard had been impleaded by the Heir and had pleaded the warranty against the Heir and had Judgment thereupon by way of Rebutter then the Lords might have pleaded this Judgment as conclusive and making the Villains Title or Bastard good against the Heir and the Heir should never have recover'd against the Lords And this seems the meaning of the Book 22 Ass p. 37. if well consider'd Though in Spirt and Bences Case no such difference is observ'd Caetera desiderantur The Court was in this Case divided viz. The Chief Justice and Justice Archer for the Demandant and Justice Wylde and Justice Atkins for the Tenant CONCERNING PROCESS Out of the COURTS at WESTMINSTER INTO WALES Of late times and how anciently Memorandum These Notes following were all wrote with the proper hand of the Chief Justice Sir John Vaughan and intended to be methodised by him in order to be delivered in Court A Man taken upon a Latitat in England 10 Jac. Bolstrode part 2. f. 54 55. Hall and Rotherams Case puts in two Welch men for his Bayl Judgment passing against him it was a Question Whether after a Capias ad Satisfaciendum issued against the Principal who was not to be found Process might issue into Wales which must be by Scire Facias first against the Bayl whereupon Mann the Secondary of the Kings Bench informed the Court that it had been so done in like Cases many times But the Court was likewise informed that Brownloe Chief Pronotary of the Common Pleas affirmed they did not then use to send such Process into Wales but only Process of Outlawry But Mann affirming that their Course was otherwise in the Kings Bench the Court awarded Process into Wales against the Bayl and said If the parties were grieved they might bring their Writ of Error 1. This Award of the Kings Bench hath no other Foundation to justifie it than Mann 's the Secondaries Information That the like had been often done which was his own doing possibly and never fell under the Consideration of the Court. 2. The Court weighed it no more than to say The parties grieved might have a Writ of Error which by the way must be into the Parliament for it concerned the Jurisdiction of the Court which the Act of 27 Eliz. for Errors in the Exchequer Chamber excepts and upon that ground any injustice might be done because the party wronged may have a Writ of Error 3. Brownloe the Chief Pronotary of the Common Pleas and a most knowing man affirm'd no such Process issued thence into Wales and but only Process of Outlawry So as this awarding of Process into Wales upon the usage of that Court affirmed by Mann is counter'd by the contrary usage of the Common Pleas affirmed by Brownloe Therefore that Book and Authority is of no moment to justifie the issuing of a Scire facias into Wales 11 Jac. Bolstrode part 2. f. 156 157. Bedo v. Piper The next Case

than many of his Predecessors have done particularly that most Learned and Reverend Judge the Lord Hobart whose single Opinions in many Cases publish'd being built upon excellent Reason carry great weight with them at this day whether the Author may be so fortunate Time must determine But I hope such as shall think fit to oppose such of his Opinions wherein he is singular will first Reverse the Reasons of them for if they be not vanquish'd the Conclusions thence deduc'd must prevail So Reader I commit him to you heartily wishing you the benefit design'd by this Publication WE all knowing the great Learning Wisdom and Integrity of the Author Do for the Common Benefit allow the publishing of these Reports and Arguments in the same Letter as now they are Printed Finch C. Ri. Raynsford Fra. North. Tho. Twisden W. Montagu W. Wylde Tim. Littleton Hugh Wyndham Rob. Atkyns Edward Thurland V. Bertie Tho. Jones Will. Scroggs REPORTS OF S ir John Vaughan LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Of the COURT of COMMON-PLEAS Hil. xvii xviii Caroli 2. Reg. C.B. Ro. 1032. John Tufton Knight and Baronet Plaint vers Rich. Temple Knight of the Bath and Bar. Chamberlain Hammersley Cl. John Bish of Lich. and Cov. Defen In a Quare Impedit for hindring him to present a fit Person to the Vicaridge of the Church of Burton-Basset in the County of Warwick being void and belonging to his Gift THE Plaintiff sets forth That whereas Thomas Temple Kt. and Bar. was seised of two third Parts of the Mannor of Burton Basset to which one third Part of the Advowson of the Vicaridge aforesaid that is to present a fit Person to the same Vicaridge the first time when the same then after should happen next to be void And after the same first Presentation then every third turn of the same Vicaridge being void for ever appertains and did appertain in his Demesne as of Fee And one Edward Wootton Kt. Lord Wootton was seised of one other third part of the Mannor aforesaid and of one third part of the Rectory Impropriate of Burton Basset To which third parts one other third part of the Advowson of the Vicaridge aforesaid that is to present a fit Person to the same Vicaridge the second turn when the same Vicaridge then after should happen next to be void And after the same second Presentation then every third turn of the same Vicaridge being void for ever doth appertain and then did appertain in his Demesn as of Fee That the said Thomas Temple was likewise seised of another third part of the Advowson of the Vicaridge aforesaid that is to present a fit Person to the same the third turn when the same Vicaridge then after should happen next to be void And after such third Presentation then every third turn of the same Vicaridge being void for ever Ut de uno grosso per se ut de feodo jure That the said Thomas Temple being seised of the two third parts of the said Mannor To which c. the said Vicaridge became void by the resignation of Thomas Freeman then last Incumbent That thereupon the said Thomas Temple presented in his turn to the said Vicaridge one John Reignalds his Clerk who was admitted instituted and inducted thereto in the time of the late King James That the said Edw. Wootton being seised of the said other third part of the said Mannor and third part of the Rectory aforesaid to which c. dyed thereof so seised at Burton Basset aforesaid That after his death the said third Parts to which c. descended to one Thomas Lord Wootton his Son and Heir whereby the said Thomas Lord Wootton became thereof seised in his Demesne as of Fee That being so seised he levyed a Fine of the said third Parts to which c. in the Common-Pleas 4. Car. 1. in octab S. Martini to Nicholas Pay Esq and Reignald Pay Gent. Com-Plainants the said Lord Wootton Mary his Wife and one Henry Wootton Knight deforc That the said Fine was to the use of the said Lord Wootton and Mary his Wife during their natural lives and the longer liver of them Then to the use of the first Son of the body of the Lord Wootton and the Heirs Males of the body of such first Son begotten and so to the sixth Son successively and the Heirs Males of their bodies and so to every other the Sons of the said Lord Wootton successively Then for default of such issue to the use of Margaret Wootton third daughter of the said Lord Wootton and Mary his Wife and of such Husband with whom the said Margaret should happen to marry for term of such husbands natural life If the said Margaret should so appoint the same per aliquod scriptum sub manu sigillis suis And of the Heirs Males of her body begotten for part of her marriage portion then to the use of the Heirs of her body begotten And for default of such to the use of the right Heirs of the said Thomas Lord Wootton for ever That by the said Fine and Statute of Uses the said Lord Wootton and Mary his wife were seised of the said two third parts to which c. for their Lives with the Remainders over as aforesaid That being so seised the said Vicaridge became void by the death of the said John Reignalds And the said Lord Wootton presented to the same in his turn one John Cragg who was accordingly instituted and inducted tempore Car. 1. That the said Tho. Temple being seised of the other third part of the said Advowson in gross levyed a Fine among other things of the said third part of the said Advowson to Edward Peeter and Thomas Peeter Esquires Com-plainants and the said Thomas Temple and Hester his wife being deforceants That this Fine was so levyed to the use of one William Peeter Esq and his Heirs That the said William Peeter being seised by vertue of the said Fine and Statute of Uses the said Vicaridge became void by the Resignation of the said John Cragg and the said William Peeter presented in his turn thereto one Robert Kenrick his Clerk who was accordingly admitted instituted and inducted tempore Car. 1. That the said Tho. Temple being seised of the said two third parts of the said Mannor to which c. dyed so seised at Burton Basset aforesaid That after his death the said two third Parts to which c. descended to one Peter Temple his Son and Heir who was thereof seised and dyed so seised That after his death the same descended to the said Richard Temple his Son and Heir who was and yet is seised of the said two third Parts That being so seised the said Vicaridge became void by the death of the said Robert Kenrick which vacancy was the third vacancy of the said Vicaridge after the said first Presentation of the said Thomas Temple That the said Richard 12. Decembris anno 1654. presented to the said Vicaridge in his turn

said William Paul dyed at Oxford That after his death the Defendant was elected Bishop of Oxford and after and before the Writ purchased viz. the 27. of November 1665. Gilbert now Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England by his Letters of Dispensation according to the said Act and directed to the said Walter the Defendant now Bishop under his Seal then elect and upon the Bishops petition of the means of his Bishoprick Graciously dispensed with him together with his Bishoprick the Rectory of Whitney in the Diocess and County of Oxford which he then enjoyed and the Rectory of Chymer aforesaid which he by the Kings favour hoped shortly to have to receive hold retain and possess in Commendam as long as he lived and continued Bishop of Oxford with or without Institution and Induction or other solemnity Canonical and to take and receive the profits to his own use without Residence Quantum in eodem Archiepiscopo fuit jura regni paterentur The Letters of Dispensation not to be effectual without the Kings Confirmation That the King after the 28 of Novemb. 17. of his Reign under the great Seal to the said Church so void by Cession presented the Defendant then as aforesaid Bishop Elect and after that is the 28. of Novemb. 17. Car. 2. the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal dated the same day and year and duly inrolled in the Chancery according to 25 H. 8. did confirm the Letters of Dispensation and that the said Bishop might enjoy all things contained in them according to the form and effect thereof with clauses of non obstante aliquo Statuto or other matter Then averrs that the cause of Dispensation was not contrary to the word of God and that the Pope in H. 8. time did use to grant the like Dispensations to the Kings Subjects which he is ready to averr c. The Plaintiff replys That true it is William Paul Praedict was elected Bishop of Oxford being Incumbent of Chymer but that after his election and before his creation he 2 Decemb. 1663. obtained Letters of the Archbishop under his seal of Faculties for causes therein mentioned of Dispensation to hold the Church of Brightwell and the Rectory of Chymer both which he then lawfully had and to retain the same with his Bishoprick after his consecration c. durant vita sua natural Incumbentiâ suâ in Episcopatu praedict quamdiu eidem Episcopatui praeesset The King 9. Decemb. 15. of his reign confirmed the Letters Patents under the great Seal with non obstante according to the Ordinary form 30. Decemb. 15. Car. 2. was created Bishop Vpon this Replication the Defendant demurs and the Plaintiff joyns in Demurrer Note the Defendant doth not shew to whom he was presented He doth not say that he enter'd by vertue of the Presentation of the King in Chymer In discussing the Case as it appears upon this Record I take it granted 1. If a person Incumbent of one or more Benefices with Cure be consecrated Bishop all his benefices are ipso facto void 2. Vpon such voidance the King and not the Patron is to present to the benefices so void by Cession 3. That any Dispensation after the Consecration comes too late to prevent the Voidance 4. That the Pope could formerly and the Arch-bishop now can sufficiently dispense for a Plurality by 25 H. 8. I shall therefore first make one general Question upon the Case as it appears Whither William Paul Rector of Chymer and elected Bishop of Oxford and before his Consecration dispensed with by the Archbishop to retain his said Rectory with the Bishoprick and having the said Letters of Dispensation confirmed by the King and inroll'd Modo forma prout by the Record did not by virtue of the said Dispensation and Confirmation prevent the voidance of his said Rectory by Cession upon his Consecration For if he did the Rectory became not void until his death and by his death the Plaintiff being Patron hath right to present To determine the General Question I shall make these Questions as arising out of it 1. Whether any Dispensation as this Case is be effectual to prevent an avoidance after Consecration 2. Whether the Archbishop hath power with the King's Confirmation to grant such a Dispensation 3. Whether this Dispensation in particular be sufficient to prevent a voidance of Chymer after Consecration of the late William Paul 1. This Case differs from the Bishop of Ossory's Case in Sir J. Davies's Reports who had a faculty accipere in Commendam with odd power and executed it by collating himself into a Living void by Lapse 2. It varies from the Case of Colt and Glover in the Lord Hobarts Reports and the Dispensation there to the Bishop elect of Lichfield and Coventry which was to retain one Benefice which he had and propria authoritate capere apprendere as many as he could under a certain value The defects of that Dispensation are numerous and excellently handled by the Lord Hobart in that Case of Colt and Glover But in our Case there is no affinity with the defects of those Dispensations but is barely to retain what legally was had before Obj. 1 Per Thyrning The Bp. of St. Davids Case 11 H. 4. f. 37. b. 38. a. Rolls f. 358. ob 1. 11 H. 4. f. 60. B. per Hill An Incumbent of a Church with cure being consecrated Bishop his Living was void by the Law of the Land therefore the Pope could not prevent the voidance after consecration for then the Pope could change the Law of the Land and if the Pope could not the Archbishop cannot The better opinion of that Book 11 H. 4. is contrary and Answ 1 so agreed to be in the Irish Case of Commendams and Rolls his opinion is grounded only upon 11 H. 4. If an Incumbent with cure take another Benefice with cure the first is void by the Law of the Land and the Patron hath right to present therefore the Pope could not grant a Dispensation nor the Arch-bishop now can to hold a Plurality for that were to alter the Law of the Land and to prejudice the Patron But the Law was and is otherwise therefore that reason concludes not in the case of a Bishop A second reason in that case of 11 H. 4. is that such a Dispensation Obj. 2 cannot prevent the avoidance 11 H. 4. f. 59. bi per Skreen because there is no use of it until Consecration for before the Incumbent retains his Living without any Dispensation and when consecrated his Benefices are void and then it is too late to dispense as is agreed This reason is as effectual against a Dispensation for a Plurality Answ 2 for before a man takes a second Living there can be no use of it and after by this reason it comes too late for the Patron hath right to present It was in that great Case endeavoured to avoid the pressure of

the Grantee for life when his Estate was enlarg'd needing no new Attornment or privity he did not thereby lose the Rent-arrear If two Jointenants in Fee let the Land for life Litt. Sect. 574 reserving a Rent to them and their Heirs if one release to the other and his Heirs this Release is good and he to whom it was made shall have the Rent of Tenant for life only and a Writ of Waste without Attornment to such Release for the privity which once was between the Tenant for life and them in the Reversion So is it if one Jointenant confirms the Land to the other and his Heirs Litt. Sect. 523. The Law must necessarily be the same if a man seis'd of a Rent-service or Rent-charge in Fee grant it to two and their Heirs or to two and the Heirs of one of them and the Tenant attorn if after one Jointenant release to the other or he which hath the Inheritance to him which hath but an Estate for life and to his Heirs the person to whom such Release is made shall thereby have a Fee-simple whereas before he had but for life in the Rent and an Estate absolute which before was joynt without any new Attornment for the reason of the former Case because there was once a privity between the Tenant and them which was never destroyed So is it if there be Lessee for life the Remainder for life he Litt. Sect. 573 in the Reversion releaseth to him in the Remainder and to his Heirs all his right he in the Remainder hath thereby a Fee and shall have a Writ of Waste and likewise the Rent of Tenant for life if any were without any Attornment of the Tenant for life for the former privity between them Enlargement of Estate by descent If a man seiz'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grant it for life to A. and the Tenant attorns after the Grantor grants the Reversion of this Rent to the Father of A. and his Heirs to whom A. attorns as in this Case he may by Sir Edward Coke's Comment and after the Father dies Coke's Litt. Sect. 556. and this Reversion descends upon A. whereby he hath a Fee-simple in the Rent no new Attornment is requisite for this enlargement of Estate Diminishing of Estate A man seis'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grants this Rent for Seven years to commence from the time of his death the Remainder in Fee and the Tenant attorns in the life time of the Grantor 2. Rep. Sir Rowland Hayward's Case as he must by the Resolution in Sir Rowland Hayward's Case 2. Rep. here the Grantor hath diminish't his Estate in the Rent from a Fee-simple to an Estate for life yet it cannot be doubted but he may distrain for his Rent-arrear And so is the Law where a man seis'd in Fee of a Rent for good consideration Covenants to stand seiz'd for life with Remainder over Vpon these grounds upon Littleton If a man seis'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grant it over to a Feme sole for a term of years the Tenant attorns and she take Husband and during the term the Grantor confirm the Rent to the Husband and Wife for their lives or in Fee they become Jointenants for life or in Fee of this Rent and need no new Attornment This Case is proved by a Case in Littleton Sect. Hence it is manifest that where a man hath a Rent for which he may once lawfully distrain by Attornment of the Tenant which gives sufficient privity to avow such Grantee or Possessor of the Rent may enlarge or change his Estate in the Rent to a greater or lesser or different Estate and needs no new Attornment or privity therefore to distrain and avow for such Rent whenever Arrear unless he become dispossess'd of the Rent and the privity to distrain and avow thereby be destroyed by a Right gained by some other to have the Rent and a Right in the Tenant to pay it to some other 9 H. 6. f. 43. Br. Avoury p. 123. To this purpose there is a Case If a man be seis'd of Land in Jure uxoris in Fee and leaseth the Land for years reserving Rent his Wife dies without having had any Issue by him whereby he is no Tenant by the Curtesie but his Estate is determined yet he may avow for the Rent before the Heir hath made his actual Entry This Case is not adjudg'd but it is much the better Opinion of the Book Objections The Conizors are in possession since the Fine of another Estate Obj. 1 than they were before the Fine that is according to the uses of the Fine which they could not be without an Alienation of the Rent to the Conizee by the Fine to enable the raising of that new use out of the Estate transferr'd to the Conizee by the Fine That by such Alienation the former privity between the Conizors and the Tenant which they had as Parceners by Attornment to the first grant of the Rent was destroy'd and therefore they cannot now distrain but for Rent-arrear since the Fine by the possession given them by the Statute of 27 H. 8. to which no Attornment is necessary and not for any Arrears due before upon the old privity As specious as this Reason seems it may be answer'd Answ That the Conizors had alwaies an actual and separate seisin and possession of the Rent and were at no time without it therefore the Conizee could have no several and separate possession of it at any time for it is not possible that two severally can possess the same thing simul semel for the same thing can no more be in two separate possessions at the same time civilly then the same thing can be in two separate places at the same time naturally Is not the Reason then of equal force that the Conizors were at no time out of possession and seisin of this Rent and consequently never lost the power to distrain for it As to say the Conizee had sometime a separate possession of the Rent from the Conizors out of which the new uses were raised and therefore the privity to distrain for the old Arrears was for sometime destroy'd Besides if the old privity be destroy'd the greatest absurdity imaginable in Law follows That a man hath a right to a thing for which the Law gives him no remedy which is in truth as great an absurdity as to say the having of right in law and having no right are in effect the same When as on the other side the loss of the Arrears and the Conizors right to them is a Consequent deduc'd from the destruction of the old privity between the Conizors and the Tenant by an imaginary and not a real possession of the Rent by the Conizee Obj. 2 Ognell's Case 4. Rep. Nor will it serve to say as is insinuated in Ognell's Case that the Conizors have dispens'd with their own right in the Arrears and therefore such

28 Eliz. by her Letters Patents under the Great Seal bearing date the said year and day at Westminster to the said Church then being void presented the said James White who was admitted instituted and inducted tempore pacis c. That the said James White being so Rector of the said Church and the said Richard Jervis seis'd of the said Mannor to which the said Advowson pertained c. the said Richard after at Norfield aforesaid died so seis'd After whose death the same descended to one Thomas Jervis Esquire as Son and Heir of Richard and from him descended to one Sir Thomas Jervis Knight who enter'd and was seis'd and so seis'd the said Sir Thomas Jervis 30. March 14 Car. 1. March the 30th 14 Car. 1. by his Deed in writing seal'd at Norfield aforesaid granted to one Phineas White the Advowson of the said Church for the first and next avoidance only whereby the said Phineas was possessed for the next avoidance of the said Advowson and so possessed the said Church became void by the death of the said James White which was the first and next avoidance after the said Grant to Phineas Phineas by virtue of his said Grant presented one Timothy White his Clerk who was thereupon admitted instituted and inducted tempore pacis tempore Car. 1. The said Timothy being Rector and the said Sir Thomas Jervis seis'd as aforesaid The said Sir Thomas died seis'd at Norfield aforesaid and the said Mannor with the Appurtenances descended to Thomas the Defendant as his Son and Heir who enter'd and was and yet is seis'd and being so seis'd the said Church became void by the death of the said Timothy White and the said Thomas Jervis the Defendant presented the other Defendant John Hunckley who was admitted instituted and inducted long before the Writ purchas'd Then Traverseth Absque hoc That the late Queen was seis'd of the said Advowson with the Chappel of Coston aforesaid in gross and as of Fee Jure Coronae suae Et hoc paratus est verificare and demands Judgment si Actio John Hunckley the Incumbent taking by protestation That the late Queen was not seis'd nor presented as by the Declaration is suppos'd for Plea saith That Richard Jervis was seis'd of the Mannor of Norfield with the Appurtenances in Com. praedicto and the Advowson of the said Church appertain'd thereto and pleads the same Plea verbatim as to the Queens Presentation of White and all other things as Jervis the Patron pleaded and the presentation of himself and that he was by the presentation of the other Defendant Jervis admitted instituted and inducted into the said Church Septemb. 15. 1660. and Traverseth Absque hoc that the King was seis'd of the said Advowson and Chappel in Gross as of Fee Et hoc paratus est verificare and demands Judgment The Attorney General replies and as to the Bishop claiming nothing but as Ordinary Demands Judgment and a Writ to the said Bishop and hath it with a Cesset Executio until the Plea determined between the King and the other Defendants And as to the Plea of the said Thomas Jervis the Patron the Attorney maintains the Seisin of the late Queen and of King James King Charles the First and of the King that now is of the said Advowson of the said Church and Chappel as by the Count before is declared And that the said Phineas White of his own wrong by usurpation upon the late King Charles the First to the said Church then void by the death of the said James White presented the said Timothy White and Traverseth Absque hoc That the Advowson of the said Church was or is pertaining to the Mannor of Norfield and demand Judgment and a Writ to the Bishop And as to the Plea of the Incumbent the Attorney replies as before to the Patrons Plea That the late Queen King James King Charles the First and the King that now is were seis'd of the said Advowson in gross as of Fee and that the said Phineas White presented the said Timothy by usurpation upon King Charles the First and Traverseth the appendancy of the Advowson Ecclesiae praedicta to the Mannor of Norfield The Patron Jervis rejoyns and demurs upon the Attorney's Replication as insufficient and assigns for Cause that the Attorney hath Travers'd matter not traversable and that the Traverse ought to have been omitted out of the Replication as also that the said Plea is repugnant in it self and wants form And John Hunckley the Incumbent rejoyns That the said Advowson is pertaining to the said Mannor as he alledged in his Plea before Et de hoc ponit se super Patriam and the Attorney similiter Imperfections in the Pleading 1. Vpon this Quare Impedit brought there is a good Title to present surmis'd for the King but no more and there is much difference between a Title appearing for the King and suppos'd only 2. The Defendant by his Plea in Barr hath not well Travers'd the King's Title for it is travers'd but in part for only the Seisin of the Advowson in the Queen is travers'd whereas properly the Seisin and Presentation of the Queen by reason of her Seisin ought to have been traversed by Absque hoc That the Queen was seis'd of the Advowson in gross and presented 3. The Seisin of the Advowson which makes not a Title alone nor is not either traversable or inquirable by the tender of a demy mark in the King's Case Fitz. N. Br. f. 31. Letter D. Littl. Coke 294. b. in droit d'Advowson is not traversable neither alone in a Quare Impedit But no Demurrer being thereupon nor no Issue taken upon that Traverse no more shall be said of it 4. The King may alledge Seisin without alledging any time as Sir Edward Coke saith in a droit d'Advowson 26 H. 8. f. 4. a. Hob. Digby Fitz. herb f. 102. and Moore and Newmans Case f. 80. and 103. Rice and Harrisons Case Yelverton f. 211. 5. The Defendants Traverse was not necessary because he had confess'd and avoided the Queens Presentation by saying it was by Lapse if the Defendant had rested upon avoiding the Queens Presentation 6. The Attorney General ought to have maintain'd his Count and travers'd the Queens Presentation by Lapse 7. He doth not do so but deserts making the Kings Title appear and falls upon the Plaintiffs Title that the Advowson was not appendant 8. He offers a double Issue that the Presentation of Phineas White was by Vsurpation and the Advowson not appendant to the Mannor Certain Premisses If a man Counts or Declares in a Quare Impedit That he or his Ancestors or such from whom he claims were seis'd of the Advowson of the Church but declares of no Presentation made by him or them such Count or Declaration is not good and the Defendant may Demurr upon it so is the express Book following 1. A man shall not have a Quare Impedit Fitzh Nat. Br.

the Issue was not found Hill 10 Car. 1. B. R. Wilkinson and Meriams Case Rolls 700. 701. Tit. Tryal If a Jury find that J.S. was seis'd in Fee of Land and posses'd of certain Leases for years of other Land made his Will in writing and thereby devis'd his Leases to J.D. and after devis'd to his Executors the residue of his Estate Mortgages Goods c. his Debts being paid and funeral Expences discharg'd It being referred by the Jury to the Court Whether by this devise the Executor hath an Estate in Fee or not This is no perfect special Verdict because the Jury find not the Debts paid and the Funeral Expences discharg'd which is a Condition precedent to the Executors having an Estate in Fee and without finding which the Court cannot resolve the matter to them referr'd by the Jury Therefore a Venire facias de novo was awarded Judgment was given for the Defendant Trin. 22. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 461. Richard Edgcomb Knight of the Bath Executor of Pierce Edgcomb Esquire his Father is Plaintiff Rowland d ee Administrator of Charles Everard Esquire during the Minority of Charles Everard Son of the Intestate Defendant In an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit THE Plaintiff declares That the Intestate the Thirteenth of July 1664. at London in the Parish of St. Mary Bow in the Ward of Cheap in consideration that the said Pierce Edgcomb would at his request lend him 500 l. promis'd the said Pierce to repay it within Seven daies after demand with Interest after the rate of 4 l. per Centum That thereupon the said Pierce Edgcomb after at the time and place aforesaid did lend the said Intestate 500 l. That the said Pierce the Testator afterwards the Fourteenth of July 17 Car. 2. at the place aforesaid required the Intestate to pay the said 500 l. with Interest after the rate aforesaid both which amounted to the Sum of 520 l. He lays further That the said Intestate was indebted to Pierce the Testator the Fourteenth day of July 1664. in the Sum of 500 l. for mony before that time to him lent by the said Pierce And in Consideration thereof the said Fourteenth of July 1664. in the said Parish and Ward promis'd to pay when requir'd But that neither the Intestate in his life time nor the Defendant to whom the Administration of his Goods were committed during the Minority of Charles Everard Son of the said Intestate at London in the Parish and Ward aforesaid did pay the said Sums nor either of them amounting to 1020 l. to the said Pierce Edgcomb in his life time nor to the said Richard the Plaintiff after his death Though required by the Intestate afterwards in his life time that is upon the First of August 17 Car. 2. And the said Defendant after the death of the Intestate viz. the Tenth day of March 18 Car. 2. and often after at the said Parish and Ward by the Testator Pierce were requir'd And the said Defendant after the death of the Testator the First day of January 21 Car. 2. was required at the place aforesaid by the Plaintiff to pay the said mony which he did not and still refuses to his damage of 800 l. The Defendant pleads payment after the Plaintiffs Writ purchas'd of several great debts due by Bond and Bills obligatory from the Intestate to several persons at his death in number One and thirty That the Intestate the Two and twentieth of December 16 Car. 2. became bound in a Recognizance in the Chancery to Sir Harbottle Grimstone Baronet Master of the Rolls and to Sir Nathaniel Hobart one of the Masters of the Chancery in 2000 l. And that the said 2000 l. is still due and unpaid and the said Recognizance in its full force unsatisfied or discharg'd He pleads the City of London is an ancient City and that within it time out of mind hath been held a Court of Record of the Kings c. before the Mayor and Aldermen of the said City in Camera Guild-hall ejusdem Civitatis of all personal Actions arising and growing within the said City That the Intestate at the time of his death was indebted apud London praedict in the Parish and Ward praedict to one William Allington in 2670 l. 17 s. 7 d. And who after the purchase of the Plaintiffs Writ the Tenth of March the Eighteenth of the King came to the said Court before Sir Thomas Bludworth then Mayor and the Aldermen in the said Chamber according to the Custome of the said City held us'd and approv'd Et praedictus Willielmus Allington tunc ibidem in eadem Curia secundum consuetudinem praedictae Civitatis affirmabat contra praedictum Rolandum Dee ut Administratorem c. quandam Billam originalem de placito debiti super demand Mille sexcentarum septuaginta librarum decem septem solidorum septem denariorum legalis monetae c. And that it was so proceeded according to the Custome of the said City that the said William Allington had Judgment to recover against the Defendant the said Debt and 85 l. 16 s. for damages c. And that after the Defendant in full satisfaction of the said Judgment paid to the said William Allington the Sum of 2670 l. and 17 s. Then pleads about Four and twenty Recoveries and Judgments thereupon in the Kings Bench in Pleas of Debt without Specialties all satisfied but one of 7000 l. and more due to one Cornwallis Then pleads Plene administravit all the Goods of the Intestate at the time of his death to be administred and that he had not die Impetrationis brevis Originalis praedicti nec unquam postea aliqua bona seu cattalla predict Car. Everard tempore mortis suae in manibus suis administrand praeterquam bona cattalla ad valentiam separalium denariorum summarum per ipsum sic ut praefertur solutarum in exonerationem separalium Judiciorum scriptorum obligatori orum billarum obligatoriarum predict Ac praeter alia bona cattalla ad valentiam decem solidorum quae executioni Recognitionis praedict ac Judicii praedicti per praefatum Carolum Cornwallis versus ipsum ut praefertur recuperat onerabilia onerata existunt Et quod ipse Rolandus modo non habet aliqua bona seu cattalla quae fuerunt praedict Caroli tempore mortis suae administrand praeter praedicta bona catalla ad valentiam praedictorum decem solidorum quae executioni recognitionis praedict ac Judicii praedict per praefatum Carolum Cornwallis recuperat sic ut praefertur onerata onerabilia existunt Et hoc paratus est c. Et petit Judicium Then Averrs the debts so as aforesaid by him paid to be bonâ fide paid pro veris justis debitis owing and unpaid by the Intestate at the time of his death And that the several Iudgments aforesaid against him recover'd were for true and just debts of

for the Damages in Debt though by several Originals But it may be said That in a Writ of Error in this kind the foundation is destroy'd and no such Record is left Drury's Case 8. Rep. But as to that in Drury's Case 8. Rep. an Outlawry issued and Process of Capias upon the Outlawry the Sheriff retorn'd Non est inventus and the same day the party came into Court and demanded Oyer of the Exigent which was the Warrant of the Outlawry and shew'd the Exigent to be altogether uncertain and insufficient and consequently the Outlawry depending upon it to be null And the Court gave Iudgment accordingly though the Record of the Outlawry were never revers'd by Error which differs not from this Case where the Order of Commitment is Iudicially declar'd illegal though not quasht or revers'd by Error and consequently whatever depends upon it as the Fine and Commitment doth and the Outlawry in the former Case was more the Kings Interest than the Fine in this The Chief Justice deliver'd the Opinion of the Court and accordingly the Prisoners were discharg'd Hill 23 24 Car. II. B. C. Rot. 615. Edmund Sheppard Junior Plaintiff In Trespass Suff. ss against George Gosnold William Booth William Haygard and Henry Heringold Defendants THE Plaintiff declares for the forcible taking and carrying away at Gyppin in the said County the Eight and twentieth of January 22 Car. 2. Five and twenty hundred and Three quarters of a hundred of Wax of the said Edmunds there found and keeping and detaining the same under Arrest until the Plaintiff had paid Forty nine shillings to them the said Defendants for the delivery thereof to his Damage of 40 l. The Defendants plead Not Culpable and put themselves upon the Country c. The Jury find a Special Verdict 1. That before the Caption Arrest and Detention of the said Goods and at the time of the same Edmund Sheppard the younger was and is Lord of the Mannor of Bawdsey in the said County and thereof seis'd in his Demesne as of Fee and that he and all those whose Estate he hath and had at the time of the Trespass suppos'd in the said Mannor with the Appurtenances time out of mind had and accustomed to have all Goods and Chattels wreck'd upon the high Sea cast on shore upon the said Mannor as appertaining to the said Mannor 2. They further say The said Goods were shipped in Forraign parts as Merchandise and not intended to be imported into England but to be carried into other Forraign parts 3. That the said Goods were wreck'd upon the high Sea and by the Sea-shoar as wreck'd Goods cast upon the Shoar of the said Mannor within the same Mannor and thereby the said Edmund seis'd as wreck belonging to him as Lord of the said Mannor They further find That at the Parliament begun at Westminster the Five and Twentieth of April the Twelfth of the King and continued to the Nine and Twentieth of December following there was granted to the King a Subsidy call'd Poundage Of all Goods and Merchandises of every Merchant natural born Subject Denizen and Alien to be exported out of the Kingdom of England or any the Dominions thereto belonging or imported into the same by way of Merchandise of the value of Twenty shillings according to the particular Rates and Values of such Goods and Merchandises as they are respectively rated and valued in the Book of Rates intitled The Rates of Merchandise after in the said Act mentioned and referr'd to to One shilling c. Then they say That by the Book of Rates Wax inward or imported every hundred weight containing One hundred and twelve pounds is rated to Forty shillings and hard Wax the pound Three shillings four pence They find at the time of the Seisure of the Goods That the Defendants were the King's Officers duly appointed to collect the Subsidy of Poundage by the said Act granted and that for the Duty of Poundage not paid at the said time they seis'd and arrested the said Goods until the Plaintiff had paid them the said Fine of Forty nine shillings But whether the Goods and Chattels aforesaid so as aforesaid wreck'd be chargeable with the said duty of Poundage or not they know not And if not They find the Defendants Culpable and Assess Damages to the Plaintiff to Nine and forty shillings ultra misas custagia And if the said Goods be chargeable with the said Duty they find the Defendants not Culpable It is clear Dyer 31 H. 8. 43. b. n. 22. That formerly in the times of Henry the Eighth Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth it was suppos'd that some Customes were due by the Common Law wherein the King had an Inheritance for certain Merchandise to be transported out of the Realm and that such Customes were not originally due by any Act of Parliament so is the Book 31 H. 8. It was the Opinion likewise of all the Justices in the Chequer Chamber when Edward the Sixth had granted to a Merchant Alien That he might Transport or Import all sorts of Merchandise not exceeding in the value of the Customes and Subsidies thereof Fifty pounds paying only to the King his Heirs and Successors pro Custumis Subsidiis oneribus quibuscunque of such Marchandises so much and no more as any English Merchant was to pay That this Patent remained good for the old Customes Dyer 1 Mar. f. 92. a. n. 17. wherein the King had an Inheritance by his Prerogative but was void by the Kings death as to Goods customable for his life only by the Statute of Tunnage c. So upon a Question rais'd upon occasion of a new Imposition laid by Queen Mary upon Clothes Dyer 1 Eliz. f. 165. a. b. n. 57 the Judges being consuited about it 1 Eliz. The Book is Nota That English Merchants do not pay at Common Law any Custome for any Wares or Merchandises whatever but Three that is Woolls Woolfells and Leather that is to say pro quolibet sacco lanae continent 26 pierres chescun pierr 14 pound un demy marke and for Three hundred Woolfells half a Mark and for a Last of Leather Thirteen shillings four pence and that was equal to Strangers and English Merchants This was in those several Reigns the Opinion of all the Iudges of the times whence we may learn how fallible even the Opinion of all the Judges is when the matter to be sesolved must be clear'd by Searchers not common and depends not upon Cases vulgarily known by Readers of the Year Books For since these Opinions it is known those Customes called the Old or Antiqua Custumae were granted to King Edward the First in the Third year of his Reign by Parliament as a new thing and was no Duty belonging to the Crown by the Common Law But the Act of Parliament it self by which this custome was granted is no where extant now but undeniable Evidence of it appears For King Edward

it is said The Rent was granted out of the Twenty Acres being the Locus in quo by the Name of all the Grantors Lands and Hereditaments in King's Norton and that a per nomen in that Case is not good The Case of Grey and Chapman was urg'd 43 Eliz. Cro. f. 822. where by Indenture S. one Prudence Cousin let a House and Twenty Acres of Land by the Name of all her Tenements in S. But it was not alledg'd in what Vill the Acres were The Court was of Opinion in Arrest of Judgment that the naming of the Vill in the per nomen was not material Another Case to the same purpose was urg'd of Gay against Cay where a Grant in possession was pleaded 41 Eliz. Cro. f. 662. pl. 10. and not as in Reversion And upon view of the Record the Grantor had granted Tenementa praedicta per nomen of a Mesuage which A. P. held for life where the per nomen was adjudg'd not to make good the Grant The Court is of Opinion notwithstanding these Cases That in the present Case the per nomen is well enough because it is alledg'd the Grantor was seis'd of Two hundred Acres of Land in Kings Norton whereof the locus in quo being Twenty Acres is parcel By reason whereof the Rent being granted out of every parcel of the Two hundred Acres it is well enough to say it was granted out of the Twenty Acres per nomen of all his Lands in Kings Norton because the Twenty Acres are alledg'd to be parcel of all his Lands there being Two hundred Acres But in Chapman's Case It is not alledg'd that the Twenty Acres of Land demis'd were parcel of all the Tenements in S. per nomen of which the Twenty Acres were to pass As for the second Case of Gay it was not possible that Lands granted as in possession should pass per nomen of Land that was in Reversion The second Exception is Because the Clause of Entry and Distress in the Deed upon Oyer of it differs from the Clause of Entry and Distress alledg'd in the Conizance For in the Conizance it is said It should be lawful to Enter and Distrain if the rent were unpaid and behind after any of the Feasts whereon it was due that is at any Feast that should first happen after the death of Anne or Thomas Greaves for the Rent did not commence before But by the Deed If the Rent were behind at any the Feasts the Entry and Distress is made to be lawful for it during the joynt Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves the Uncle and during their joynt lives it could not be behind for it commenc'd not till one of them were dead Scarplus Handkinson 37 El. Cro. f. 420. words repugnant and sensless to be rejected So as the sense must run That if the Rent were behind it should be lawful to distrain during the joint Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves which was before it could be behind for it could not be behind till the death of one of them Therefore those words during their joynt natural lives being insensible ought to be rejected For words of known signification but so placed in the Context of a Deed that they make it repugnant and sensless are to be rejected equally with words of no known signification Judgment pro Defendent The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Trin. 16 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2487. But Adjudg'd Mich. 20 Car. II. Bedell versus Constable BY the Act of 12 Car. 2. cap. 24. It is among other things Enacted That where any person hath or shall have any Child or Children under the Age of One and twenty years and not married at the time of his death It shall and may be lawful to and for the Father of such Child or Children whether born at the time of the decease of the Father or at that time in ventre sa mere or whether such Father be within the Age of One and twenty years or of full Age by his Deed executed in his life time or by his last Will and Testament in writing in the presence of two or more credible Witnesses to dispose of the custody and tuition of such Child or Children for and during such time as he or they shall respectively remain under the Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time to any person or persons in possession or remainder other than Popish Recusants And such disposition of the Custody of such Child or Children made since the Four and twentieth of February 1645. or hereafter to be made shall be good and effectual against all and every person or persons claiming the custody or tuition of such Child or Children as Guardian in Soccage or otherwise And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised as aforesaid shall and may maintain an Action of Ravishment of Ward or Trespass against any person or persons which shall wrongfully take away or detain such Child or Children for the Recovery of such Child or Children and shall and may recover Damages for the same in the said Action for the use and benefit of such Child or Children And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised shall and may take into his or their custody to the use of such Child or Children the profits of all Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of such Child or Children and also the custody tuition and management of the Goods Chattels and personal Estate of such Child or Children till their respective Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time according to such Disposition aforesaid and may bring such Action or Actions in relation thereto as by Law a Guardian in Common Soccage might do By the Will is devised in these words I do bequeath my son Thomas to my Brother Robert Towray of Rickhall to be his Tutor during his Minority Before this Act Tenant in Soccage of Age might have dispos'd his Land by Deed or last Will in trust for his Heir but not the Custody and Tuition of his Heir for the Law gave that to the next of Kinn to whom the Land could not descend But Tenant in Soccage under Age could not dispose the Custody of his Heir nor devise or demise his Land in trust for him in any manner Now by this Statute he may grant the Custody of his Heir but cannot devise or demise his Land in trust for him for any time directly for if he should the devise or demise were as before the Statute as I conceive which is most observable in this Case I say directly he cannot but by a mean and obliquely he may for nominating who shall have the Custody and for what time by a consequent the Land follows as an incident given by the Law to attend the custody not as an Interest devis'd or demis'd

the Statute If the Father under Age should make such a Devise it were absolutely void for the same syllables shall never give the Custody of the Heir by the Father under Age which do not give it by the Father which is of Age. But in both Cases a Devise of the Custody is effectual and there is no reason that the Custody devis'd shall operate into a Lease when a Lease devis'd shall not operate into a Custody which it cannot do If a man devise the Custody of his Heir apparent to J. S. and mentions no time either during his Minority or for any other time this is a good devise of the Custody within the Act if the Heir be under Fourteen at the death of the Father because by the Devise the Modus habendi Custodiam is chang'd only as to the person and left the same it was as to the time But if above Fourteen at the Fathers death then the Devise of the Custody is meerly void for the incertainty For the Act did not intend every Heir should be in Custody until One and twenty Non ut tamdiu sed ne diutius therefore he shall be in this Custody but so long as the Father appoints and if he appoint no time there is no Custody If a man have power to make Leases for any term of years not exceeding One hundred and he demises Land but expresseth no time shall this therefore be a Lease for One hundred years There is no Reason it should be a Lease for the greatest term he could grant more than for the least term he could grant or indeed for any other term under One hundred Therefore it is void for incertainty and the Case is the same for the Custody For if the Father might intend as well any time under that no Reason will enforce that he only intended that And to say he intended the Custody for some time therefore since no other can be it must be for that will hold as well in the Lease and in all other Cases of incertainty If a man devises Ten pounds to his Servant but having many none shall have it for the incertainty It may be demanded If the Father appoint the Custody until the Age of One and twenty and the Guardian dye what shall become of this Custody It determines with the death of the Guardian and is a Condition in Law and the same as if a man grant to a man the Stewardship of his Mannor for Ten years or to be his Bailiff It is implyed by way of Condition if he live so long A Copyholder in Fee surrenders to the Lord Dyer 8 Eliz. f. 251. pl. 90. ad intentionem that the Lord should grant it back to him for term of life the Remainder to his Wife till his Son came to One and twenty Remainder to the Son in tayl Remainder to the Wife for life The Husband died The Lord at his Court granted the Land to the Wife till the Sons full age The Remainders ut supra The Wife marries and dies Intestate The Husband held in the Land The Wives Administrator and to whom the Lord had granted the Land during the Minority of the Son enters upon the Husband This Entry was adjudg'd unlawful because it was the Wives term but otherwise it had been if the Wife had been but a Guardian or next Friend of this Land The like Case is in Hobart Balder and Blackburn f. 285. 17 Jac. If it be insisted That this new Guardian hath the Custody not only of the Lands descended or left by the Father but of all Lands and Goods any way acquir'd or purchas'd by the Infant which the Guardian in Soccage had not That alters not the Case for if he were Guardian in Soccage without that particular power given by the Statute he is equally Guardian in Soccage with it and is no more than if the Statute had appointed Guardian in Soccage to have care of all the Estate of the Infant however he came by it Besides that proves directly that this new Guardian doth not derive his interest from the Father but from the Law for the Father could never give him power or interest of or in that which was never his The Court was divided viz. The Chief Justice and Justice Wylde for the Plaintiff Justice Tyrrell and Justice Archer for the Defendant Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 506. Holden versus Smallbrooke IN Trover and Conversion and not Guilty pleaded Robinson the Iury gave a Special Verdict to this Effect That Doctor Mallory Prebendary of the Prebend of Wolvey founded in the Cathedral of Litchfield seis'd of the said Prebend and one Messuage one Barn and the Glebe appertaining thereto and of the Tithes of Wolvey in right of his Prebend 22 April 13 Car. 2. by Indenture demised to Giles Astly and his Assigns the said Prebend together with all Houses Barns Tenements Glebe Lands and Tithes thereto belonging for three Lives under the ancient Rent of Five pounds ten shillings Astly being one of the Lives died seis'd of the Premisses at whose death one Taverner was Tenant for one year not ended of the Demise of Astly of the Messuage Barn and Glebe Lands and in possession of them whereupon the Plaintiff entred into the Messuage and Glebe and was in the possession of the same and of the Tithes as Occupant And afterwards Frances Astly the Relict of the said Giles Astly enters upon the Messuage and claims the same as Occupant in haec verba Frances Astly Widow of Giles Astly enters upon the House and claims the same with the Glebe and Tithe as Occupant Taverner attorns to Frances Astly and afterwards grants and assigns all his Estate in the Premisses to the Plaintiff afterwards Conquest the Husband of Frances Astly took one Sheaf of Corn in the name of all the Tithes and afterwards demised the Tithes to the Defendant The Tithes are set forth and the Defendant took them whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action Before I deliver my Opinion concerning the particular Questions before open'd arising upon this Record I shall say somewhat shortly of Natural Occupancy and Civil Occupancy First opening what I mean by those terms then briefly shewing their difference as far only as is material to the Questions now before me I call Natural Occupancy the possession either of such natural things as are immoveable fixt and permanent as Land a Pool River Sea for a Sea is capable of Occupancy and Dominion naturally as well as Land and hath naturally been in Occupancy as is demonstrated in Mr. Selden's Mare Clausum at large which lye unpossess'd and in which no other hath prior right Or of things natural and moveable either animate as a Horse a Cow a Sheep and the like without number or Inanimate as Gold precious Stones Grain Hony Fruit Flesh and the like numberless also wherein no man until the possession thereof by Occupancy had any other right than every man had which is

Interest for the Lessee Taverner had a Lease of the House Glebe and Barn and the Tithe continued in Astly 2. This severance was equally the same as if the Tithe had been demis'd to Taverner and the House and Land had remained still in Astly's possession 3. Though the Freehold of both remained still in Astly at his death notwithstanding the divided Interest in the Land and Tithe yet the Freehold being a thing quatenus Freehold not capable in it self of Occupancy nor no natural but a legal thing which the Law casts upon him that is Occupant that will not concern the Questions either who was Occupant or of what he was Occupant Cok. Litt. f. 41. b. 4. I take it for clear That a naked Tithe granted by it self pur auter vie and the Grantee dying without assignment living Cestuy que vie is not capable of Occupancy more than a Rent a Common in gross and Advowson in gross a Fair or the like are it being a thing lying in Grant equally as those others do Coke's Littleton There can be no Occupant of any thing which lyeth in Grant and cannot pass without Deed. I cited the place at full before with other Authorities against Occupancy of a Rent 5. If a man dye seis'd of Land which he holds pur auter vie and also dies seis'd of Rent held pur auter vie or of an Advowson or Common in gross held by distinct Grants pur auter vie and the same Cestuy que vie or the several Cestuy vies for that will not differ the Case living Though the Grantee died seis'd of a Freehold in these several things I conceive that he which enters into the Land first after his death will be Occupant of the Land which was capable of Occupancy but neither of the Tithe Advowson nor Common which are not capable of Occupancy and have no more coherence with dependence upon nor relation to the Land than if they had been granted pur auter vie to another who had happen'd to dye in like manner as the Grantee of the Land did And that which hath intricated men in this matter hath been a Conception taken up as if the Occupant had for his object in being Occupant the Freehold which the Tenant died seis'd of which is a mistake for the subject and object of the Occupant are only such things which are capable of Occupancy not things which are not and not the Freehold at all into which he neither doth nor can enter but the Law casts it immediately upon him that hath made himself Occupant of the Land or other real thing whereof he is Occupant that there may be a Tenant to the Precipe But as was well observed by my Brother Wilmott No Precipe lies for setting out Tithe at Common Law and I doubt not by the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 7. though Sir Edward Coke in his Litt. f. 159. a. seems to be of opinion Coke Litt. 159. a. that a man may at his Election have remedy for witholding Tithe after that Statute by Action or in the Ecclesiastical Court by that Statute doubtless he hath for the title of Tithe as for title of Land or for the taking of them away but not perhaps for not setting them out 6. When a Severance therefore is once made of the Land and Tithe it is as much severance of them though the Tithe remain in Astly's possession as if he had leas'd the Land to Taverner and the Tithe to another if then Taverner becoming Occupant of the Land should have had nothing in the Tithe leas'd to another as the Land was to him no more shall he have the Tithe remaining in Astly himself at his death Still we must remember the ground insisted on That no Occupancy begins with the Freehold but begins by possessing the Land or other real thing which was void and ownerless and that by Act of Law the Freehold is cast upon the Possessor either entring where the possession was void or being in possession when Tenant pur auter vie died either as Lessee for years or at will to Tenant pur auter vie for the Law equally casts the Freehold upon him as was resolved in Chamberleyne and Eures Case reported by Serjeant Rolls and others Second Part. f. 151. Letter E. and in Castle and Dods Case 5 Jac. Cr. f. 200. Therefore after such Severance made by the Tenant pur auter vie the Land and Tithe are as distinct and sunder'd from each other as if Tenant pur auter vie had held them by distinct Grants or leas'd them to distinct persons In the next place I shall agree That the Occupant of a House shall have the Estovers or way pertaining to such House the Occupant of the Demesne of a Mannor or of other Land shall have the Advowson appendant or Villain regardant to the Mannor or Common belonging to the Land and the Services of the Mannor not sever'd from the Demesne before the occupancy For a Possessor of a House Land Demesne of a Mannor as Occupant doth not by such his possession sever any thing belonging to the Land House or Demesne more than the Possessor by any other title than occupancy doth and if they be not sever'd it follows they must remain as before to the Possessor of that to which they pertain So if a Mannor being an intire thing consisting of Demesnes and Services which are parts constituent of the Mannor the possessing and occupancy of the Demesns which is one part can make no severance of the Services from the intire and therefore the Occupant hath all And these things though primarily there can be no occupancy of them being things that lye in Grant and pass not without Deed yet when they are adjuncts or pertaining to Land they do pass by Livery only without Deed. Coke Litt. f. 121. 8. Sect. 183. Whatsoever passeth by Livery of Seisin either in Deed or in Law may pass without Deed and not only the Rent and Services parcel of the Mannor shall with the Demesns as the more principal and worthy pass by Livery without Deed but all things regardant appendant or appurtenant to the Mannor as Incidents or Adjuncts to the same shall together with the Mannor pass without Deed without saying cum pertinentiis And if they pass by Livery which must be of the Land they must likewise pass by any lawful Entry made into the Land and such the Entry of the Occupant is But as by occupancy of the demesn Lands of a Mannor the Services are not sever'd so if they be sever'd at the time when the occupancy happens that shall never of it self unite them again Now in the Case before us The Tithe is neither appendant or appurtenant or any sort of Adjunct to the Glebe or House nor are they to the Tithe nor will a lease and livery of the Glebe simply with the appurtenances pass the Tithe at all nor a Grant of the Tithe pass the Glebe nor are either

could not be granted but to one because its nature was confin'd to one A man cannot have an Assise of Common in his own Soyl nor an Admensuratio pasturae and a Common being a thing that lies in grant he cannot grant it to himself and no other can grant it in his Soyl to him So as I conclude one or more may have Solam separalem Communiam from other Commoners but not from the Lord who is no Commoner I cannot discern the use of this kind of Prescription for the Tenants for if it be to hinder the Lord from approving the Common I think they are mistaken The Statute of Merton gives the Owner of the Soyl power to approve Common Grounds appendant Cok. 2. Instit f. 86.475 West 2. c. 46. or appurtenant by Prescription as this is if sufficient Pasture be left for the Commoners without considering whether the Commoners had the Common solely to themselves excluding the Lord or otherwise For as to Approvement which the Statute provided for the Lord was equally bound pasturing with his Tenants or not pasturing with them Therefore the Statute consider'd not that but that the Lord should approve his own ground so the Commoners had sufficient whatever the nature of the Common were To prescribe to have in such a part of the Lord's Lands Communiam for their Cattel excludes not the Lord. To prescribe to have their Pasturam Communem for their Cattel is the same thing and excludes not the Lord. To prescribe to have solam separalem Communiam is naught by Admittance Why then to prescribe to have solam separalem Pasturam Communiam which is agreed to be the same with Communiam is naught also Now to express another way that they have solam separalem Pasturam Common to them or wherein they Common changeth not the matter in the meaning but order of the words The Statute of Merton is cap. 4. 1. The Lords could not make their profit de Vastis Boscis Pasturis Communibus when the Tenants had sufficientem pasturam quantum pertinet ad tenementa sua 2. Si coram Justiciariis recognitum sit quod tantum pasturae habeant quantum sufficit c. 3. Et quod habeant liberum ingressum egressum de tenementis suis usque ad pasturam suam tunc recedant quiet 4. And that then the Lords faciant commodum suum de terris vastis pasturis 5. Et si per Assisam recognitum fuerit quod non habent sufficientem pasturam 6. Tunc recuperent Seisinam suam per visum Juratorum ita quod per Sacramentum eorum habeant sufficientem pasturam 7. Quod si Recognitum sit quod habeant sufficientem pasturam c. Communibus pasturis is once named Pastura sua for Communia sua seven times and the word Communia not named in this Act but where it mentions 8. The Writ of Novel disseisin de Communia pasturae suae which makes eight times 1. The granting solam separalem Pasturam of or in Black-acre may signifie an exclusion only of having Pasture in White-acre or any other place than Black-acre 2. The granting solam separalem pasturam of or in Black-acre may signifie the exclusion of any other person to have Pasture in Black-acre but the Grantee in which sense the word Solam signifies as much as totam pasturam 3. If the Grant be of all the Pasture the Grantor reserves nothing to himself of that which he grants but all passes into the Grantee but if the Grantor restrains the Grant after general words of granting all the Pasture the Restriction is for the benefit of the Grantor Therefore when the Grant is of Solam separalem pasturam of or in Black-acre all the Pasture is supposed to pass without restriction to the Grantee but if words follow in the Grant pro duabus vaccis tantum or pro averiis levantibus cubantibus super certum tenementum that is a restriction for the benefit of the Grantor for a man cannot in the same Grant restrain for his own benefit the largeness of his Grant and yet have no benefit of his restriction The Court was divided The Chief Justice and Justice Tyrrell for the Plaintiff Justice Archer and Justice Wylde for the Defendant Hill 20 21 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1552. Adjud'gd 23 Car. II. C. B. Gardner vers Sheldon In Ejectione Firmae for Lands in Sussex Vpon not Guilty pleaded IT is found by the Special Verdict that long before the supposed Trespass and Ejectment One William Rose was seis'd of the Land in question in his Demesne as of Fee and so seis'd made his last Will and Testament November the Second 13 Jac. prout sequitur and sets forth the Will wherein among other things As touching the Lease which I have in my Farm called Easter-gate and all my Interest therein I do give and assign the said Lease and all my Interest therein unto my Friends John Clerk George Littlebury and Edward Rose to the intent that with the Rents and Profits thereof they may help to pay my Debts if my other Goods and Chattels shall not suffice And after my Debts paid my will is that the Rents and Profits of the said Land shall wholly go for and towards the raising of Portions for my two Daughters Mary and Katherine for each of them Six hundred pounds and for my Daughter Mary Two hundred pounds more which was given her by my Father her Grand-fathers Will. And those Sums being raised my will is the Rents and Profits of the said Land shall be wholly to the use and benefit of my Son George c. Item I give to my daughter Mary my greatest Silver Bowl Item I give to my daughter Katherine one plain Silver Bowl c. My will and meaning is That if it happen that my Son George Mary and Katherine my daughters to die without Issue of their Bodies lawfully begotten then all my Free-lands which I am now seis'd of shall come remain and be to my said Nephew William Rose and his Heirs for ever They find that the said William Rose the Testator before the Trespass viz. the First of June 14 Jac. died at Easter-gate in the said County of Sussex seis'd as aforesaid That at the time of his death he had Issue of his body lawfully begotten George Rose his only Son and Mary and Katherine his two Daughters That George the Son entred into the Premisses the First of July 14 Jac. and was seis'd prout Lex postulat Then after and before the time of the Trespass viz. June the Eight and twentieth 14 Car. 2. George died so seis'd of the Premisses at Easter-gate aforesaid That at the time of his death he had Issue of his body two Daughters Judith now wife of Daniel Sheldon one of the Defendants and Margaret now wife of Sir Joseph Sheldon the other Defendant That after the death of George their Father the said Judith and Margaret

not the Land devis'd to him when the son and the two daughters dye without Issue of their respective bodies by way of Remainder which cannot be but by way of Executory devise which well may be 5. That by such Executory devise no perpetuity is consequent to it or if it were such a perpetuity is no way repugnant or contrary to Law To manifest the difference taken between an implication in a Will that is necessary and implication that is only possible the first Case I shall cite is that known Case 13 H. 7. which I shall exactly put as it is in the Book at large 13 H. 7. f. 17. Br. Devise pl. 52. A man devis'd his Goods to his wife and that after the decease of his wife his son and heir shall have the House where his Goods are The son shall not have the House during the wives life for though it be not expresly devis'd to the wife yet his intent appears the son shall not have it during her life and therefore it is a good devise to the wife for life by implication and the Devisors intent Quod omnes Justitiarii concesserunt Here I observe 1. That this was a devise of the House to the wife by necessary implication for it appears by the Will that the Testators son and heir was not to have it until after the death of the wife and then it must either be devis'd to the wife for life by necessary implication or none was to have it during the wives life which could not be 2. I observe upon this Case That though the Goods were by particular devise given to the wife and expresly that was no hindrance to the wives having the House devis'd to her also by her husband by implication necessary which I the rather note because men of great name have conceiv'd That where the devisee takes any thing by express devise of the Testator such devisee shall not have any other thing by that Will devis'd only by implication Which difference if it were according to Law it makes clearly against the Plaintiff because his Lessor being one of the Daughters of the Testator had devis'd to her expresly for a Portion and therefore she should not have any Estate in the Land by the same Will by a Devise by Implication as is pretended But the truth is that is a vain difference that hath been taken by many as I shall anon evince and therefore I shall not insist upon any Aid from it to my conclusion 3. I note that this Devise being before the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills the House devis'd must be conceiv'd devisable by Custome at the Common Law Before I proceed further I must take notice that Brook in abridging the Case of 13 H. 7. in the same numero saith Devise Br. n. 52. It was agreed tempore H. 8. per omnes That if a man will that J. S. shall have his Land in Dale after the death of his wife the wife shall have the House for her life by his apparent intent I note first That this Case is imperfectly put in Brook for it mentions a devise of the Land in Dale to J. S. after the death of his wife and then concludes that the wife shall have the House for her life by his apparent intent whereas no mention is made of a House but of the Land in Dale in the devise And this Case seems to be only a memory of another Case Br. Devise 29 H. 8. n. 48. not abridg'd by Brook out of any other Year-book but reported in his Abridgment in the Title Devise as a Case happened in 29 H. 8. which is That if a man will that J. S. shall have his Land after the death of his wife and dies the wife of the Devisor shall have those Lands for term of her life by those words ratione intentionis voluntatis Which Cases being in truth but one and the same Case seem to go further than the Case of 13 H. 7. for there as I observ'd before the wife was to take by necessary implication because the Heir was excluded expresly by the Will during the life of the wife But by this Case in Br. Title Devise n. 48. 52. there is no excluding of the Heir and yet it is said the wife shall have the Land during her life by implication which is no necessary implication as in the Case of 13 H. 7. but only a possible implication and seems to cross that difference I have taken before But this Case of Br. hath many times been denied to be Law and several Iudgments have been given against it I shall give you some of them to justifie the difference I have taken exactly as I shall press the Cases Trinity 3 E. 6. A man seis'd of a Mannor part in Demesne 3 E. 6. Moore Rep. f. 7. n. 24. and part in Services devis'd all the demesne Lands expresly to his wife during her life and devis'd to her also all the Services and chief Rents for Fifteen years and then devis'd the whole Mannor to a stranger after the death of his wife It was resolved by all the Justices That the last devise should not take effect for any part of the Mannor but after the wives death but yet the wife should not have the whole Mannor by implication during her life but should have only the demesnes for her life and the Rent and Services for Fifteen years and that after the Fifteen years ended the Heir should have the Rents and Services as long as the wife liv'd Here being no necessary Implication that the wife should have all the Mannor during her life with an exclusion of the Heir she had no more than was explicity given her by the Will viz. the Demesnes for life and the Rents and Services for Fifteen years but after the Fifteen years the Heir had the Rents and Services for it could be no more at most but a possible Implication that the wife should have the whole Mannor during her life But with a small variance of this Case if the demesnes had been devis'd to the wife for life and the Services and Rents for Fifteen years and the whole Mannor after the wives life to J. S. and that after the wives life and the life of J. S. his Heir should have had the Demesnes and Services and Rents in that Case it had been exactly the same with the Case of 13 H. 7. because the Devisors intent had been then apparent that the Son was not to have the Mannor or any part until the wife and stranger were both dead and as it was adjudg'd the stranger had nothing in the Mannor until the wifes death therefore in that case by necessary implication the wife must have had both Demesnes and Services during her life notwithstanding the explicit devise to her of the Rents and Services for Fifteen years otherwise none should have had the Rents and Services after the Fifteen years

during the wives life which was not to be intended 15 El. Moore f. 123. n. 265. Another Case I shall make use of is a Case Paschae 15 El. A man seis'd of a Messuage and of divers Lands occupied with it time out of mind leased part of it to a stranger for years and after made his last Will in these words I will and bequeath to my wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my younger Son The Question in that Case was Whether the wife should have the Land not leased by implication for her life because it was clear the younger Son was to have no part until the death of the wife And the Lord Anderson at first grounding himself upon that Case in Brook as it seems of 29 H. 8. twice by Brook remembred in his Title Devise n. 28. and after n. 52. was of opinion That the wife should have the Land not leased by implication But Mead was of a contrary opinion for that it was expresly devis'd That the wife should have the Land leas'd and therefore no more should be intended to be given her but the Heir should have the Land not in lease during the wives life To which Anderson mutata opinione agreed Hence perhaps many have collected That a person shall not take Land by Implication of a Will if he takes some other Land expresly by the same Will but that is no warrantable difference For vary this Case but a little as the former case was varied That the Land in lease was devis'd to the wife for life and after the death of the wife all the Devisors land was devis'd to the youngest Son as this Case was and that after the death of the wife and the youngest son the Devisors Heir should have the Land both leas'd and not leas'd it had been clear that the Heir exactly according to the Case of 13 H. 7. should have been excluded from all the Land leas'd and not leas'd until after the death of the wife and the younger son And therefore in such case the wife by necessary implication should have had the Land not leas'd as she had the Land leas'd by express devise and that notwithstanding she had the leas'd Land by express devise for else none could have the Land not leas'd during the wives life Horton vers Horton 2 Jac. Cr. f. 74. 75. Wadham made a Lease for years upon condition the Lessee should not alien to any besides his Children The Lessee deviseth the term to Humphrey his son after the death of his wife and made one Marshall and another his Executors and died The Lessor entred as for breach of the Condition supposing this a devise to the wife of the term by implication The opinion of the Judges was It was no devise by implication but the Executors should have the term until the wives death but it was said If it had been devis'd to his Executors after the death of his wife there the wife must have it by implication or none could have had it But Popham denied that Case because if the devise had been to the Executors after the wives death the Executors should when the wife died have had the term as Legatees but until her death they should have it as Executors generally which by all opinions fully confirms the difference taken That a devise shall not be good by implication when the implication is not necessary and in this Case all agreed the Case in 13 H. 7. to be good Law because the implication there was necessary Edward Clatch being seis'd of two Messuages in Soccage tenure Dyer 15 16 El. 4. 330. b. and having Issue a Son and two Daughters by three several Venters His Son being dead in his life time and leaving two Daughters who were Heirs at Law to the Father devis'd one of the Messuages to Alice his Daughter and her Heirs for ever and the other to Thomazine his Daughter and her Heirs for ever with limitation That if Alice died without Issue living Thomazine Thomazine should then have Alice's part to her and her Heirs and if Thomazine died before the Age of Sixteen years Alice should have her part in Fee also And if both his said Daughters died without Issue of their bodies then the Daughters of his Son should have the Messuages The youngest daughter of the Testator died without Issue having past her Age of sixteen years It was resolv'd That the words in the Will If his two Daughters died without Issue of their Bodies did not create by implication cross remainders in tayl to the Devisors Daughters whereby the eldest should take the part of the youngest but her part should go to the Heirs at Law according to the Limitation of the Will and those words were but a designation of the time when the Heirs at Law should have the Messuages Note That one of the Daughters dying without Issue the Heirs at Law by the Will had her part without staying until the other Daughter died without Issue 1. From these Cases I first conclude That only possible implication by a Will shall not give the Land from the right Heir but a necessary implication which excludes the right Heir shall give it 2. That the difference taken is not sound That one shall not take by implication of a Will any Land where the same person hath other Land or Goods expresly devis'd by the same Will for if the implication be necessary the having of Land or any other thing by express devise will not hinder another taking also by implication as appears in the three Cases by me made use of viz. 13 H. 7. 3 E. 6. 15 Eliz. cited out of Moore 3. Whether any thing be given expresly by Will or not a possible Implication only shall not disinherit the Heir where it may as well be intended that nothing was devis'd by implication as that it was But if any man think that to be material in this Case the Daughters had respective Portions expresty devis'd them viz. Six hundred pounds to each of them and therefore shall not have the Land also by implication only possible to disinherit the right Heir Quest 2 For the second point These words My Will is if it happen my Son George Mary and Katharine my Daughters to dye without Issue of their Bodies lawfully begotten then all my Free-lands shall remain and be to my said Nephew William Rose and his Heirs for ever are so far from importing a devise of the Land to the Son and Daughters for their lives with respective Inheritances in tayl by any necessary implication that both Grammatically and to common intendment they import only a designation and appointment of the time when the Land shall come to the Nephew namely when George Mary and Katherine happen to dye Issuless and not before And where

Robert the son had Issue Margaret Isabel Jane Antenatas living the First of Octob. 14 Car. 1. and now have Issue at Kingston John naturalized 9. Maii 1 Jac. John the third son by the name of Sir John Ramsey was naturalized by Act of Parliament holden at Westminster May the Ninth 1. Jac. and after made Earl of Holdernes George Ramsey the fourth Son George naturalized 7 Jac. was naturalized in the fourth Session of Parliament held at Westminster begun by Prorogation 19 Febr. 17 Jac. and after had Issue John primogenitum filium Quodque idem Johannes had Issue John the now Defendant primogenitum suum filium but finds not where either of these were born nor the death of George Nicholas the second Son had Issue Patrick his only Son Nicholas had Issue Patrick a Native 15 Jac. born at Kingston after the Union 1 Maii 1618. about 15 Jac. John the third Son Earl of Holdernes seiz'd of the Mannors Rectory and Premisses in the Declaration mentioned with other the Mannors of Zouch and Taylboys John covenanted to levy a Fine de Premissis 1 Jul. 22 Jac. and divers other Lands in the County of Lincoln in Fee by Indenture Tripartite between him on the first part Sir William Cockayne and Martha his Daughter of the second part c. Dated the First of July 22 Jac. Covenanted to levy a Fine before the Feast of St. Andrews next ensuing to Sir William of all his said Lands To the use of himself for life then to the use of Martha his intended Wife for life with Remainder to the Heirs Males of his body begotten on her Remainder to such his Heirs Females Remainder to his right Heirs The Marriage was solemnized the Seven and twentieth of Sept. 22 Jac. John married 29 Sept. 22 Jac. He levied the Fine Octab. Michael 22 Jac. John died 1 Car. 1. Jan. 24. The Fine accordingly levied in the Common Pleas Octabis Michaelis 22 Jac. of all the Lands and Premisses among other in the Declaration mentioned The Earl so seiz'd as aforesaid with the Remainder over at Kingston aforesaid died the Four and twentieth of January 1 Car. 1. His Countess entred into the Premisses in the Declaration mentioned and receiv'd the Profits during her life After the Earls death a Commission issued Inquisition after his death capt 29 Febr. 7 Car. 1. and an Inquisition taken at Southwark in Surrey the Nine and twentieth of February 7 Car. 1. By this Inquisition it is found the Earl died seiz'd of the Mannor of Zouch and Taylboys and divers Land thereto belonging in Com. Lincoln and of the Mannor of Westdeerham and other Lands in Com. Norfolk and of the Rectory of Kingston and of the Advowson of the Vicaridge of Kingston in Com. Surrey but no other the Lands in the Declaration are found in that Office And then the Tenures of those Mannors are found and that the Earl died without Heir But it finds that the Earl so seiz'd levied a Fine of the Premisses to Sir William Cockayne per nomina Maneriorum de Zouches Taylboys Rectoriae de Kingston cum omnibus Decimis dictae Rectoriae pertinentibus and finds the uses ut supra and so finds his dying without Heir c. It finds the Fine levied in terminis Michaelis 22 Jac. but not in Octabis Michaelis as the Special Verdict finds but between the same persons The Irish Act to naturalize all Scots 4 Jul. 10 Car. 1. The general Act of Naturalizing the Scottish Antenati in the Kingdome of Ireland was made in the Parliament there begun at the Castle of Dublin the Fourth of July 10 Car. 1. Nicholas died 1 Sept. 10 Car. 1. Nicholas died the First of September 10 Car. 1. Leaving Issue Patrick Murrey's Pat. 25 Octob. 10 Car. 1. King Charles the First by his Letters Patents dated the Five and twentieth of October the Tenth of his Reign under the Great Seal granted to William Murrey his Heirs and Assigns in Fee-farm All the said Mannors Lands and Rectory mentioned in the Declaration with the Reversion depending upon any life lives or years Patrick conveys to the Earl of Elkin 16 Febr. 1651. Patrick and Elizabeth his wife by Indenture dated the Sixteenth of February 1651. Covenant with the Earl of Elkin and Sir Edward Sydenham in consideration of Eleven hundred pounds and bargained and sold the Premisses in the Declaration to them and their Heirs and covenanted at the Earls charge to levy a Fine with proclamation Patrick Uxor levy a Fine à die Paschae in fifteen days to the use of the Earl and his Heirs of the Premisses before the end of Easter Term next and accordingly did levy it with warranty against them and the Heirs of Patrick by force whereof and of the Statute of Uses the said Earl and Sydenham were seiz'd c. The Earl and Sydenham convey to the Countess Dowager 10 Mar. 1652. The Earl of Elkin and Sydenham by Indenture of Lease dated the Tenth of March 1652. and by Deed of Release and Confirmation conveys the Premisses to Amabel Dowager of Kent and the Lady Jane Hart viz. the Eleventh of March 1652. by way of Bargain and Sale to them and their Heirs who entred by the Lease and were in quiet possession at the time of the Release The Dowager conveys to Pullayne and Neale The Dowager and Lady Hart by like Conveyance of Lease and Release bargained and sold to Pullayne and Simon Neale dated the First and Second of November 1655. who entred and were in possession as aforesaid John Ramsey the now Defendant entred in 15 Car. 2. and kept possession Dat. 25 Sept. 1656. Pullayne and Neale convey to Talmuch and Weld by Bargain and Sale 20 Jan. 16 Car. 2. John Pullayne and Symon Neale by Deed of Bargain and Sale duly inrolled convey'd the Premisses to Lionel Talmuch and Humphrey _____ their Heirs and Assigns Lionel and Humphrey demis'd to Philip _____ the Plaintiff having entred and being in possession by Indenture dated the Twentieth of January 16 Car. 2. John then in possession and John re-entred upon the Plaintiff and Ejected him The Questions upon this Record will be three 1. Whether a Naturalization in Ireland will naturalize the person in England If it will not all other Questions are out of the Case 2. If it will then whether by that Act for naturalizing the Antenati of Scotland any his brothers had title to inherit the Earl of Holdernes in the lands in question By reason of the Clause in the Act of Naturalization That nothing therein contained should extend to avoid any Estate or Interest in any Lands or Hereditaments which have already been found and accrewed to his Majesty or to King James for want of naturalization of any such person and which shall and doth appear by Office already found and return'd and remaining of Record or by any other matter of Record An Office was found as appears

by the Verdict 7 Car. afore the Act by which it is found he died seised of the Rectory of Kingston in Reversion and of the Advowson of the Vicaridge and died without Heir and that the same escheated to the King and if all the lands in question were held of the King it being found he died without Heir the proviso will save all to the King 3. Whether Nicholas Ramsey under whom the Plaintiffs claim be the person who had title to the lands in question if any had Because 1. The death of Robert the elder Brother is not sufficiently found before the Act of Naturalization for then he and not Nicholas was heir to John 2. Because if Robert the elder were dead before yet he left Issue three Daughters who were naturalized as well as Nicholas by the Act and are the heirs to the Earl being the Issue of his elder Brother If Robert had died after the Irish Act made this Verdict had been as true as now it is Therefore it is not sufficient to find him dead before the Act. Et Juratores ulterius dicunt quod praedictus Robertus filius primogenitus natu maximus praedicti Roberti patris postea obiit tempore mortis suae habens relinquens tres filias de corpore ipsius Roberti filii legitime procreatas viz. Margaret Isabel Janam Alienigenas natas in Regno Scotiae ante accessionem praedict Quae quidem Margaret Isabella Jana primo die Octobris Anno Regni Domini Caroli nuper Regis Angliae primi quarto decimo in plena vita fuerant habent exitus de carum corporibus exeuntes modo superstites in plena vita existentes apud Kingston super Thames praedict As to the second part in the Case of Aliens nothing interrupts the common course of Descents but Defectus Nationis as Bracton terms it Therefore that being taken away by naturalization they shall inherit as if it had not been and then the eldest Brothers Issue had inherited before the second Brother 1. It is admitted and will easily appear That one naturalized in Scotland since the Union cannot inherit in England 2. Ireland then differs from Scotland in a common difference with Gernsey Jersey Isle of Man Berwick and all the English Plantations for that they are Dominions belonging to the Crown of England which Scotland is not 3. If this difference which was never discussed in Calvin's Case alter not the Case from a naturalizing in Scotland it remains whether by Act of Parliament of England though not extant Ireland in this matter be not differenc'd from other Dominions belonging to England 1. He that is priviledg'd by the law of England to inherit there must be a Subject of the Kings 2. He must be more than a local Subject either in the Dominion of England or out of the Dominion of England for meer Aliens when locally in England or any other Dominions of the Kings are local Subjects 3. He must be otherwise a Subject than any Grant or Letters Patents of the King can make him 7 Rep. Calvins C. f. 7. a. 36 H. 6. Tit. Deniz Br. 9. Therefore a Denizen of England by Letters Patents for life in tayl or in fee whereby he becomes a Subject in regard of his person will not enable him to inherit in England but according to his Denization will enable his Children born in England to inherit him and much less will his Denization in any other Dominion Whence it follows That no Laws made in any other Dominion acquired by Conquest or new Plantation by the King's Lieutenants Substitutes Governours or People there by vertue of the King's Letters Patents can make a man inherit in England who could not otherwise inherit For what the King cannot do by his Letters Patents no delegated power under him can do by his Letters Patents It follows likewise upon the same reason That no tenure of Land by Homage Fealty or other Service in any other Dominion of the Kings acquired by Conquest or otherwise by any Grant or Letters Patents can make a man inherit in England who could not otherwise inherit Calvins Case f. 6. b. for that is not Homagium ligeum but Feodale as is rightly distinguished 4. A man born a Subject to one that is King of England cannot therefore inherit in England for then the Antenati in Scotland had inherited in England they were born Subjects to King James who was King of England but not born when he was King of England 5. A Subject born in any Dominion belonging to the Crown of England is inheritable in England as well as native Englishmen So the natural born Subjects of Ireland Gernsey Jersey Berwick and all the English Plantations inherit but the specifique reason of their inheriting in England is not because they are born in Dominions belonging to the Crown of England for if so none could inherit who wanted that and then the Postnati of Scotland should not inherit for Scotland is not a Dominion belonging to the Crown of England but to the King of England It remains then according to the Resolution and Reasons of Calvin's Case That the specifique and adequate cause why the Kings Subjects of other his Dominions than England do inherit in England is because they are born his natural Subjects as the English are he being actually King of England at the time of their birth when their subjection begins Cok. Rep. Calvins Case and so are born Liege-men to the same King But then since all Liegeance and Subjection are acts and obligations of Law for a man owes no liegeance excluding all Civil Law but a man is said a natural Subject because his Subjection begins with his birth that is as soon as he can be subject and a King is said to be a mans natural Prince because his Protection begins as soon as the Subject can be protected and in the same sense that a Country where a man is born is his natural Country or the Language he first speaks is his natural Tongue why should not an Act of Law making a man as if he had been born a Subject work the same effect as his being born a Subject which is an effect of law 1. The Reason is That naturalization is but a fiction of Law and can have effect but upon those consenting to that fiction Therefore it hath the like effect as a mans Birth hath where the Law-makers have power but not in other places where they have not Naturalizing in Ireland gives the same effect in Ireland as being born there so in Scotland as being born there but not in England which consents not to the fiction of Ireland or Scotland nor to any but her own 2. No fiction can make a natural Subject for he is correlative to a natural Prince and cannot have two natural Soveraigns but may have one Soveraign as a Queen Soveraign and her Husband in two persons no more than two natural Fathers or two natural

Seventeenth verse so is his wives sister in the next following Verse Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her during her life They add also as prohibited the husband by this Rule His wives fathers wife Her brothers wife Her sons wife From the same Verse they deduce a fourth Rule For these Rules vid. Seldens ux Ebraica c. 4 5. That the Husband is prohibited the near of kin to his wives near of kin as before in the prohibitions of consanguinity for he is literally prohibited the daughter of his wives son and her daughters daughter and by necessary inference also his wives grand-mother by father and mother who are the near of kin to his wives daughter and her mother who are his wives near of kin which they thus strongly prove A man is forbidden to take a woman and her sons daughter or her daughters daughter Therefore if a man marry his wives grand-mother he hath taken a woman and her sons daughter or her daughters daughter which is expresly forbid And in these are express instances given of prohibiting the near of kin to his wives near of kin and are also termed his wives near kinswomen as well as those which strictly are so By the same reason all others near of kin to his wives father brother or sister are prohibited the husband as well as those near of kin to her mother her daughter or son and are equally in terminis within the words his wives near kinswomen of which sort they number Sixteen the same with those prohibited in the second Rule for Consanguinity And it is observable That the Parochial Matrimonial Table in use in England agrees in its prohibitions of marriages which are Thirty in number for Consanguinity and Affinity with the Levitical Prohibitions according to the Doctrine of the Karait Rabbins in the four former Rules But the Karaits prohibit Eleven Degrees of Affinity much of the same nature more than the Table doth in their two last Rules that is The wives fathers wife Her brothers wife Her sons wife Her Grand-fathers wife by the father Her Grand-fathers wife by the mother Her fathers brothers wife Her mothers brothers wife Her brothers sons wife Her sisters sons wife Her sons sons wife Her daughters sons wife And they have Seven other Prohibitions by a fifth Rule whereof our Table receives none And this harmony between our Matrimonial Table and the Karaits exposition of the Levitical Degrees is more perhaps than hath been observed to justifie the persons prohibited by the Table for as many as they are to be the same levitically prohibited To this may be added That by our Vulgar Translation and also by the Septuagint as I conceive the words Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her Lev. 18.18 to uncover her nakedness besides the other during her life may be understood to prohibit the husband his wives sister absolutely as well as to prohibit her during his wives life For the words during her life may relate either to the words Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister viz. during her life and in that sense the meaning will be That a man is not prohibited to marry his wives sister absolutely Seld. de Jure naturali Gentium l. 5. c. 10. f. 591. but only until his wives death and is consonant to the exposition of that place in Leviticus by the Scribes and Talmudical Rabbies Or the words may be read thus Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister to vex her during her life or as long as she lives that is to cause jealousie and vexation to thy wife during the whole time of her life which sense and reading squares with the Doctrine of the Karaits upon Leviticus and I think may well be defended by the Septuagint Translation The next thing I shall insist on is The Authority of the Canons of the Apostles so stiled Whether they were re vera the Apostles or not doubtless they are of great both Antiquity and Authority Of those Canons the Eighteenth hath these words as they are published in the Canon Law Can. Apost 18 Qui duas sorores duxit aut consobrinam clericus esse non potest 1. This Canon cannot be understood of having two Sisters for wives at the same time for the Christians never admitted two wives or more at one time and therefore interdicting of two sisters qua sisters at a time was to no purpose 2. The other part of the Canon which is aut consobrinam that is his brother or sisters daughter taken to wife shews the Canon respected only the nearness of Relation That clear'd I reason thus either marrying the wives sister after the wives death was lawful when the Canon was made or unlawful for it relates to an offence done qui duxit not to a new made offence If lawful why then was any punishment namely exclusion from the Clergy inflicted for a lawful Act If it were unlawful in the Apostles time how is it become now lawful It is true as the Learned Grotius observes on this Subject Grot. de Jure Belli l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 14. A marriage may be unlawful in many respects and yet the marriage stand good and the vinculum matrimonii not dissolv'd but punishable some other ways if made unlawful by Humane Authority But this Precept of the Apostles cannot be said of Humane Authority only nor a new Institution as is already noted nor was there any Divorce for Incest among the Iews as is noted after but was always among the Christians in Christian States 2. In that time the Apostles and Primitive Christian Church had no Jurisdiction or Power of Legal Divorce Separation and Bastarding the Issue how incestuous soever the marriage were for those were Acts of Jurisdiction and Coercion and could not be done but by the power of Laws to which the parties were locally subject But the Apostles and Church power was only to forbid them communion with the rest of their brethren Christians and to deny the Offenders such things as were in their power namely to be of the Clergy as was done by this Canon This appears by St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 5 1. It is reported there is fornication among you and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles That one should have his Fathers wife which was an Incest of the highest degree although denoted by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet St. Paul could do no more but direct the Corinthians from Communion with that man and to put away from among them that wicked person He could neither null his marriage nor illegitimate his Issue if he had any nor put the Offender to death according to the Mosaical Law for these are effects of the Civil Power and among the Hebrews no Divorce was for Incest but the marriage was void and the Incest punisht Seld. Ux. Ebraica l. 1. c. 12. f. 87. 89.

nor her daughters sons wife By the fifth Rule is interdicted that two near of Kin marry two other near of Kin. A man and his father from a woman and her daughter O. A man and his father from a woman and her sons wife O. A man and his father from a woman and her brothers wife O. A man and his father from a woman and her sister O. A man and his brother from a woman and her brothers wife O. A man and his brother from a woman and her daughter O. A man and his brother from a woman and her sons wife O. None of those comprised in this fifth Rule are prohibited by the Matrimonial Table but all the persons interdicted by the Doctrine of the Karaits or Scripture Rabbies are also interdicted by the Matrimonial Table of England excepting eleven persons before mentioned not interdicted to the wives husband by the Table who are interdicted by the Karaits enumeration but in this paper are marked with Ciphers as to the Matrimonial Table in the first four Rules of the Karaits Doctrine So as all the persons prohibited in those first four Rules of the Karaits being in number Four and forty are also prohibited by the Matrimonial Table which together with Eleven persons ciphered in the Table as excepted make up the like number of Four and forty from which if you deduct Eleven as excepted there will remain Three and thirty wherein the Table and the Karaits agree And whereas the enumeration of the prohibited marriages to a man are in the Table but Thirty and by consequence so many to the woman for where the man is prohibited to marry the woman the woman must reciprocally be prohibited to marry the man the reason is because in the number of degrees in the Table the Grand-fathers wife the Grand-mother and the wives Grand-mother make but three degrees But in the enumeration of the Karaits the Grand-fathers wife by the father the Grand-fathers wife by the mother the Grand-mother by the father and the Grand-mother by the mother the wives Grand-mother by the father and the wives Grand-mother by the mother are severally enumerated and so make Six persons Three more than are enumerated in the Table and so the Numbers agree The second Assertion And as to the second Assertion That admitting this marriage is not within the Levitical Prohibitions yet the Temporal Courts cannot prohibit the impeaching or drawing it into question by the Spiritual Court There is a great difference between marriage within the Levitical prohibitions and marriage within the Levitical degrees which commonly are taken to be the same For marriage within the Levitical prohibitions was always unlawful to the Hebrews by Gods Law that is the Mosaick Law But marriage within the Levitical degrees was not always unlawful for marriage between persons of the same nearness in Affinity or Consanguinity which only makes the degree was in some case and circumstance unlawful in others lawful So a marriage unlawful and a marriage lawful as the Circumstance varied in the same degree that is the same nearness of Relation The Levitical degrees qua such are set forth by no Act of Parliament but marriages which fall within some of those degrees are said to be marriages within the degrees prohibited by Gods Law by 28. H. 8. c. 7. 28 H. 8. c. 16. Nor is it said in any Act of Parliament That all marriages within the Levitical degrees are prohibited by Gods Law Sir Edward Coke in the first Edition but not in the rest Cok. Litt. f. 235. a. Edit 1. of his Littleton hath I confess these words By the Statute of 32 H. 8. it is declared That all persons be lawful that is may lawfully marry that are not prohibited by Gods Law to marry that is to say that be not prohibited by the Levitical degrees By which he makes all Gods Law by which any marriage is prohibited to be the Levitical degrees which is not so nor doth he constare sibi for in his Comment upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. he saith expresly That marriage made with a person pre-contracted or with a person naturally impotent could not have been impeached in order to a Divorce by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. but because such marriages are against Gods Law Yet they are not marriages within the Levitical degrees This marriage in question therefore though by way of Admission not within the Levitical prohibitions if it be within the Levitical degrees at all and whether unlawful or lawful within them and by what Law soever so unlawful or lawful cannot be prohibited to be impeached by the Spiritual Courts by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For that Act prohibits the impeaching of marriages only which are absolutely without the Levitical degrees leaving all other to the Spiritual Jurisdiction as before the Act of 32. Now The Levitical degrees are to be reckon'd by the persons whose carnal knowledge is forbidden a man in respect of Consanguinity or Affinity by the Law of Moses As the carnal knowledge of the mother the fathers wife the sons wife c. in respect of Consanguinity of the wives daughter her daughters daughter her mother c. in respect of Affinity And it is plain the wives sister is prohibited in some respect of Affinity by the words Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her Therefore her marriage with her sisters husband is a marriage within the Levitical degrees And agreed on all sides to be unlawful within the degrees if during the wives life but doubted if unlawful after her death Next it is certain the wives husband was restrained from taking his wives sister as he might take another woman that is either during his wives life or after Therefore his marriage with her was within the Levitical degrees But it must be clearly without those degrees if the impeachment of it may be prohibited by the Act of 32 H. 8. This marriage permitted lawful by the Canon Law where used Decret Greg. l. 4. Tit. de Divortiis c. 9. If a man marry his brothers wife none will deny that marriage to be within the Levitical degrees yet in some case that marriage was lawful by the Mosaick Law that is if the deceased brother died issuless But that will not hinder the impeachment of such a marriage by the Statute of 32 H. 8. So if a man marry his fathers brothers wife it is a marriage within the Levitical degrees Yet if the fathers brother were by the half blood only of the mothers side the Rabbies and Scribes held such marriage not unlawful by the Levitical Law but by the Sanctions of the Elders Seld. Uxor Ebraica l. 1 c. 2. f. 8. Many such cases may be found to prove a marriage may be lawful though it be a marriage within the Levitical degrees But none of those can therefore be prohibited to be impeached for they are not marriages without the Levitical degrees as the Statute

to dispense with a Corporation as it seems K. James had in this Case when the Patent was granted but by Law cannot his Power and consequently his Prerogative is less than if he could 1. Malum prohibitum is that which is prohibited per le Statute Per le Statute is not intended only an Act of Parliament but any obliging Law or Constitution as appears by the Case For it is said The King may dispense with a Bastard to take Holy Orders or with a Clerk to have two Benefices with cure which were mala prohibita by the Canon Law and by the Council of Lateran not by Act of Parliament 2. Many things are said to be prohibited by the Common Law and indeed most things so prohibited were primarily prohibited by Parliament or by a Power equivalent to it in making Laws which is the same but are said to be prohibited by the Common Law because the Original of the Constitution or prohibiting Law is not to be found of Record but is beyond memory and the Law known only from practical proceeding and usage in Courts of Justice as may appear by many Laws made in the time of the Saxon Kings of William the First and Henry the First yet extant in History which are now received as Common Law So if by accident the Records of all Acts of Parliament now extant none of which is elder than 9 H. 3. but new Laws were as frequent before as since should be destroyed by fire or other casualty the memorials of proceeding upon them found by the Records in Iudicial proceeding would upon like reason be accounted Common Law by Posterity 3. Publique Nusances are not mala in se but mala politica introducta though in some passages of Coke's Posthuma's they are termed mala in se because prohibited at Common Law which holds not for the reasons before given For liberty of High-ways strangers have not in Forreign Territories but by permission therefore not essential to Dominion because it may be lawfully prohibited 2. Liberty of the High-ways is prohibited with us in the night by the Statute of Winchester in some seasons of the year and in times of warr and for apprehension of Thieves in time of Peace c. The Assise of Bread and Ale is constituted by Statute and may be taken away Forestalling the Market and ingrossing hath like institution the first was prohibited by Athelstans Laws and William the First 's and may be permitted by a Law the second is allowed by the late Laws when Corn is at a certain low price quaere the Law tempore Car. 2. the pulling down of Bridges wholly or placing them in other places may be done by a Law and what may be or not be by a Law is no malum in se more than any other prohibitum by a Law is Judgment was given by the Advice of the Judges in the Kings Bench Quod Quaerens nil Capiat In a formedon in the Reverter Mich. 25 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 253. John Bole Esquire and Elizabeth his wife and John Ely Gent. and Sarah his wife Demandants against Anne Horton Widow Tenant of _____ The Writ ONe Messuage Thirty Acres of Land Fifteen Acres of Meadow Twenty Acres of Pasture and of the third part of One Messuage One hundred and forty Acres of Land Four and forty Acres of Meadow Eighty three Acres of Pasture with the Appurtenances in Tickhill and Wellingly which William Vescy Gent. Grand father of the said Elizabeth and Sarah whose Coheirs they are gave to John Vescy during the life of the said John and after the decease of the said John to the heirs males of the body of the said John begotten and for default of such issue to Robert Vescy and the heirs males of his body begotten and for default of such issue to William Vescy son of the said William the Grandfather and to the heirs males of his body begotten and for default of such issue to Matthew Vescy and the heirs males of his body begotten And which after the death of the said John Robert William the Son and Matthew to the said Elizabeth and Sarah Cosins and Coheirs of the said William the Grandfather that is to say Daughters and Coheirs of the said John Son and Heir of the said William the Grandfather ought to revert by form of the said gift for that the said John Robert William the Son and Matthew are dead without heirs males of their bodies lawfully begotten Then counts that The Count. William the Grandfather was seis'd of the Premisses in demand in his Demesne as of Fee and held the same in Soccage of the late King Charles as of his honour of Tickhill in the said County in free Soccage by fealty only and so seis'd the Eight and twentieth day of November 1628. at Tickhill aforesaid made his last Will in writing and thereby devised the said Lands to the said John Vescy for life and after to the heirs males of his body begotten And for default of such issue to Robert Vescy and the heirs males of his body and for default of such issue to William Vescy the Son and the heirs males of his body and for default of such issue to Matthew Vescy and the heirs males of his body and after the Six and twentieth of December 1628. at Tickhill aforesaid died so seis'd And the said John after his death entred and was seis'd by force of the said gift and died so seis'd without heir male of his body After the death of John Robert entred by vertue of his said Remainder and was seis'd accordingly and so seis'd died without heir male of his body after whose death William entred by vertue of his said Remainder and was seis'd accordingly and he being so seis'd Matthew died without heir male of his body and after the said William died seis'd of the premisses without heir male of his body After the death of which William the Son for that he died without heir male of his body begotten the right of the Premisses reverts to the said Elizabeth and Sarah who together with their said Husbands demand as Cosens and Coheirs of the said William the Grandfather that is to say Daughters and Coheirs of the said John Son and Heir of the said William the Grandfather and which after the death of the said John Robert William and Matthew for that they died without any heir male of their bodies ought to revert to them The Tenant Anne for Plea saith That the said William The Barr. whose Cosens and Coheirs the said Elizabeth and Sarah are by his Deed dated the Seventh of November 1655. in consideration of a marriage to be solemnized between him and Anne the now Tenant then by the name of Anne Hewett and of 1200 l. marriage Portion and for a Ioynture for the said Anne and in satisfaction of all Dower she might claim out of his Lands And for setling the said Lands upon the issue and heirs of

been breach'd is no Judicial Opinion nor more than a gratis dictum But an Opinion though Erroneous concluding to the Iudgment is a Judicial Opinion because delivered under the Sanction of the Judges Oath upon deliberation which assures it is or was when delivered the Opinion of the Deliverer Yet if a Court give Judgment judicially another Court is not bound to give like Judgment unless it think that Judgment first given was according to Law For any Court may err else Errors in Judgment would not be admitted nor a Reversal of them Therefore if a Judge conceives a Judgment given in another Court to be erroneous he being sworn to judge according to Law that is in his own conscience ought not to give the like Judgment for that were to wrong every man having a like cause because another was wrong'd before much less to follow extra-judicial Opinions unless he believes those Opinions are right The other Case is in Coke 5 Car. Salvin versus Clerk in Ejectment upon a special Verdict Alexander Sidenham Tenant in tayl to him and the Heirs males of his body the Reversion to John his eldest Brother made a Lease for three Lives warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 28. with warranty And after 16 Eliz. levies a Fine with warranty and proclamations to Taylor and dies without Issue male leaving Issue Elizabeth his Daughter Mother to the Plaintiffs Lessor In 18 Eliz. the Lease for Lives expir'd In 30 Eliz. John the elder Brother died without Issue the said Elizabeth being his Neece and Heir The Defendant entred claiming by a Lease from Taylor and Points entred upon him as Heir to Elizabeth A question was mov'd upon a suppos'd Case and not in fact within the Case Whether if the Fine had not been with proclamation as it was and no Non-claim had been in the Case as there was this warranty should make a discontinuance in Fee and barr Elizabeth it not descending upon John after Alexanders death but upon Elizabeth who is now also John's Heir or determined by Alexander's death The Judges were of opinion as the Reporter saith That the warranty did barr Elizabeth and consequently her Heir because the Reversion was discontinued by the Estate for Lives and a new Fee thereby gain'd and the Reversion displac'd thereby and the warranty was annex'd to that new Fee But this Case is all false and mis-reported 1. For that it saith the Lease for Lives was a discontinuance of the Reversion thereby a new Fee gain'd to Tenant in tayl which he passed away by the Fine with warranty which could not be for in the Case it appears the Lease was warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8 and then it could make no discontinuance nor no new Fee of a Reversion could be gain'd 40 Eliz. Keen Copes C. 602. pl. 13. and then no Estate to which the warranty was annex'd and so was it resolv'd 40 El. Keen Copes Case 2. That Opinion was extra-judicial it being concerning a point not in the Case but suppos'd 3. That Case was resolv'd upon the point of Non-claim and not upon this of the warranty which was not a point in the Case 4. Some of the Judges therefore spoke not to that point as appears in the Case As to the second Question Admitting the warranty of Tenant in tayl doth bind the Donor and his Heirs yet in regard the Defendant Tenant in possession cannot derive the warranty to her self from the Feoffees as Assignee or otherwise Whether she may rebutt the Demandants or not by her possession only is the question and I conceive she may not as this Case is I shall begin with those Authorities that make and are most press'd against me which is the Authority of Sir Edward Coke in Lincoln Colledge Case in the third Report and from thence brought over to his Littleton f. 385. a. His words in Lincoln Colledge Case f. 63. a. are He which hath the possession of the Land shall rebutt the Demandant himself without shewing how he came to the possession of it for it sufficeth him to defend his possession and barr the Demandant and the Demandant cannot recover the Land against his own warranty And there he cites several Cases as making good this his Assertion In the same place he saith it is adjudg'd 38 E. 3. f. 26. That an Assignee shall rebutt by force of a warranty made to one and his Heirs only This Doctrine is transferred to his Littleton in these words If the warranty be made to a man and his heirs without this word Assignes yet the Assignee or any Tenant of the Land may rebutt And albeit no man shall vouch or have a Warrantia Chartae either as party Heir or Assignee but in privity of Estate yet any one that is in of another Estate be it by disseisin abatement intrusion usurpation or otherwise shall rebutt by force of the warranty as a thing annex'd to the Land which sometimes was doubted in our Books when as in the Cases aforesaid he that rebutteth claimeth under and not above the warranty I shall clearly agree no man shall vouch or have a warrantia Chartae who is not in in privity of Estate that is who hath not the same Estate as well as the same Land to which the warranty was annexed And the reason is evident because the Tenant must recover if the Land be not defended to him by the warranter such Estate as was first warranted and no other unless a Fee be granted with warranty only for the life of the Grantee or Grantor in which Case the Grantee upon voucher recovers a Fee though the warranty were but for life I shall likewise agree the Law to be as Sir Edward Coke saith in both places if his meaning be that the Tenant in possession when he is impleaded may rebutt the Demandant without shewing how he came to the possession which he then hath when impleaded be it by dissism abatement intrusion or any other tortious way And for the reason given in Lincoln Colledge Case That it sufficeth that the Tenant defend his possession But if his meaning be that the Tenant in possession need not shew that the warranty ever extended to him or that he hath any right to it then I must deny his Doctrine in Lincoln Colledge Case or in Littleton which is but the former there repeated to be Law For as it is not reasonable a man should recover that Land which he hath once warranted to me from me what title soever I have in it at the time when he impleads me So on the other side it is against reason I should warrant Land to one who never had any right in my warranty And the same reason is if a man will be warranted by Rebutter he should make it appear how the warranty extends to him as if he will be warranted by Voucher for the difference is no other than that in the case of Voucher a stranger impleads him in

no such Case in 38 E. 3. f. 26. but the Case intended is 38 E. 3. f. 21. and he quotes the folio truly in his Littleton But the Case is not That an Assignee may rebutt or have benefit of a warranty made to a man and his Heirs only but that a warranty being made to a man his Heirs and Assigns the Assignee of the Heir or the Assignee of the Assignee though neither be Assignee of the first Grantee of the warranty shall have like benefit of the warranty as if he were Assignee of the first Grantee which hath been often resolv'd in the old Books To the same purpose he cites a Case out of 7 E. 3. f. 34. 46 E. 3. f. 4. which doth but remember that of 7. as adjudg'd That the Assignee of Tenant in tayl might rebutt the Donor whence he infers as before that the Tenant in possession might rebutt without any right to the warranty But the Inference holds not from that Case The Case of 7 E. 3. was That Land was given in tayl and the Donor warranted the Land generally to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns the Donee made a Feoffment in Fee and died without Issue and the Donor impleading the Feoffee was rebutted because he had warranted the Land to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns and the Feoffee claimed as Assignee of the Donee and therefore rebutted not because he had a bare possession But this Judgment of 7 E. 3. Sir Edward Coke denies and perhaps justly to be Law now because the Estate tayl being determin'd to which the warranty was first annex'd the whole warranty determin'd with it But however the Case no way proves what it is alledg'd for in Lincoln Colledge Case That a man may rebutt without ever shewing the warranty extended to him for the Feoffee did in that Case shew it So in the Case 45 E. 3. f. 18. the Feme who rebutted shew'd she was Grantee of the warranty To this may be added That what is delivered as before in Lincoln Colledge Case is neither conducing to the Judgment given in that Case nor is it any Opinion of the Judges but is Sir Edward Coke's single Opinion emergently given as appears most clearly in the Case To conclude When the Feoffees were seis'd to the use of William Vescy for his life and after to the use of the Defendant his wife for her life and after to the use of the right Heirs of William Vescy And when by Operation of the Statute of 27 H. 8. the possession is brought to these uses the warranty made by William Vescy to the Feoffees and their Heirs is wholly destroy'd For if before the Statute the Feoffees had executed an Estate to William for life the Remainder to his wife for life the Remainder to his right Heirs The warranty had been extinguish'd by such Execution of Estate and releas'd in Law for it could be in none but in William and his Heirs who could not warrant to himself or themselves By Littleton Sect. 743. for his Heirs in such Case take not by Purchase but Limitation because the Freehold was in him with a Remainder over to his right Heirs and so hath as great an Estate in the Land as the Feoffees had and then the warranty is gone by Littleton Litt. Sect. 744. And now the Statute executes the possession in the same manner and the warranty is in none for the time present or future but extinct If the warranty had been to the Feoffees their Heirs and Assigns it might have been more colourably question'd Whether the mean Remainder were not an Assignee of the Feoffees and so to have benefit of the warranty but the warranty being to the Feoffees and their Heirs only no Estate remaining in them no Assignee can pretend to the warranty 2. William Vescy could by no possibility ever warrant this Estate to the Defendant during his life and where the warranty cannot possibly attach the Ancestor it shall never attach the Heir as by Littleton's Case If a man deviseth Lands in Fee to another with warranty for him and his Heirs his Heirs shall not be bound to the warranty because himself could never be And though in that Case the Estate to be warranted commenc'd after the death of the Warranter and here the Remainder to the wife is in being before his death yet the reason differs not for himself could no more warrant this by any possibility than that and his Heir might as equally warrant the Estate devis'd as this Next Justice Jones in Spirt and Bences Case cites a Case 7 Eliz. the same with this Resolution resolved in the Common Pleas That the mediate Remainder could not be warranted In this Case if the Feoffees before the Statute had either voluntarily or by coercion of the Chancery after the death of the first Cestuy que use for life executed the Estate of the mean Remainder such person in Remainder could have no benefit of the warranty being but an Assignee of the Feoffees because the warranty was only to them and their Heirs No more can the person in Remainder here whose Estate is executed by the Statute be warranted more than if such Estate had been executed by the Common Law There are another sort of persons who may rebutt and perhaps vouch who are neither Heirs nor formally Assignees to the Garrantee but have the Estate warranted dispositione instituto Legis which I conceive not to differ materially whether they have such Estate warranted by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament The first of this kind I shall name Ass p. 9. 35 is Tenant by the Courtesie who as was adjudg'd 35 Ass might rebutt the warranty made to his wives Ancestor yet was neither Heir nor formal Assignee to any to whom the warranty was granted nothing is said in the Book concerning his vouching but certainly the wives Heir may be receiv'd to defend his estate if impleaded by a stranger who may vouch according to the warranty or may rebutt as the Case of 45 E. 3. f. 18. is But this difference is observable also where such a Tenant rebutts it appears what claim he makes to the warranty and so the Inconveniences avoided which follow a Rebutter made upon no other reason than because he who rebutts is in possession of the Land warranted A second Tenant of this kind is the Lord of a Villain 22 Ass p. 37. and therefore the Case is 22 Ass That Tenant in Dower made a Lease for life to a Villain which in truth was a forfeiture for making a greater Estate of Freehold than she had power to make and bound her and her Heirs to warranty the Lord of the Villain entred upon the Land in her life time and before the warranty attach'd the Heir who had right to enter for the forfeiture the Mother died and the Heir entred upon the L. of the Villain who re-entred and the Heir brought an Assise The L. of the Villain

than a local Subject ibid. 286 5. He must be otherwise a Subject than any Grant or Letters Patents can make him ibid. 6. The Natives of Jersey Garnsey Ireland and the English Plantations c. are not Aliens 268 in loco 278 279 7. Those which are born in the Kings Forreign Plantations are born his Natural Subjects and shall inherit in England 279 8. A Natural Subject is correlative to a Natural Prince and a man cannot have two natural Soveraigns no more than two Fathers or two Mothers 280 273 in loco 283 9. The several ways by which men born out of England may inherit in England 281 10. An Antenatus in Scotland shall not inherit without an Act of Parliament because he is an Alien 274 in loco 284 287 11. Who are the Antenati Postnati and the difference between them 273 in loco 283 12. An Act of Parliament in Ireland shall never Naturalize an Alien to England to make him inheritable there 274 in loco 284 13. No Tenure by Homage c. in any of the Kings Dominions acquired by Conquest or by Grant or Letters Patents can make a man inheritable in England 279 14. No Laws made in any Dominion acquired by Conquest or new Plantation by the Kings Governor or people there by virtue of the Kings Letters Patents can make an Alien inheritable in England 279 15. One Naturalized in Scotland since the Union cannot inherit in England 268 in loco 278 279 280 285 16. A man born a Subject to one that is King of another Country and who afterwards comes to be King of England is an Alien and shall not inherit in England ibid. 285 286 17. An act of Law making a man as if he had been born a Subject shall not work the same effect as his being born a Subject which is an effect of Law 280 18. An Alien hath issue a Son and afterwards is Denizen'd and he afterwards hath another Son here the youngest Son shall inherit 285 Allegiance 1. All Allegiance and Subjection are acts and obligations of Law the subjection begins with the birth of the Subject at which time the Kings protection of him likewise begins 279 Appendant 1. Whatsoever is appendant to the Land goes to the Occupier thereof naturally 190 2. An Advowson may be appendant to a Mannor 12 Apprentice 1. The Law permits not persons who have served Seven years to have a way of livelyhood to be hindred from the exercise of their Trades in any Town or part of the Kingdom 356 Arch-bishop See Ordinary Dispensation 1. The Arch-bishop may dispense for a Plurality 20 Assets 1. The manner of pleading Assets ultra 104 Assignee and Assignment 1. Offices or acts of personal Trust cannot be assigned for that Trust which any man may have is not personal 180 181 2. An Occupant becomes an Assignee in Law to the first Lessee 204 3. If a man Covenants against himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns yet if his Assigns do a tortious act it is no breach of the Covenant because he may have remedy by Action for the tort 118 to 128 Assise 1. An Assise will not lye for a Rent issuing out of Tythes barely 204 Attaint See Title Statutes 3 11. 1. An Attaint lies only in Civil not Criminal Causes 145 146 2. Jurors are not finable for a false Verdict an Attaint only lies against them 145 Attorney 1. An Attorney cannot bring Debt for Soliciting but Case only 99 2. The Defendant cannot wage his Law for Attorneys Fees ibid. Attornment 1. By the Common Law an Attornment was requisite to entitle the Lord the Reversioner the Grantee of a Remainder or of a Rent by Deed or Fine to distrain for Rent in arrear 39 2. By a Grant and Attornment the Grantee becomes actually seised of the Rent 40 3. Attornment and power to distrain follows the possession and not the use 43 4. An Attornment cannot be for a time 27 5. An Attornment of the Tenant doth not disclaim but affirm his possession For it is the act of the Tenant by reason of his being in possession 193 6. A mans Estate in a Rent-charge may be enlarged diminished or altered and no new attornment or privity requisite to such alteration 44 7. Attornment is requisite to the Grant of an Estate for life but to a Confirmation to enlarge an Estate it is not 44 45 46 8. A Rent-charge is granted to Commence Seven years after the death of the Grantor Remainder in Fee Attornment must be made in the life time of the Grantor 46 9. If a Fine is levied of the Reversion of Land or of a Rent to uses the Cestuy que use may distrain without Attornment 50 51 10. Where a Rent Reversion or Remainder is sold by Bargain and Sale the Bargainee may distrain without Attornment 51 11. Where a man is seised of a Rent-charge and grants it over to which the Tenant attorns and he afterwards retakes that Estate here must be a new Attornment for the former privity is wholly destroyed 44 12. Where an Attornment shall be good to a contingent use 52 Bargain and Sale See Intollment 1. WHere a Rent Reversion or Remainder is sold by Bargain and Sale the Bargainee may distrain for the Rent without Attornment 51 Baron and Feme 1. The man after the marriage hath the deduction of the woman ad Domum Thalamum and all the civil power over her and not she over him 306 2. The Interdicts of carnal knowledg in the Levitical Law were directed to the men not to the women who are interdicted but by a consequent for the woman being interdicted to the man the man must also be interdicted to the woman for a man cannot marry a woman and she not marry him 305 Bishop See Ordinary Archbishop 1. What Bishops were originally 22 2. A Parson is chosen Bishop his Benefices are all void and the King shall present 19 20 3. It is not at all inconsistent for a Bishop to be an Incumbent 22 4. A Bishop may be an Incumbent after Consecration 24 5. How many Benefices a Bishop may retain by a Dispensation 25 6. No Canon Ecclesiastical can be made and executed without the Kings Royal assent 329 7. Bishops in Wales were originally of the foundation of the Prince of Wales 411 Canons Ecclesiastical See Title Ecclesiastical Court 1. WHat Canons are good and binding and what not 327 328 Capias ad Satisfaciendum See Execution Certiorari 1. A Certior lies out of the Chancery to Ireland to certifie an Act of Parliament but it doth not lye to Scotland 287 2. A Certiorari doth not lye to Wales to certifie a Record to the Courts at Westminster to the intent that Execution may issue out here upon it 398 Certificate 1. There are many things whereof the Kings Courts sometimes ought to be certified which cannot be certified by Certiorari 288 Chancery 1. The Chancery may grant a Habeas Corpus and discharge a Prisoner thereupon as well

108 Stagnum ibid. Appertaining 108 109 Reputation 109 Without any lett 121 Quiete pacifice ibid. Lawfully enjoy 124 Dedi Concessi 126 Wreck 168 Derelict ibid. Imported or brought 171 172 Per Nomen 174 175 Claim 188 193 Una cum 197 Nature what it is 221 224 Unnatural 221 222 224 Uncle 241 Communia 255 Remainder 269 in loco 279 Naturalization 280 Antenati Postnati 273 Neer of kin 306 307 308 309 310 Malum prohibitum malum in se 332 333 334 c. 358 359 Dispensation 333 336 349 Exemption 349 Commot 405 Exposition of Sentences 1. Words which are insensible ought to be rejected so also words of known signification so placed in the Deed that they make it repugnant and sensless are to be rejected equally with words of no signification 176 2. In things necessary there are no degrees of more or less necessary 344 3. What appears not to be must be taken in Law to be as if it were not 169 4. Lands usually letten shall be intended Lands twice letten 33 5. Lands which have at any time before been usually letten how expounded 34 6. How long time will gain a Reputation to pass a thing as appertaining 109 Extinguishment 1. Extinguishment of a Rent is when it is absolutely conveyed to him who hath the Land out of which it issues or the Land is conveyed to him to whom the Rent is granted 199 2. A perpetual union of the Tenancy to the Rent or Rent to the Tenancy is an extinguishment of the Rent 39 3. Where Rent is arrear and afterwards it is granted over in Fee and an Attornment thereunto here the Grantor hath absolutely lost his arrears and cannot after distrain 40 Extent 1. An Extent is sueable into Wales but a Ca. Sa. or Fi. Fa. is not 397 Fee-simple 1. A Fee-simple determinable upon a Contingent is a Fee to all intents but not so durable as an absolute Fee-simple 273 2. A. had issue W. T. and R. and devised to T. and his heirs for ever and if T. died without issue living W. then W. should have the Land this is a good Fee in T. And W. hath a Fee in possibility by Executory Devise if T. dyed without issue before him 272 Fieri Facias See Execution   Fine Fines 1. A Fine levied without consideration or use expressed is to the use of the Conizor 43 2. The Seisin of the Conizee of a Fine is but a meer fiction and an invented form of Conveyance only 41 42 3. The wife in that case shall not be endowed neither shall it descend to his Heir 41 Formedon 1. The Statute de Donis formed a Writ of Formedon in the Descender for the new Estate Tayl created by that Statute but makes no mention of a Formedon in the Reverter as already known in the Chancery 367 Franchise 1. Franchises Inferiour and Counties Palatine are derived out of the Counties by the Kings Grants where the Kings Writ did run 418 Fraud 1. Wheresoever an Action of Debt upon Bond or Contract is brought against an Executor he may confess the Action if there be no fraud in the case although he have notice of a former Suit depending 95 Gardian in Soccage See Title Statutes 26. 1. WHO is Gardian in Soccage at the Common Law 178 244 2. What a Gardian may do in his own name 182 3. Who were Legitimi tutores or Gardians by the Civil Law 244 4. The Exposition of the Statute made 12 Car. 2. 183 184 5. The Gardian by the Statute of 12 Car. 2. doth not derive his authority from the Father but from the Law 186 6. The Lands follow the Gardianship and not the Gardianship the Lands 178 7. The Gardianship now by the Statute may be till One and twenty years 179 8. Such a special Gardian cannot transfer the custody of the Ward by Deed or Will to any other 179 181 9. The trust is only personal and not assignable neither shall it go to the Executors or Administrators 180 181 10. If the father appoint the custody until One and twenty and the Gardian dies it determines with the death of the Gardian and is a Condition in Law if he live so long 185 Grants Grantor Grantee 1. The Law doth not in the Conveyances of Estates admit Estates regularly to pass by implication But in Devises they are allowed with due restrictions 261 262 c. 2. A thing so granted as none can take by the Grant is a void Grant 199 3. In Grants words which are insensible ought to be rejected so likewise words of known signification when they are so placed in the Deed that they are Repugnant are to be rejected equally with words of no known signification 176 4. The meaning of the word appertaining in a Grant and how far it will extend and what it will pass 108 109 5. Land in possession cannot pass by the Grant of a Reversion but by the grant of Land a Reversion will pass 83 6. By the Grant of Stagnum Gurgitem aquarum the Soyl of the Pond passes 107 108 109 7. Where by the Deuise of the Farm of H. the Mannor of H. will well pass 71 8. To a Grant of a Rent by the Common Law an Attornment is requisite 39 9. A Lease is made habendum for 40 years after the expiration of a Lease made to another person whereas in truth there is no such Lease this Lease for 40 years shall commence presently 73 74 80 81 83 84 10. To give or grant that to a man which he had before is no gift at all 42 Grants by the King See Non Obstante Pardon Prerogative 1. Where the Kings Grant is void although there be a saving in an Act of Parliament of all the Right of such Grantee yet that shall not aid it 332 2. If a Patent is not void in its creation it remains good after the death of the King that granted it 332 Habendum 1. A Lease is made habendum for Forty years after the expiration of a Lease made to another person whereas in truth there is no such Lease this Lease for Forty years shall commence presently 73 74 80 81 2. A Rent is granted habendum for Seven years after the death of the Grantor Remainder in Fee 46 Habeas Corpus 1. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is now the most usual Remedy by which a man is restored again to his liberty if against Law he hath been deprived of it 136 2. The Cause of the imprisonment ought as specifically and certainly appear to the Judges upon the Return as it did appear to the Court or person authorized to commit 137 138 139 140 3. A prisoner committed per mandatum of the Lord Chancellor by vertue of a Contempt in Chancery was presently bailed because the Return was generally for Contempts to the Court but no particular Contempt exprest 139 140 4. The Court of Common Pleas or Exchequer upon Habeas Corpus may discharge Prisoners imprisoned by other

license Ex speciali gratia is good to dispense with a penal Law without a Non obstante 356 Nusance 1. Publique Nusances are not Mala in se but Mala politica introducta 358 2. The King may pardon a transient Nusance 333 3. An Action will not lye for a Nusance for which no man hath a particular damage 335 341 4. If a man have a particular damage by a foundrous way he is generally without remedy because it ought to be repaired by some Township or Vill against whom an Action will not lye but an Indictment only 340 Oath 1. Upon granting of Administration the Administrator is to take an Oath duly to administer the Estate of the deceased 96 Occupant and Occupancy 1. What Natural Occupancy is 188 2. What Civil Occupancy is 189 3. An Occupant shall enjoy whatsoever is belonging to that which he occupies 196 4. No Occupancy begins with the Freehold but begins by possessing the Land and the Law casts the Freehold upon him 195 5. A Claim without actual possession cannot make a man a Natural Occupant 188 6. There can be no Occupancy of any thing wherein another hath a Right 188 189 7. Two cannot have severally possession of the same thing at one time 189 192 8. Of what things there may be an Occupancy and of what not 190 194 198 9. A man cannot be an Occupant but of a void possession or of a possession which he himself hath 192 10. What it is that makes an Occupant 191 11. Tenant for years or at will may be an Occupant 192 12. An Occupant becomes an Assignee in Law to the first Lessee 204 13. The Occupant is lyable to pay the Rent 202 203 14. He hath power to pass over his interest 205 15. If a man die seised pur auter vie of a Rent Tythe c. or other thing whereof there can be no Occupancy either directly or by consequence as adjuncts of something else by the death of the Grantee In all these cases the Grant is determined as if there never had been any 201 202 16. But when those things are granted in the same Deed together with other things of which there may be an Occupancy then they shall be subject to the Occupancy 202 Office before Escheators See Inquisition 1. Principally an Office for the King is as necessary as an Entry for a common person 153 2. It neither determines any mans Right neither doth any party put any Tryal upon them 153 3. An Inquest of Office is not subject to an Attaint they are only to find naked matter of Fact 153 4. Where an Office is found if the Defendant hath no Title then the King hath one by his Office 62 5. No person shall Traverse the Office unless he makes to himself a good Title 64 Office and Officer See Title Statutes 24. 1. All Offices of Trust must be personally occupied unless granted to be occupied by a Deputy 181 2. Offices of personal Trust cannot be assigned for the Trust is not personal which any man may have 180 3. An Office of Trust and Confidence cannot be granted for years 181 4. All Actions brought against the Officers mentioned in 21 Jacobi must be laid in the proper County and if the Plaintiff is Non-suited or Discontinue or a Verdict against him they shall have their double costs 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Ordinary See Administration Arch-bishop Lapse 1. The Ordinary may enforce the Executors to pay Debts upon Contracts as well as Legacies or Marriage mony 97 2. Where the Ordinary is to supply the Cure until the Patron present 132 3. Where the Ordinary disclaims in a Quare Impedit there is a Judgment with a Cessat Executio quousque c. 6 Pardon See Dispensation King 1. A Pardon frees a man from the punishment due for a thing unlawfully done 333 2. What Offences committed against Statutes the King may pardon and what he cannot 333 334 335 c. 3. The King may pardon a transient Nusance but a continued Nusance cannot be pardoned so as to acquit the Nusance-maker for committing them but the fine or punishment imposed for the doing thereof may be pardoned 333 4. Forestalling the Market Ingrossing or the like which continue not but are over as soon as done until done de novo again may be pardoned like other Offences so as the persons shall not be impleaded otherwise than by the persons who have received particular damage which the King cannot remit ibid. Parliament See Statute   Parson and Patron 1. A Parson is chosen Bishop his Benefices are all void and thereupon the King shall present 19 20 21 2. Where a Benefice becomes void by accepting another without a Dispensation the Patron is bound to present without Notice and where not 131 3. Where the Parson doth not read the Articles according to the Statute he stands deprived ipso facto ibid. 4. Where the Parson doth not subscribe the Articles there he is not Incumbent although he keeps in possession 133 5. A Church-man cannot make a Lease of the possessions of his Church without Deed 197 Perpetuity 1. Every Fee-simple is a perpetuity but in the accident of Alienation and alienation is an incident to a Fee determinable upon a Contingent 273 2. There is no Law simply against perpetuities but against an Entail of perpetuities ibid. Pleading See Traverse 1. If the Falshood in the Defendants plea is neither hurtful to the Plaintiff nor beneficial to the Defendant there it shall not hurt the Defendant 104 2. Where the Defendant pleads a false plea which falshood is detrimental to the Plaintiff and beneficial to the Defendant as by pleading several Judgments and concluding that he hath not Assets ultra there the Plaintiff may Reply That one of the Judgments are satisfied which Replication shall be fatal to the Defendant 103 3. But to plead That he hath not bona catalla praeterquam bona quae non sufficient to satisfie the Judgments is void for the Uncertainty for no Sum being mentioned no good Issue can be taken upon it 104 4. So likewise to say That he hath not Assets ultra what will satisfie c. is void for Uncertainty ibid. 5. But it is good pleading to say That he hath not Assets praeterquam bona catalla ad Valentiam separal denar per ipsum in satisfactione separal indic solut And also besides Assets to the value of Ten shillings which are liable to satisfie the Statutes ibid. 6. It is a good plea for an Executor to plead several Judgment c. and conclude quod non habet nec ad aliquod tempus habuit any Assets of the Testators praeterquam bona catalla sufficient to satisfie those Judgments c. 103 7. To this the Plaintiff must Reply Assets ultra or that any one of the Judgments are satisfied ibid. 8. The pleading of a special plene Administravit 91 9. In pleading of a Judgment it is not necessary to set forth the

is not sufficient by the Rule of the Act of 25. unless confirmed by the King It was otherwise in the Popes case before the Act. There are many Presidents in Mr. Noy's Book where in like Obj. 2 case the King after the death of a Bishop holding in Commendam after his translation to another See and after his resignation hath presented All those Presidents are since the Twentieth of the Queen which Answ 1 cannot alter the Law 2. Who knows in the cases of death whether those Presentations were not by consent of the Patrons and doubtless there are Presidents wherein the Patrons did present else this Question had been earlier But Judicandum est legibus non exemplis Vpon Translation of a Bishop holding a Commendam in the Answ 2 Retinere as long as he continued Bishop there the King ought to present for the Dispensation is determined upon his remove and then is as if it had not been and a Dispensation gives no property to the Living nor takes away any But where property is given to the Living as by Presentation Institution and Induction or by Grant as in Appropriations Hob. Colts and Glovers Case and sometimes otherwise by the King such presenting or granting for a year or six is to grant it during life As an Atturnment cannot be for a time nor a Confirmation nor a Denization or Naturalization and the like but such Acts are perfect Manwarings Case 21 Jac. Crook f. 691. as they may be notwithstanding Restriction to time as is agreed well in Manwaring's Case I shall say nothing of the case of Resignation as not being in the present Question Judgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court That the Avoidance was by Death not by Cession Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1785. Baruck Tustian Tristram Plaintiff Anne Roper Vicountess Baltinglass Vidua Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant vi Armis entred into 20 Messuages 1000 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Meadow and 500 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick Westbury and Looffield and into the Rectory of Thornbury which Thomas Gower Kt. and Baronet and George Hilliard to the said Baruck demis'd the First of Octob. 19 Car. 2. Habendum from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel last past for the term of Five years next ensuing into which he the said Baruck the same day entred and was ousted and ejected by the Defendant ad damnum 40 l. To this the Defendant pleads Not Guilty And the Jury have found specially That the Defendant is not guilty in all those Tenements besides 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury and in the Rectory of Thornbury and besides in one Messuage 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Looffield And as to the Trespass and Ejectment aforesaid in the said five Messuages c. and in the Rectory of Thornbury the Iury say upon their Oath that before the said Trespass and Ejectment suppos'd 22 Junii 12 Jac. Sir Arthur Throgmorton Kt. was seis'd in Fee of the aforesaid Rectory and Tenements last mentioned and of the said Premisses in Looffield and so seis'd A certain Indenture Tripartite was made 22 Junii 12 Jac. between him the said Sir Arthur of the first part Edward Lord Wootton Augustine Nicholls Kt. Francis Harvey Esq and Rowly Ward Esq of the second part and Sir Peter Temple and Anne Throgmorton Daughter of the said Sir Arthur of the third part To this effect That the said Sir Arthur Throgmorton did covenant and promise with the said Lord Wootton and Sir Augustine Nicholls in consideration of Marriage to be had between the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne and other the considerations mentioned in the said Indenture by Fine or Fines before the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel next ensuing or other good Conveyance to be levied by him and the said Dame Anne his wife to the said Lord Wootton c. The scite and precinct of the Priory of Looffield the Rectory of Thornbury and divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in the said Indenture mentioned several yearly Rents therein mentioned and all other his Lands in the Counties of Northampton Buckingham and Oxford at any time belonging to the said Priory to convey and assure To the use of himself for life without Impeachment of Waste Then to the use of Dame Anne his Wife Then to the use of the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne his Wife during their natural lives and the longer Liver of them and after both their Deceases To the use of the first Son of the Body of Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said first Son so to the sixth Son Then to the use of all other Sons in succession in like manner of the Body of Anne begotten by the said Sir Peter And for default of such Heirs To the use of all the Issues Female of the Body of the said Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and the Heirs of the Bodies of the said Issues Female For default thereof To the first Son of the said Anne by any other Husband and his Heirs Males and so to the tenth In like manner to the Issues Female of the Body of Anne with divers Remainders over A Proviso That it be lawful for Sir Arthur at all times during his life to lett set and demise all or any the said Premisses aforesaid which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised to any person or persons for and during the term of One and twenty years or under in possession and not in Reversion or for or during any other number of years determinable upon one two or three Lives in Possession and not in Reversion reserving the Rents therefore now yielded or paid or more to be yearly due and payable during such Lease and Leases unto such person and persons unto whom the said Premises so to be demised shall come and be by virtue of these Presents if no such demise had been made so long as the same Lessees their Executors and Assigns shall duly pay the Rents and perform their Conditions according to the true meaning of their Indentures of Lease and commit no waste of and in the things to them demised The like Proviso verbatim for Sir Peter Temple and Anne his Wife to make like Leases during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them after the death of Sir Arthur and Dame Anne his Wife That a Fine was accordingly levied c. to the uses aforesaid They find that all the Messuages Lands Tenements and Rectory in the Declaration mentioned are compris'd in the said Indenture Tripartite They find the death of Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 2. Septemb.

1 Car. 1. and that Sir Peter Temple entred and was seis'd for term of his life They find he had Issue of the Body of Anne his Wife Anne the now Defendant Daughter and Heir of the Bodies of the said Sir Peter and Anne his Wife and that Anne Wife of Sir Peter died 2. Sept. 3 Car. 1. 1. They find a Demise by Sir Peter Temple to Sir Thomas Gower and Hillyard of the Rectory of Thornbury 9. Maii 23 Car. 1. for 30 l. Rent 2. They find a Demise by him to them of a Messuage in Thornbury 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Woolheads Tenement for 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. Rent 3. They find a Demise to them 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Land in Thornbury held by Roger Rogers Rent 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. 4. They find a Demise 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Nelson's Tenement in Thornbury Rent 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. at Michaelmass and Lady-day 5. They find a Demise 13. March 23 Car. 1. of Lands in Shalston Eversham and Oldwick held formerly by William Hughes Rent 15 s. 4 d. These respective Leases were made for the term of 90 Years determinable upon the Lives of the Lady Baltinglass the Defendant Sir Richard Temple's and the Life of a younger Son of Sir Peter Temple as long as the Lessees should duly pay the Rents reserved and commit no waste according to the Limitation of the Proviso in 12 Jac. which is recited in the respective Leases 6. Then the Iury find quod predicti separales reditus super praedictis separalibus Indenturis Dimissionis reservat fuerint reservat reditus de super premissis praedictis 22. dii Junii Anno Jacobi Regis 12. supradict Et quod praedict separales reditus c. in forma praedict reservat ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit 1653. debit non solut sive oblat suerint super idem Festum sed quod iidem reditus infra unum mensem prox post Festum praedictum praefat Annae Roper Defend solut fuerunt 7. They find a Demise to them of the Scite and Priory of Looffield 9. March 23 Car. 1. at the Rent of 100 l. payable equally on Lady-day and Michaelmass-day demised by Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 20th of May 12 Eliz. 1570. to William Hewer for 21 years Rent 100 l. Lady-day and Michaelmass with some Exceptions for the like term of 90 years and upon like Limitations as in the former Leases The Iury find quod Tenementa praedicta cum pertinentiis in Looffield supranominat tempore dict Eliz. nuper Reginae Angl. fuerint dimissa ad redditum 100 l. pro termino 21. Annorum sed dimissio terminus 21 Annorum expirati fuerunt Et dicunt quod eisdem Juratoribus non constabat quod dicta Tenementa in Looffield praedict 22 die Junii 12 Jac. aut per spatium 20 Annorum tunc antea fuerint dimissa Et dicunt ulterius quod 50 l. pro dimidio unius Anni de praedictis Tenementis in Looffield ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit Anno Dom. 1653. debit oblatae fuerint Et quod praedicta Anna Roper ante Festum Annunciationis prox sequent intravit They find that Gower and Hillyard claiming the said 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury As also the said Messuage and other the Premisses in Looffield and the Rectory of Thornbury before the supposed Trespass and Ejectment entred upon the Possession of the Lady Baltinglass and so possessed made a Lease to the Plaintiff by virtue of which he entred and was possessed until outed by the Defendant as by the Declaration But whither the Defendant be culpable they refer to the Court. Vpon this Verdict the Questions are two 1. The first Whither the Defendants entry into the six Tenements leased to Gower and Hillyard for not payment of the Rent reserv'd upon the day of payment were lawful or not And as to that the Court is of opinion that the Defendants Entry was lawful for that the Leases were not deriv'd out of the Estate of Sir Peter Temple who was but Tenant for life and had no Reversion in him but out of the Estate of Sir Arthur Throgmorton by Limitation of the Proviso in the Deed 12 Jac. so as the Leases were not Leases upon Condition to pay the Rent at the day to which any Demand or Re-entry was requisite for Non-payment but were Leases by Limitation and determined absolutely according to the Limitation Littl. f. 235. a. For this Littleton is express that the words quamdiu dum and dummodo are words of Limitation As if a Lease be made to a Woman dum sola fuerit or dum casta vixerit or dummodo solverit talem reditum or quamdiu solverit talem reditum so are many other words there mentioned And if there be not a performance according to the Limitation it determines the Lease But it is otherwise where a Rent is reserv'd upon Condition for there is a Contract between the Lessor and Lessee and the Law evens the Agreement between them as is most agreeable to Reason and the supposition of their Intention But in the present case Sir Peter Temple had no interest in him out of which such Leases could be deriv'd but had a power only to make them by virtue of the Proviso in Sir Arthur Throgmortons Deed and the Lessees must be subject to such Limitations as are thereby made It was agreed by the Council of the Plaintiff That it was not a Condition for payment of the Rent nor could it be but they would call it a Caution A Condition to determine a Lease or a Limitation is a Caution and a material one but such a Caution as hath no more effect than if it were not at all is a thing insignificant in Law and therefore must not supplant that which in proper terms is a Limitation and hath an effect 2. The next Question is upon the Lease of Looffield which arises upon the words of the Proviso That it should be lawful for Sir Peter Temple to demise all or any the Premisses which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised for the term of 21 years or under reserving the Rent thereupon now yielded or paid And the Iury finding the Lands in Looffield to have been demised 12th of the Queen for 21 years for 100 l. Rent and that that term was expired and not finding them demis'd by the space of twenty years before at the time of the Indenture 12 Jac. Whither the Lease by Sir Peter Temple of them be warranted by the Proviso there being reserv'd the Rent reserv'd by the Lease in 12. Eliz. viz. 100. l. The Court is of opinion that the Lease of Looffield is not warranted by that Proviso for these Reasons 1. It is clear Sir Arthur Throgmorton intended to exclude some Lands from being demisable by that