Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
of Lond. in Camera Guild-hall Civitatis prâ—ed and demanded 1500 pounds upon such Recognizance acknowledged 20 November 20 Eliz. and upon default of the said Hanmen Owen 25. according to the custom of London used in course of Attachment attached six hundred pounds in the hands of one W. Bolton of Grays-Inn in part of satisfaction of the said debt of one thousand five hundred pounds and now within the year came the said Hanmer ad disonerandum debitum praedicti had a precept of Scire facias against the said Thomas Leigh and after pleaded and demanded Dyer of the said Recognizance and had it quod ipse restitutionem of the said 600 pounds in manibus dict W. Bolton attachiat habere debet And upon the whole Record the Case was thus Rowland Leigh Esquire being seised of certain Manors and other Lands in the County of Glocest had issue Eliz. his Daughter and Heir inheritable to the said Lands and by Indent dated 20 Maii 19 Eliz. granted Custodiam regulam gubernationem educationem maritagium dict Eliz. to the said Thomas Leigh after which the said Thomas Leigh by Indenture 14 Martii 29 Eliz. granted and assignâ—d the said custody Dyer 190 191. rule government education and marriage and all his interest therein and the said Indenture to Sir John Spencer after which the said Sir John Spencer and Thomas Leigh by their Indenture the 26. of August 20 Eliz. granted and assigned to the said John Hanmer the said custody rule government education and marriage oâ— the said Eliz. and all their interest in the same and all the recited Indenturs by which last recited Indenture 29 August the said John Hanmer covenanted with the said Leigh that Thomas Hanmer Son and Heir apparent of the said John Hanmer maritaret in uxorem duceret dictam Elizabetham ad vel antequam dicta Eliz. dictus Tho. Hanmer perimplerint suas separales aetates 14 annorum si dicta Eliz. ad id condestendere agreare vellet and afterwards before the said Tho. Hanmer and the said Elizabeth suas separales aetates 14 annorum perimplevissent sc 8 die Sept. 20 Eliz. the said Tho. Hanmer took to wife the said Eliz. the said Tho. Hanmer then being aetatis 13 annorum and no more and the said Eliz. then being of the age of nine years and no more and Tho. Hanmer aforesaid over-lived c. And pleaded further that the said Tho. Hanmer after he attained his full age of fourteen years and before any agreement or assent by the said Tho. Hanmer to the marriage aforesaid betwixt the said Tho. Hanmer and the said Eliz. had at or after idem Thomas Hanmer came to his age of fourteen years scil 10 die Sept. Anno 22 Eliz. ad dictum matitagium disagreavit maritagium illud renunciavit and all this matter was pleaded in Bar as performance of the Covenant contained in the Indenture of defeazance made upon the Recognizance whereupon the Action is brought And concluded his plea unde petit judicium si dictus Tho. Leigh actionem suam praedâ—ct c. Et quod ipse idem Johannes Hanmer restitutionem dict 600 li sc ut praefert aâ—achiat habere valeat And all the question here was if this marriage had by this manner and afterwards renounced as is aforesaid be such a marriage as is intended in the Covenant so as the said Covenant be satisfied by it And it was argued before the Mayor Recorder and Aldermen of London in their Guild-Hall by Angier of Grays-Inn on the part of Leigh the Plaintiff and he in his Argument did much rely upon the definition of marriage by Justinian in his Institutions Nuptiae maris faeminae conjunctio individua continens viae societatem and the marriage here in question is not according to the said difinition for the persons parties to this contract are not persons able by Law to make such contract because that non attigerunt annos nubiles Ergo nuptiae esse non possunt but only sponsalia a step unto marriage And there is also rendred one reason of the said definition upon the word individua individuam dico quia non nisi morte aut divortio separandum but the marriage now in question might be dissolved without death or divorce as it is in our case by disagreement And see Jurisprudentiae Romanae Lib. 1. Cap. 33. Societas consortium omni vita inter marem faeminam ad concubitum which is societatis hujus consummatio And as every Act doth consist upon three things 1. Inceptio 2. Progressio 3. Continuatio so is it in the Case of marriage but in this case when Thomas Hanmer took the said Eliz. to Wife that is but an inception but the progression and consummation of it is cut off by the disagreement and he much relyed upon the words of the Covenant sâ— dicta Eliz. ad id condescendere agreare vellet so as there is not any liberty left to the Defendant for the agreement or disagreement of the Son but he ought to agree at the peril of his Father but if Eliz. will not agree then the Defendant is not at any mischief for in such case the Covenant doth not extend to him and also here the Father is bound that his Son a stranger to the Obligation should marry the said Elizabeth which he ought to procure at his peril or otherwise he shall forfeit his Bond. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen argued to the contrary This marriage as much as concerns this Covenant is to be considered according to the reason of the common Law and not according to the rules and grounds of the Canon or Civil Law not as a marriage to right but as a marriage in possession and marriage in possession is sufficient always in personal things and causes especially where the possession of the Wife is in question 2 Roll. 585. but where the possession of the Husband is in question there marriage in right ought to be and where marriage in possession fals in averment there it shall not be tried by the Bishop as in the Case of a marriage of right where never accoupled in loyal matrimony is pleaded but by the Country for in case of Wife in possession never accoupled in matrimony is no Plea Postea 181. 12 Len 170. 171. â—3 Len. 129. but not his Wife which see 12 E. 3. br 481. A. brought an Action of Trespass against B. and C. B. pleaded that C. is Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Iudgment of the Writ the Plaintiff by Replication said never accoupled in Lawful matrimony but it was not allowed but was driven to say not his Wife for if C. was the Wife of the Plaintiff in possession or by Reputation it is sufficient to abate the Writ see also 49 E. 3. 18. by Belknap the right of the Espousal is always to be tried by the Bishop but the possession of the marriage not as in Assize by A. and
Plaintiff for certain Beasts which he wrongfully took from the Plaintiff that then c. And he said in facto That the said I. S. had stolen the said Beasts from the Plaintiff Condition against Law. and thereof he was endicted c. and so the condition being against the Law the Obligation was void upon which the Plaintiff did demurr in Law. And it was argued by the whole Court That where the condition of an Obligation shall be said against the Law and therefore the Obligation void the same ought to be intended where the condition is expresly against the Law in express words and in terminis terminantibus Post 103. and not for matter out of the condition as it is in this case And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff C. Hawks against Mollineux Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Replevin by Hawks against Mollineux who avowed for Damage-fesant The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry pleaded that Sir Gervase Paston Knight was seised of a Messuage and twenty Acres of Land And that always those whose estate Repleviâ— Yelv. 185. Prescription c. have used to have Common in the place where c. for all their Cattel commonable in this manner viz. If the said Land be sowed by assent of the Commoner then no Common until the Corn be mowed and when the Corn is mowed then Common until the Land shall be sowed again by assent of the Commoners And this Prescription was found by Verdict and exception was taken to this prescription because against common right so as a man cannot sow his Land without the leave of another But the exception was disallowed by the Court for the prescription was holden to be good by the whole Court for by the Law of the Land the Owner of the Land cannot plow the Land where another hath Common but here is a benefit to each party as well for the Owner of the Land against the Commoner as for the Commoner against the Tenant of the Land for each of them hath a qualified Interest in the Land. CI. Baldwin and Cocks Case Intr. Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 1410. In Communi Banco Replevin Owen 52. Post 225. 1 Inst 225. 2. BAldwin was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Cocks and upon the pleading the Case appeared to be this That Sir Richard Wayneman was seised of the place where c. and leased the same to one Truepeny and one Eliz. Reade for term of 21 years if the said Truepeny and Eliz. or any child or children betwixt them begotten should live so long Eliz. within the term died without issue If now the term for 21 years be determined was the Question And the Lord Anderson conceived that the estate for years is not determined by the death of Elizabeth And it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that upon the matter the term is determined And he put the Case of the Lord Bray 3 Eliz. Dyer 190. Where the Lord Bray sold unto four great Lords the marriage of his Son and Heir to the intent to be married at the appointment and nomination of the said Lords the Lord Bray died one of the said Lords before any marriage 5 Co. 9 1 Brown. 31. 46 47. 80. 101. 2 Br. 83. 148. or appointment or nomination died the Son is married by the appointment c. of the surviving Lords That marriage is not within the intent of the Covenant and adjudged that upon that marrriage no use shall accrue And also he cited this Case adjudged in the Kings Bench. The administration is committed to one durante minore aetaâ—e of two Infants one of them becomes of full age the power of the Administration is determined which Walmesley Serjeant granted for it is but an authority but here in the Case at Bar is a matter of interest And by Anderson all the construction of this lease and grant rests upon this point if this word Or either shall be taken as disjunctive as it is in its nature or as a conjunctive and if it be taken as a disjunctive if it make the whole sentence in the disjunctive as if the limitation had been if the Husband or Wife or any Child c. And Fenner put this Case out of 17 E. 3. as he cited it Land is given to I. S. in Fee so long as A. B. hath issue of his body A. B. dieth without issue his Wife priviment enâ—â—ent Now the estate is determined and upon birth of the issue after shall not revive which Rhodes and Anderson denied for in many Cases the Law shall respect the existency of the child in the mothers belly And see 7 Eliz. Plow 289. where a Copulative shall be taken in the disjunctive as a covenant with B. to make a lease for years of such Lands to the said B. and his Assigns Exposition of words in deeds 244. Post 251. 1 Roll. 444. the same shall be construed or his Assigns And it was clearly agreed by the other parties that if the words had been If Truepeny Elizabeth or any child or children c. so long c. upon the death of any of them the interest is determined And by Rhodes Periam and Windham in the principal Case the lease shall endure as long as any of the persons named in the Proviso shall live and so seemed to be the meaning of the parties And Anderson haesitavit in the words of the limitation i. the Habendum to the said Truepeny and Eliz. for 21 years a festo Sancti Johannis Baptist post terminum annorum the expiration of a former term if the said Truepeny and Elizabeth or any child c. And he conceived that the limitation did go to the commencement of the lease only and not to the expiration or determination as if the lease should not begin if they all were not alive at the commencement of the lease And all the other Iustices were clear of the contrary opinion for by them this limitation shall go and shall be referred to the determination of the Lease and not to the commencement of it Anderson If any cause should be for which the lease should endure untill the years be encurred notwithstanding the death of the Husband or Wife it was because the lease was intended a common advancement to both for it should be in vain to name the Wife in the lease if the lease should cease by the death of the Husband And afterwards after many arguments on both sides it was adjudged that by the death of Elizabeth the lease was not determined for the disjunctive before Child makes all the limitation in the disjunctive CII Zouch and Bamfields Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THe Case between the Lord Zouch and Bamfield was now argued by the Iustices And Rhodes the puisne Iustice argued 1 And. 165. 3 Co. 88. that the Lord Zouch the Demandant should be barred Four Exceptions have been taken to the bar First because it is not shewed in
leaving out I. S. and see Amy Townsends Case in the Commentaries where the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder over to another the husband dyeth the wife refuseth the estate limited to her by the Husband she brings Sur cui in vita not against the heir but against him in the Remainder to whom the Land doth accrue by the refusal of the wife not against the heir of the Feoffor and I grant That where an estate in use or otherwise is to begin upon a condition precedent which is impossible or against the Law the estate shall never rise or begin And here the Case of the Lord Borroughs 35 H. 8. Dy. 55. was cited Where the Father covenanted in consideration of marriage of his Son that immediately after his death his eldest Son shall have the possession or use of all his Lands according to the same course of inheritance as then they stood and that all persons now seised or to be seised should be seised to the said use and intent and it was holden That upon that matter no use is changed But if the Words had bin Immediately after his death they should remain then although the words of the Limitation be In futuro the use of the Fee shall rest in the Son presently and the words In futuro ought not to be interpreted but in benefit of him to whom the use and estate is limited 9 Eliz. Dyer 261. A. Leaseth for thirty years and four years after the beginning of the said term he makes another Lease for years by these words Noverint c. dictis 30 annis finitis completis demisisse omnia praemissa to the said c. Habendum tenendum a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque ad finem 30 annorum And by the opinion of all the Iustices This new Lease shall commence in possession at the end of the former term and not before and if it should not be expounded the second Lease should be in effect an estate but for ten years which was not the intent of the parties and every grant shall be expounded most strongly for the grantee and to his advantage to which purpose he said he had vouched this Case Also by him there is not any difference where the use is limited by way of covenant or upon a Feoffment And if a man enfeoffeth B. upon condition that he shall enfeoff C. now if he offer to enfeoff C. and he refuseth the Feoffor may re-enter But if the condition were to give to C. in tail then upon such refusal of C. the Feoffor shall not re-enter See 2 E. 4. 2. 19 H. 6. 34. E. si Equitas sit adhibenda in construction of conditions a multo fortiori in case of Vses A Feoffment in Fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall grant a Rent charge to J. S. who doth it but J. S. refuseth the Feoffor shall not re-enter for that was not the intent of the condition If in the principal case Post 266. the limitation of the use had been after the expiration of twenty four years then no use should rise before the twenty four years expire but where not the time but the estate is material there if the estate be void the use shall go to him in the Remainder presently and shall not stay the time 1 Co. 154. c. Egerton Solicitor first it is to see if the use limited to William Paget be good secondly if William Paget doth not come before his time to shew his Right If this use limited to William Paget be a Remainder or an estate to begin upon a contingent or a present estate the estates formerly limited being void and he conceived that it is not a Remainder for there is not any estate upon which it may depend And the words are after the estate for twenty four years ended or expired that then and from thenceforth to the use of William Paget c. so that no use is limited to him before the particular estate is ended therefore no Remainder for a Remainder ought to begin when the particular estate begins Without doubt that was not the intent that William Paget should have the Land during the life of his Father and yet the use limited during the life of his Father was void and if the Remainder should take effect during the said twenty four years against Eusall and his companions wherefore should it not also take effect against Trentham and the others to whose use it was limited during the life of the Lord Paget And here the use limited to William Paget is to begin upon a collateral contingent upon which if it cannot rise it shall not rise at all and I conceive that the use limited to William Paget shall never rise or begin for it is limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and that is never for that which cannot begin cannot end and this Term is meerly void Ergo it cannot begin Ergo it cannot end then this thenceforth cannot be and so this contingent can never fall H. 6. 7. E. 6. A Lease was made for years upon condition that if the Lessee do not pay such a sum of money that he should lose his Indenture the meaning and sense of these words is not that he should lose the Indenture in parchment but that he should lose his Term The Iudgment in an Eectjone firmae is Quod querens recuperet terminum suum that is to be understood not the time but his Interest in the Land for the Term And Coke secretly said that in that case there is not any contingent for the estates precedent never began And as to the Case cited before by Coke Br. Leases 62. If the last Lease be made by Indenture reciting the former Lease certainly the second Lessee shall not be concluded to claim the Land demised presently but shall tarry until the years of the first Term be expired by effluction of time And as to Mawnds Case cited before there is an estate upon which a Remainder may depend scil the estate tail alledged to Robert c. If such as now is limited to William Paget had been limited at the Common Law to a younger Son the eldest Brother should have the Land in the Interim discharged of any use and now after the Statute no use limited to William Paget before the contingent where therefore is it in the mean time In the Lord Paget who being attainted it accrues to the Queen and out of the possession of the Queen this use shall never rise although that the contingent be performed for now the use is locked up A use doth consist in privity of the estate and confidence of the person if these be severed the use is gone And here if the possession be in the Queen she cannot be seised to another use Note by Godfrey that
and made partition of the Demeans only but the Services of the Free-holders and Copy-holders did remain in Common One of the Daughters took Husband the Husband and the Wife make a Lease of the moyety of the Manor to the Plaintiff for years by word rendring Rent the Lessee entred into the Demeans allotted to the Wife of the Lessor Partition The Husband died and the Wife brought an Action of Wast Anderson By the partition the Demeans are now become in gross and severed from the Manor And if partition be made of a Manor so as the Demeans be allotted to one Sister and the Services to the other now the Mannor is dissolved yet if the other Sister dieth without issue and her part descendeth to the other now it is become a Manor again which Windham and Periam granted 6 Co. 64. See 12. H. 4. 271. And Anderson was of opinion that the moyety of the Demeans did not pass by the words of the moyety of the Manor as if one seised of a Manor maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Demeans and afterwards re-purchaseth them and then makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor the Demeans repurchased will not pass thereby for they were once severed from the Manor and not re-united by the purchase Periam Although that in truth it is not a Manor nor any part of a Manor yet if it hath beeen reputed the moyety of the Manor it shall pass by such name which Anderson grant ed but it is not like to our Case Periam This is an ancient partition as appeareth by the Verdict ten years past and also it hath been reputed the moyety of the Manor therefore it shall pass Windham concessit Periam The intent of the Grantor is the best Interpreter of these words without relying strictly upon the words Anderson If we shall take the intents of men for Law we shall fall into many confusions in our proceedings but the Law is to judge of the meanings of men by their words Ever in the constructions of Wills the intent of the Testators have not had further favour than the words have given leave As to the other point It was argued by Walmsley that the Lease made by the Husband and Wife without Deed was void See 1 Ma. Dyer 91. And if the Wife after the death of her Husband accepts the Rent upon such a Lease reserved it shall not bind her for the consent of the Wife ought to be at the beginning of it which cannot be without Deed. Anderson conceived that the Lease is not meerly void See 15 Eliz. Smith Stapletons Case Plowd 431. Periam The matter is clear for although the Plaintiff declares generally of a Lease made by the Husband Wife yet the Iury hath found that it was by Indenture and that is pursuant enough And if the Husband and Wife make a Feoffment of the Wives Land it is the Feoffment of doth of them which Walmesley granted It was adjorned CCLXXXIV Smalwood amd others against the Bishop of Lichfeild and others Quare Impedit Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUmphrey Smalwood Richard Say and Thomas Say Executors of VVilliam Say Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 241. brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild and M. Incumbent quod permittat praesentare ad Archidiaconatum de Derby which was void Et ad praesentationem Testatoris in vita sua nunc in retardationem executionis Testamenti did belong to the Executors Exception was taken because these words In retardationem executionis Testament could not be applied to a disturbance in the life of the Testator Windham There is not any Writ in the Register of Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Testator Anderson What then therefore no remedy because no Writ according to his special matter 25 E. 3. 25. Goods are taken out of the possession of the Testator upon which the Executors brought Trespass In retardationem executionis Testamenti Writ abated for it ought to be where the Executors themselves were possessed Periam The Advowson it self is valuable not the presentment therefore it cannot be said in retardationem Periam Before the Statute of 4 E. 3. 73. In Case were damages were only to be recovered the Action moritur cum persona but where the thing it self was to be recovered there the Action accrued to the Executors Anderson 7 H. 4. 73. Ejectione firmae of an Ejectment made unto the Testator was maintained by the Executors be equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3 cap. 6. And by the opinion of the whole Court the Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentment It was objected also that a Quare Impedit doth not lye of an Archdeaconry-ship for it is not local nor any Indenture made of it but is only a matter of function but it was not allowed for â—iii Archdeacon hath Locum in Coro And by the Statute a Quare Impedit lyeth of a Chappel and by the equity of it of a Prebend c. See the Statute of West 2. Quare Impedit of a Chappel Prebend c. It was moved if the Executors had presented after the death of the Testator whether the Archdeacon ought to receive the Clark of the Testator or of the Executors and the opinion of the Court was That the Bishop should have election therein And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Writ should abate for the disturbance to the Testator cannot be supposed new matter In retardationem executionis Testamenti But yet it was agreed that the Executors might have their special Writ upon their Case for the said disturbance Trin. 31 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action brought against one as Executor who pleaded that he refused upon which the parties were at Issue The Bishop did certifie 1 Cro. 81. 3â—â— 2 Len. 180. quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary Tenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon that matter and argued that the Court ought to write to the Commissary Which was denyed by the whole Court for he is not the Officer unto the Court to that purpose but the Bishop himself is the Officer And the party cannot aver against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff The Court was also of opinion that the only remedy for the Defendant was by Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the Issue joyned upon the refusal ought to be tryed by Iury and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and so was the opinion of Windham and Walmesley Periam Where the Issue is whether the Executor did refuse before such a day or after there the tryal shall be by Iury contrary where the Issue is upon refusal generally because the refusal is before him as a Iudge as also is Resignation CCLXXXVII Sutton and Holloway and Dickons Case
The last words of the Limitation do not distinguish or disjoyn it but respect the estate precedent And by Clench Iustice If the use limited to Ambrose shall depend only upon the Limitation of his death the same should be void for then he should not he in esse to take But the other Iustices were of a contrary opinion and that the use is good 7 H. 4. Gawdy Although that here be three things yet but two times for the words are not or at such of the said days or times as shall first happen for that would alter the case But here these words ought to be intended as if they were spoken before in the Limitation of the estate to the Daughters and cannot divide the former Limitation and he said that if by reason that the Limitation upon the death which is certain it shall vest in Ambrose presently then if after the other Limitation shall fall then his Remainder which vested in him upon the said certain Limitation should be devested and should now accrue to him upon the other Limitation which should be absurd and inconvenient c. It was adjorned CCCXXXI Thomas and Wards Case Trin. 32. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Thomas against Ward Ejectione firme 1 Cro. 102. upon a Lease made to him of the Manor of Middleton Cheney by one Chambers the Defendant pleaded that long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing the Bishop of Rochester was seised and leased the same to the Defendant the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Lease was upon condition viz. The Lessee by the Indenture of the said Lease did covenant that he would not put out or disturb any of the Tenants inhabiting within the said Manor out of their Tenancies doing their duties according to the custom of the said Manor and shewed that the Defendant had put out one Ann Green a Tenant dwelling there upon a Tenement parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said Ann and that the Bishop had re-entred for the condition so broken and made a lease to the Lessor of the Plaintiff upon which Replication the Defendant hath demurred in Law Tanfeild argued for the Defendant that the Bishop had no cause to re-enter for there is not any condition in the Case but only a Covenant for it comes in only on the part of the Lessee and they are words of Covenant only whereas every condition ought to be the words of the Lessor and the Bishop hath sufficient remedy by Action of Covenant But if the words had been indifferent and absolute without depending on the Lessor or Lessee then it had been otherwise as 3 E. 6. Dyer 65. Non licebit to the Lessee dare concedere vel vendere statum vel terminum without the Licence of the Lessor under pain of forfeiture the same is a good condition but here it is meerly a Covenant and it cannot be both Haughton Although the words sound in Covenant and be the words of the Lessee yet the Lease being made by Indenture the same is the Deed of both and every word in it is spoken by both parties and although that he may have an Action of Covenant yet he cannot thereby overthrow the Lease as by Entry by condition broken and yet by the words it seems the meaning of the Indenture was that by the breach of this Covenant the estate should be defeated for so are the words sub poena forisfactur And here by way of Action he cannot have the benefit of the whole Covenant and therefore he shall have it by way of condition And see the case betwixt Browning and Beston Plow 132. If it happen the Rent to be behind that then the Lessee Covenants that although the Rent be not demanded that the said Lease should be utterly extinct void and of no effect and 24 Eliz. there was a case betwixt Hill and Lockham where by the Indenture of Lease the Lessee Covenanted to grind all his Corn at the Mill of the Lessor and afterward in the end of the said Indenture the Lessee covenanted to perform all the Covenants sub poeâ—a sorisfactur and by the opinion of the whole Court the same was a condition And see 21 H. 6. 51. where in an Obligation where A was bound to B. the condition is written in this manner Praedict B. vult concedit That if the said A. doth stand to the Arbitrament of such a one that then c. the same is a good condition although they are the words of the Obligee and the Deed of the Obligor and so here is a good condition And such was the opinion of Wray and Gawdy and Fenner did not contradict it Wherefore Tanfeild said Admit here it is a condition yet here is not any breach of it sufficiently set forth for the breach is assigned because he had put out a woman unam tenentem inhabitantem out of certain Lands parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said woman and that might be that she was but Tenant at Will and the Covenant doth refer only to Copy-holders And it may be also that she had disseised one of the Tenants of the Manor in which case the putting out of such a Tenant being in by wrong is no breach of condition Also it is not averred in facto that Ann was Tenant of any part of the Mannor Also the Replication is That the said Defendant had ousted the said Ann where she had done her duty fecit debitum suum before the Ouster and that might be that she had done her duty once but not after and therefore he ought to have said that she had done her duty always before her putting out and this word duly being single is too general for it may be understood of curtesie where the words in the Indenture are Doing their duty according to the custom of the Manor And also it might be that Ann Green was Tenant and Inhabitant but was not put out of the Land which was parcel of the Manor And Wray said that these Exceptions were incurable And therefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCXXXII Harvy and Thomas Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. Rot. 414. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Leases 1 Cro. 216. Husband and Wife seised of Lands in the Right of the Wife the Husband alone makes a Lease by word for years Afterwards the Husband and Wife levy a Fine and after the Wife and Husband both dye It was holden clearly by the whole Court that the Conusee should avoid the Lease CCCXXXIII Sly and Mordants Case Trin. 32. Eliz. Rot. 314 In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 191. 2 Len. 103. 3 Len. 174. Dy. 250. 1 Cro. 198 199. that whereas he was seised of certain Lands the Defendant had stopped a Water-course by which his Land was drowned and found for the Plaintiff It
ipse nor any other by his procurement or consent had taken or riotously spent the Goods of the Plaintiff for Plea saith That the Plaintiff before the Writ brought had not sufficiently proved that the said John Hallywel took or riotously spent any of the Plaintiffs Goods Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Daniel That the proof is sufficient and good for the time if it be tried in the Action upon this Obligation and the proof intended is proof by twelve men for it is not set down before what person it shall be proved nor any manner of proof appointed and therefore it shall be tried according the Law of the Land which see 10 E. 4. 11. 7 R. 2. Bar. 241. Godfrey contrary This case is not like to the cases before for here is a further matter First warning and a month after Notice pay c. And if the proof shall be made in this Action the Defendant shall lose the benefit of the Condition which gives time to pay it within a month after for in all such cases the precedent Act of the Obligee is traversable as 10 H. 7. 13. I am bound by Obligation to enfeoff such a person of such Lands as the Obligee shall appoint In an Action brought against me I shall say-that the Plaintiff hath not appointed c. And here ought to be Notice first and proof ought to precede the Notice by the meaning of the Condition and so this differs from the other cases put for here proof is not the substance of the whole Owen Serjeant It is the folly of the Defendant to put himself to such an inconvenience for now he ought to pay the mony without delay of any month And here the Defendant ought to plead That he hath not imbezelled any goods of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Replicando shall say and shew the Special matter that he hath given Notice to him thereof See 15 E. 4. 25. CCCXLV. Manning and Andrews Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise 4 Len. 2. IN Ejectione firmae the Iury found by special Verdict That Richard Hart and Katharine his Wife and divers other persons 1 H. 8. were seised of the Lands in question to the use of Richard and his Heirs ad per implend ultimam volunt dict Rich. who the first of August 8 H. 8. by his Will in writing devised That his Feoffees should be from thenceforth seised to the use of his said Wife for her life and after to the use of W. H. his Son for his life without impeachment of Wast and after the death of the said Katharine his Wife William his Son and Joan Wife of the said William his Feoffees should be seised to the use of the next Heir of the Body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of the life of the same Heir and after the decease of the same Heir to the use of the next heir of the same heir lawfully begotten and for default of such issue to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of life or lives of every such heir or heirs More Rep. 368. and for default of such heirs to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and for default c. to the right heirs of William And further he willed That if any of the said heirs shall set alien say to mortgage the right title and interest which they or any of them shall have in or out of the same Lands or by their consent or assent suffer any Recovery to be had against them c. or do any other Act whereby they or their heirs or any of them may or ought to be disinherited that then the use limited to such heir so doing shall be void and of no effect during his life And that his said Feoffees shall be thenceforth seised to the use of the heir apparent of such Offender as though he were dead Richard Hart died William had issue by the said Joan his wife a Son named Thomas and died and afterwards 31 H. 8. Joan died Katharine died Thomas entred and had issue Francis and Percival Thomas by Deed indented 1 August 4 Eliz. bargained and sold to Andrews and levied a Fine to him with warranty And afterwards 6 Eliz. Francis levied a Fine to the said Andrews Sur conusans de droit come ceo And further by the said Fine released to him with warranty at the time of which Fine levied Percival was heir apparent to the said Francis Francis after had issue I. and F. who are now living The heir of the Survivor of the Feoffees within five years after the age of Percival and seven years after the Fine levied enter to revive the use limited to Percival who entred and leased to the Plaintiff This case was argued by the Iustices of the Kings Bench c. First It was agreed by the whole Court That Richard Hart being seised with seven others unto the use of himself and his heirs might well devise all the use Use suspended yet the Land devised although his use was in part suspended because he was joyntly seised with seven others to his own use and so the use for the eighth part suspended for when this Devise is to take effect i. e. at the time of his death all the possession of the Land by the Survivor passeth from the use and then the use being withdrawn from the possession shall well pass And by Wray A use suspended may be devised As if Feoffees to use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. be disseised by which disseisin the use is suspended and afterwards during the disseisin Cestuy que use by his Will deviseth That his Feoffees shall re-enter and then make an estate to I. S. in Fee the same is a good devise for by that disseisin the trust and confidence reposed by Cestuy que use in the Feoffees is not suspended Secondly It was holden that here a use implied was limited to Joan the wife of William although there be not any express devise of it according to the Book of 13 H. 7. 17. Thirdly when a use is limited to the Heir of the body of William and Joan lawfully begotten for life and afterwards to the Heir of the body of the same heir for life c. Geofry Iustice was of opinion That here is in effect an estate tail for the estates limited are directed to go in course of an estate tail for he wills That every heir of the body of his Son shall have the Land and the special words shall not make another estate to pass but that which the Law wills As if Lands be given to one for life the Remainder after his death to the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten notwithstanding that the words of the limitation imply two several estates yet because the Law so wills it is but one estate Gawdy Iustice said That
Request the said Feoffees or their Heirs should be seised of the said House to the use of the said Ann and her Heirs Afterwards the seventh of April 16 Eliz. Ann demanded of William Ramsey Son and Heir of John Ramsey six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence being due to the said Ann ut supra the which sum the said William Ramsey did refuse to pay by force of which and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the said Ann Ramsey was thereof seised and died seised and from her descended the said House to William Ramsey The Plaintiff confessed the Feoffment to Crofton and Langhton to John Ramsey and others and shewed further That the said Ann required the surviving Feoffees to enfeoff one Robert Owen of the said House who three days after made the Feoffment accordingly Robert Owen enfeoffed John Owen who died thereof seised and from him the said House descended to Israel Owen Crafton died Langhton having issue two Daughters died All the Feoffees but one died Ann the time aforesaid demanded the said six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence of the said William Ramsey in another House in London due at the Feast of St. Michael last before who denied to pay it the second Daughter of Langhton entred and thereof enfeoffed the said Israel Owen Rents 3 Cro. 210 211. who leased the same to the Plaintiff and upon that Evidence the Defendant did demur in Law And first it was resolved by the whole Court That the said sum to be paid to the said Ann was not a Rent but a sum in gross because reserved to a stranger c. which see Lit. 79. Reversion And by Munson Iustice If the words of the reservation had been twenty Nobles Rent yet it had been but a sum in gross but otherwise it had been by devise Also there is not any condition for the payment of it but only a Limitation for the word subsequent which limits the future use takes away all the force of the words of the Condition as 27 H. 8. 24. Land given in tail upon condition that the Donee and his Heirs shall carry the Standard of the Donor when he goes to battel and if he fail thereof then the same to remain to a stranger the limiting of the Remainder hath taken away the condition and hath controlled it and now the Condition is become a Limitation But where the words subsequent are against Law as if upon failer that then it shall be lawful for a stranger to enter Feoffments upon condition c. these words because they are against Law for a Rent cannot be reserved to a Stranger c. do not destroy the Condition by Mead contrary by Munson for the Condition is utterly gone And by Mead Feoffment in Fee upon condition That if the Feoffor shall do such a thing that he shall re-enter and retain the Land to the use of a stranger the use is void 1 Cro 401 402 and the Feoffor shall hold the Land to his own use A Feoffment in Fee upon condition That the Feoffee shall marry my Daughter and if he refuse to marry her that then he shall be seised to the use of I.S. the same is not a Condition but a Limitation and in all cases afterwards of a Condition where an Interest is limited to a stranger there it is not a Condition but a Limitation And Mead said That the said annual sum is not demandable but the party ought to pay it at his peril Lit. 80. But by Munson it ought to be demanded for so this word Refuse doth imply Regula And when at the Request of Ann the Feoffment is made by Munson Mead and Windham the Rent is gone but Dyer contrary unless the Feoffment be made to Ann her self And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 19 Eliz. Rot. 748. There was a Case betwixt Shaw and Norton Shaw and Nortons Case One Green devised his Lands to A. and devised also the said A. should pay a Rent to B. and that B. might distrain for it and if A. fail of the payment of it that the Heirs of the Devisor might enter the same is a good Distress and a good Condition And by Munson Demand ought to be made of the Rent for the words are Refuse which cannot be without Demand or Request And it was certified That such a Clerk refused to pay his Tenths and because it was expresly set down in the Certificate that he was requested c. for that cause he was discharged And it was also holden That if Request be necessary that in this case Request is to be made That it ought to be made to the surviving Feoffee or his heir and not to the heirs of any of the Feoffees who are dead CCCLXIII Lacyes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictments Co. 13. Rep. 53. LAcy was indicted of the death of a man upon Scarborough Sands in the County of York between the high water-mark and the low water-mark and the same Indictment was removed into the Kings Bench and being arraigned upon it he shewed that the said Indictment was sued by vertue of a Commission which issued the first day of May directed to the Iustices of Assize and other Iustices of Peace in the said County Commission repealed to enquire of all Murders Felonies c. and pleaded further That the second day of May aforesaid issued another Commission directed to the Lord Admiral and others upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 15. by force of which the said Lacy was indicted of the same murder whereof he was now arraigned and the said last Commission was ad inquirendum tam super altum mare quam super littus maris ubicunque locorum infra jurisdictionem nostram maritimam And that the said Indictment taken before the Admiral was taken before this upon which he was arraigned and upon the whole matter prayed to be dismissed And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the first Commission was repealed by the second and so the Indictment upon which he was arraigned taken coram non Judice 10 E. 4. 7. If a Commission for the Peace issueth into one County and afterwards another Commission issueth to a Town within the same County and parcel of it the first Commission is repealed which Gawdy granted if notice be given c. but Wray denied it but the whole Court by this last Commission to the Lord Admiral the first Commission as to the Iurisdiction in locis maritimis is determined and repealed for these two Commissions are in respect of two several Authorities the first Commission meerly by the Common Law the other by the Statute aforesaid and thereupon the party was discharged against the Queen as to that Indictment Note that in the Argument of this Case it was said by Coke and agreed by Wray That if a man be struck upon the high sea 2 Co. 93. whereof he dieth in another County
the other side there the Descent is traversable and not the dying seised and that was the Case betwixt Vernon and Gray Vernon and Grays Case In an Avowry Vernon conveyed the Lands from the Lord Powes to him as next Heir to him because the Lord Powes died seised in his Demesn as of Fee without issue and the Plaintiff conveyed from the said Lord Powes by Devise and traversed the Descent to the Avowant for the dying seised was confessed and avoided by the Devise 22 Eliz. Dyer 366. See 21 H. 7. 31. In Trespass the Defendant saith That T. was seised and died seised and that the Lands descended to him as Son and Heir and that he entred the Plaintiff said That T. was seised and took to wife K. and they had issue the Plaintiff and died seised and the Land descended to him and teaversed the descent to the Defendant and see Sir William Merings Case 14 H. 8. 22 23. But if the parties do not claim by one and the same person or the dying seised be not confessed and avoided there the dying seised shall be traversed and not the descent Glanvil Serjeant Be the Bar insufficient or not if the Declaration be not sufficient the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment and here is not any breach of Covenant viz. that the Plaintiff shall enjoy it without any lawful impediment of the Defendant his Heirs or Assigns or any claiming by Marland and then if the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim then there is not any breach of Covenant assigned and he said because it is not shewed that the Land is not holden in Socage the Devise is not good for it may be that the Land is holden in Capite but admit the Devise good that when Andrews bargains and sells unto Marland and the Tenant never attorns then nothing passeth and then the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim or lawful impediment Periam Iustice Here Marland was assignee of Andrews and if he or his heirs make claim although that the assignment be not sufficient in Law yet because he hath colour by this assignment his claim is lawful and so there is a breach of the Covenant and although it is not alledged that the Land devised is holden in Socage yet the Devise is good for two parts of the Land. Anderson Iustice If it be good but for two parts then is the Reversion apportioned and the Rent destroyed and so Marland hath not any Rent by his purchase of the Reversion and so he can't lawfully disturb the Plaintiff The Law doth create his apportionment which grows by the Devise and therefore the Rent shall not be destroyed but if it had been done by the Act of the party it had been otherwise and I would willingly hear if the Heir of Marland be assignee of Andrews for otherwise he is not within the words of the Covenant for Marland hath an estate to him and his heirs for the life of another Now after the death of Marland his heir is a special occupant and vide H. 26 Eliz. Rot. 560. in the Common Pleas such an Heir shall not have his age CCCCXXX Oglethorpe and Hides Case Pasch 33 liz In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond for the performance of Covenants Debt it was holden by the whole Court That if the Defendant pleaded generally the performance of the Covenants and the Plaintiff doth demur generally upon it without shewing cause of Demurrer Iudgment shall be given according to the truth of the cause for that default in pleading is but matter of form and is aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. But if any of the Covenants be in the disjunctive so as it is in the Election of the Covenantor to do the one or the other then it ought to be specially pleaded and the performance of it for otherwise the Court cannot know what part hath been performed CCCCXXXI Tracy and Ivies Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Margaret Tracy against Ivie the Case was Dower That John Finch was seised and enfeoffed Shipton and others of two parts of the Lands to the use of himself and the Defendant his then wife and their heirs for ever with Condition That if his said wife did survive him Co. 4. Vernons Case she should pay such sums of mony not exceeding two hundred pounds to such persons which the Feoffor by his last Will should appoint and afterwards he declared his Will and thereby appointed certain sums of mony to be paid to divers persons amounting in the whole to the sum of one hundred and fifty one pounds and by his said Will devised the residue of his Lands to divers of his Kindred having no issue and died The wife married Tracy and they brought Dower against the Devisees who pleaded the Feoffment aforesaid and averred the same was made for the Ioynture of the Demandant And because that no other matter or circumstance was proved to verifie the Averment the Court incited the Iury to find for the Demandant which they did accordingly CCCCXXXII Bond and Richardsons Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond Debt 1 Cro. 142. the Condition was to pay a lesser sum such a day and at such a place the Defendant pleaded payment according to the Condition upon which they were at issue And it was found by Verdict That the lesser sum was paid such a day before the day contained in the Condition of the Bond and then received and upon this Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the day is not material nor the place but the payment is the substance CCCCXXXIII Marshes Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover had Conversion GOods came to a Feme covert by Trover and she and her Husband did convert them to their own use It was holden per Curiam That the Action upon the Case shall be brought against the Husband and Wife and not against the Husband only for the Action doth sound in Trespass and it is not like unto Detinue for upon a Detainer by the Wife the Action lieth against the Husband only CCCCXXXIV Corbets Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 2 Len. 60. AN Action of Debt was brought by Original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was commorant and before notice of the Suit he paid divers Debts of the Intestate due by specialty and so he had not Assets to pay the Debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the Original And now Plainment Administred 1 Cro. 793. the Defendant appearing pleaded this special matter and concluded so he had nothing remaining in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea. See 2 H. 4. 21 22. CCCCXXXV Gillam and Lovelaces Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Administration KAtharine Gillam Administratrix of John Gillam brought Ejectione