annum to the Plaintiffs in Trust for Mary and this was to be in discharge of the said Iointure Habendum to them their Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns in Trust for the said Mary for Life with a Clause of Distress and a Covenant to pay the 200 l. per annum to the said Trustees for the use of the said Mary the Breach assigned was that the Defendant had not paid the Rent to them for the Use of Mary The Defendant demurred specially for that it appears by the Plaintiffs own shewing that here is a Grant of a Rent-Charge for life which is executed by the Statute of Vses and therefore there ought to have been a Distress for Non-payment which is the proper remedy given by the Statute and this Action will not lie in the personalty 2. 'T is said the Defendant did not pay it to the Plaintiffs for the use of Mary which is a Negative pregnant and implies that it was paid to them 3. 'T is not averred that the Mony was not paid to Mary and if 't is paid to her then the Breach is not well assigned Ex parte Quer. But Serjeant Baldwin for the Plaintiff replyed that it was not a Question in this Case whether this Rent Charge was executed by the Statute or not for quacunque via data an Action of Covenant will lie and that the Breach was assigned according to the Words of the Covenant and so prima facie 't is well enough for if the Defendant did pay the Mony to the Plaintiffs he may plead it and so he may likewise if he paid it to Mary Curia The Court were all of Opinion that this Rent-Charge was executed by the Statute of Vses by the express Words thereof which executes such Rents granted for Life upon Trust as this Case is and transfers all Rights and Remedies incident thereunto together with the possession to Cestuy que use so that though the power of distraining be limited to the Trustées by this Deéd yet by the Statute which transfers that power to Mary she may distrain also but this Covenant being collateral cannot be transferred The Clause of Distress by the express Words of the Act is given to the Cestuy que use but here is a double Remedy by Distress or Action for if the Lessée assign his Interest and the Rent is accepted of the Assignee yet a Covenant lies against the Lessée for Non-payment upon the express Covenant to * Hayes and Bickerstaff Hollis and Carr Antea pay so if a Rent be granted to S. and a Covenant to pay it to N. for his use 't is a good Covenant And it was agreed that the assignment of a Breach according to the Words of the Covenant is good enough and that if any thing be done which amounts to a performance the other side must plead it as in this Case the Defendant might have pleaded that the Mony was paid to Mary which is a performance in substance but it shall not be intended without pleading of it Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Read versus Dawson DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Executor Repleader after an immaterial Issue Issue was joyned whether the Defendant had Assets or not on the thirtieth day of November which was the day on which he had the first notice of the Plaintiffs original Writ and it was found for the Defendant that then he had not Assets It was moved for a Repleader because it was said this was an immaterial Issue for though he had not Assets then yet if he had any afterwards he is liable to the Plaintiffs Action But Barrel Serjeant moved for Iudgment upon this Verdict by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. which helps in Cases of Mispleading or insufficient Pleading 'T is true there are many Cases which after Verdict are not aided by this Statute as if there are two Affirmatives which cannot make an Issue or when after a Traverse Issue is joyned with an hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam this is no Issue 2 Anders 6 7. Yelv. 210. Hob. 126. So if there be no Plea at all as if an Action is brought against Baron and Feme and she pleads only 2 Cro. 288. So if the Party puts himself super patriam where it should be tried by Record or if the Plea be nothing to the purpose or lie not in the Mouth of the Parties such immaterial Issues as these cannot be good The difference in Moor 867. is if the Plea on which the Issue is joyned hath no colourable pretence in it to barr the Plaintiff or if it be against an express Rule in the Law there the Issue is immaterial and so as if there was no Issue and therefore 't is not aided by the Statute but if it hath the countenance of a legal Plea though it want necessary matter to make it sufficient there shall be no Repleader because 't is helped after Verdict Here the Parties only doubt whether there were Assets at the time of the notice and 't is found there were none and so Iudgment was to be given accordingly and of that Opinion was the whole Court But Iustice Atkins was clear of Opinion that if the Parties join in an immaterial Issue there shall be no Repleader because 't is helped after Verdict by these Words in the Statute viz. any Issue 'T is not said an Issue joined upon a material Point and the intent of the Statute was to prevent Repleaders and that if any other Construction should be made of that Act he was of Opinion that the Iudges sate there not to expound but to make a Law for by such an Interpretation much of the benefit intended by the Act to the Party who had a Verdict would be restrained Curia The other Iustices were all of Opinion that since the making of this Statute it had been always allowed and taken as a difference that when the Issue was perfectly material there should be no Repleader but that it was otherwise where the Issue was not material And Iustice Scroggs asked merrily If Debt be brought upon a Bond and the Defendant pleads Robin Hood dwelt in a Wood and the Plaintiff joyns Issue that he did not this is an immaterial Issue and shall there not be a Repleader in such Case after Verdict Ad quod non fuit responsum Beaumont versus ........ Wager of Law THE Plaintiff brings an Action of Debt upon a Iudgment obtained against the Defendant in a Court Baron having declared there in an Action on the Case upon an Assumpsit and recovered The Defendant came to wage his Law and was ready to swear that he owed the Plaintiff nothing Sid. 366. but the Court held that he was not well advised for by the Recovery in the inferior Court it became now a Debt and was owing and being asked whether he had paid the Mony he answered that he owed nothing Whereupon the Court
should take revenge themselves for which reasons he held the Action will lye Atkyns Iustice contra This is not a common Action upon the Case but an Action founded upon the Statute of the 2 of R. 2. upon the Construction whereof the Resolution of this Case will depend whether the Action will lie or not And as to that he considered 1. The Occasion 2. The Scope 3. The parts of the Statute 1. The occasion of it is mentioned in Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower f. 173. nu 9 and 10. At the summoning of this Parliament the Bishop of St. Davids declared the Causes of their meeting and told both the Houses of the Mischiefs that had hapned by divers slanderous Persons and sowers of Discord which he said were Dogs that eat raw Flesh the meaning of which was that they devoured and eat one another to prevent which the Bishop desired a Remedy and his Request seemed to be the Occasion of making this Law for ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur Leges 2. The Scope of the Act was to restrain unruly Tongues from raising false Reports and telling Stories and Lyes of the Peers and Great Officers of the Kingdom so that the design of the Act was to prevent those imminent dangers which might arise and be occasioned by such false Slanders 3. Then the parts of the Act are three viz. reciting the Offence and the Mischief then mentioning the ill Effects and appointing of a Penalty From whence he Observed 1. That here was no new Offence made or declared for nothing was prohibited by this Statute but what was so at the Common Law before The Offences to be punished by this Act are mala in se and those are Offences against the Moral Law they must be such in their nature as bearing of false Witness and these are Offences against a common Person which he admitted to be aggravated by the eminency of the person against whom they were spoke but every uncivil Word or rude Expression spoken even of a Great Man will not bear an Action and therefore an Action will not lie upon this Statute for every false Lye but it must be horrible as well as false and such as were punishable in the High Commission Court which were enormous Crimes 12 Co. 43. By this description of the Offences and the consequences and effects thereof he said he could better judge whether the Words were actionable or not and he was of Opinion that the Statute did not extend to Words of a small and trivial nature nor to all Words which were actionable but only to such which were of a greater magnitude such by which Discord might arise between the Lords and Commons to the great peril of the Realm and such which were great Slanders and horrible Lies which are words purposely put into this Statute for the aggravation and distinction of the Crime and therefore such Words which are actionable at the Common Law may not be so within this Statute because not horrible great Scandals He did not deny but that these were undecent and uncivil words and very ill applied to that honourable person of whom they were spoken but no body could think that they were horrible great slanders or that any debate might arise between the Lords and Commons by reason such words were spoken of this Peer or that it should tend to the great peril of the Kingdom and the quick destruction thereof such as these were not likely to be the effects and consequences of these Words and therefore could not be within the meaning of the Act because they do not agree with the discription given in it 2. Here is no new punishment inflicted on the Offender for at the Common Law any person for such Offences as herein are described might have been Fined and Imprisoned either upon Indictment or Information brought against him and no other punishment is given here but Imprisonment Even at the Common Law scandal of a Peer might be punished by Pillory and loss of Ears 5 Co. 125. De Libellis Famosis 12 Co. 37. 9 Co. 59. Lamb's Case So that it appears this was an Offence at the Common Law but aggravated now because against an Act of Parliament which is a positive Law much like a Proclamation which is set forth to enforce the execution of a Law by which the Offence is afterwards greater He did agree that an Action would lie upon this Statute though there were no express Words to give it to a Peer because where there is a Prohibition and a Wrong and Damage arises to the Party by doing the thing prohibited in such Case the Common Law doth intitle the Party to an Action 10 Co. 75. 12 Co. 100 103. And such was the Resolution in the Earl of Northampton's Case upon construction of the Law as incident to the Statute and as the Offence is greater because of the Act and as the Action will lie upon the Statute so the Party injured may sue in a qui tam which he could not have done before the making this Law 3. But that such words as these were not actionable at the Common Law much less by the Statute for the Defendant spoke only his Iudgment and Opinion and doth not directly charge the Plaintiff with any thing and might well be resembled to such Cases as are in Rolls Abridgm 1 part 57. pl 30. which is a little more solemn because adjudged upon a special Verdict the Words were spoken of a Iustice of Peace Thou art a Blood-Sucker and not fit to live in a Commonwealth These were not held actionable because they neither relate to his Office or fix any Crime upon him Fol. 43. in the same Book Thou deservest to be hanged not actionable because it was only his Opinion So where the Words are general without any particular Circumstances they make no impression and gain no credit and therefore in Cro. Car. 111. 1 Roll. Abridgm 107. pl. 43. You are no true Subject to the King the Action would not lie In this Case 't is said the Plaintiff acts against Law which doth not imply a Habit in him so to do and when Words may as well be taken in a mild as in a severe Sense the Rule is quod in mitiori sensu accipienda sunt Now these Words are capable of such a favourable construction for no more was said of the Plaintiff than what in some sense may be said of every person whatsoever for who can boast of his Innocency who keeps close in all his actions to Law and Reason and to say A Man acts against both may imply that he departed from those Rules in some particular Cases where it was the Error of his Iudgment only In the Duke of Buckingham's Case Sheppard's Abridgment 1 part f. 28. Viz. You are used to do things against Law and mentions a particular fact there indeed because of Usage of the ill practice it was held that an Action lies but if he had been
many Settlements would be shaken in which nothing was more usual now than to Covenant to stand seised to the Vse of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body c. They all agreed also That the Estate being well limited William should take per formam Doni as special Heir for Voluntas Donatoris in charta manifeste expressa observetur and 't is apparent Thomas intended that William should have it or else the Limitation to his Heirs Males had been needless So that taking it for granted that the Estate Tail once vested is not spent by his dying without Issue but it comes to William by descent and not as a Purchasor for so he could not take it because he is not Heir and till Thomas be dead without Issue the Tail cannot be spent so there was no difficulty in that Point And they held the Opinions of Dyer and Saunders in Creswold's Case to be good Law who were divided from the other Iustices but they doubted of Pybus and Mitford 's Case whether it was Law or not they doubted also whether by any Construction Thomas could be said to have an Estate for Life by implication they doubted also of the springing Vse but they held that this Limitation was good in its creation and Iudgment was given accordingly Cockram Executor versus Welby Statute of Limitations not pleadable by a Sheriff who levied mony by fi fa. and nine years pass Mod. Rep. 245. IN Debt the Plaintiff declared that his Testator recovered a Iudgment in this Court upon which he sued out a Fieri facias which he delivered to the Defendant being Sheriff of Lincoln and thereupon the said Sheriff returned Fieri feci but that he hath not paid the Mony to the Plaintiff per quod actio accrevit c. The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations to which the Plaintiff demurred And the question was whether this Action was barely grounded on the Contract or whether it had a Foundation upon matter of Record If on the Contract only then the Statute of 21 Jacobi cap. 16. is a good Plea to barr the Plaintiff of his Action which Enacts That all Actions of Debt grounded upon any Lending or Contract without Specialty shall be brought within six years next after the Cause of Action doth accrew and in this Case nine years had passed But if it be grounded upon matter of Record that is a Specialty and then the Statute is no barr Serjeant Barrel held this to be a Debt upon a Contract without specialty for when the Sheriff had levied the Mony the Action ceases against the Party and then the Law creates a Contract and makes him Debtor as it is in the Case of a Tally delivered to a Customer It lies against an Executor where the Action arises quasi ex contractu which it would not do if it did not arise ex maleficio as in the Case of a Devastavit 'T is true The Iudgment recovered by the Testator is now set forth by the Plaintiff Executor but that is not the ground but only an inducement to the Action for the Plaintiff could not have pleaded nul tiel Record so that 't is the meer receiving the Mony which charges the Defendant and not virtute Officii upon a false return for upon the receipt of the Mony he is become Debtor whether the Writ be returned or not and the Law immediately creates a Contract and Contracts in Law are as much within the Statute as Actual Contracts made between the Parties All which was admitted on the other side but it was said that this Contract in Law was chiefly grounded upon the Record and compared it to the Case of Attornies Fees which hath been adjudged not to be within the Statute though it be quasi ex contractu because it depends upon Matter of Record Rolls Abridg. tit Debt 598. pl. 17. And afterwards in Michaelmas-Term following by the Opinions of the Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices it was held that this Case was not within the Statute because the Action was brought against the Defendant as an Officer who acted by vertue of an Execution in which Case the Law did create no Contract and that here was a Wrong done for which the Plaintiff had taken a proper remedy and therefore should not be barred by this Statute Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion for he said if another received Mony to his use due upon Bond the Receipt makes the Party subject to the Action and so is within the Statute But by the Opinions of the other Iustices Iugdment was given for the Plaintiff Major versus Grigg In Banco Regis THE Plaintiff brought an Action Covenant to save harmless and the Plaintiff sets forth no Title in the disturber good after Verdict Cro. Eliz. 914. Cro. Jac. 315 425. Vaugh. 120 121. 2 Sand. 178. Mod. Rep. 66. for that the Defendant Non indempnem conservavit ipsum de concernente occupation̄ quorundam clausorum c. secundum formam agreamenti and sets forth a disturbance by one who commenced a Suit against him in such a Term concernente occupation̄ clausorum praed ' but doth not set forth that the person suing had any Title which it was said ought to have been shewn as if a Man makes a Lease for years and covenants for quiet enjoyment in an Action brought by the Lessee upon that Covenant it must be shewn that there was a lawful Title in the person who disturbed or else the Action will not lie But this being after a Verdict and the Plaintiff setting forth in his Declaration that the disturber recovered per Judicium Curiae the Court now were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff Taylor versus Baker In Banco Regis Payment to the Marshal no discharge to the Plaintiff at whose Suit the Defendant was in Execution Jones 97. THE Case was viz. a Man being in Execution doth actually pay the Mony to the Marshal for which he was imprisoned and thereupon was discharged and whether he should pay it again to the Plaintiff upon a second Execution was the Question Sanders argued that he should not pay it again he said this Case was never adjudged and therefore could produce no Authority in Point to warrant his Opinion but parallel Cases there were many As if the Sheriff take Goods in Execution by vertue of a Fieri Facias whether he sells them or not yet being taken from the party against whom the Execution was sued he shall plead that taking in discharge of himself and shall not be liable to a second Execution though the Sheriff hath not returned the Writ and the reason is because the Defendant cannot avoid the Execution and he would therefore be in a very bad condition if he was to be charged the second time And if the Sheriff should die after the Goods are taken in Execution his Executors are liable to the Plaintiff to satisfie the debt for they have paid pro
gave him the Goods at London by force whereof he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry because by such Gift or Delivery he might justifie the taking any where as well as where the delivery was made 2. That the Declaration was ill for the Agreement was to deliver the Goods at London and the breach was that he left them at London and so but argumentative Aston pl. Red. 62. Herns Pleader 76. Brownl Pleadings 139. But the Court were of Opinion that the Declaration was good and the Plea was naught in substance but if it had been good the Traverse notwithstanding had been ill because the justification was not local 2 Cro. 45 372 though Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Nota Visne altered Propter necessiatem The Plaintiff had leave given by the Court to alter the Visne from London to Middlesex because all the Sittings in London were on a Saturday and his Witness was a Jew and would not appear that day Mendyke versus Stint PRohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London Prohibition to the Sheriffs Court after Verdict and Judgment comes too late The Suggestion was That the Plaintiff was sued in that Court in an Action on the Case and sets forth the Proceedings at large that there was a Verdict against him there and averred that the Contract upon which he was sued there revera was made in Middlesex and so the cause of Action did not arise within their Iurisdiction and upon Demurrer to the Prohibition Serjeant Pemberton argued 2 Inst 229 243 601. West 1. c. 35. F. N. B. 45. b. Hob. 106. 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to any Court as well Temporal as Spiritual where such Courts exceed their Bounds for both those Iurisdictions are united to the Imperial Crown it may be granted to the Dutchy Court if they hold Plea of Lands not parcel of the Dutchy 2. Though the Iury have here found that the Defendant assumpsit modo forma yet such finding as to time and place is not material nor is it any Estoppel in a new Action laid in another County to aver that it was for the same thing 'T is true both time and place may be made material by pleading and so it had been in this Case if the Iury had found the place precisely for it would have been an Estoppel The Verdict therefore is nothing and all they have done is coram non Judice The Case of * Antea Squib and Holt. Squib and Hole he cited as an Authority in point where it was adjudged no Escape in the Officer to let a Man at Liberty who was in Execution upon a Bond sued in an Inferior Court the Bond not being made within the Iurisdiction thereof Ex parte Def. But Maynard Dolben Goodfellow and Sympson Serjeants contra They agreed that where it appears by the Plaintiffs Libel that the Court had no Iurisdiction there a Prohibition lies at any time but if what is in the Declaration is laid infra jurisdictionem there the Party must plead extra jurisdictionem and if they refuse to plead to the Plea a Prohibition will lie after Sentence But here is an Action on the Case brought of which the Sheriffs Court can hold Plea and which is laid to be infra jurisdictionem and not denied by the Plaintiff in his Plea and therefore now after Verdict and Iudgment he comes too late for a Prohibition and upon this difference Prohibitions have been usually either granted or denied to the Spiritual Courts Though the Court hath not cognisance of the Cause yet the Proceedings are not coram non Judice for if it be alledged to be within the Iurisdiction and the Defendant takes no exception to it and then Sentence is given against him he hath there by admitted the Iurisdiction So where a Man sued for a Legacy in the Prerogative Court where the Will was proved Stiles 45. by the Opinion of Rolls C. J. 2 Roll. Abr. 318. and Sentence given and an Appeal to the Delegates and Sentence affirmed and then a Prohibition granted but without notice upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. for that the Parties lived in another Diocess but the Plaintiff having allowed the Iurisdiction in all the former proceedings though the Prohibition was granted the Court would not compel the Party to appear and plead but granted a Consultation Cro. Car. 97. Smith versus the Executors of Pondrel In Hillary-Term 1675. in B.R. between Spring and Vernon and in Michaelmas-Term in 22 Car. 2. B. R. Buxton's Case and in Hillary Term the 22 23 Car. 2. in the same Court between Cox and St. Albon Prohibitions were denied after the Iurisdiction adadmitted by Pleading Mod. Rep. 81. The Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkyns upon the first Argument enclined that a Prohibition ought to be granted because the admittance of the Party cannot give a Iurisdiction where originally there was none but afterwards they were all of Opinion That the Prohibition should not go but said that the Plaintiff in the Inferiour Court ought to have been Non-suited if it appeared upon the Evidence that the Cause of Action did arise extra jurisdictionem In this Case these things were agreed by the Court. 1. Sid. 151. That if any matter appears in the Declaration which sheweth that the Cause of Action did not arise infra jurisdictionem there a Prohibition may be granted at any time 2. If the subject matter in the Declaration be not proper for the Iudgment and determination of such Court there also a Prohibition may be granted at any time 3. If the Defendant who intended to plead to the Iurisdiction is prevented by any Artifice as by giving a short day or by the Attornies refusing to plead it c. or if his Plea be not accepted or is over-ruled in all these Cases a Prohibition likewise will lie at any time And the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustices were of Opinion that after the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction by pleading to the Action especially if Verdict and Iudgment pass the Court will not examine whether the Cause of Action did arise out of the Iurisdiction or not But Atkyns and Scroggs Iustices said nothing to this last point but that many times an advantage given by the Law was lost by coming too late and instanced that a Visne may be changed in time but not if the Party come too late so if the time of the promise be laid above six years from the time of the Action brought if the Statute of Limitations be not pleaded the Defendant cannot take afterwards advantage of it Whereupon a Prohibition was denied and Iudgment was given for the Defendant Birch versus Wilson Plea tho' it amount to a general Issue if it doth disclose matter of Law besides it shall not be demurred unto IN an Action on the Case the Plaintiff declared
particular Estate to support it for it shall descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen 't is not like a Remainder at the Common Law which must vest eo instanti that the particular Estate determines but the Learning of Exeecutory Devises stands upon the Reasons of the old Law wherein the intent of the Devisor is to be observed For when it appears by the Will that he intends not the Devisee to take but in futuro and no disposition being made thereof in the mean time it shall then descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen but if the intent be that he shall take in praesenti and there is no incapacity in him to do it he shall not take in futuro by an executory Devise Sid. 153. pl. 2. A Devise to an Infant in ventre sa mere is good and it shall descend to the Heir in the mean time for the Testator could not intend he should take presently he must first be in rerum natura 3 Co. 20. a. 1 Inst 378. a. If an Estate be given to A. for Life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. this is a contingent Remainder and shall be governed by the Rules of the Law for if B. dye during the Life of A. 't is good but if he survive 't is void because no Body can be his right Heir whilst he is living and there shall be no descent to the Heir of the Donor in the mean time to support this contingent Remainder that so when B. dies his right Heirs may take In this Case a Fée did vest in Benjamin presently and therefore after his death without Issue the Defendant is his Heir and hath a good Title if not as Heir at Law yet she may take by way of Executory Devise as Heir of the Body of her Father which though it could not be whilst he was living because nemo est haeres viventis yet after his death she was Heir of his Body and was then of Age at which time and not before she was to take by the Will That Elizabeth the general Heir had only an Estate for years till Benjamin should or might be of Age And so by the Opinion of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Evered versus Hone. SPecial Verdict in Ejectment wherein the Case was thus viz. A Man hath Issue two Sons Thomas his eldest and Richard his youngest Son Thomas hath Issue John Richard hath Issue Mary The Father devised Lands to his Son Thomas for Life Constructi-of Words in a Devise and afterwards to his Grandson John and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Issue Male then to his Grandaughter Mary in Tail and charged it with some Payments in which Will there was this Proviso viz. Provided if my Son Richard should have a Son by his now Wife Margaret then all his Lands should go to such first Son and his Heirs he paying as Mary should have done Afterwards a Son was born and the Question was whether the Estate limited to Thomas the eldest Son was thereby defeated And the Court were all clear of Opinion that this Proviso did only extend to the Case of Mary's being intituled and had no influence upon the first Estate limited to the eldest Son Anonymus IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor Executor of an Executor de son tort not liable at Law the Lord Treasurer and two Chief Iustices the Case was thus viz. The Plaintiff had declared against the Defendant as Executor of Edward Nichols who was Executor of the Debtor The Defendant pleads that the Debtor died intestate and Administration of his Goods was granted to a Stranger absque hoc that Edward Nichols was ever Executor but doth not say or ever administred as Executor for in truth he was Executor de son tort The Plaintiff replies that before the Administration granted to the Stranger Edward Nichols possessed himself of divers Goods of the said Debtor and made the Defendant Executor and dyed and the Defendant demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff but reversed here for an Executor of an Executor de son tort is not lyable at Law though the Lord Chancellor said he would help the Plaintiff in Equity But here Administration of the Goods of the Debtor was granted before the death of the Executor de son tort so his Executorship vanished and nothing shall survive The Lady Wyndham's Case IF Flotsam come to land and is taken by him who hath no Title the Action shall not be brought at the Common Law and no Proceedings shall be thereon in the Court of Admiralty for there is no need of Condemnation thereof as there is of Prizes By the Opinion of the whole Court of Common Pleas. Rose versus Standen Action where misconceived by the Plaintiff and Verdict against him no Barr to a new Action IN Accompt for Sugar and Indigoe the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit a quantum meruit and an insimul computasset for 100 l. due to him for Wares sold to which he pleaded Non assumpsit and that there was a Verdict against him and then averrs that the Wares mentioned in that Action are the same with those mentioned here in the Action of Accompt The Plaintiff demurred and it was said for him that he had brought his former Action on the Case too soon for if no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case on the Insimul computasset will not lye and so the former Verdict might be given against him for that Reason Ex parte Def. But on the contrary the Defendant shall not be twice troubled for the same thing and if the Verdict had been for the Plaintiff that might have been pleaded in Barr to him in a new Action Curia 2 Cro. 284. But the Court were of another Opinion that this Plea was not good and that if the Plaintiff had recovered it could not have been pleaded in Barr to him for if he misconceives his Action and a Verdict is against him and then brings a proper Action the Defendant cannot plead that he was barred to bring such Action by a former Verdict Antea Putt and Roster Postea Rosal and Lamper Ante. because where 't is insufficient it shall not be pleaded in Barr as in Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleaded another Action upon the same Bond and the Iury found Non est factum the Entry of the Verdict was that the Defendant should recover damages eat inde sine die but not quod Querens nil capiat per Breve so no Iudgment to barr him 2 Cro. 284. But pending one Action another cannot be brought for they cannot both be true If no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case upon an Insimul computasset would not lye the Insimul computasset implies an Accompt and upon Non assumpsit pleaded the Defendant might have given payment in Evidence and for that
Habens legale jus titulum need not shew what Title the disturber had after Verdict 213 In a Bond to pay 40 l. when an Accompt is stated by two Attornies to be chosen between the Parties 't is a Covenant and not a solvendum 266 Breach is assigned relating to three Covenants and concludes sic Conventionem fregit 't is good 311 Where an Agreement to pay will amount to a Covenant 269 Covenants reciprocal cannot be pleaded in bar to each other 34 75 76 309 Breach where assigned and not necessary to aver performance on the part of the Plaintiff 309 Court Inferiour the cause of Action must arise within the Jurisdiction 30 Judgment therein arrested because the Damages were laid to 30 l. 101 102 For not saying that the Jurors were electi ad triand ' 102 Taliter processum fuit and the proceedings not set forth at large well enough in a Plea but not in a Writ of Error 102 195 Vi armis contra pacem whether good or not 102 Cannot hold Plea for work done without the Jurisdiction though the Promise be made within 141 Cause of Action must appear to be within the Jurisdiction to oust the Courts above 197 Where it doth not appear that the Court was held either by Grant or Prescription good 197 198 If the cause of Action doth not appear to be within the Jurisdiction though there is a Judgment recovered below yet an Action of Trespass will lye and false Imprisonment upon the taking out of that Judgment 197 If upon Evidence it appear that the cause of Action did arise extra Jurisdictionem the Plaintiff must be non-suit 273 If Jurisdiction be admitted in pleading and Verdict and Judgment thereon t is too late for a Prohibition Ibid. Court Ecclesiastical In what Case a Bishop shall administer an Oath in Temporal Matters 118 Custom One cannot be pleaded in bar to another 105 In pleading it must be strictly alledged 41 Where 't is a reasonable Custom for the Lord to have derelict Lands 107 D. Day Vide Plea WHere 't is excluded being alledged in the Declaration it makes the Plea ill 146 'T is but punctum temporis and of no consideration in the Law 281 Release of all demands usque 26 April a Bond dated that day is not released 281 Debt Upon the Sheriffs Bond will be good though the Statute be not pleaded 36 Will lye upon the Contract where the whole Term is assigned 174 175 176 Whether it will lye for a Fine set by a Steward for 't is ex quasi contractu 230 It must be upon the Contract or ex quasi contractu 262 Deed. Where 't is lost the Party must make Oath of it to entitle himself to a Bill in Equity to have it performed in Specie 173 Demand Must be made where an Interest is to be determined 264 Devise To a Man and his Heirs if the Devisee die in the Life time of the Devisor his Heir takes nothing 313 Republication makes it a new Will ibid. To the Heir at Law makes a Limitation and not a Condition 7 To an Infant in ventre sa mere if there is a sufficient description of him 't is good 9 Where the word paying makes a Fee where not 26 To him till he be of Age then to him in Fee he dyed within Age yet a Free-hold vested in him presently 289 To him in Fee when of Age if he dye before then to the Heirs of the Body of R. and their Heirs he died living R. within Age his Sister and Heir shall take by way of Executory devise 289 Executory devise how it differs from a contingent Remainder at Common Law ibid. Construction of words therein 290 Departure From his Plea 31 Disability By a Statute where it ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office 299 Discharge By Parol good before the breach of promise but not afterwards 259 Discontinuance Where amendable 316 In pleading the Plaintiff declared of taking several things the Defenant justifies as to part and saith nothing of the residue 259 In the Adjournment of a Court where a day certain is not given 59 Distress Cannot be of Sheaves of Corn in Shocks for Rent 61 Distribution Shall be equally made amongst the Children of the whole and half Blood 204 205 206 Disturbance Coactus fuit to pay is a sufficient Disturbance 55 E. Escape THE Plaintiff declared upon Process in an Inferiour Court and the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem the Action would not lye 29 30 Debt thereon lies against the Warden of the Fleet as Superior where the Grantee for Life is insufficient 119 After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Capias ad satisfaciendum or Scire facias at his Election 136 Whether it will lye against the Sheriff for taking insufficient Bail 181 Election In disjunctive Conditions where the Election is in the Obligor 201 304 'T is at the Plaintiffs Election to have a Ca. Sa. or Scire facias after an Escape 136 Enclosure Where a Custom is good to Enclose in a Common Field 105 Entry Not necessary to avoid an Estate in case of a Limitation 7 Error Where a Writ of Error will lye upon a Fine in the Old Bayly 219 Error in Fact cannot be assigned in the Exchequer-Chamber 194 If one be dead after the Judgment he must be named in a Writ of Error 285 Where a Judgment shall be avoided by a Plea without a Writ of Error 276 Estate Where the word Body makes an Estate for Life and no Tail 16 Estoppel Good by a Fine levied by a Remainder man in Tail 90 No Uses can be declared of a Fine by Estoppel 90 One who has no Estate levies a Fine 't is good by Estoppel 115 Evidence A Decree in Chancery or Sentence in in the Ecclesiastical Court read as Evidence of the fact 231 232 Excuse If one Man doth not perform his Covenant 't is no Excuse for the breach on the other side 75 76 What is a good Plea by way of Excuse and what not 27 28 29 Executor De son tort cannot retain 51 Where the Judgment shall be de bonis Testatoris 108 What is requisite to make an Executor 147 What must be done when he refuseth Ibid. De son tort where he may be of a Term but not of a Term in futuro because he cannot enter 175 Cannot plead non detinet where the Testator could not plead nil debet 266 Executor of an Executor de son tort where not liable at Law 293 294 Where he pleads a Judgment kept on Foot by fraud 36 Explain A Man grants Tenementa praedicta then follows totum quicquid habet whether these subsequent words shall explain or enlarge the Grant 112 113 c. Execution Payment of the Mony to the Marshal the Defendant may be taken again in Execution at the Suit of the Plaintiff 212 213 Executory Decree Is of no force in Equity 232 Existen
Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Naylor versus Sharpless and other Coroners of Lancashire AN Action on the Case was brought for a False Return in which the Plaintiff sets forth Case for a false Return Mod. Rep. 198. that upon a Writ issuing out of this Court to the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster Process was directed to six Coroners being the Defendants which was delivered to one of them being then in the presence of the Party who was to be arrested but he did not execute it and afterwards at the Return of the Writ they all returned Non est inventus This Action was laid in Middlesex and upon Not-Guilty pleaded the Cause came to Tryal and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff Baldwyn Serjeant moved in arrest of Iugdment 1. Except That the Action ought not to be laid in Middlesex but in Lancashire where the Tort was committed But as to that it was answered by Serjeant Turner when two Matters both of which are material and are laid in two Counties the Action may be brought in either as if two libel in the Admiralty for a Contract made at Land in Dorsetshire and for which the Plaintiff brings an Action in London against one of them it has been adjudged the Action lies in either County 2. Except The Action will not lie against the six Coroners for the Tort was done by one alone As to that it was said all the Coroners are but one Officer so if one Sheriff suffer an Escape both are liable but in this Case it had been ill to have brought the Action only against one because the ground of it is the false Return which was made by six Coroners And as to the first Exception there could be no doubt now since after Verdict 't is * Stat. 16 17 Car. 2. c. 8. helped though the Trial be in a wrong County But the Court said that Statute helps a Mistrial in the proper County but not where the County is mistaken and inclined likewise that this Action was well brought against the six for this Tort committed by one Coroner but if it had béen for not arresting the Party in such a Case it ought to have been brought against the Coroner who was present with the person to be arrested for that had béen a personal Tort which could not have been charged upon the rest Edwards versus Roberts That he did totally forbear and doth not say hucusque good THE Plaintiff declares that the Defendant promised to pay him so much Mony in consideration that he would forbear to sue him and then he avers that he did extunc totaliter abstinere c. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was now moved by Turner Serjeant in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Except The consideration intends a total forbearance and the averment is that from the making of the promise he did totally forbear but doth not say hucusque Sed non allocatur for that shall be intended And it was the Opinion of the whole Court that if the Consideration be as in this Case wholly to forbear the Plaintiff by an Averment that from the making the promise hucusque he did forbear is well entituled to an Action A like Case was this Term where the Consideration was as before and the Averment was that he forbore seven Months and being moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Baldwyn because 't is not said hucusque which implies that after the seven Months he did not forbear it was notwithstanding held good it being a reasonable time and the rather because if the Action had been brought within the seven Months and the Plaintiff had averred that hucusque he forbore it had been good enough Quaere Reed versus Hatton IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Question did arise upon the construction of the Words in a Will Devise paying 5 l. per annum 't is a Fee The Case being this John Thatcher was seised in Feé of the Houses in question and did devise them to his Son Robert in which Will there was this Clause viz. Which Houses I give to my Son Robert upon this Condition that he pay unto his two Sisters five pounds a year the first payment to begin at the first of the four most usual Feasts that shall next happen after the death of the Testator so as the said Feast be a Month after his death with a Clause of Entry for Non-payment The Testator dies the Houses are worth 16 l. per annum and whether Robert the Son shall have an Estate for Life only or in Fee was the Question This was argued by Jones Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Seys Serjeant for the Defendant And for the Plaintiff it was said Ex parte Quer. that Robert had but an Estate for Life 'T is true in most Cases the Word paying makes a Fee where there is no express Fee limited but the difference is viz. where the Mony to be paid is a Sum in gross let it be equivalent or not to the value of the thing devised the Devisee shall have a Fee though the Estate be not devised to him and his Heirs but if it be an annual payment out of the thing devised as in this Case it will not create a Fee without apt words because the Devisée hath no loss and therefore it hath beén held that if a Devise be made to two Sons to the intent that they shall bear equal share towards the payment of 40 l. to his Wife for Life the Sons had only an Estate for Life because 't is quasi an annuel Rent out of the Profits and no Sum in gross * Jones 211. Cro. Car. 157. Broke Abr. tit Estate 78. And * 6 Co. 16. Colliers Case was much relied on where this very difference was taken and allowed that paying 25 l. in gross makes a Fee but paying 50 s. per annum creates only an Estate for Life All Devises are intended for the benefit of the Deviseé and therefore where a Sum in gross is devised to be paid which is done accordingly in such Case if the Deviseé should die soon after the Mony would be lost if he should have only an Estate for Life but in the Case at Bar the Testator by a nice calculation had appointed when the first payment should be made viz. not until a Month after his decease which hath prevented that damage which otherwise might have happened to the Devisee if no such provision had béen made Vide Hob. 65. Green's Case Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that Robert had a Fée for though here is a Sum to be paid annually 't is a Sum in gross and Collier's Case was also relied upon on this side It was agreed where payment is to be made by which the Devisee can sustain no loss the Word Paying there will not make a Fée but if there
could not possibly secure them in his own House without subjecting himself to an Action and an Award that one Man shall take the Goods of another is void But if the Plea is not good yet if the Vmpirage be naught Iudgment is to be given for the Defendant for the advantage is saved to him upon the Demurrer And as to that the Vmpirage is but of one side for the Plaintiff is to do nothing nor is the Defendant to be acquitted of all Suits To which it was answered by the Plaintiff's Council That the Vmpirage was of both sides for there being Suits depending 't is awarded that each shall bear his own Charges which is a benefit to the Defendant for otherwise seing the right was in the Plaintiff the Defendant should have paid the Plaintiffs Costs as well as his own for which he cannot now sue without forfeiting his Bond Curia advisare vult Squibb versus Hole THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Escape Escape Action of Escape the Process was upon Bond not made within the Jurisdiction of an Inferiour Court and therefore no Escape and declares That he prosecuted one J. S. in the court of Ely upon a Bond made infra Jurisdictionem of that Court upon which he was taken and the Defendant suffered him to Escape Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict to this effect viz. That there was such a Bond upon which there was such a prosecution and such an Escape as in the Declaration but they find farther that this Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae Maynard Serjeant who Argued for the Plaintiff said that this Action was commenced in an Inferiour Court upon a Bond which the Plaintiff sets forth to be infra Jurisdictionem Curiae and that the Defendant was Arrested and suffered to Escape and whether if in truth the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem an Action of Escape would lye or whether all the proceédings are coram non Judice was the doubt He took a difference where an Inferiour Court hath an Original Iurisdiction of the Cause and hath conusance of such a Suit as is brought there for in such Cases the proceedings are not extra-judicial but if an Action is brought where properly no Action doth lye all the proceedings there are coram non Judice At the Common Law one who had a particular Iurisdiction to hold Pleas within a Liberty could not hold any Plea of a thing which did arise out of the Liberty for though it was transitory in its nature yet being alledged not within his Iurisdiction it was ill 2 Inst 231. But when the cause of Action arises infra Jurisdictionem that gives them Authority to proceed and therefore it would be hard that the Iudge and Officer should be punished by a construction to make all extra judicial when they have no possible way of finding whether in truth the Cause did arise within the * Post Crowder and Goodwin Iurisdiction of the Court or not But the Officer is bound to obey the Process of the Court if it appear as in this Case that they had conusance of it the Iudge is likewise bound to grant the Process otherwise he is subject to the Plantiffs Action for his refusal In some Cases the Plaintiff himself may not know where the Bond was made as if he be Executor of the Obligee c. Besides in this Case 't is set forth That in the Action below the Defendant pleaded non est factum and so had admitted the Iurisdiction or at least had waived it and it would be an insufferable mischief if after all this labour and charge the Defendant might avoid all again North Chief Iustice said That if this Cause had been tryed before him he would have Non-suited the Plaintiff because he had not proved the truth of what he laid down in his Declaration viz. That the Bond was made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae But as to the Matter as it stood upon the special Verdict he inclined that as to the Plaintiff who knew where the Bond was made all the proceedings were coram non Judice but as to the Officer it was otherwise for the Pleint and Process would be a good Excuse for him in an Action of false Imprisonment Judgment And afterwards by the Opinion of three Iudges viz. the Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkyns Iustices Iudgment was given for the Defendant That this was no Escape and that though the Party had admitted the Iurisdiction by his Plea of non est factum below yet that could not give the Court any Iurisdiction which had not any originally in the Cause and the Case of * Roll. Abt. tit Escape 809 pl. 45. Richardson versus Bernard was cited as an Authority in point where the Plaintiff in an Action brought against an Officer declared in Hull upon a Bond made at Hallifax and had Iudgment and Execution and the Defendant escaped And in an Action brought for this Escape the Declaration was held ill because it did not alledge the Bond to be made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae Ellis Iustice of a contrary Opinion in omnibus Sams versus Dangerfield THE Plaintiff being Collector of the Hearth-Mony Departure brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against his Sub-Collector conditioned to pay such Sums as he should receive within 14 days after receipt at such a place in the City of Worcester as the Plaintiff should appoint The Defendant pleads payment The Plaintiff assigns a breach in non-payment of such a Sum received at a place by him appointed The Defendant rejoyns that the Plaintiff appointed no place and the Plaintiff demurr'd And after Argument for the Plaintiff by Jones Serjeant this was adjudged a departure because the Defendant ought to have pleaded first that he had paid all but such a Sum for which as yet the Plaintiff had appointed no place of payment and Iudgment was given accordingly Smith versus Hall IN an Action brought against the Defendant for false Imprisonment he justified by virtue of a Latitat False Imprisonment doth not lye but an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for refusing sufficient Bail which the Plaintiff agreed in his Replication but farther set forth that after the Arrest and before the Return of the Writ he tendered sufficient Bail which the Defendant refused and Issue was joyned upon the tender which was found for the Plaintiff Newdigate Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Though it was an Offence in the Defendant who was the Sheriff's Bayliff to refuse good Bail when tendred yet 't is not an Offence within the Statute 23 H. 6. cap. 10. because a Sheriffs Bayliff is not an Officer intended in that Statute neither will this Offence make him a Trespasser ab initio because the taking was by lawfull Process Cro. Car. 196. * Roll. Abr. 2 part 561. pl. 9. Salmon versus Percival The Defendant as Bayliff to the Sheriff is not the proper Officer to
Barr. COnspiracy Rozal declares That a Replevin was brought against him and others and that the Defendant Lampen appeared for him without any Warrant and avowed in his Name and suffered Iudgment to pass against him and that 22 l. 10 s. Damages were recovered against him at such a place Lampen pleads a Recovery in a former Action brought by the now Plaintiff the Record of which being recited in the Plea appears to be the same with this but only here the place is mentioned where the Damages were recovered which was omitted in the former Action to which Lampen had pleaded a Reteiner by one of the then Defendants in Replevin and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment But the truth of the Case was That Iudgment was not then given for him that his Plea was good for the Court were all of Opinion that it was naught but because the Declaration was not good for want of mentioning the place where the Damages were recovered which the Plaintiff had amended now The Plaintiff demurred again because of this Variance between the two Actions upon the Defendants own shewing Ex parte Quer. Post Rose and Standen Putt and Roster Sir Robert Shaftoe for the Plaintiff insisted That a Recovery in an Action is no barr where there is a substantial variance as here there is and that so it has been adjudged in the Case of Leach and Thompson 1 Roll. Abr. 353. lit B. pl. 1. where the Plaintiff declared That he at the Defendants request having promised to Marry the Defendant's Daughter he promised to pay him 1000 l. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded Iudgment was given for the Defendant And the Plaintiff brought another Action for the same Sum and then laid the promise to pay 1000 l. cum inde requisitus esset and it was adjudged that the former Iudgment was no bar to the last Action because there was a Material difference between the two Promises one being laid without Request and so the Money was to be paid in a convenient time and in the last the Request is made part of the Promise and must be specially alledged with the time and place where it was made So in this Case The Plaintiff had not declared right in his first Action which he had amended now and therefore the former Iudgment shall be no barr to him In Robinson's Case there was a Mistake in the Writ viz. A Formedon in Remainder for that in Reverter and held no barr so by a parity of reason there shall be no barr here because the first Declaration was mistaken Stat. 3 H. 7. c. 1. Syd 316. and it was vitium Clerici Vide 2 Cro. 284. Level versus Hall Barton Serjeant contra This is no new Action Ex parte Def. for the ground of it is not where the Damages was done or recovered but the appearing without a Warrant and so having pleaded a Reteiner and had Iudgment and now pleading that Iudgment to this Action and averring 't was for one and the same thing 't is a good barr which the Plaintiff by his Demurrer hath confessed Adjornatur Milward versus Ingram INdebitatus Assumpsit for 50 l. and quantum meruit One promise pleaded in discharge of another good before the breach Mod. Rep. 205. the Defendant confesses both but pleads That after the promise made and before the Action brought they came to an Accompt concerning divers Sums of Money and that he was found in arrear to the Plaintiff 30 s. whereupon in consideration the Defendant promised to pay him the said 30 s. the Plaintiff likewise promised to release and acquit the Defendant of all Demands The Plaintiff demurred Seys Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. that though one promise may be discharged by another yet a duty certain cannot as in this Case where a demand was of a Sum certain by the Indebitatus besides this Plea is in nature of an Accord which cannot be good without an averment of satisfaction given Broke Accompt 46 48. Neither is it said that the Plaintiff promised in consideration that the Defendant ad instantiam of the Plaintiff had promised Ex parte Def. But it was answered by Serjeant Hopkins and admitted to be true That where a Matter is pleaded by way of accord it must be averred to be executed in all Points but that was not the present Case ◠Cro. 100. The Defendant hath pleaded that he and the Plaintiff had accounted together and so the Contract is gone by the Accompt 2. That he was discharged of the Contract by parol both which the Plaintiff had now admitted by his Demurrer And it will not be denied that a Parol discharge of an Assumpsit is good as if A. promises to perform such a Voiage within a time limited and the breach assigned was that he did not go the Voiage The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff exoneravit eum and upon Demurrer it was held good 22 Ed. 4. 40. 3 H. 6. 37. Object If it be objected that 't is no Consideration to pay a just Debt for if 30 s. were due of right it ought to be paid and that can be no reason upon which to ground a Promise Answ 'T is a good Consideration to pay Mony on the day which the party is bound to upon Bond because it is paid without Suit or Trouble which might be otherwise a loss to the Plaintiff But in this Case here is an express Agréement and before there was only a Contract in Law Cro. Car. 8. Flight versus Crasden Curia North Chief Iustice It has béen always taken that if there be an Assumpsit to do a thing and there is no breach of the promise that it may be discharged by Parol but if it be once broken then it cannot be discharged without Release in a writing In this Case there are two Demands in the Declaration to which the Defendant pleads an Accompt stated so that the Plaintiff can never after have recourse to the first Contract which is thereby merged in the Accompt If A. sells his Horse to B. for 10 l. and there being divers other dealings between them if they come to an accompt upon the whole and B. is found in arrear 5 l. A. must bring his insimul computasset for he can never recover upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit and of the same Opinion were the other three Iustices and though it was not said ad instantiam of the Plaintiff that he promised yet it was adtunc ibidem and so should be intended that the Defendant made the Promise at the instance of the Plaintiff and so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Daws versus Sir Paul Pindar COvenant to pay a Sum of Mony within a year after one Nokes shall be admitted to the Office of Secretary to the Governour of Barbadoes Barbadoes whether governed by the Laws of England so that the Statute of buying Offices extends to it The Defendant pleads that that the
an Estate Tail and therefore the pleading the Lease is not material for if it were a Lease expired yet the Plaintiff could not recover and therefore the praeter is wholly idle and insignificant of which the Plaintiff ought not to take notice because the Lands which come under the praeter are not chargeable The Plaintiff hath traversed as he ought what is material and is not bound to take notice of any thing more And of that Opinion was the whole Court and held the praeter idle and the general Replication good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Prince versus Rowson Executor of Atkinson EXecutor de son tort cannot retain Executor de son tort cannot retain The Defendant in this Case pleaded that the Testator owed his Wife dum sola 800 l. and that he made his Will but doth not shew that he was thereby made Executor and therefore having no Title he became Executor de son tort for which cause his Plea was held ill and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Norris versus Palmer THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant for causing him falso malitiose to be indicted for a Common Trespass in taking away one hundred Bricks Case after an acquittal upon an Indictment for Trespas by which means he was compelled to spend great Sums of Mony and that upon the Trial the Iury had acquitted him The Defendant demurred to the Declaration and Barrel Serjeant said for him that the Action would not lie and for a President in the Case he cited a like Iudgment between Langley versus Clerk in the King's Bench Trin. 1658. 2 Sid. 100. In which Action the Plaintiff was indicted for a Battery with an intent to ravish a Woman and being acquitted brought this Action and the Court after a long Debate gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff but agréed that the Action would not lie for a Common Trespass as if it had beén for the Battery only but the Ravishing was a great scandal and for that reason the Plaintiff recoverd there but this is an ordinary Trespass and therefore this Action will not lie But Pemberton Serjeant held that the Action would lie because it was in the nature of a Conspiracy Sid. 463 464. 1 Cro. 291. and done falsly and malitiously knowing the contrary and thereby the Plaintiff was put to great Charges all which is confessed by the Demurrer And the Case cited on the other side is express in the Point for the Court in that Case could take notice of nothing else but the Battery for the intent to ravish was not traversable and therefore it was idle to put it into the Indictment It is now settled that an Action on the Case will lye for a malitious Arrest where there is no probable cause of Action and this Case is stronger than that because in the one the party is only put to Charges and in the other both to Charges and Disgrace for which he hath no remedy but by this Action The Court agreéd that the Action would lie after an acquittal upon an Indictment for a greater or lesser Trespass The like for citing another into the Spiritual Court without cause 3 Ass 13. 1 Rol. Abr. 112. pl. 9. Postea F. N. B. 116. D. 7 E. 4. 30. 10 H. 4. Fitz. Conspiracy 21. 13. 3 E. 3. 19. The Defendants Council consented to wave the Demurrer and plead and go to Tryal The King versus Turvil The King presented being intituled by a Simoniacal Contract his Presentee shall not be removed though the Symony is pardoned QUare Impedit The King was intituled to a Presentation by the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. because of a Simoniacal Contract made by the rightful Patron and he accordingly did present Then comes the Act of General Pardon 21 Jac. cap. 35. by which under general Words it was now admitted that Symony was pardoned In which Act there is a beneficial Clause of Restitution viz. The King giveth to his Subjects all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amerciaments Forfeitures and Sums of Mony forfeited by reason of any Offence c. done And whether the Kings Presenteé or the Patron had the better Title was the Question This Case was only mentioned now but argued in Michaelmas Term following by Serjeant Jones that the Kings Presenteé is intituled he agreed that Symony was pardoned but not the consequences thereof for 't is not like the Case where a Stroak is given at one time and death happens at another if the Stroak which is the first offence is pardoned before the death of the party that is a Pardon likewise of the Felony for 't is true the Stroak being the cause of the death and that being pardoned all the natural Effects are pardoned with the Cause But legal Consequences are not thus pardoned as if a Man is outlawed in Trespass and the King pardons the Outlawry the Fine remains 6 E. 4. 9. 8 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. Abr. 179. In this Act of Pardon there are words of Grant but the Presentation is not within the Clause of Restitution for 't is an Interest and not an Authority vested in the King and therefore a thing of another nature than what is intended to be restored because it is higher and shall not be comprehended amongst the general words of Goods and Chattels c. which are things of a lower nature and are all in the personality Cro. Car. 354. Conyers Serjeant argued for the Title of the Patron Ex parte Def. and said that there were three material Clauses in this Act. 1. A Pardon of the Offences therein mentioned in general and particular words 2. That all things not excepted shall be pardoned by general words as if particularly named 3. The Pardon to be taken most favourably for the Subject upon which Clauses it must necessarily follow that this Offence is pardoned and then all the consequences from thence deduced will be likewise pardoned and so the Patron restored to his Presentation for all Charters of Restitution are to be taken favourably Pl. Com. 252. The Presentation vests no legal Right in the Presentee for in the Case of the King 't is revocable after Institution and before Induction Co. Lit. 344. b. So likewise a second Presentation will repeal the first Rolls 353. And if the Kings Presentee dies before Induction that is also a Revocation if therefore the Party hath no legal Right by this Presentation and the King by the Simony had only an authority to present and no legal Interest vested then by this Act he hath revoked the Presentation and the right Patron is restored to his Title to present The Court were all of Opinion absente Ellis That the Kings Presentee had a good Title and by consequence the Patron had no right to Present this turn for here was an Interest vested in the King like the Case where the King is intituled to the Goods of a Felo
de se by Inquisition and then comes an Act of Indempnity that shall not divest the King of his Right But where nothing Vests before the Office found a Pardon before the Inquisition extinguishes all Forfeitures as it was resolved in Tomb's Case So if the Pardon in this Case had come before the Presentation the Party had been restored Statu quo c. The King can do no more the Bishop is to do the rest neither is the Presentation revoked by this Act it might have been revoked by implication in some Cases as where there is a second Presentation but such a general revocation will not do it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error brought but the Cause was ended by Agreement Hill versus Pheasant Gaming at several meetings whether within the Statute AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 16 Car. 2. cap. 7. made against deceitful and disorderly Gaming which Enacts That if any person shall play at any Game other than for ready Mony and shall lose any Sum or other thing played for above the Sum of 100 l. at any one time or meeting upon Tick and shall not then pay the same that all Contracts and Securities made for the payment thereof shall be void and the person winning shall pay treble the Mony lost It happened that the Defendant won 80 l. at one meeting for whcih the Plaintiff gave Security and another meeting was appointed and the Defendant won 70 l. more of the Plaintiff being in all above 100 l. And if this was within the Statute was the Question The like Case was in the Kings-Bench Trin. 25 Car. 2. Rot. 1230. between Edgberry and Roseberry and in Michaelmas Term following this Case was argued and the Court was divided which the Plaintiff perceiving Anonymus Postea desired to discontinue his Action but the better Opinion was that it was not within the Statute though if it had been pleaded That the several meetings were purposely appointed to elude the Statute Sid. 394. in might be otherwise Calthorp versus Heyton Traverse not good viz. Absque hoc quod legitimo modo oneratus IN Replevin The Defendant avowed for that the King being seised in Fee of a Mannor and of a Grange which was parcel of the Mannor granted the Inheritance to a Bishop reserving 33 l. Rent to be yearly issuing out of the whole and alledges a Grant of the Grange from Sir W. W. who claimed under the Bishop to his Ancestors in Fee in which Grant there was this Clause Viz. If the Grantee or his Heirs shall be legally charged by Distress or with any Rent due to the King or his Successors upon account of the said Grange that then it should be lawful for them to enter into Blackacre and distrein till he or they be satisfied And afterwards the Grantee and his Heirs were upon a Bill Exhibited against them in the Exchequer decreed to pay the King 4 l. per Annum as their proportion out of the Grange for which he distreined and so justified the taking The Plaintiff pleads in barr to the Avowry and traverseth that the Defendant was lawfully charged with the said Rent and the Defendant demurred Baldwyn Serjeant maintained the Avowry to be good Ex parte Def. having alledged a legal charge and that the Barr was not good for the Plaintiff traverseth quod Defendens est ligitimo modo oneratus which being part matter of Law and part likewise matter of Fact is not good and therefore if the Decree be not a legal charge the Plaintiff should have demurred But on the other side it was argued by Seys Serjeant Ex parte Quer. That the Avowry is not good because the Defendant hath not set forth a legal charge according to the Grant which must be by Distress or some other lawful way and that must be intended by some execution at Common Law for the coactus fuit to pay is not enough a Suit in Equity is no legal disturbance Moor 559. The same Case is Reported in 1 Brownl 23. Selby versus Chute Besides the Defendant doth not shew any Process taken out or who were Parties to the Decree and a Que estate in the Case of a Bishop is not good for he must pass it by Deed. North and the whole Court A Rent in the Kings Case lies in Render and not in Demand and after the Rent day is past he is oneratus and the Decree is not material in this Case for the charge is not made thereby but by the Reservation for payment whereof the whole Grange is chargeable The King may distrain in any part of the Land he is not bound by the Decree to a particular place that is in favour only to the Purchasor that he should pay no more than his proportion As to the Que estate the Defendant hath admitted that by saying bene verum est that Sir W. W. was seised The Traverse is ill and Iudgment was given for the Avowant Vaughan versus Wood. Trespass justified for taking corrupt Victualls Mod. Rep. 202. TRespass for taking Beef The Defendant pleads a Custom to choose Supervisors of Victuals at a Court Leet That he was there chosen and having viewed the Plaintiffs Goods found the Beef to be corrupt which he took and burned The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Custom is unreasonable and when Meat is corrupt and sold there are proper remedies at Law by Action on the Case or presentment at a Leet 9 H. 6. 53. 11 Ed. 3. 4. 6. Vide Stat. 18 Eliz. cap. 3. But the Court held it a good Custom and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice being not clear in it Chapter of Southwel versus Bishop of Lincoln Grant of next Avoidance not bind the Successor Mod. Rep. 204. IN a Quare Impedit the Question upon pleading was Whether the Grant of the next Avoidance by the Chapter was good or not to bind the Successor The doubt did arise upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which was objected not to be a publick * Yelv. 106. Act because it extends only to those who are Ecclesiastical persons or if it should be adjudged a publick Law yet this is not a good Grant to bind the Successor for though the Grant of an Avoidance is not a thing of which any profit can be made yet it is an * Cro. Eliz. 441. Hereditament within the meaning of that Statute by which among other things 't is Enacted That all Grants c. made by Dean and Chapter c. of any Lands Tythes Tenements or Hereditaments being parcel of the Possessions of the Chapter other than for the Term of 21 Years or 3 Lives from the time of the making the said Grant shall be void But it was agreed by the Court to be a general Law like the Statute of Non Residency which hath been so ruled and that this Presentment or Grant
after the Partition 2. The Rejoynder is a departure from the Plea which is that the Plaintiff never had any thing but joyntly with others and the Rejoynder is that at the time of the conversion he was joyntly possessed which is a manifest difference in point of time and such as will make a Departure 33 H. 14. Bro. Departure 28. 13. Ex parte Def. It was argued by Serjeant Hopkins for the Defendant that the Replication was not good for the Plaintiff therein had alledged a Partition by Deed and doth not say hic in Curia prolat̄ And in all Cases where a Man pleads a Deed by which he makes himself either party or privy he must produce it in Court As where the Defendant justifies in Trespass that before the Plaintiff had any thing One Purfrey was seised in Fee of the place where c. And by Indenture c. demised it to Corbet excepting the Wood c. Habendum for the Life of Ann and covenanted quod licitum foret for the said Corbet to take House-boot c. That he assigned his Interest to Ann and that the Defendant as her Servant took the Trees and upon Demurrer the Plea was held naught because though a Servant having justified by force of a Covenant he did not shew the Indenture 2 Cro. 291. Purfrey versus Grimes 6 Rep. Bellamy's Case 1 Leon. 309. Rol. Rep. 20. If a thing will pass without a Deed yet if the Party pleads a Deed and makes a Title thereby he must come with a * profert hic in Curia As to the Objection That there was a Departure he argued to the contrary For the Defendant in his Rejoynder insists only on that which was most material and the Plaintiff in his Replication had given him occasion thus to Rejoyn and though he had left out some of the time mentioned in the Bar yet the would hurt the Pleadings because a fair Issue was tendred for if at the time of the conversion he was joyntly seised he could not be entituled to the Action alone Judgment And afterwards in Trinity-Term following the Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was good in Barr though pleaded in Abatement and the Defendant hath election to plead either in Barr or Abatement the nature of a Plea in Abatement is to intitle the Plaintiff to a better Writ but here the Defendant shews that the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action and so it shall be taken to be in Barr And it hath been expressly resolved That where the Plea is in Abatement if it be of necessity that the Defendant must disclose matter of barr he shall have his election to take it either by way of Barr or Abatement 2 Roll. Rep. 64. Salkil versus Shilton So where Waste was brought in the tenet the Tenant pleads a Surrender to the Lessor and demands Iudgment if he should be charged in the tenet because it should have been in the tenuit and this was held a good Plea 10 H. 7.11 Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice at first doubting about the Departure and advised the Plaintiff to wave his Demurrer and to take issue upon payment of Costs Daws versus Harrison THE Plaintiff intitles himself as Administrator to Daws Administration pleaded and not loci istius ordinarius good and shews that Administration was granted to him by the Official of the Bishop of Carlisle but did not alledge him to be loci istius Ordinarius And Jones Serjeant demurred to the Declaration because it did not appear that the Official had any Iurisdiction Pl. Com. 277. a. 31. H. 6. 13. Fitz. Judg. 35. 22 H. 6. 52. 36 H. 6. 32 33. Sed non allocatur For the whole Court were of Opinion That the Declaration was good and that he shall be intended to have Iurisdiction but if it had been in the Case of a Peculiar Cro Jac. 556. Palm 97. Sid. 322. it cannot be intended that they have any authority unless set forth And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mason versus Caesar IN Trespass for pulling down of Hedges Commoner may abate Hedges made upon his Common the Defendant pleads that he had right of Common in the place where c. and the Hedges were made upon his Common so that he could not in ea parte enjoy his Common in tam amplo modo c. and so justifies the pulling them down And they were at issue whether the Defendant could enjoy the Common in tam amplo modo c. and there was a Verdict for the Defendant and Iudgment being staied 'till moved on the other side Scroggs Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Plea was ill and the Issue frivolous for 't is impossible that he should have Common where the Hedges are 5 Rep. 100. 9 Rep. 55. And therefore the Defendant ought to have brought an Action upon the Case or a quod permittat He cannot abate the Hedges though he might have pulled down so much as might have opened a Way to his Common 2 Cro. 195 229. The Lord hath an Interest in the Soil and a Commoner hath no authority to do any thing but to enter and put in his Beasts and not to throw down Quick-Set Hedges for that is a shelter to his Beasts But the Court were of Opinion That the Defendant might abate the Hedges for thereby he did not meddle with the Soil but only pulled down the erection and the Book of 29 E. 3. 6. was express in this point Vide 17 H. 7. 10. 16 H. 7. 8. 33 H. 6. 31. 2 Ass 12. And nothing was said concerning the Plea and so the Defendant had Iudgment Hocket and his Wife versus Stiddolph and his Wife Verdict cured a bad Declaration IN an Action of Assault and Battery brought by the Plaintiff and his Wife against the Defendant and his Wife the Iury found quoad the beating of the Plaintiffs Wife only that the Defendants are Guilty and quoad resid ' they find for the Defendants And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Scroggs Serjeant That the Declaration is not good because the Husband * Yelv. 106. Drury versus Dennis Sid. 376. joyns with the Wife which he ought not to do upon his own shewing for as to the Battery made upon him he ought to have brought his Action alone and the finding of the Iury will not help the Declaration which is ill in substance and thereupon Iudgment was staied but being moved again the next Term the Court were all of Opinion That the Declaration was cured by the Verdict and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Goodwin qui tam c. versus Butcher AN Information was brought upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Buying a pretended Title cap. 9. made against buying pretended Titles which gives a Forfeiture of the value of the Land purchased unless the Seller was in possession within a
year before the Sale After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Barrell because the Information had set forth the right of these Lands purchased to be in J. S. and that the Son of J. N. had conveyed them by general words 2 Anders 57. as descending from his Father which Title of the Son the Defendant bought whereas if in truth the Title was in J. S. then nothing descended from the Father to the Son and so the Defendant bought nothing Sed non allocatur for if such construction should be allowed there could be no buying of a pretended Title within the Statute unless it was a good Title but when 't is said as here that the Defendant entred and claimed colore of that Grant or Conveyance which was void yet 't is within the Statute so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Wine versus Rider al. TRespass against five Quare clausum fregerunt Traverse immaterial and took Fish out of the Plaintiffs Several and Free-Fishery Four of them pleaded Not Guilty and the fifth justified for that one of the other Defendants is seised in Fee of a Close adjoyning to the Plaintiffs Close and that he and all those c. have had the sole and separate Fishing in the River which runs by the said Closes with liberty to enter into the Plaintiffs Close to beat the Water for the better carrying on of the Fishing and that he as Servant to the other Defendant and by his Command did enter and so justified the taking absque hoc that he is Guilty aliter vel alio modo The Plaintiff replies That he did enter de injuria sua propria absque hoc That the Defendants Master hath the Sole Fishing The Defendant demurs Ex parte Def. and Newdigate Serjeant argued for him That the Iustification is good for when he had made a local justification 2 Cro. 45 372. he must traverse both before and after as he has done in this Case 2. The Plaintiffs Replication is ill for he ought not to have waved the Defendants Traverse and force him to accept of another from him because the first is material to the Plaintiffs Title and he is bound up to it Hob. 104. 3. There was no occasion of a Traverse in the Replication for where a Servant is Defendant de injuria sua propria is good with a Traverse of the Command Ex parte Quer. But on the Plaintiffs side Serjeant Baldwin held the Defendants Traverse to be immaterial for having answered the Declaration fully in alledging a Right to the sole fishing and an Entry into the Plaintiffs Close 2 Cro. 372. 't is insignificant afterwards to traverse that he is guilty aliter vel alio modo Then the matter of the Plea is not good because the Defendant justifies by a Command from one of the other Defendants who have all pleaded Not-guilty and they must be guilty if they did command him for a Command will make a Man a Trespasser Curia The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For as to the last thing mentioned which was the Matter of the Plea they held it to be well enough for the * Mires and Solebay Post Servant shall not be ousted of the advantage which the Law gives him by pleading his Masters Command Then as to the Replication 't is good and the Plea is naught with the Traverse for where the Iustification goes to a time and place not alledged by the Plaintiff there must be a Traverse of both In this Case the Defendant ought to have traversed the Plaintiffs free fishing as alledged by him in his Declaration which he having omitted the Plea for that reason also is ill and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Termino Paschae Anno 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Lee versus Brown IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Where reputed Lands shall pass under general words viz. There were Lands which re vera were not parcel of a Mannor and yet were reputed as parcel A Grant is made of the Mannor and of all Lands reputed parcel thereof and whether by this Grant and by these general Words those Lands would pass which were not parcel of the Mannor was the Question This Term the Lord Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That those Lands would pass Postea Cro. Car. 308. and they grounded their Opinions upon two Authorities in Co. Entr. fol. 330 384. The King versus Imber Wilkins If the Iury had found that the Lands in question had beén reputed parcel of the Mannor it would not have passed had they found no more because the Reputation so found might be intended a Reputation for a small time so reputed by a few or by such as were ignorant and unskilful But in this Case 't is found that not only the Lands were reputed parcel but the reason why they were reputed parcel for the Iury have found that they were formerly parcel of the Mannor and after the division they were again united in the possession of him who had the Mannor which being also Copyhold have since béen demised by Copy of Court Roll togethet with the Mannor and these were all great marks of Reputation and therefore Iudgment was given that the Lands did well pass 2 Roll. Abr. 186. Dyer 350. Wakeman versus Blackwel Common Recoveries how to be pleaded QUare Impedit The Case was The Plaintiff entituled himself to an Advowson by a Recovery suffered by Tenant in Tail in pleading of which Recovery he alledges two to be Tenants to the Praecipe but doth not shew how they came to be so or what Conveyance was made to them by which it may appear that they were Tenants to the Praecipe and after search of Presidents as to the form of pleading of Common Recoveries the Court inclined that it was not well pleaded but delivered no Iudgment Searl versus Bunion Justification where good IN Trespass for taking of his Cattel The Defendant pleads that he was possessed of Blackacre pro termino diversorum annorum adtunc adhuc ventur̄ and being so possessed the Plaintiffs Cattle were doing damage and he distrained them Damage fesant ibidem and so justifies the taking c. The Plaintiff demurrs and assigns specially for cause that the Defendant did not set forth particularly the commencement of the Term of years but only that he was possessed of an Acre for a Term of years to come and regularly where a Man makes a Title to a particular Estate in pleading he must shew the particular time of the Commencement of his Title that the Plaintiff may replie to it Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court held that the Plea was good upon this difference where the Plaintiff brings an Action for the Land or doing of a Trespass upon the Land he is supposed to be in possession
but if he will justifie by vertue of any particular Estate he must shew the Commencement of that Estate and then such pleading as here will not be good But when the Matter is * Yelv. 75. Cro. Car. 138. collateral to the Title of the Land and for any thing which appears in the Declaration the Title may not come in question such a Iustification as this will be good In this Case no Man can tell what the Plaintiff will reply 't is like the Cases of Inducements to Actions which do not require such certainty as is necessary in other Cases So where an Action is brought for a Nusance and he intitles himself generally by saying he is possessionat ' pro termino annorum 't is well enough and he need not to set forth particularly the Commencement because he doth not make the Title his Case for which reason Iudgment was given for the Defendant Crosier versus Tomlinson Executor IN an Action on the Case Statute of Limitations of personal Actions extends to Indebitatus Assumpsit The Plaintiff declared that the Defendants Testator being in his Life time viz. such a day indebted to the Plaintiff in the Sum of 20 l. for so much Mony before that time to his use had and received did assume and promise to pay the same when he should be thereunto required and that the Testator did not in his Life time nor the Defendant since his death pay the Mony though he was thereunto required The Defendant pleads that the Testator did not at any time within six years make such promise The Plaintiff replies that he was an Infant at the time of the promise made and that he came not to full Age till the year 1672. and that within six years after he attained the Age of one and twenty years he brought this Action and so takes advantage of the promise in the Statute of * 21 Jac. c. 16. Limitations that the Plaintiff shall have six years after the disability by Infancy Coverture c. is removed And the Defendant demurred by Serjeant Rigby Ex parte Def. and the reason of his Demurrer was because in the said Proviso Actions on the Case on Assumpsit are omitted This Act was made for quieting of Estates and avoiding of Suits as appears by the Preamble and therefore shall be taken strictly there is an enumeration of several Actions in the Proviso and this is Casus omissus and so no benefit can be taken of the Proviso In a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment brought 4 Car. 1. in the Court of Windsor the Iudges held that an Action on the Case for * Cro. Car. 163 513 535. Debt upon Escape is out of the Statute 1 Sand 37. But an Action for Escape is not Sid. 305. So is Debt for not setting out of Tithes for these are not grounded upon any Contract Cro. Car. 513. Hut 109. slandering of a Mans Title is out of this Act because such an Action was rare and not brought without special damages But Hide Chief Iustice doubted 1 Cro. 141. The Law-makers could not omit this Case unadvisedly because 't is within those sorts of Actions enumerated by this Act. This Promise was made to the Plaintiff when he was but a day old and it would be very hard now after so many years to charge the Executor Ex parte Quer. But Turner Serjeant argued that though an Indebitat̄ assumpsit is not within the express words of the Proviso yet 't is within the intent and meaning thereof and so the Rule is taken in 10 Co. 101. in Bewfages Case quando verba statuti sunt specialia ratio autem generalis statutum intelligendum est generaliter And this is a Statute which gives a general remedy and the mischief to the Infant is as great in such Actions of Indebitatus assumpsit as other Actions and therefore 't is but reasonable to intend that the Parliament which hath saved their Rights in Debts Trovers c. intended likewise that they should not be barred in an Indebitatus Assumpsit In 2 Anders 55. Smith versus Colshil Debt was brought upon a Bond the Defendant there pleaded the Statute of the 5 E. 6. of selling of Offices the words of which are viz. That every Bond to be given for money or profit for any Office or Deputation of any Office mentioned in the Statute shall be void against the Maker In that case the Bond was given to procure a Grant of the Office and also to exercise the same now though this was not within the express words of the Statute yet the Bond was held void and if it should be otherwise the mischiefs which the Statute intended to remedy would still continue and therefore the intent of the Law-makers in such cases is to be regarded for which reason if Actions of Indebitatus Assumpsit are within the same mischief with other Actions therein mentioned 2 Anders 123 150. Cor. Car. 533. 19 H. 8. 11. such also ought to be construed to be within the same remedy But he took the Case of * Cro Car. 245. Swain versus Stephens to rule this Case at Bar in which Case this very Statute was pleaded to an Action of Trover and the Plaintiff replied that he was beyond Sea and upon a Demurrer to the Replication the Court held Trover to be within the Statute it being named in the Paragraph of Limitation of personal Actions which directs it to be brought within the time therein limited that is to say all Actions on the Case within six years and then enumerates several other Actions amongst which Trover is omitted yet the Court were then of Opinion that Trover is implied in those general words Curia And of that Opinion was the Chief Iustice and Wyndham and Atkyns Iustices That upon the whole frame of the Act it was strong against the Defendant for it would be very strange that the Plaintiff in this Case might bring an Action of Debt and not an Indebitatus Assumpsit When the Scope of an Act appears to be in a general sense the Law looks to the meaning and is to be extended to particular Cases within the same reason and therefore they were of Opinion That Actions of Trespass mentioned in the Statute are comprehensive of this Action because 't is a Trespass upon the Case and the words of the Proviso save the Infants Right in Actions of Trespass And therefore though there are not particular words in the enacting Clause which relate to this Action yet this Proviso restrains the severity of that Clause and restores the Common Law and so is to be taken favourably and this Action being within the same reason with other Actions therein mentioned ought also to be within the same remedy But Iustice Ellis doubted whether Actions of Trespass could comprehend Actions on the Case and that when the Parliament had enumerated Actions of Trespass Trover Case for Words c. If they had intended
is altogether incertain for it doth not appear what is due 28 H. 8. Dyer 28. 9 Ed. 4. 16. 12 H. 8. 6. a. Ex parte Def. But it was argued for the Defendant that he need not Traverse the Accompt As to the first Objection made that the Plea is not good because it doth not answer the Declaration the Rule as to that purpose is generally good but then the Plaintiff must tell all his Case which if he omits he must then give the Defendant leave to tell where his omission is Sometimes a thing which belongs properly to another may be pleaded in bar or discharge to avoid circuity of Actions as one Covenant may be pleaded to another 1 H. 7. 15. 20 H. 7. 4. So where the Lesseé is to be dispunishable of waste he may plead it to a Writ of waste The Books note a difference where the Covenant is one or two Sentences for in the first case one Covenant may be pleaded in discharge of another but not in the last Keilway 34. 'T is true if the second Covenant had been distinct and independent it could not have been thus pleaded but in this Case 't is not said that the Covenantor for himself his Executors and Administrators doth Covenant c. but ulterius agreat̄ provisum est so that as t is penned provisum est makes a Condition and then the sense is I will accompt if you will discompt and if you refuse to discompt I cannot be charged Dyer 6. 'T is inutilis labor to make up an accompt If the other will not allow what he ought if there be an Annuity pro consilio impenso c. and he will not pay the Mony the other is not to be compelled to give his advice Fitzh Annuity 27. 25 E. 2. Annuity 44. Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for Arbitrations Wills and Acts of Parliament are to be taken according to the meaning of the Parties and Damages are to be given according to the merit of the Case In this Case the Defendant is bound to accompt upon request and to pay what Mony is due upon the Accompt and 't is an impertinent question for the Defendant to ask him to make allowance for Parsons Dinners before they come to accompt 'T is as if a Bailiff should say to his Lord I have laid out so much Mony and I will not accompt with you unless you will allow it this is a Capitulation before-hand and is very insignificant by way of discharge They have each a remedy upon these mutual Covenants and the provisum agreat̄ est doth not amount to a Condition but is a Covenant and Iudgment was given accordingly Iustice Ellis said he had a Manuscript Report of the Case of Ware and Chappel which he said was adjudged upon great Debate Stoutfil's Case PRohibition Tythes not to be paid for Brick or Pidgeons It was agreed clearly that no Tythes ought to be paid for Brick because 't is part of the Soil and so it has been often adjudged And it was also said that Tythes shall not be paid for Pidgeons unless it be by special Custom Columbel versus Columbel THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 500 l. Award pleaded under Seal and not under Hand not good The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was to observe an Award of A. B. Arbitrator indifferently chosen to determine all manner of Controversies Quarrels and Demands concerning the Title of certain Lands so as the said Award were made and put into writing under the Hand and Seal of the Arbitrator c. and then he pleads that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replies an Award by which such things were to be done and sets it forth in haec verba under the Seal of the Arbitrator The Defendant rejoyns that the Arbitrator made no Award under his Hand and Seal according to the Condition of the Bond. The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Defendant ought to plead the Award under the Hand as well as the Seal of the Arbitrator for when he produces it in Court as he doth by a profert hic in Curia he must plead it formally as well as produce it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Norris versus Trist Livery secundum formam Chartae where good IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was A Deéd is made to threé Habendum to two for their Lives Remainder to the third for his Life and Livery and Seisin is made to all thrée secundum formam Chartae And whether the Livery so made as if they had all Estates in possession whereas in truth one of them had but an Estate in Remainder was good was the Question On the one side it was said by Serjeant Seys that possession in this Case was delivered according to the form of the Deéd within mentioned which must be to two for Life Remainder to the third person and Livery and Seisin being only to accomplish and perfect the Common Assurances of the Land ought to be taken favourably ut res magis valeat quam pereat and therefore if a Feoffment be made of two Acres and a Letter of Attorny to give Livery and the Attorny only enters into one Acre and gives Livery secundum formam Chartae both the Acres pass Dyer 131 40. Coke Litt. 52. a. But on the other side Serjeant Maynard said that there was something more in this Case than what had béen opened for there was a Letter of Attorney made to give Livery to two and instead of doing that he makes Livery to them all which is no good Execution of his Authority and therefore no Livery was made the Authority not being pursued As to the Case in the 1st Institutes my Lord Coke errs very much there in that discourse for in saying that if there be a Feoffment of two Acres and a Letter of Attorney to take possession of both and he maketh Livery of both but taketh possession but of one and that both pass 't is not Law but if the Authority be general as to make Livery and Seisin and he take possession of one and then makes Livery of more secundum formam Chartae that is good and this is the difference taken in the Books 5 Ed. 3. 65. 3 Ed. 3. 32. 43 Ed. 3. 32. 27 H. 8. 6. The Remainder Man in this Case is a méer Stranger to the Livery There is also a manifest difference betwéen a Matter of Interest and an Execution of an Authority for in the first Case it shall be construed according to the Interest which either hath but an Authority must be strictly pursued The Court were all of Opinion that the Livery in this Case was good to two for their Lives Remainder to the third person Curia And the Chief Iustice said that whatever the ancient Opinions were about pursuing
Authorities with great exactness and nicety yet this Matter of Livery upon Endorsements of Writing was always favourably expounded of later times unless where it plainly appeared that the Authority was not pursued at all Sid. 428. as if a Letter of Attorney be made to thrée joyntly and severally two cannot execute it because they are not the Parties delegated they do not agreé with the Authority And Iudgment was given accordingly Richards versus Sely. THIS was a Special Verdict in Ejectione firmae for Lands in the County of Cornwal The Case was this viz. Covenant made to enjoy a Copy-hold de anno in annum 't is a Lease and so a Forfeiture Thomas Sely was seised of the Lands in question for life according the Custom of the Mannor of P. and he together with one Peter Sely were bound in a Bond to a third person for the payment of 100 l. being the proper Debt of the said Thomas who gave Peter a Counter-bond to save himself harmless And that Thomas being so seised did execute a Déed to Peter as a Collateral Security to indempnifie him for the payment of this 100 l. by which Deéd after a recital of the Counterbond given to Peter and the Estate which Thomas had in the Lands he did covenant grant and agree for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns with the said Peter that he his Executors and Administrators should hold and enjoy these Lands from the time of the making of the said Déed for seven years and so from the end of seven years to seven years for and during the term of 49 years if Thomas should so long live 2 Cro. 301. In which Déed there was a Covenant that if the said 100 l. should be paid and Peter saved harmless according to the Condition of the said Counterbond then the said Déed to be void The Question was whether this being in the Case of Copyhold Lands will amount to a Lease thereof and so make a Forfeiture of the Copyhold Estate there being no Custom to warrant it Ex parte Quer. This Case was argued this Term by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and in Trinity Term following by Serjeant Maynard on the same side who said that this was not a good Lease to entitle the Lord to a Forfeiture It hath béen a general Rule that the Word Covenant will make a Lease though the Word Grant be omitted nay a Licence to hold Land for a time without either of those Words will amount to a Lease much more when the Words are to * 2 Cro. 92 398. Noy 14. 1 Roll. Abr. 848 849. Cro. Car. 207. have hold and enjoy his Land for a Term certain for those are Words which give an Interest and so it hath béen ruled in Tisdale and Sir William Essex's Case which is reported by several and is in Hob. 35. and 't is now setled that an Action of Debt may be brought upon such a Covenant And all this is regularly true in the Case of a Fréehold But if the construing of it to be a Lease will work a Wrong then 't is only a Covenant or Agreément and no Interest vests and therefore it shall never be intended a Lease in this Case because 't is in the Case of a Copyhold Estate for if it should there would be a Wrong done both to the Lessor and Lessée for it would be a Forfeiture of the Estate of the one and a defeating of the Security of the other It has beén generally used in such Cases to consider what was the intention of the Parties and not to intend it a Lease against their meaning for which there is an express Authority 2 Cro. 172. in the Case of Evans and Thomas Noy 128. in which Howel covenants with Morgan to make a Conveyance to him of Land by Fine provided that if he pay Morgan 100 l. at the end of thirtéen years that then the use of the Fine shall be to the Congnisor and covenants that Morgan shall enjoy the said Lands for thirtéen years and for ever after if the 100 l. be not paid The Assurance was not made and this was adjuged no Lease for thirtéen years because it was the intent of the Parties to make an Assurance only in the nature of a Mortgage which is but a Covenant And this appears likewise to be the intention of the Parties here because in the very Deed 't is recited that the Lands are Copihold It also sounds directly in Covenant for 't is that Peter shall or may enjoy without the lawful let or interruption of the Lessor All Agreements must be construed secundum subjectam materiam if the Matter will bear it and in most Cases are governed by the intention of the Parties and not to work a Wrong and therefore if Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for Life it shall be taken for his own Life and yet if before the Statute of Entails he made such Lease he being then Tenant in Fée-simple it had been an Estate during the Life of the Lessée but when the Statute had made it unlawful for him to bind his Heir then the Law construes it to be for his own Life because otherwise it would work a Wrong Hob. 276. Co. Lit. 42. So in this case it shall not amount to a Lease for the manifest inconveniency which would follow but it shall be construed as a Covenant and then no injury is done On the Defendants part it was argued by Serjeant Newdigate that though this was in the Case of a Copyhold Ex parte Def. that did not make any difference for the plain meaning of the Parties was to make a Lease But where the Words are doubtful and such as may admit of diverse constructions whether they will amount to a Lease or not there they shall be taken as a Covenant to prevent a Forfeiture So also if they are only Instructions as if a Man by Articles sealed and delivered is contented to demise such Lands and a Rent is reserved and Covenants to repair c. Or if one covenants with another to permit and suffer him to have and enjoy such Lands 1 Rol. Abr. 848. these and such like Words will not amount to a Lease because as hath béen said the intention of the Parties is only to make it a Covenant but here the Words are plain and can admit of no doubt But for an Authority in the Point the Lady * 2 Cro. 301. Mountagues Case was cited where it was adjudged that if a Copyholder make a Lease for a year warranted by the Custom sic de anno in annum during ten years 't is a good Lease for ten years and a Forfeiture of the Copyhold Estate Vide Hill 15 16 Car. 2. Rot. 233. the Case of Holt and Thomas in this Court The Court inclined that it was a good Lease Curia and by consequence a Forfeiture of the Copihold and that a Licence in this
truth there is no Return made or if any 't is a very imperfect Return till the Body be in Court and this is the reason why the Court will not allow it but amerce the Sheriff till he make the Party appear 't is not like a compleat Return as a Non est inventus or the Return of Nulla Bona upon a Fi. Fa. The Case of * ◠Roll Abr. 93 pl. 17. Postea Bowls and Lassels is full in the Point where it was adjudged that this Action would not lie because the Sheriff had not done any thing unjustly but what he was commanded to do by the Statute and therefore he is to be amerced if the Defendant doth not appear Ex parte Quer. But for the Plaintiff it was said that unless this Action lye he is remediless and that for two Reasons 1. Because the Assignment of the Bail Bond is at the discretion of the Court and not demandable by the Plaintiff in foro 2. The Plaintiff hath no benefit by the Amerciaments because they go to the King and in some places are granted to Patenteés now 't is agreéd that the Sheriff may be amerced and certainly if an Action be brought against him he is but in the same Case for still he is to pay And if it be objected that the Amerciaments may be compounded cheaper then the Plaintiff hath not so good remedy nor is so likely to recover his Debt as if the Action would lie which would be a greater penalty upon him than the Amerciaments on the Sheriff Neither will it follow that because the Sheriff may be amerced therefore no Action will lie against him for in many Cases he may be amerced and yet an Action on the Case will lie against him at the Suit of the Party 41 Ass pl. 12. fol. 254. Latch 187. That this Action will not lie is against the very end of the Statute and the reasonable construction thereof in the last Clause which Enacts That if the Sheriff return a Cepi Corpus he shall be charged to have the Body at the Return as before the making of the Statute now before this Law he was lyable to an Action if after such a Return made the Party did not appear and therefore this Action being grounded upon the Common Law is still preserved since no alteration hereof hath beén made by this Statute 'T is true an Action of Escape is taken away but not an Action on the Case for a false Return and upon this difference are all the Authorities cited on the other side as Cro. Eliz. 416 621. Cro. Jac. 286. Moor 428. and the Case of Bowls and Lassels And for an Authority in Point is the Case of Franklin and Andrews 24 Car. 1. where Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in an Action brought for a false Return of Cepi Corpus and the Statute pleaded as in this Case It has béen objected that Iudgment was there given upon the defect of Pleading because the Traverse was naught 't is true there was a Traverse absque hoc quod the Defendant retornavit aliter vel alio modo but that was held good because it answered the falso alledged in the Plaintiffs Declaration In this Case there is no Traverse but 't is confessed by the Demurrer that he did falsly and deceitfully return Cepi Corpus and so the Plaintiff is at apparent damage and hath no remedy without this Action and the Defendant is at no prejudice but hath his remedy over on the Bail Bond. North Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices Judgment held that the Action would not lie for when the Sheriff returns Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though he have him not in Court 't is no false Return for if he hath taken Bail he hath done what by Law he ought to do if he Arrest a Man in Yorkshire the Law will not compel him to bring the Party hither to the Bar because of the charge if he make an insufficient Return neither the Party or the Court are deluded because the common method in such cases must be pursued by which the Party will have remedy This Return is true and Iustice Atkyns held that the Sheriff was not obliged by the Statute to return only a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo but might return that he took Bail for the Statute provides that if he return a Cepi Corpus he shall be chargable as before but doth not enjoyn him to make such return the Case of Bowles and Lassels is full in this point and therefore Iudgment was given for the Defendant But Iustice Scroggs was of another Opinion says he this Action being brought because the Defendant said he had the Body ready when in truth he had not was an apparent injury to the Plaintiff of whom the Statute must have some consideration for it doth not require the Sheriff to say Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he must make his Return good or otherwise those words are very insignificant and if the Statute obliges him to let the party to Bail and nothing more is thereby intended for the benefit of the Plaintiff why doth the Court amerce the Sheriff and punish him for doing what the Statute directs Therefore if the Plaintiff brings a Habeas Corpus upon the Cepi and the Defendant doth not appear the Plaintiff is then well entituled to this Action Hollis versus Carre in Cancellaria Decree of the Execution of a Fine in specie THE Lord Chancellor Finch having called to his assistance Iustice Wild and Iustice Windham to give their Opinions what relief the Plaintiff was to have for the recovering of 6000 l. which was his Ladys Portion After those Iudges had spoken shortly to the matter he put the Case Viz. The Plaintiff by his Bill demands 6000 l. due to him for his Wives Portion with Interest for non-payment according to the purport of certain Articles of Agreement dated in August 1661. and mentioned to be made between old Sir Robert Carr the Defendants Father his Lady and Son the now Defendant and Lucy Carr his Daughter on the one part and my Lord Hollis and Sir Francis his Son the now Plaintiff on the other part The Articles mention an Agreement of a Marriage to be had between the said Sir Francis Hollis and Lucy Carr with Covenants on the Plaintiffs side to settle a Ioynture c. and on the other side to pay 6000 l. and 't is agreed in the Articles that a Fine was intended to be levied of such Lands c. for securing the payment of 6000 l. c. The Marriage takes effect but old Sir Robert Carr did never Seal these Articles the Lady Carr Seals before and the Defendant after Marriage Sir Francis had Issue on his Lady Lucy one Child since dead the Lady is likewise dead the Ioynture was not made nor the Portion paid Afterward viz. Anno 1664. an Act of Parliament was made for setling old Sir Robert Carr's Estate whereby the
Construction can be made of them but that an Estate in possession was thereby intended to pass 4. Object That this Fine and Grant must be construed to enure according to the intent of the Parties ut res magis valeat and they never intended to make a Forfeiture Answ Certainly no Man ever intended to make a Forfeiture of his own Estate those are generally the effects of Ignorance and not of the Will as the Case of Gimlet and Sands Cro. Car. * 1 Roll. Abr. 856. 391. where Tenant in Fee makes a Feoffment to two to the use of himself for Life then to the use of his Wife for Life Remainder in Tail to his Son and Heir Remainder to his own right Heirs and afterwards he made another Feoffment to Smith with Warranty the Mother and Son join in another Feoffment adjudged that this was a Forfeiture of her Estate for life though she had no notice of the Warranty made by her Husband for the Feoffment made by him was a publick Act upon the Land and she ought to have taken notice of it and though by her joining in the Feoffment with her Son she did not intend to forfeit her Estate yet the Law adjudges according to what is done But in the Case at Barr the intention of the Parties may be collected by the Act done and there is great reason to presume that the Parties thereby intended to displace the Reversion for the Husband joyning in the Fine and in the Warranty if it was no divesting the Warranty is of no use Another Objection has been only mentioned which is that admitting this should amount to a displacing if the Estate had been in possession yet in this Case it would not because it was prevented by the Lease for years in being But that cannot hinder the execution of this Fine 't is a Fine sur concessit which is executory in its nature and doth not pass any Estate or take any effect 'till executed and so is the Book 41 5. 3. 14. b. But in this Case the Fine was executed which may be by matter in pais as well as by Scire facias and as to this purpose may be executed by the entry of the Conusor 1 Rep. 106. Dyer 376. b. without suing out any Execution 38 Ed. 3. Brook tit Scire facias 199. If there had been a Fine executed there would have beén little doubt left in this Case and by the Attornment of the Lessee for years it must be admitted that this Fine was executed as 8 Ed. 3. f. 44. For a Fine of a Reversion may be executed to all purposes by the Attornment of the Lessee for years and if so when a Fine executory is once executed 't is as good as a Fine sur Conusance de droit come ceo to make a forfeiture of the particular Estate Where a Feoffment is made and a Lease for years is in being the Feoffment is not good because in such case there must be a present transposition of the Estate Postea Moor and Pitt which is hindred by the Lease But in case of a Fine which is a Feoffment upon Record a Lease for years is no impediment or displacing of the Reversion for if Tenant in Tayl expectant upon a Lease for years levy a Fine 't is a discontinuance of the Tayl and notwithstanding this Lease the Fine has such an operation upon the Free-hold that it displaces the Reversion in Fee Co. Lit. 332. And therefore if a Lease for years prevents not a Discontinuance it will much less hinder a displacing in this case But no Iudgment was given now in this Case another matter being debated whether the Plaintiff could have Iudgment because he was barred by the Statute of Limitations for it did not appear that he had been in possession for twenty years past and the Verdict hath not found any Claim or that the Plaintiff was within the Proviso of the Act. Waterfield versus the Bishop of Chichester Oath Ex Officio not to be administred A Prohibition was granted last Easter-Term to the Bishop of Chichester upon a Suggestion made by Waterfield that he being chosen Churchwarden of the Parish Church of Arundel in the County of Sussex the Bishop tendered him an Oath ex officio which was that he should Present every Parishioner who had done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a printed Book delivered to him some of which Articles concern the Church-warden himself and so in effect he was to swear against himself in case of any default which is expressly against the Statute of 13 Car. 2. Sid. 232 cap. 12. which prohibits any person having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction to administer the Oath ex officio or any other Oath whereby the person to whom 't is administred may be charged to accuse himself of any criminal matter whereby he may be lyable to any Censure or punishment and because the Bishop had Excommunicated him for refusing such Oath he prayed a Prohibition which was granted quoad the compelling him to make any answer to the said Articles concerning himself and the Excommunication was discharged But now upon the motion of Serjeant Brampston a Consultation was awarded because it appeared by the Affidavit of the Commissary who tendred this Oath and likewise by the act of the Court that he was Excommunicated for refusing to take the Oath of a Church warden according to Law which was the only Oath tendred and therefore the ground of the Prohibition being false a Consultation was awarded In this Prohibition it was recited That the Bishop cannot give an Oath but in two cases viz. in matters Testamentary and Matrimonial whereas they have authority in many cases more 't is true also that until his Iurisdiction was increased by Act of Parliament he could hold Plea in none but those two causes 2 Inst 487 537. but by the Statute De circumspecte agatis and of Articuli Cleri he may now hold Plea in many other cases The Bishop informed the Lord Chief Iustice that the Plaintiff Waterfeild had caused 2000 of the Prohibitions to be printed in English and had dispersed them all over the Kingdom intituling them a true translated Copy of a Writ of Prohibition granted by the Lord Chief Iustice and other the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas in Easter-Term 1676. against the Bishop of Chichester who had proceeded against and Excommunicated one Thomas Waterfield a Churchwarden for refusing to take the Oath usually tendred to persons in such Office by which Writ the Illegality of all such Oaths is declared and the said Bishop commanded to take off his Excommunication And this was declared by the Court to be a most seditious Libel and gave order to enquire after the Printer that he might be prosecuted Eleanor Plummer versus Sir Jeremy Whitchot Intr. Trin. 27 or 28 Car. 2. Rot. 301. in B. R. IN an Action of Debt for an Escape Vpon Nil debet
to shew that the Proceedings of that Court did not alter but interpret the Law But admitting the Case of the Duke of Norkfolk to be Law yet it concerns not this because the Sub Marshal there was taken as a Deputy but there is no such Officer as a Sub-Warden for Duckenfield had it for Life And then a Deputy being a person removable at pleasure will not be so considered in Law as one who hath a more fixed Estate for having nothing to lose it cannot be intended that he will be so careful in the execution of his Office as the other and therefore 't is reasonable in such Case that the Superiour should answer But he who hath a Freehold for Life hath an Estate of some value in the Law which he cannot be supposed easily to forfeit and therefore 't is reasonable that he alone should be lyable for his own Miscarriages for if the Defendant should be charged by the same reason the Grantee of the Reversion may be charged who is altogether an innocent person and so may be liable to a vast Sum for the Fault of another for which Reasons he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant The Court delivered no Opinion this Term Judgment but took time to advise and afterwards in Easter Term following Rainsford Chief Iustice delivered the Opinions of Twisden Wild and Jones Iustices who said they were all agreéing in the main Point but thought the Verdict imperfect and not to warrant the Plaintiffs Case for he declared that at the time when the Grant was made to Duckenfield when the Commitment was and when the Escape was suffered and ever since that Duckenfield was insufficient and not able to answer the Plaintiff but the Iury in the Special Verdict do not find the insufficiency at that time when this Action was brought But as to the main Question they were of Opinion that the Defendant was Superior and that he is chargeable for this insufficiency of Duckenfield but if he had béen sufficient when the Plaintiff brought this Action it might have been otherwise but his Inability being fully averred in the Declaration and the Defendant denying it and the Iury having found nothing against it but there being strong Suspicions of the truth of the Fact the Court would not make an intendment to the contrary The Iury have found expresly that Duckenfield was insufficient at the time of the Escape which was within six Weeks of the time when the Action was commenced so that having once found him disabled unless it appear that he was of Ability afterwards the Court will not intend him so but rather that he was insufficient at the time of the Action brought for there being strong surmises of it and there being no ground within the Record to intend him sufficient a Fact may be collected that is not found in the Verdict Fulwoods Case 4 Co. The King versus Moor. Difference between a prohibitory Clause and a Clause which gives a Penalty in a Statute AN Information was brought upon the Statute of the 4th 5th of Philip and Mary cap. 8. which Enacts That if any Person c. above the Age of 14 shall after the first day of April next after the making the Statute unlawfully take a Maid or Woman unmarried being within the Age of 16 years c. the Party shall suffer two years Imprisonment or pay such Fine as shall be assessed in the Star Chamber and that the Defendant existens supra aetatem quatuordecim annorum did take a young Maid away unmarried and kept her three days contra formam Statuti upon which he was found Guilty and now moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. It was said for the Defendant that this Court could not Fine him upon this Statute because when the Informer entitles himself by a Statute he must take the remedy therein prescribed and so 't is not like an Information at the Common Law for in such case this Court might Fine the Plaintiff 2. It is not averred that the party offending was above the age of 14 years at the time of taking but only that he being above the age of 14 such a day did take Where there are not Negative Words the Court of Kings Bench is not restrained Mod. Rep. 34. Sid. 359. Sir William Jones contra If the first Objection hath any weight in it 't is to bring the Party to an Imprisonment for the space of two years which is a punishment directed by that Statute but the Fine is limited to the Star Chamber and those Offences which were punishable there are likewise to be punished here because there are no Negative words in this Statute to abridge the authority of this Court which is never restrained but when the Statute directs before whom the Offence shall be Tried and not elsewhere It was the Opinion of my Lord Chief Iustice Hales That where there is a prohibitory Clause in a Statute and another Clause which gives a Penalty if the Party will go upon the prohibitory Clause Postea he is not confined to the manner expressed in the Statute but if he will go upon the Penalty he must then pursue what the Statute directs The first part of this Statute is but a Declaration of the Common Law the second Clause is introductive of a new Law as to the Court of Star Chamber but is not a restriction as to this Court which might have punished the Defendant if there had been no such Law The first Clause is prohibitory viz. That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away a Maid unmarried and upon this Clause this Information is brought The second Clause is distinct and directs the punishment viz. Upon Conviction to suffer Imprisonment for two years Now by taking away the Court of Star Chamber this prohibitory Clause is not repealed upon which a Man may be Indicted without demanding the Penalty and the Statute having directed that the Offence shall be heard and determined before the Kings Council in the Star Chamber or before the Iudge of Assise and no Negative words to restrain this Court therefore the Chief Iustice who is the Iudge of * Cro. Car. 463. Assise in the County of Middlesex may hear and determine this Offence and by consequence Fine the Party if he be found Guilty As to the second Objection That it is not averred that the Party offending was above the age of 14 years at the time of the taking it had been better if it had been said tunc existen ' supra aetatem quatuordecim annorum but notwithstanding 't is well enough for 't is said that being above the age of 14 years such a day he did take c. so that it cannot be otherwise but that he was of such an age at the time when the Maid was taken and the Iury found him Guilty contra formam Statuti which may likewise be an Answer to the first Objection for he being found Guilty contra formam
Toll c. which were first created by the King 9 Co. Abbot de Strata Marcella's Case So that this Toll is not become in gross by the dissolution whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Sir William Turner's Case Amendment not after issue joyned DEbt qui tam c. for 100 l. against Sir William Turner being a Iustice of Peace in London for denying his Warrant to suppress a seditious Conventicle of one Mr. Turner in New-street This Cause was to be tried by Nisi prius this Term before the Chief Iustice And now the Plaintiff moved to amend one Word in the Declaration wherein he was mistaken for he had laid the Meeting to be at Turner's Mansion House and upon Enquiry he understood the place of Meeting was not at his Mansion House but at a little distance from it and so prayed the word Mansion might be struck out But the Chief Iustice said that after Issue joyned Curia and the Cause set down to be tried and this being a penal Statute no President could be shewn of an Amendment in such case and therefore would not make this the first and so Leave was given to the Plaintiff to discontinue upon payment of Costs Brown versus Johnson IN Accompt The Plaintiff declares against the Defendant Time where 't is made parcel of the issue not good for that upon the first of March 22 Car. 2. abinde to the first of May 27 Car. 2. he was his Bayliff and Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead The Defendant pleads that from the said first day of March 22 Car. 2. to the first day of May 27 Car. 2. he was not the Plaintiffs Bayliff or Receiver of the said 80 Piggs of Lead hoc paratus est verificare To this the Plaintiff demurred and assigned specially for cause that the times from the first of March to the first of May are made parcel of the Issue which ought not to be because the Plaintiff in his Declaration must alledge a time for Form sake but the Defendant ought not to tye him up to such time alledged for he might have said he was not Bayliff modo forma And for this the Case of Lane and Alexander was cited where the Defendant by Ejectment makes a Title by Copy of Court Roll granted to him 44 Eliz. and the Plaintiff replies his Title by the like Grant 1 Junii 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintains his Barr and traverseth that the Queen 1 Junii 43 year of her Reign granted the said Land by Copy and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the traversing of the day is matter of substance which being made part of the Issue is naught But on the other side it was objected that time is material and that in Actions of Accompt 't is proper to make it parcel of the Issue for a Man may be Bayliff for two but not for three years and a Release may be pleaded from such a time to such a time Fitz. Accompt 30. Rast Entry f. 8. 19 pl. 1. f. 20. pl. 6. f. 22. pl. 2. 1. Then Exceptions were taken to the Plea first for that the Plaintiff having charged the Defendant as Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead the Defendant pleads and that he was not Receiver thereof but doth not say of any part thereof for which reason the Court held the Plea ill because he might retain 79 and yet not 80 Piggs but to plead generally ne unques Receptor is well enough though it was urged that if it had been found against him upon such an Issue that he had received any parcel of the Lead he should have accompted 24 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. 3. 14. 32 H. 6. 33. Fitz. Accompt 16. Cro. Eliz. 850. Fitz. Accompt 14. Rast Entry 18 19 20. 2. The Defendant concludes hoc paratus est verificare whereas it should be de hoc ponit se super patriam but the Court doubted of this because it was not specially assigned Postea 3. The Plaintiff charged the Defendant as his Bayliff upon the first of March and the Defendant pleads that he was not his Bayliff from the first of March so he excludes that day and this the Court held to be incurable and likewise that the time ought not to be made parcel of the Issue 2 Sand. 317 318. and so Iudgment was given quod computer Abraham versus Cunningham Administrator sells a Term afterwards an Executor appears and renounces yet the Sale was adjudged void Jones 72. 1 Vent 303. IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Case upon the Pleadings was Viz. Sir David Cunningham being possessed of a Term for years made his Will and therein appointed his Son Sir David Cunningham to be his Executor and dyed Sir David the Executor in the year 1663. made his Will also and therein appointed David Cunningham his Son and two others to be his Executors and dyed those two Executors dye and B. a Stranger takes out Administration cum Testamento annexo and continues this Administration from the year 1665. to the year 1671. in which time he made an Assignment of this Term to the Lessor of the Plaintiff for which he had received a thousand Pounds And in the year 1671. the surviving Executor of Sir David the Executor made Oath in the Archbishops Court that he never heard of his Testators Will 'till then nor ever saw it before and that he had not medled with the Estate nor renounced the Executorship 6 Co. Packmans Case Then a Citation goes to shew cause why the Administration should not be repealed and Sentence was given that it should be revoked upon which the Executor enters and the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon him This Case was argued by Saunders for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. and Levints for the Defendant And first it was said in behalf of the Plaintiff that the Authorities in the Books were strong on his side that the first Administration was well granted 'T is true if a Man make a Will and Administration is granted and that Will is afterwards proved such Administration is void as in Greysbrook and Foxes Case Pl. Com. But in this Case after the death of Sir David Cunningham the Executor his Testator is dead Intestate for to make an Executor there must be first the naming of him then there must be some concurring act of his own to declare his assent that he will take onus executionis upon him for no man can make another Executor against his will so that if after the death of the first Executor those other Executors appointed by him had made such a Declaration as this surviving Executor hath since done their Testator had dyed Intestate 7 E. 4. 12 13. The Executor is made by the Testator and the Ordinary is empowered by the Statute to make the Administrator where the person dies Intestate so that 't is plain there cannot be an Executor and Administrator both together If he who is
the Sheriff though he take insufficient Bail but must be amerced if the Defendants do not appear Mod. Rep. 227. Antea and afterwards suffered him to go at large The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. that the took good and sufficient Bail within the County according to the Statute The Plaintiff replies that he let him go at large absque hoc that he took good and sufficient Bail within the County To this the Defendant demurred This Case was argued this Term by Serjeant Skipwith and Baldwyn for the Defendant and by Serjeant Barrel and George Strode for the Plaintiff and in their Arguments for the Defendant it was said Ex parte Def. Sid. 23. 2 Sand. 60. Cro. Eliz. 624. That the Plaintiff in this case cannot maintain an Action of Escape for where the Sheriff takes Bail no Escape will lie against him 1. Because he is compellable by the Statute to let the Defendant to Bail 2. If he have not the Defendant ready at the return of the Writ he may be amerced which is the proper remedy 3. This precept of letting the Defendant to Bail being by Act of Parliament is intended by the direction of the Plaintiff himself because all people are Parties to the making of an Act of Parliament Many Actions have been brought against Sheriffs upon Suggestions that no Bail have been taken Antea Page and Tulse and for which an Action on the Case will lie but where there is Bail taken the Sheriff hath done his duty which he is commanded to do by the Statute and if the Defendant doth not appear the Sheriff is to be amerced and he is the proper Iudge of the Bail the Plaintiff is no ways concerned therein whether good or bad At the Common Law the Defendant was to continue in Prison till he had satisfied the Plaintiff to whom no benefit was intended by this Statute but rather an ease to the Defendant that he should be from thence discharged giving good Bail and the reason why the Statute mentions such Bail is in favour of the Sheriff also Cro Eliz. 672. to secure him from Amerciaments the Bail being then for his Indempnity he is the sole Iudge both of their persons number and ability for the Statute requires two Sureties and that they shall be Men within the County yet if there is but one and he not of the County and if the Bond taken by the Sheriff for the appearance of the Defendant be but 40 l. and the Debt due to the Plaintiff be 400 l. 't is well enough 2 Cro. 286. because the Statute doth not restrain him to any Sum or Sureties for he may take what Sum he please to force the Defendant to appear And when this Security is taken the Sheriff is neither compellable to assign it to the Plaintiff or he to take it T is true he doth usually assign it but that is to discharge himself of the Amerciaments which is the way that the Plaintiff should pursue where he doth imagine the Bail to be insufficient If therefore this Statute was made for the benefit and ease of the Defendant the Security therein directed is for the indempnity of the Sheriff and therefore if no Action will lie against him for taking of insufficient Bail 't is as reasonable that no Action should lie against him when he hath taken Bail which he is compelled to do and so the Traverse in this Case is immaterial and Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant On the other side it was argued Ex parte Quer. That an Action of Escape would lye against the Sheriff if he did not take good Bail which matter may be traversed and though here if the Defendant had rejoyned the Issue had been whether sufficient Bail within the County or not yet that part of the Issue had not been material for the only matter had rested upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the Bail in general Like a Case adjudged in Mich. 14 Car. 2. in B. R. where a Woman had power given her by her Husband to make a Will in the presence of two credible Witnesses It was pleaded that she made a Will in the presence of A. and B. credible Witnesses and Issue was thereupon joyned Antea and it was found to be made in the presence of C. and D. who were credible Witnesses and this was held to be good because the substance was found Viz. That it was made in the presence of two credible Witnesses The Defendant therefore here ought to have taken good and sufficient Bail to bring himself within the Statute and that is traversable and the Pleadings are well enough for if there be good Bail 't is not material in what County they live Vpon the first Argument of this Case the Lord Chief Iustice inclined that an Action of Escape did lie at the Common Law against the Sheriff for it was clear that he was to keep the Party arrested in Prison 'till the Debt was satisfied and that if he had gone at large it had been an Escape the Sheriff then hath no excuse but by this Statute and to entitle himself to any benefit thereby he must pursue the very directions therein prescribed and therefore ought to take good and sufficient Bail for otherwise the Statute would be eluded if it be left in his power to take what Bail he pleases and he was of Opinion that the Plaintiff had an Interest in the Security and therefore the Sheriff was lyable if it was not good when first taken but not if by any accident afterwards the Bail miscarry or become insolvent And Iustice Wyndham was of the same Opinion that the Sheriff was lyable he differed only as to the manner of the Action which he held should be a special Action on the Case setting forth the whole matter and alledging that the Defendant did not take sufficient Bail Iustice Atkyns said the Case depends upon the construction of that * 23 H. 6. cap. 10. Statute which is very obscure and the Opinions various which have been upon it 't is plain the Sheriff is compellable to take Bail and that an Action lies against him if he refuses such as are sufficient when tendred but the question was now whether it will lie against him fortaking those who are insufficient and as to that he said that many Authorities were in our Books that the taking of Bail is left to the Sheriffs discretion and he is thereby to provide for his own indempnity for he must return a Cepi Corpus upon the Writ he cannot return that he let him to Bail according to the Statute and therefore inclined that the Action did not lie Scroggs Iustice contra He said that this Statute designed the benefit of the Creditor that he might either get the Sheriff amerced or have an Action in both which Cases he might indempnifie himself by the Security he had taken T is true he may let the
special Verdict He who sues in an Inferior Court is bound at his peril to take notice of the Bounds and Limits of that Iurisdiction and if the Party after a Verdict below prays a Prohibition and alledges that the Court had no Iurisdiction a Prohibition shall be granted and 't is no Estoppel that he did not take advantage of it before 1 Roll. Abr. 545. But Iustice Atkins and Scroggs were of another Opinion they agreed that if an Action be brought in an Inferior Court if it be not said to be infra Jurisdictionem Curiae they would never presume it to be so but rather to be without if not alledged to be within the Iurisdiction and here in the Plea 't is not shewn at all so that as the Case stands upon the Plea the Proceédings are coram non Judice and there is no legal Authority to warrant them and by consequence the Officer is no more to be excused than the Party because also 't is in the Case of a particular Iurisdiction And so it hath béen adjudged upon an Escape brought against an Officer of an Inferior Court wherein the Plaintiff declared that he had brought an Action upon a Bond against S. in the Court of Kingston and that he had Iudgment and Execution and the Defendant suffered him to escape this Declaration did not charge the Defendan because the Bond was not alledged to be made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae for though such an Action is transitory in its nature yet the Proceedings in an inferior Court upon it are coram non Judice if it doth not appear to be infra Jurisdictionem 1 Roll. Abr. 809. though in the Case of a general Iurisdiction it might be otherwise But here the Rejoynder doth help the Plea for the Plaintiff having replied that the Trespass was committed out of the Iurisdiction and the Defendant having rejoyned that he had alledged in his Declaration below that the Trespass was done within the Iurisdiction 't is now all one Plea and the Plaintiff hath confessed it by his Demurrer so that in regard it was alledged below and admitted there 't is a good Plea both for Officer and Party and the Plaintiff cannot now take advantage of it but is concluded by his former admittance and it shall not be enquired now whether true or false And as to the taliter processum fuit they all held it well enough and that there was no necessity of setting out all the Proceedings here as in a Writ of Error And as to the last Exception 't is said that the Burrough of Warwick is antiquus Burgus and that the Court is held there secundum consuetudinem which is well enough Jones's Case Common Pleas cannot grant Habeas Corpus in Criminal Cases IT was moved for a Habeas Corpus for one Jones who was committed to New Prison by Warrant from a Iustice of Peace for refusing to discover who intrusted him with the keeping of the Keys of a Conventicle and for that he had been instrumental to the Escape of the Preacher he was asked by the Iustice to give Security for his Good Behaviour which he also refused and thereupon was committed The Chief Iustice doubted that a Habeas Corpus could not be granted in this Case because it was in a criminal Cause of which the Court of Common Pleas hath no Iurisdiction and that seemed to be the Opinion of my Lord Coke Vaugh. 157. 2 Inst 53. 2 Inst 55. where he saith it lies for any Officer or priviledged Person of the Court. There are three sorts of Habeas Corpus in this Court one is ad respondendum Mod. Rep. 235. which is for the Plaintiff who is a Suitor here against any Man in Prison who is to be brought thereupon to the Barr and remanded if he cannot give Sureties There is another Habeas Corpus for the Defendant ad faciend ' recipiend ' as to this the same Iurisdiction is here as in the Court of Kings Bench if a person be near the Town by the course of the Court he may be brought hither to be charged and then the Habeas Corpus is returnable immediate but if he be remote it must then be returnable in the Court at a certain day these are the Habeas Corpus's which concern the Iurisdiction of this Court and are incident thereunto There is another which concerns Priviledge when the Party comes and subjects himself to the Court to be either bailed or discharged as the Crime is for which he stands charged and if he be priviledged this Court may examine the Case and do him right if a private man be committed for a criminal Cause we can examine the Matter and send him back again Before King James's Reign there was no Habeas Corpus but recited a Priviledge as in the Case of Priviledge for an Attorny so that if this Court cannot remedy what the Party complains 't is in vain for the Subject to be put to the trouble when he must be sent back again neither can there be any failure of Iustice because he may apply himself to a proper Court and of the same Opinion were Wyndham and Scroggs But Iustice Atkins was of another Opinion for he could see no Reason why there should not be a Right to come to this Court as well as to the Kings Bench. And that Vaughan Wild and Archer Iustices were of Opinion that this Court may grant a Habeas Corpus in other Cases besides those of Priviledge Afterwards the Prisoner was brought to the Court upon this Habeas Corpus but was remanded because this Court would not take Sureties for his Good Behavior The Chief Iustice said that when he was not on the Bench he would take Sureties as a Iustice of Peace And Monday late Secondary informed him that Iustice Wild when he sate in this Court did once take such Sureties as a Iustice of Peace Anonymus IT was the Opinion of the Chief Iustice North In Replevin both are Actors that in a Replevin both Parties are Actors for the one sues for Damages and the other to have the Cattle and there the place is material for if the Plaintiff alledges the taking at A. and they were taken at B. the Defendant may plead Non cepit modo forma but then he can have no Return for if he would have a Retorn ' Habend ' he must deny the taking where the Plaintiff hath laid it and alledge another place in his Avowry Sir Osborn Rands versus Tripp THE Plaintiff was a Tobacconist and lived near Guild-Hall London he married the Daughter of the Defendant New Trial granted who was an Alderman in Hull and had 400 l. Portion with her after the Marriage the Defendant spoke merrily before thrée Witnesses That if his Son-in-Law would procure himself to be Knighted so that his Daughter might be a Lady he would then give him 2000 l. more and would pay 1000 l. part thereof presently upon such Knighthood and the
is not like the Case at the Barr where 't is not a Stranger but the Obligee himself that must procure the Conveyance for 't is to be advised by his Council and to be done at his Costs and therefore in * 5 Co. 23. Lamb's Case it was held that if a Man be bound to give such a Release before such a day as the Iudge of the Admiralty shall direct there 't is no Plea to say that he appointed none for the Iudge being a Stranger to the Condition 1 Roll. Abr. 452. lit L. placito 6. the Defendant is to apply himself to him having undertaken to perform it at his peril which is the same Resolution with Moor's Case in Crook So that he took it for a Rule in all Cases that where the Act of God or of the Obligée discharges the Obligor from one part of a disjunctive Obligation that the Law discharges him of the other and therefore prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Dyer 361. Ex parte Quer. Serjeant Pemberton contra It appears that one thing or the other was to be done in this Case for if the Plaintiff demanded and tendred an Annuity the Defendant was to seal it and if he did not tender it then likewise the Defendant was to do something viz. to pay 300 l. So that the Plaintiff was either to have the Annuity or the Mony He agreed that where the Obligor hath the Election if in such Case the Obligée shall wilfully determine it that the Bond is thereby discharged But if a Stranger take away the Election 't is no discharge for in such case the other part is to be performed In this case the Plaintiff hath done no wilful Act to determine the Defendants Election but all which is pretended is that he hath not done something necessary to be performed which is that he hath not made a request But by his omission thereof the Defendants Election is not taken away for though no request was made within the six Months yet the Defendant might have prepared a Grant of the Annuity himself and have offered it to the Plaintiff within the six Months upon the last part of the day and if he had thus set forth his case and alledged that the Plaintiff made no request nor tendered him a Grant of the Annuity to Seal this had been a good performance of the Condition for he had done that which was the substance which though it was to be done at the Plaintiffs charge yet the Defendant might have brought an Action for so much Mony by him laid to the use of the other and the Cases put in the principal Case in Moor 645. are expressly for the Plaintiff in this Case where the Iudgment was That if there be a Statute with a Defeazance to make such Conveyance as the Council of the Conusee shall direct the Cognisor must prepare the Conveyance if the other doth not and there is a Case put where a thing was to be done at the Costs of the Plaintiff yet the Defendant did it at his own Charge which he recovered of the other North Chief Iustice Judgment and the whole Court were of Opinion that the Plea was good because the Defendant had the benefit of Election and the Plantiff not making the request within the six Months had dispensed with one part of the Condition and the Law hath discharged the Defendant of the other part and they relied upon the Case of Grenningham and Ewre which they held to be good Law and an Authority express in the very point In this Case the Obligee was to do the first act Viz. To make the request Where the Condition is single concilium non dedit advisamentum is a good Plea to discharge the Defendant so here the Condition is but single as to the Defendant for though it be disjunctive yet the Plaintiff hath taken away the benefit of Election from the Obligor of doing the one and therefore he shall be excused from doing the other The Pleading as alledged by the Council of the Plaintiff would not have been a good performance of the Condition for if one be bound to Convey as the Council of the other shall advise and he makes the Conveyance himself this is not such a Deed as was intended by the Parties and so no performance of the Condition But however the Defendant need not plead it for he is not bound so to do Here if the Plaintiff had requested the Sealing of such a Grant of an Annuity even the Defendant had liberty either to execute it or to pay the 300 l. and where the Election is on the Obligors part neither the act or neglect of the Obligee shall take it away from him for it would be unreasonable that the Obligee should have his choice either to accept of the Annuity or the 300 l. when 't is a known Rule That all Conditions where there is a Penalty in the Bond are made in favour and for the benefit of the Obligor and the 300 l. in this case to be paid upon the refusal of the Defendant to make such Grant is in the nature of a Penalty to enforce him to do it The principal Case in Moor 645. was agreed to be Law but the Rule there put was denied as not adequate to the present Case which was that if by the Act of God or of the Party or through default of a Stranger it becomes impossible for the Obligor to do one thing in a disjunctive Condition he is notwithstanding bound to do the other This is true only as to the last Case but not to the two first and for an Authority * 5 Co Laughter's Case was full in the Point which is that when a Condition consists of two parts in the disjunctive and both are possible at the time of the Bond made and afterwards one becomes impossible by the Act of God or of the Party the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Smith versus Tracy In Banco Regis Distribution shall be equally made amongst the Children of the whole and half Blood Mod. Rep. 209. Jones 93. 1 Ventris 307 IN a Prohibition The Case was A Man dies intestate having three Brothers of the whole Blood and a Brother and Sister of the half Blood and the Question was whether they shall be admitted to a distribution in an equal degreé Mr. Holt argued that they were all in aequali gradu because before the Act of Distribution the Ordinary had power to compel the Administrator to give and allot filial Portions to the Children of the deceased out of his Estate And by the Civil Law such provision is made for the Children of the Intestate that the Goods which either the Father or Mother brought to each other at the Marriage shall not remain to the Survivor but the use and occupation of them only during Life for the Property did belong to the Children
By the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. the Ordinary is to grant Administration to the Widow of the Intestate or to the next of his Kin or to both as by his discretion he shall think good and in Case where divers persons claim the Administration as next of Kin which be in equal degree the Ordinary may commit Administration to which he pleaseth and his power was not abridged but rather revived by this late Act by which 't is Enacted 22 23 Car. 2. That just and equal distribution shall be made amongst Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degree or legally representing their Stocks pro suo cuique jure and the Children of the half Blood do in the Civil Law legally represent the Father and to some purposes are esteemed before the Vncles of the whole Blood 'T is no Objection to say that because the Law rejects the half Blood as to Inheritances therefore it will do the same as to personal Estates because such Estates are not to be determined by the Common but by the Canon or Civil Law and if so the half Blood shall come in for distribution for this Act of Parliament confirms that Law Winnington Sollicitor General contra He agreed that before this Act the half Blood was to have equal share of the Intestates Estate but that now the Ordinary was compelled to make such distribution and to such persons as by the Act is directed for he had not an original power to grant Administration in any case that did belong to the Temporal Courts Sid. 370 371. but it was given to him by the Indulgence of Princes not quatenus a Spiritual Person Hensloes Case 9 Co. Bendl. 133. And if he had not power in any Case he could not grant to whom he pleased But admitting he could his power is now abridged by this Statute and he cannot grant but to the Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degrée or legally representing their Stocks Now such legal representation must be according to the Rules of the Common and not of the Civil Law for if there be two lawful Brothers and a Bastard eigne and a Question should arise concerning the distribution of an Intestates Estate the subsequent Marriage according to the Law in the Spiritual Court would make the latter legitimate and if so a legal Representative amongst them but this Court will never allow him so to be But the Court were all of Opinion that in respect of the Father the half Blood is as near as those of the whole and therefore they are all alike and shall have an equal distribution and that such Construction should be made of the Statute as would be most agreeable to the Will of the dead person if he had devised his Estate by Will and it was not to be imagined if such Will had been made but something would have been given to the Children of the half Blood And thereupon a Consultaion was granted Anonymus In C. B. FAux Judgment viz. Serjeant Turner took this Exception that the Plaintiff in the Court below had declared ad damnum 20 l. whereas it not being a Court of Record and being sine Brevi the Court could not hold Plea of any Sum above 40 s. and for this Cause the Iudgment was reversed DE Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Southcot versus Stowel Intrat ' Hill 25 26 Car. 2. Regis Rot. 1303. IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was Covenant to stand seised how it differs from a Conveyance at the Common Law Mod. Rep. 226. Thomas Southcot having Issue two Sons Sir Popham and William and being seised in Fée of a Farm called Indyo the Lands now in question did upon the Marriage of his eldest Son Sir Popham covenant to stand seised of the said Farm to the use of the said Sir Popham Southcot and the Heirs Males of his Body on Margaret his Wife to be begotten and for want of such Issue to the Heirs Males of the Covenantor and for want of such Issue to his own right Heirs for ever Sir Popham had Issue begotten on his Wife Margaret Edward his Son and five Daughters and dies Thomas the Covenantor dies Edward dies without Issue And whether the five Daughters as Heirs general of Thomas or William their Vncle as special Heir Male of Thomas per formam doni shall inherit this Land was the Question Two Objections were made against the Title of William the Vncle. 1. Vaugh. 49. Because here is no express Estate to Thomas the Covenantor for 't is limited to his Heirs Males the Remainder to his own right Heirs so that he having no Estate for Life the Estate Tail could not be executed in him and for that reason William cannot take by descent 2. He cannot take by Purchase for he is to be Heir of Thomas and Heir Male the Limitation is so but he cannot be Heir for his five Nieces are Heirs In answer to which these Assertions were laid down 1. That in this Case Thomas the Covenantor hath an Estate for Life by implication and so the Estate Tail being executed in him comes to William by descent and not by purchase for though the Covenantor had departed with his whole Estate and limited no Vse to himself yet he hath a Reversion because he can have no right Heir while he is living and therefore the Statute of 27 H. 8. Hob. 30. creates an Vse in him till the future use cometh in esse and by consequence the right Heirs cannot take by purchase for wherever the Heir takes by purchase the Ancestor must depart with his whole Fee for which reason a Fee cannot be raised by way of purchase to a Mans right Heirs by the name of Heirs either by Conveyance of Land or by Vse or Devise but it works by descent 1 Inst 22. b. And that Vses may arise by Implication by Covenants to stand seized the Authorities are very plentiful Moor 284. 1 Co. 154. Lord Paget's Case cited in the Rector of Cheddington's Case Cro. Eliz. 321. 1 Roll. Rep. 239 240 317 438. Lane vers Pannel Cor. Car. And in the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood in a Devise there was the same limitation as this the Case was Thomas being seised in Fee had Issue Francis and William by several Venters and devised Land to Francis his eldest Son for Life then to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of William and the Heirs Males of their Bodies for ever and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Devisor then he made a Lease to William for 30 years to commence after his death and dies William Enters and Surenders this Lease to Francis who Enters and makes a Lease to the Defendant and dyes without Issue and William Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff it was adjudged for William because he being
and so North Chief Iustice said that it had been lately ruled in the Common Pleas. Afterwards the Court of Kings-Bench was moved for a Prohibition in this Case and it was denied so that in this Case there was the Opinion of all the three Courts This matter was so much laboured because twenty four Quakers were reported to be concerned in the Rate and they were unwilling to pay towards the Building of a Church Paget versus Vossius In B. R. A Trial at the Bar in Ejectione Firmae Judgment given upon the Construction of words in a Will Jones 73. 1 Ventris 325. in which the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was Viz. That Dr. Vossius the Defendant being an Alien and a Subject of the States of Holland falling into Disgrace there had his Pension taken from him by Publick Authority Afterwards he came into England and contracted a great Friendship with one Dr. Brown a Prebendary of Windsor Then a War broke out between England and Holland and the King issued forth his Proclamation declaring the said War and the Hollanders to be Alien Enemies Dr. Brown being seised of the Lands now in question being of the value of 200 l. per Ann. and upwards made his Will in these words in Writing Inter alia Viz. Item I give all my Mannour of S. with all my Freehold and Copyhold Lands c. to my dear Friend Dr. Isaac Vossius during his Exile from his own Native Country but if it please God to restore him to his Country or take him out of this Life then I give the same immediately after such restoration or death to Mrs. Abigal Hevenigham for ever A Peace was afterwards concluded between England and Holland whereby all Intercourses of Trade between the two Nations became lawful but Dr. Vossius was not sent for over by the States nor was there any offer of kindness to him but his Pension was disposed of and given to another That the Doctor might return into his own Country when he pleased but that he still continued in England And whether he or the Lessor of the Plaintiff Mrs. Heveningham had the better Title was the question Nota Dr. Vossius was enabled to take by Grant from the King Ex parte Quer. Pemberton Serjeant for the Lessor of the Plaintiff argued that the Estate limited to the Defendant is determined which depended upon the construction of this Devise He did agree that the Will was obscure and the intent of the Devisor must be collected from the circumstances of the Case and it is a Rule That according to the * 2 Cro. 62 371 416. intent of the Parties a Will is to be interpreted 'T is plain then that the Devisor never intended the Defendant an Estate for Life absolutely because it was to depend upon a Limitation and the Words are express to that purpose for he devises to him during his Exile c. Now the Question is not so much what is the genuine and proper sence and signification of those Words as what the Testator intended they should signifie 1. Therefore the most proper signification of the Word Exile is a penal Prohibiting a person from his Native Country and that is sometimes by Iudgment or Edict as in the case of an Act of Parliament and sometimes 't is chosen to escape a greater Punishment as in cases of Abjuration and Transportation c. But he did not think that the Testator took the Word Exile in this restrained sense for Dr. Vossius was never formally or solemnly Banished if that should be the sense of the Word then nothing would pass to the Doctor by this Will because the Limitation would be void and like to the Case of a Devise to a Married Woman durante viduitate and she dies in the life-time of her Husband or to a Woman Sole during her Coverture or of a Devise to A. the Remainder to the right Heis of B. and A. dies living B so that this could not be his meaning 2. The Word Exile in common parlance is taken only for absence from ones Native Country but this is a very improper signification of the Word and nothing but a Catachresis can justifie it and therefore the Testator could not intend it in this sense 't is too loose and inconsiderable an Interpretation of the Word for the Iudgment of the Court to depend on unless there were circumstantial Proofs amounting almost to a Demonstration that it was thus meant But it plainly appears by the following Words this was not the meaning of the Testator for 't is said If it please God to restore him to his Country which shews that there was some Providence or other which obstructed his return thither and so could not barely intend a voluntary absence for if so he might have expressed it viz. during his absence from his Country or till his return thither or whilst he should stay in England and not in such doubtful Words 3. By the Word Exile is meant a persons lying under the displeasure of the Government where he was born or of some great persons who have an Influence upon the Government or have an Authority over him which makes him think convenient considering such circumstances to withdraw himself and retire to some other place and this is a sense of the Word between both the former and even in the Common Law we are not strangers to the acceptation of the Word in that sense There is a Case omni exceptione major in the Writ of Waste which is fecit vastum de domibus venditionem de boscis exilium de hominibus 't is in the Register and in the Writ on the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. where by the exilium de hominibus is meant the hard usage of Tenants or the menacing of them whereby they flie from their Habitations 2 H. 6. 11. 'T is found in this Case that the Defendant was under the displeasure of his Governours the War broke out and therefore it might not then be safe for him to return and for that reason he might think it safe for himself to abide here and this Dr. Brown the Testator might know which might also be the reason of making the Will But now all acts of Hostility are past and so the Defendants recess is open and it hath pleased God to restore the Doctor but he is not pleased to restore himself for the Iury find he is not returned now if a Man hath an Estate under such a Limitation to do a thing which may be done when it pleaseth the party in such case if he neglect or refuse to do the thing the Estate is determined 15 H. 7. 1. If I grant a Man an Annuity till he be promoted to a Benefice and I provide a Presentation for him and he will not be Instituted and Inducted the Annuity ceases so shall the Estate in this Case because the Devisor seems to appoint it to the Defendant till he may return
of the Officers drive the Sheep to Marwood's Grounds where they left them The Plaintiff demands the Sheep of Solebay and upon his refusal to deliver them brings this Action against the Servant and whether it would lye or not was the Question It was urged at the Barr that the Action would not lie against the Defendant because he had not the possession of the Goods at the time of the Action brought for he presently put them into his Masters Ground And it was said if A. find Goods and S. takes them away before the Action brought Trover will not lie against A. but 't is otherwise if he sell them In this Case it would have been a Breach of Trust in the Servant to have delivered the Goods belonging to his Master to another 'T is true if there be a Conversion though the possession be removed before the Action brought yet the Action will lie but that is because of the Conversion Many Cases were put where the Servant is not lyable to an Action for a thing done by the Command of his Master and where a Bayliff who is but a Servant to the Sheriff shall not be charged in a false Return made by his Master Cro. Eliz. 181. 1 Roll. Abr. 94 95. So if a Smiths Man prick an Horse the Action lies against the Master and not against the Servant The Court before they delivered any Iudgment in this Case premised these two things viz. 1. That 't is necessary in Trover to prove a Property in the Plaintiff and a Trover and Conversion in the Defendant And it was said by Iustice Atkins but denied by the Chief Iustice that though Goods are sold in a Market yet the property is not changed till the delivery for which he cited Keilway 59 77. But the Court held clearly in this Case that the first Sale to Alston was defeated by the Agreement of the Parties afterwards for when a Bargain is made and all the Parties consent to dissolve it and other Conditions are proposed the new Agreement destroys the former Bargain And the Chief Iustice said that if an Horse was bought in a Market for which the Vendeé is to pay 10 l. if the ready Mony be not paid the property is not altered but the Party may sell him to another 2. This new Agréement to have the Sheep if Alston would pay such a Sum of Mony at a future day will not amount to a Sale and the new property is changed and consequently the Sale by H. to the Plaintiff before the day is good and so the property of the Sheep is in him But by the Opinion of the whole Court the Action would not lie against the Defendant 1. The Defendant could be guilty of no Conversion unless the driving the Cattle by vertue of the Replevin would make him guilty but at that time the Sheep were in custodia Legis and the Law did then preserve them so that no property can be changed and if so then there could be no Conversion 2. The Action will not lie against the Servant for it being in Obedience to his Master's Command though he had no Title yet he shall be excused And this Rule Iustice Scroggs said would extend to all Cases where the Master's Command was not to do an apparent Wrong for if the Master's Case depended upon a Title be it true or not 't is enough to excuse the Servant for otherwise it would be a mischievous thing if the Servant upon all occasions must be satisfied with his Master's Title and Right before he obey his Commands and 't is very requisite that he should be satisfied if an Action should lie against him for what he doth in Obedience to his Master But it was said the * Wyne and Rider antea Servant cannot plead the Command of his Master in Barr of a Trespass and it was likewise said that in this Case the driving of the Cattle by the Servant to the Grounds of his Master or a Strangers helping to drive them without being requested is justifiable 3. Because what was done by the Defendant was done in Execution of the Process of the Law and he might as well justifie as the Officer for if he forbid the Defendant to have assisted him yet his assisting him afterwards would not have made him guilty because done in Execution of the Law 4. Because 't is not found that the Servant did convert the Sheep to his own use for the special Verdict only finds the Demand and the Refusal which is no Conversion and though 't is an Evidence of it to a Iury yet 't is not Matter upon which the Court can give Iudgment of a Conversion 10 Co. 57. And therefore the Iury should have found the Conversion as well as the Demand and Refusal 2 Bulstr 313. 1 Roll. Abr. 5. like the Case in 2 Roll. Abr. 693. In an Assise of Rent seek upon Nul tort pleaded the Iury found a Demand and Refusal sic disseisivit it was held to be no good Verdict for the Demand ought to have been found on the Land and shall not be so intended unless found The Plaintiff here hath set forth in his Declaration a Request to deliver then a Refusal and Conversion too which shews that they ought to be found because distinct things and the finding of the Demand and Refusal was only a presumptive not a conclusive proof of the conversion and if the Iury themselves know that there was no conversion yet the Plaintiff hath failed in his Action as if a Trover be brought for cutting Trees and carrying of them away and the Iury know that though the Defendant cut them down yet they still lay in the Plaintiffs Close this is no conversion And though it hath been strongly insisted at the Bar that the Court shall intend a conversion unless the contrary appeared and are to direct a Iury to find the demand and refusal to be a conversion and the Opinion of Dodridge and Croke in 1 Roll. Rep. 60. was much relied on where Adams recovered against Lewis 40 l. in the Court of Exon and three Butts of Sack were taken in Execution and the Plaintiff deposited 22 l in the Hands of the Defendent to prevent the Sale of the Sack which was to be a pledge to return it upon request if the Defendant was not paid before the next Court day the Iury found the Debt was not paid and that no request was made to return the Sack but that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the Mony Yet it was held by those two Iustices That the Law would supply the proof of a * Bulstr 308. Cro. Eliz. 495. Golds 152. Moor 460. Stiles 361. conversion though it was not found for it shall be presumed that the Mony was denied to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant might use it himself and because no other proof could be made that very denial shall be a conversion in Law so a denial of a Rent
here for want of * 2 H. 4. 12. Bro Accompt 24 65 89. privity and because there is no contract 't is only a tort a disseisin and the Plaintiff might have brought an Assise for this Office which lies at the Common Law and so it hath been adjudged in Jehu Webb's Case 1 Inst 212. 8 Co. 4. Which is also given by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 25. for a profit apprender in alieno solo The Plaintiff might have brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant for disturbing of him in his Office and that had been good because it had been grounded on the wrong In this Case the Defendant takes the Profits against the will of the Plaintiff and so there is no Contract but if he had received them by the consent of the Plaintiff 6 H. 6.9 1 Roll. Abr. 597 pl. 5. yet this Action would not lie for want of privity 'T is true in the Case of the King where his Rents are wrongfully received the party may be charged to give an accompt as Bayliff so also may the Executors of his Accomptant because the Law createth a privity but 't is otherwise in the Case of a common person 10 Co. 114. b. 11 Co. 90. b. Because in all Actions of Debt there must be a Contract or quasi ex contractu and therefore where Iudgment was had and thereupon an Elegit and the Sheriff returned that he had apprised the Goods and extended such Lands which he delivered to the Plaintiff ubi revera he did not per quod actio accrevit which was an Action of Debt but it was adjudged that it would not lie because the Sheriff had not returned that he medled with the Goods or with the value of them and therefore for want of certainty how much to charge him with this Action would not lie but an Action on the Case for a false Return but if he had returned the Goods sold for so much Mony certain Godb. 276. 2 Sand. 344. 2 Cro. 566. which he had delivered then an Action of Debt would lie for though 't is not a Contract 't is quasi ex contractu Hob. 206. 3. Point The Iury find that the Defendant received the Profits for seven years and that the Plaintiff had his Patent but two years and do not shew what was received by the Defendant within those two years and then the Court cannot apply it But on the other side it was said by Sawyer Ex parte Quer. That this Non obstante was good for where an Act of Parliament comes to restrain the Kings power and prerogative it was always held so to be and he relied upon the Iudgment of 2 H. 7. f. 6. that the King might dispense with the Statute of 23 H. 6. Pl. Com. 502. b. Dyer 303. which he affirmed to be the constant Vsage ever since and that therefore the Law is so taken to be at this day As to the second Point both he and the Sollicitor General Winnington said That an indebitatus assumpsit would lie here for where one receives my Rent I may charge him as Bayliff or Receiver or if any one receive my Mony without my order though 't is a tort yet an indebitatus will lie because by the Receipt of the Mony the Law creates a promise and the Action is not grounded on the tort but on the receipt of the Profits in this Case As to the Objection about the finding they held that to be nugatory and idle for it cannot be intended that the Damages given were for the time the Defendant received the Profits before the Plaintiff had his Patent neither is there any thing found in the Verdict to that purpose In Michaelmas-Term following Judgment the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiffs 1. They held that the King might dispense with this Statute for the Subject had no interest nor was in any wise concerned in the Prohibition it was made only for the ease of the King Hob. 146. and by the like reason he might dispense with the Statute of 4 H. 4. 24. That a Man shall hold the Office of Dyer 203. Aulnager without a Bill from the Treasurer and with the Statute of 31 H. 6. 5. That no Customer or Comptroller shall have any Estate certain in his Office because these and such like Statutes were made for the ease of the Sovereign and not to abridge his Prerogative and that the general Clause of Non obstante aliquo alio Statuto was sufficient 2. 4 H. 7. 6. b. Moor 458 An Indebitatus Assumpsit will lye for Rent received by one who pretends a Title for in such case an Accompt will lye wherever the Plaintiff may have an Accompt an Indebitatus will lye As to the finding 't is well enough for the Iury assess Damages occasione praemissorum in narratione mentionat which must be for the time the Plaintiff had the Office and that a Patent would make a Man an Officer before admittance Steward Executor of Steward versus Allen. Demand must be made where an Interest is to be determined DEBT for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years in which there was a Proviso That if the Rent be behind and unpaid by the space of a Month next after any or either of the Daies of payment then the Lease to be void The Plea was That the Rent was behind a Month after a day on which it was reserved to be paid and so the Lease is void to which Plea the Plaintiff demurred because the Defendant did not say that the Plaintiff demanded the Rent for though the Rent be due without demand yet the Interest shall not be determined without it which must be expressly laid in the Pleading and of that Opinion was the Court except Iustice Atkyns who doubted Searl versus Long. Quare Impedit real mainpernors must be returned upon the Summons Pone and Grand Cape 2 Inst 124. Mod. Rep. 248. IVdgment final was given in a Quare Impedit according to the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 12. Which Serjeant Pemberton moved to set aside He said that at the Common Law the Process in a Quare Impedit was Summons Pone and Distress infinite which being found mischievous in respect of a Lapse it was therefore provided by this Statute that if the disturbers do not appear upon the Summons then they shall be Attached to appear at another day c. Now here upon the Attachment the Sheriff hath returned Attachiatus fuit by John Doe and Richard Roe who are feigned persons and not mainpernors for the Defendant hath made Oath That he did not know any such persons neither was he ever Attached so that 't is not only a matter of Form for he ought to have that notice which the Law requires it being so penal upon him 'T is probable this Mistake might arise from Mr. Dalton who in his Book of the Office of Sheriffs in the Returns of Writs
reason alone the Plaintiff had no cause of Demurrer for the Defendant may well disclose the matter of Law in Pleading which is a much cheaper way than to have a Special Verdict and that this is on the same reason of giving of colour but if the matter by which the Defendant justifies be all matter of Fact and proper for the Tryal of a Iury then the Dfendant ought to plead the General Issue And as to the Matter of the Plea the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustice held it to be good for the Common which was pleaded was a Common by Grant and not argumentatively pleaded for if the Defendant had pleaded an express Grant of Common in those two places and the Plaintiff had demanded Oyer of the Deed it would have appeared that there was no such Deed and this had been a good cause of Demurrer If this Plea should not be good it would be very mischievous to the Defendant for there being a perpetual Vnity as to the Freehold there can be no Prescription to the Common but there being a constant enjoyment thereof by the Tenants and so a perpetual Vsage and a Grant made referring to that Vsage 't is well enough And since whilst the Lands were in possession of the Lord the Commoners could not complain of a Surcharge why should they if he grant the Premisses the Granteé being in loco c. In the Case of the King a Grant of tot talia Libertates Privilegia quot qualia the Abbot lately had 9 Co. 23. Abbot de Strata Marcella was held good by such general Words Here the Lord Paget granted to the Defendant that which the Lessées had before viz. that Common which the Tenants had time out of mind and it cannot be conceived but that the Tenants had a Right for as a Tort cannot be presumed to be from time immemorial so neither shall it be intended that the Lord gave only a Licence and permitted his Tenants to enjoy this Common But Iustice Atkins was of Opinion that the Plea was not good he said he knew not by what Name to call this Common for it was no more than a Permission from the Lord that the Tenants might put their Cattle into his Freehold or a Connivance at them for so doing and if it be taken as a new Grant then nothing can pass but the Surplus for the Lord cannot derogate from his former Grant and the new Grantee shall not put in an equal proportion with him who hath the Prescription for if he may then such Prescription would be quite destroyed by such puisne Grant for as the Lord might grant to one so he might to twenty and then there would not be sufficient Common left for him who prescribes to the Right So that he conceived that the Defendant had no Right of Common or if he had any it would not be till after the Right of the Plaintiff was served and he said that Vsage shall not intend a Right but it may be an Evidence of it upon a Tryal But if there had been an Vsage 't is now lost by the Vnity of the Possession and shall not be revived by the new Grant like the Case of Massam and Hunter Yelv. 189. there was a Copyholder of a Messuage and two Acres in Feé which the Lord afterwards granted and confirmed to him in Fee cum pertinentiis it was adjudged that though the Tenant by Vsage had a Right to have Common in the Lord's Wast yet by this new Grant and Confirmation that Right was gone the Copyhold being thereby extinguished for the Common being by Vsage and now lost these Words cum pertinentiis in the new Grant will not revive it But notwithstanding Iudgment by the Opinion of the other three Iustices was given for the Defendant Week's Case A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court at Bristol the Suggestion was that he was excommunicated for refusing to answer upon Oath to a Matter by which he might accuse himself viz. to be a Witness against another that he himself was present such a day and saw the other at a Conventicle which if he confessed they would have recorded his Confession of being present at a Meeting and so have proceeded against him The Court granted a Prohibition but ordered him to appear in the Ecclesiastical Court to be examined as to the other persons being there Anonymus A Man wins 100 l. of another at play Gaming not within the Statute where the Security is given to a third person the Winner owed Sharp 100 l. who demanded his Debt the Winner brought him to the other of whom he won the Mony at Play who aknowledged the Debt and gave Sharp a Bond for the payment of the 100 l. who not being privy to the Matter or knowing that it was won at Play accepted the said Bond and for default of payment puts it in Suit the Obligor pleads the Statute of Gaming The Plaintiff in his Replication discloseth the Matter aforesaid and saith that he had a just Debt due and owing to him form the Winner and that he was not privy to the Monies being won at Play c. and that he accepted of the said Bond as a Security for his Debt and the Defendant demurred And the Court were all of Opinion Hill and Phesant Antea that this Case was not within the Statute the Plaintiff not knowing of the Play and though it be pleaded that the Bond was taken pro Securitate and not for satisfaction of a just Debt it was held well enough like the Case of Warns and Ellis Yelv. 47. Warns owed Alder 100 l. upon an usurious Contract and Alder owed the Plaintiff Ellis 100 l. for which they were both bound and in an Action of Debt brought upon this Bond Warns pleads the Statute of Vsury between him and Alder and Ellis replyed as the Plaintiff here and upon a Demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff by thrée Iudges because the Plaintiff had a real Debt owing him and was not privy to the Vsury And upon this Case the Court relyed and said the Reason of it governed this Case at the Barr whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Tissard versus Warcup INdebitatus Assumpsit for 750 l. laid out by the Plaintiff for the use of the Defendant Vpon Non assumpsit pleaded there was a Tryal at the Barr and the Evidence was that the Defendant and another now deceased farmed the Excise that the Mony was laid out by the Plaintiff on the behalf of the Defendant and his Partner and that the Defendant promised to repay the Mony out of the first Profits he received Curia And by the Opinion of the whole Court this Action would not lie 1. Two Partners being concerned the Action cannot be brought against one alone he ought in this Case to have set out the death of the other But if Iudgment be had against one the Goods in Partnership may be
word extends to no other than Webbs Bargains Body to his Son Francis and that Margaret should have it for Life Cann dies the Meadow was not one of Webb's Bargains Thomas had Issue Thomas the Lessor of the Plaintiff Henry made a Feoffment in Fée to A. and B. to the use of himself and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies Remainder to his own right Heirs with Warranty against all persons and died without Issue the Lessor of the Plaintiff enters being his Cousin and Heir and of full age when Henry died In this Case it was held that if it had béen found that Margaret had an Estate for Life and that Henry entred in her Life time that it had beén then a Warranty commenced by Disseisin and would not have bound Thomas the Reversioner But as it was those two Iudges held it no Barr because the Warranty began with the Feoffment to uses and Henry being himself the Feoffeé it returned instantly to him and was extinct as to the Reversion because that was revested in him in Fée and therefore they held he could have no benefit either by Voucher or Rebutter it being destroyed at the same time it was created But Berkly and Richardson Iustices held that quoad the Estate of Henry's Wife the Warranty had a Continuance and the ground of the contrary opinion might be because Iustice Jones said there was no such Resolution as is mentioned to be the fourth in Lincoln Colledge Case yet he affirmeth that very Resolution in his own Reports fol. 199. There is a Clause in the * 27 H. 8. c 10. Statute of Vses difficult to be understood by which 't is Enacted That every Cestuy que use may take such Advantage of vouching c. as the Feoffees themselves might so that Cestuy que use have the Estate executed in him before the first day of May 1536. which was a year after the making that Statute so that the Clause seems to be exclusive of all others who shall come in afterwards Answ But he supposed the Intention of the Law Makers to be That there should be no more Conveyances to Vses But because they presumed that at first Men might not know of it therefore lest the Parties should be any ways prejudiced they gave liberty till such a time to Vouch or Rebutt within which time they might have some knowledge of the Statute and then it was supposed they would make no more Limitations to Vses But though they imagined them to be left expiring yet they revived Since then the Parliament gave leave to Vouch or Rebutt whilst they could in reason think there would be any Conveyance to Vses 't is but reasonable whilst they do continue that the Parties should Rebutt especially since most Conveyances at this day are made to Vses Windham Iustice accord in omnibus and so Iudgment was given as aforesaid Anonymus DOwer The Tenant pleads That a Lease was made by the Husband for 99 years before any title of Dower did accrue which Lease was yet in being and shews that the Lessor afterwards granted the Reversion to J. S. and died and that J. S. devised to the Tenant for Life The Demandant replies That the Lessor made a Feoffment in Fee absque hoc that the Reversion was granted prout c. The Tenant Demurrs Newdigate Serjeant for the Demandant argued That the Plea was not good to which he tooke several Execeptions 1. Except The Tenant by his Plea confesseth That the Demandant ought to have Iudgment of the Reversion expectant upon the Lease for 99 years de tertia but doth not say parte 2. Except Here is the Grant of a Reversion pleaded and 't is not hic in Curia prolat ' Then for the Matter as 't is pleaded 't is not good He agreed if Dower be brought against Lessee for years he may discharge himself by pleading the continuance of his Lease during which time the Demandant can have no Execution but here the Tenant is no ways concerned in the Lease 't is Littleton's Case None shall take advantage of a Release but he who is party or privy and therefore the Lessee in this Case being party might have pleaded this but the Tenant is altogether a Stranger Before the Statute of Gloucester cap 11. If the Demandant had recovered in a real Action against the Tenant the Termor had been bound because at the Common Law no body could falsifie the Recovery of a Free-hold but he who had a Free-hold himself this Statute prevents that Mischief and Enacts That the Termor shall be received before Judgment to defend the Right of his Term upon the default of the Tenant and though the Iudgment cannot be hindred thereby yet Execution shall be suspended during the Term and therefore in Dyer 263. b. The Lady Arundel brought Dower against the Earl of Pembroke who made default and before Iudgment the Termor prays to be received upon this Statute and pleads a Lease made by the Husband after Coverture which was assigned to him and that Dower de tertia parte of the Rent of this Lease was assigned to the Demandant by the Court of Augmentations which was afterwards confirmed by Letters Patents that she accepted it and concludes That the Plea of the Tenant was by Collusion between him and her to make him lose his Term And this was held ill for the Reason given by my Lord * Hob 316. Not for that reason but because that Court could not assign Dower and so the Letters Patents of Confirmation could not make that good which was void before Hobart That it is absurd to admit two Persons to dispute the Interest of a third Man But whether the Traverse is good or not if the Plea is naught Iudgment ought to be given for the Demandant Jones Serjeant contra The Pleading is well enough 1. The Tenant confesseth That the Demandant ought to have Iudgment of the Reversion de tertia which is well enough omitting the word parte because he claims a third part of such Tenements and the Tenant confesses she ought to have Iudgment which is full enough if the words de tertia parte were wholly omitted 2. He agreed That whoever Claims under a Deed must shew it but the Tenant in this Case did not defend himself by any Title from the Deed for the substance of the Plea which secured him was That a Lease of 99 years was in being and by his alledging the Devise of an Estate to him for Life made by the Grantee of the Reversion he did but allow the Demandant's Writ to be true which mentions him as Tenant of the Free-hold Then for the Matter of the Plea he says it was good and that the Tenant might well plead the Lease for years By the * 3 Inst 32. b. Statute of Merton Damages are given in Dower where the Husband died seised which he did in this Case but yet no Damages ought to be paid here but for the third part
ought to bring his Action Pemberton Serjeant for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. That this Covenant is not conditional for the words paying and performing signifie no more than that he shall enjoy c. under the Rents and Covenants and 't is a Clause usually inserted in the Covenant for quiet Enjoyment Indeed the word paying in some Cases may amount to a Condition but that is where without such construction the party could have no remedy But here are express Covenants in the Lease and a direct reservation of the Rent to which the party concerned may have recourse when he hath occasion A liberty to take Pot-water paying so many Turns c. 't is a Condition The Words paying and yielding make no Condition Cook and Herle Postea Vaugh. 32. nor was it ever known that for such Words the Lessor entred for Non-payment of Rent and there is no difference between these Words and the Words paying and performing Bennet's Case in B. R. ruled no Condition Duncomb's Case Owen Rep. 54. Barrel Serjeant for the Defendant said Ex parte Def. that the Covenant is to be taken as the parties have agreéd and the Lessor is not to be sued if the Lessée first commit the breach Modus Conventio qualifie the general Words concerning quiet Enjoyment The Court took time to consider and afterwards in this Term Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Sid. 266 280. that the Covenant was not conditional Atkins Iustice doubted Simpson versus Ellis Debt by a Bailiff of a Liberty DEBT upon Bond by the Plaintiff who was chief Bailiff of the Liberty of Pontefract in Yorkshire but he did not declare as Capital Ballivus but yet by the whole Court it was held good for otherwise the Defendant might have craved Oyer and have it entred in haec verba and then have pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. that it was taken * Sand. 161. Sid. 383. Latch 143. colore Officii but now it shall be intended good upon the Demurrer to the Declaration And Ellis Iustice said that so it was lately resolved in this Court in the Case of one Conquest And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mason versus Stratton Executor c. Judgment kept on foot per Fraudem 2 Cro. 35 102. Vaugh. 103 104. DEBT upon Bond. The Defendant pleads two Iudgments had against his Testator and sets them forth and that he had but 40 s Assets towards satisfaction The Plaintiff replies that the Defendant paid but so much upon the first Iudgment and so much upon the second and yet kept them both on foot per Fraudem Covinam And the Defendant demurred specially 1 Roll. Abr. 802. 2 Cro. 626 Because the Replication is so complicated that no distinct Issue can be taken upon it for the Plea sets forth the Iudgments severally but the Plaintiff puts them both together when he alledges them to be kept per Fraudem But on the other side it was said that all the Presidents are as in this Case Sid. 333. 8 Co. Turner's Case 132. 9 Co. Meriel Tresham's Case 108 And of that Opinion was all the Court that the Replication was good And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Suffeild versus Baskervil No Breach can be assigned upon a Promise DEBT upon Bond for performance of all Covenants Payments c. In an Indenture of Lease wherein the Defendant for and in consideration of 400 l. lent him by the Plaintiff granted the Land to him for 99 years if G. so long lived provided if he pay 60 l. per annum quarterly during the Life of G. or shall within two years after his death pay the said 400 l. to the Plaintiff then the Indenture to be void with a Clause of Reentry for Non-payment The Defendant pleads performance The Plaintiff assigns for breach that 30 l. for half a year was not paid at such a time during the Life of G. The Defendant demurrs For that the breach was not well assigned because there is no Covenant to pay the Mony only by a Clause Liberty is given to re-enter upon Non payment The Court inclined that this Action would not lie upon this Bond in which there was a Proviso and no express Covenant and therefore no Breach can be assigned Benson versus Idle AUdita Querela The Case upon Demurrer was Estoppel not well pleaded with a Traverse That before the Kings Restauration the now Defendant brought an Action of Trespass against the Plaintiff for taking his Cloath who then pleaded that he was a Souldier and compelled by his Fellow Souldiers who threatned to hang him as high as the Bells in the Belfry if he refused To this the Plaintiff then replied de injuriâ suâ propriâ c. And it was found for him and an Elegit was brought and the now Plaintiffs Lands extended Then comes the Act of * 12 Car. 2. cap. 11. Indempnity which pardons all Acts of Hostility done in the Times of Rebellion and from thenceforth discharges personal Actions for or by reason of any Trespas comitted in the Wars and all Iudgments and Executions thereon before the first day of May 1658. but doth not restore the party to any Sums of Mony mean Profits or Goods taken away by virtue of such Execution or direct the party to give any account for the same which Act made by the Convention was confirmed by 13 Car. 2. cap. 7. And upon these two Acts of Parliament the Plaintiff expresly averring in his Writ that the former Recovery against him was for an Act of Hostility now brought this Audita Querela The Defendant pleads the former Verdict by way of Estoppel and concludes with a Traverse absque hoc that the taking of his Goods was an Act of Hostility This was argued by Holloway Serejant for the Plaintiff and by Jones Serjeant for the Defendant who chiefly insisted That the Defendant having pleaded the substance of this Matter before and being found against him that he being now Plaintiff could not averr any thing against that Record But the Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for his remedy was very proper upon the Convention and without the Statute of Confirmation and here is no Estoppel in the Case for whether this was an act of Hostility or not is not material neither was it or could it be an Issue upon the former Tryal because all the Matter then in Question was concerning the Trespass which though found against the now Plaintiff yet it might be an act of Hostility but if it were an Estoppel 't is not well pleaded with a Traverse and the Court hath set it at large DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 27 Caroli II. in Communi Banco Mayor and Cominalty of London versus Gatford IN an Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiffs Construction of an Act of Parliament for a Fine of 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. set upon the
of the next Avoidance was not good because it was made by those who were not Head of the Corporation and it must be void immediately or not at all and Iudgment was given accordingly Threadneedle versus Lynam THere being two Mannors usually let for 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. by the year Lease by a Bishop and more than the old Rent reserved good Mod. Rep. 203. a Bishop lets one of them for 21 years reserving the whole Rent and whether this was a good Lease within the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 19. was the Question which depended upon the construction of the Words therein viz. All Leases to be void upon which the old accustomed Rent is not reserved and here is more than the old Rent reserved and this being a private Act is to be taken literally North Chief Iustice agreed that private Acts which go to one particular thing are to be interpreted literally but this Statute extends to all Bishops and so may be taken according to Equity and therefore he and Wyndham and Atkins Iustices held the Lease to be good But this Case was argued when Vaughan was Chief Iustice and he and Iustice Ellis were of another Opinion DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Thorp versus Fowle No more Costs than Damages NOTA. In this Case the Court said that since the Statute which gives no more Costs than Damage 't is usual to turn Trespass into Case Cooper versus Hawkeswel Words IN an Action upon the Case for these Words I dealt not so unkindly with you when you stole a Stack of my Corn Per Curiam the Action lies Escourt versus Cole Words IN an Action on the Case for Words laid two ways the last Count was Cumque etiam which is but a recital and dubitatur whether good Sharp versus Hubbard Six Months for proving of a Suggestion THE six Months in which the Suggestion is to be proved must be reckoned according to the Calendar Months and 't is so computed in the Ecclesiastical Court Crowder versus Goodwin Justification by Process out of inferiour Court IN Assault and Battery and false Imprisonment as to the Assault c. the Defendant pleads Not-Guilty and as to the Imprisonment he justifies by a Process out an inferiour Court and upon Demurrer these Exceptions were taken to his Plea 1. The Defendant hath set forth a Precept directed Servienti ad Claven and 't is not said Ministro Curiae 2. 1 Rol. 484. Cro. Car. 254. Dyer 262. b. It was to take the Plaintiff and have him ad proximam Curiam which is not good for it should have beén on a day certain like Adams and Flythe's Case * Cro. Jac. 571. Mod. Rep. 81. where a Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment in Debt by Nil dicit in an inferiour Court and the Error assigned was That after Imparlance a day was given to the Parties till the next Court and this was held to be a Discontinuance not being a day certain 3. 'T is not said ad respondend ' alicui 4. Nor that the Action arose infra Burgum 5. The Precept is not alledged to be returned by the Officer To all which it was answered That a Pleint is but a Remembrance and must be short Rast 321. and when 't is entred the Officer is excused for he cannot tell whether 't is infra * Squibb versus Hole antea 29. Jurisdictionem or not And as to the first Exception a Precept may be directed to a private person and therefore Servienti ad Clavem is well enough Then as to the next Exception 't is likewise well set forth to have the Plaintiff ad proximam Curiam for how can it be on a day certain when the Iudge may adjourn the Court de die in diem Then ad respondendum though 't is not said alicui 'tis good though not so formal and 't is no Tort in the Officer but t is to be intended that he is to answer the Plaintiff in the Plaint As to the fourth Exception the Defendant sets forth that he did enter his Plaint secundum consuetudinem Curiae Burgi and when the Plaintiff declared there he shewed that the Cause did arise infra Jurisdictionem And as to the last The Officer is not punishable though he do not return the Writ The end of the Law is that the Defendant should be present at the day and if the Cause should be agreed or the Plaintiff give a Release when the Defendant is in custody no Action lies against the Officer if he be detained afterwards But the Chief Iustice doubted that for the second Exception the Plea was ill for it ought to be on a day certain and likewise it ought to be alledged infra Jurisdictionem But the other threé Iustices held the Plea to be good in omnibus and said that the inferior Court had a Iurisdiction to issue out a Writ and the Officer is excusable though the cause of Action did not arise within the Iurisdiction which ought to be shewn on the other side And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Snow and others versus Wiseman Traverse necessary where omitted is substance TRespass for taking of his Horse The Defendant pleads that he was seised of such Lands and intitles himself to an Herriot The Plaintiff replies that another person was jointly seised with the Defendant Et hoc paratus est verificare The Defendant demurs generally because the Plaintiff should have traversed the sole Seisin But it was said for him that the sole Seisin néed not be traversed Sid. 300. because the matter alledged by him avoids the Barr without a Traverse In a Suggestion upon a Prohibition for Tythes the Plaintiff entituled himself by Prescription under an Abbot and shews the Vnity of Possession by the Statute of 31 H. 8. by which the Lands were discharged of Tythes Yelv. 231. Pl. Com. 230. 231. The Defendant pleads that the Abbey was founded within time of Memory and confesseth the Vnity afterwards and the Plea was held good for he néed not traverse the Prescription because he had set forth the Foundation of the Abbey to be within time of Memory which was a sufficient avoiding the Plaintiffs Title Yelv. 31. The Plaintiff therefore having said enough in this Case to avoid the Barr if he had traversed it also it would have made his Replication naught Cro. Jac. 221. like the Case of * Bedel and Lull where in an Ejectment upon a Lease made by Elizabeth the Defendant pleads that before Elizabeth had any thing in the Lands James was seised thereof in Fee and that it descended to his Son and so derives a Title under him and that Elizabeth was seised by Abatement The Plaintiff confesses the Seisin of James but that he devised it to Elizabeth in Fee and makes a Title under her absque hoc that she was seised by Abatement and upon a Demurrer the
this Action they would have named it he said he was for restoring the Common Law as much as he could but doubted much whether this Proviso did help the Plaintiff But Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Doctor Samways versus Eldsly COvenant The Plaintiff declares Where Covenants are mutual and where not That by Indenture made between him and the Defendant reciting that there were divers Controversies between them as well concerning the right title and occupation of Tythes arising and renewing upon the Fréehold of the Defendant in T. and upon other Lands held by the Defendant by a Lease for years from the Plaintiff under the annual Rent of c. and concerning the arrearages of Rent due upon that demise as concerning other matters for the determination thereof the said Parties did by the said Indenture bind themselves in consideration of 12 d. given to each other to observe the Arbitration of an Arbitrator indifferently to be chosen between them to arbitrate order and judge between them de super praemissis and the Plaintiff and Defendant mutually covenanted to do several other matters That the Arbitrator did thereupon afterwards Award and the Defendant did Covenant with the Plaintiff that in consideration of the Plaintiffs sealing and delivering at the Defendants request one part of a Lease for years to the Award annexed for the Rent therein reserved that the Defendant should pay so much Mony for the Tythes That it was also Awarded by the said Arbitrator and the Defendant did covenant that he would be accomptable to the Plaintiff for all such arrearages of Rent Tythes and Composition-Mony for Tythes as should be arising and renewing upon the said Land c. according to such a value per Annum whereof the Defendant could not lawfully discharge himself And the Plaintiff avers That he hath observed all the Covenants on his part and that the Defendant hath not observed all the Covenants on his part and assigns for breach that he hath not accounted with him for all arrears of Tythes and Composition-Mony for Tythes arising upon the Lands in c. and that he hath requested him to accompt which he hath refused The Defendant pleads Actio non For he says that 't is true there was such an Indenture as in the Declaration is set forth and such a Covenant to be accountable as the Plaintiff hath declared But saith in eadem Indentura agreatum fuit ulterius provisum that the Plaintiff should allow and discount upon the Account all Sums of Mony for Parsons Dinners at the request of the Plaintiff and for his concerns laid out and disbursed by the Defendant and such other Sums which he had direction to lay out and that such a day paratus fuit obtulit se adhuc paratus est to account for all arrears of Rent c. if the Plaintiff would discount c. That such a day the Plaintiff would not and often after refused and yet doth refuse to allow upon such accompt all such Sums of Mony as the Defendant at the request and for the concerns of the Plaintiff had laid out and this he is ready to aver and then he avers that after c. on such a day he did expend several Sums of Money for the Plaintiff which were just and reasonable to be allowed by the Plaintiff upon accompt made by him To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer which was argued by Turner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Seys for the Defendant This was a bad Plea for 't is a Rule in all Law Books that every Plea ought to answer the matter which is charged upon the Defendant Ex parte Quer. in the Declaration which is not done here because the Defendant doth neither aver that he did accompt or confess or avoid or traverse it which he ought to do after the Plaintiff had alledged a request to accompt and a refusal 'T is an absolute Covenant which charges him to be accomptable and not if the Plaintiff would allow Parsons Dinners c. for 't is impossible that the Plainntiff can make any such allowance till the Defendant hath accompted for how can there be a discounting without an Accompt If the Plaintiff had told him before the Accompt that he would not allow any thing upon the Accompt this would not have been prejudicial to bart him of his Action so as it had been before the request For if a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition that if the Feoffor pay 100 l. at Michaelmas the Feoffment shall be void and before Michaelmas the Feoffee tells him that he will not receive the Money at that time this shall not prejudice him because t is no refusal in Law The Defendant in this Case is to do the first act viz. to Accompt and when that is neglected by him it shall never prejudice him who is to do a subsequent act 5 Co. 19 20. Higginbottoms Case 22 23 Hallin and Lambs Case One Covenants to make an Estate in fee at the Costs of the Covenantee the Covenantor is to do the first act viz. to let him know what Conveyance he will make The like Case was in this Court between Twiford and Buckly upon an Indenture of Covenants wherein one of the parties did Covenant to make a Lease for the Life of the Covenantee and for two other Lives as he should name and the Covenantor was to give possession The breach assigned was that the Defendant had not made Livery and Seisin and upon performance pleaded the Plaintiff did demux and upon great debate it was resolved that the Covenant was not broken because the Plaintiff had not performed that which was first to be done on his part viz. to name the Lives It may be objected that these Covenants have a relation one to the other and so non-performance of the one may be pleaded in bar to the other But to that he answered they are distinct and mutual Covenants and there may be several Actions brought against each other The Case of * Stiles 186. 187. Ware and Chappel comes up to this point Ware was to raise 500 Soldiers and bring them to such a Port and Chappel was to find Shipping for which he sued upon the Covenant though the other had not raised the Soldiers for that can be only alledged in mitigation of Damages and is no excuse for the Defendant and it was adjudged that this was not a condition precedent but distinct and mutual Covenants upon which several Actions might be brought This cannot be a Condition precedent for the Defendant pleads ulterius agreat̄ provisum est that the Plaintiff shall discompt and reimburse the Defendant and here the word provisum est doth not make a Condition but a Covenant 27 H. 8. 14 15. Bro. Condition 7. There is another fault in the Plea for the Defendant averrs that the Plaintiff hath not reimbursed him several Sums of Mony which
Case could not be supposed to prevent the Forfeiture because if that had been the Iury would have found it the meaning of the Parties must make a Construction here and that seems very strong that 't is a good Lease but they gave no Iudgment Wilkinson versus Sir Richard Lloyd Where the Parties shall join in an Action where not THE Defendant covenanted that he would not agreé for the taking the Farm of the Excise of Beer and Ale for the County of York without the Consent of the Plaintiff and another and the Plaintiff alone brought this Action of Covenant and assigns for breach the Defendants agréeing for the said Excise without his Consent upon which the Plaintiff had a Verdict and 1000 l. damages given And Serjeant Pemberton moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that an Action of Covenant would not lie in this Case by the Plaintiff alone because he ought to have joined with the other both of them having a joint Interest and so is Slingsby's Case 5 Co. If a Bond is made to two joyntly and severally they must both join in an Action of Debt so here 't is a joint contract and both must be Plaintiffs So also if one covenants with two to pay each of them 20 l. they must both join 'T is true in Slingsbies Case 't was held if an Assurance is made to A. of White Acre and to B. of Black Acre and to C. of Green Acre and a Covenant with them and every of them these last Words make the Covenant several But here is nothing of a several interest no more than that one covenants with two that he will not join in a Lease without their Consent so that their Interest not being divided the Covenant shall be entire and taken according to the first Words to be a joint Covenant and the rather because if the Plaintiff may maintain this Action alone the other may bring a second Action and the Defendant will be subject to entire damages which may be given in both Judgment But the Court was of another Opinion that here was no joint Interest but that each of the Covenantees might maintain an Action for his particular damages or otherwise one of them might be remediless for suppose one of them had given his Consent that the Defendant should farm this Excise and had secretly received some satisfaction or recompence for so doing is it reasonable that the other should lose his remedy who never did consent For which reason the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Page versus Tulse Mil ' alios Vic' Midd ' THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for a false Return Case lies not against the Sheriff for returning a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though the Party doth not appear Mod. Rep. 239. Ellis and Yarborough post setting forth that he sued a Capias out of this Court directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex by vertue whereof he arrested the Party and took Bail for his appearance and at the day of the Return of the Writ the Sheriff returned Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he had not the Body there at the Return of the Writ but suffered him to escape The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. and saith that he took Bail viz. two sufficient Sureties and so let him go at large c. The Plaintiff demurrs and whether this Action lies against the Defendant was the Question who refused to proceed against him by way of Amerciament or to take an Assignment of the Bail-Bond This Case depended in Court several Terms It was argued by Serjeant Pemberton and Serjeant Coniers for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant George Strode for the Defendant and Iudgment was given in Easter Term in the 29th year of this King In the Argument for the Defendant that this Action would not lie it was considered Ex parte Def. 1. What the Common Law was before the making of this Statute 2. What alteration thereof the Statute had made At the Common Law Men were to appear personally to ansswer the Writ the Form of which required it and no Attorney could be made in any Action till Edw. 1. de gratia speciali gave leave to his Subjects to appoint them and commanded his Iudges to admit them 2 Inst 377. After the Arrest the Sheriff mighttie the Party to what Conditions he pleased and he might keep him till he had complied with such Conditions which often ended in taking extravagant Bonds and sometimes in other Oppressions for remedy whereof this Statute was made in which the Clause that concerns this Case is viz. If the Sheriff return upon any person Cepi Corpus or Reddidit se that he shall be chargeable to have the Body at the day of the Return of the Writ in such form as before the making the Act so that as to the Return of the Writ this Statute hath made no alteration the Sheriff being bound to have the Party at a day as before All the alteration made of the Common Law by this Statute is that the Sheriff now is bound to let the Party out of Prison upon reasonable Sureties of sufficient persons which before he was not obliged to do and it would be a Case of great hardship upon all the Sheriffs of England if they being compellable to let out the Party to Bail should also be subject to an Action for so doing because they have him not at the day so that the intent of the Law must be when it charges the Sheriff to have the Body at the Return that he should be liable to a Penalty if the Party did not then appear not to be recovered by Action but by Amerciament Cro. Jac. 286. The Security directed by this Act is to be taken in the Sheriffs own Name 't is properly his business and for his own Indempnity and therefore it is left wholly in his power for which reason no Action will lie against him for taking insufficient Bail that being to his own prejudice in which the Plaintiff is no wise concerned for if that had beén intended by the Act some Provision would have beén made as to his being satisfied in the sufficiency of the Persons When the Security is thus taken if the Defendant doth not appear at the Return of the Writ the Plaintiff by Amerciaments shall compel him to bring in the Body or to assign the Bond either of which is a full satisfaction and as much as is required If the Sheriff refuse to take 2 Sand. 59 154 1 Roll. Abr. 807 808. Cro. Eliz. 460 852. Noy 39. Moor 428. Sid. 23. sufficient Sureties when offered he is liable to an Action on the Case at the Suit of the Defendant for his refusal and it would be very unreasonable to enforce him to have the Party in Court at the Return when he is obliged under a Penalty to let him at large This Action is grounded upon a false Return when in
any other thing which lies in Grant and the Deed is lost or cancelled the Office or the thing granted falls to the ground for the Deed is the foundation and a Case was cited in the Lord Dyer If there be two Iointenants and one cancels the Deed it hath destroyed the Right of the other Quaere of these things But it was agreed that if two Men who have one Office for their Lives and the survivor of them if one surrenders to the other and then a new Grant is made to this other and a Stranger he hath debarred himself of the Survivorship and he and the Stranger are jointly seised Crossman versus Sir John Churchil IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiffs Title was set forth in his Declaration which was also found in a Special Verdict Where an Agreement for a Presentation by turns is good that Sir George Rodney was seised of the Advowson in Fée and died seised leaving two Sisters who were his Coheirs that Sir John Rodney being also one of the same Family and pretending a Right to the Estate for preventing Suits that might happen they all enter into an Agréement by Indentures mutually executed by which it was agreed that Sir John Rodney shall hold some Lands in severalty and the Co-heirs shall hold other Lands in the like manner and as for this Advowson a temporary provision was made thereof that each of them should Present by turns and this was to continue till partition could be made then comes an Act of Parliament and confirms the Indenture and Enacts That every Agreement therein contained shall stand and that all the rest of the Lands not particularly named and otherwise disposed by the said Indenture should be held by these three in common one of the three who by Agréement was next to Present grants the next Avoidance the Church being then full to the Plaintiff and the Question was whether these threé persons were not Tenants in Common of the Advowson and if so then the Grant of the next Avoidance cannot be good by one alone because he hath not the whole Advowson but only a Right to the third part It was said that if Tenants in Common had made such an Agreément it would not have beén any division of their interest for there must be a partition to sever the Inheritance The Court were all of Opinion Curia that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for there was an Agréement that there shall be a Presentation by turns and therefore for one turn each hath a Right to the whole Advowson by reason of the Act of Parliament by which that Agreement is confirmed and thereby an Interest is setled in each of them till Partition made but this Agreement would have vested no Interest in either of them without an Act of Parliament to corroborate it therefore there had been no remedy upon it but by an Action of Covenant This Case was argued four times and not one Authority cited The Earl of Shaftsbury versus Lord Digby In Banco Regis For Words upon the Statute of 2 R. 2. c. 5. Jones 49. SCandalum Magnatum The Plaintiff declares upon the Statute of 2 R. 2. cap. 5. for these Words viz. You are not for the King but for Sedition and for a Common-wealth and by God we will have your Head the next Sessions of Parliament After Verdict for the Plaintiff and 1000 l. damages given it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment and several Exceptions taken 1. As to the Recital of the Statute the Words of which are That no Man shall devise any Lies c. and the Plaintiff for the Word devise had used the Latin Word contrafacio in his Declaration which was very improper that being to counterfeit and not to devise for it should have béen machino or fingo those are more expressive Words of Devise 2. 'T is alledged that the Defendant dixit mendacia of the Plaintiff viz. haec Anglicana verba sequen̄ and doth not alledge that he spoke the Words 3. The most material Objection was a mistake in the Recital of the Statute the Words of which are That none shall speak any scandalous Words of any Dukes Earls c. the Justices of either Bench nor of any other great Officer of the Kingdom but the Plaintiff in his Declaration recites it thus viz. None shall speak any scandalous Words of any Dukes Earls c. Justices of either Bench great Officers of the Kingdom and leaves out the Words neque al so that it must be construed thus None to speak of any Dukes Earls c. being great Officers of the Kingdom and then 't is not enough that the Plaintiff is Comes but he also ought to be a great Officer of the Kingdom which is not set out in this Case But upon great Debate and Deliberation these Exceptions were overruled and the whole Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff As to the first Exception they said contrafacio is a legal Word and apt enough in this sense and so are all the Presidents and thus it was pleaded in the Lord Cromwel's Case As to the second Exception it was said the Mendacia which were told were the English Words which were spoken and the viz. haec Anglicana verba sequen̄ being in the Accusative Case are governed by the same Verb which governs the Words precedent viz. horribilia mendacia Besides for the supporting of an Action the viz. may be transposed and then it will be well enough viz. the Defendant spoke haec Anglicana verba viz. Lies of the Plaintiff As to the third Exception it was answered that the Plaintiff neéd not recite the Statute it being a * Sid. 348. general Law and admitting there was no necessity yet if he will undertake to recite it and mistake in a material Point 't is incurable but if he recites so much as will serve to maintain his own Action truly and mistakes the rest this will not vitiate his Declaration and so he hath done here by reciting so much of the Statute which Enacts That no Man shall speak any scandalous Words of an Earl which is enough he being an Earl to entitle him to an Action and he concludes prout per eundem Actum plenius liquet and the Court grounded themselves principally upon a Iudgment given in this Court which was thus viz. There was a Robbery committed and the Party brought an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry in which he recited incendia domorum 13 E. 1. cap. 1. the said Statute beginning Forasmuch as from day to day Robberies Murders burning of Houses c. and the Presidents are all so But the Parliament Roll is Incendia generally without domorum and it was strongly urged that it was a misrecital which was fatal But the Court were all of Opinion that the Plaintiffs Case being only concerning a Robbery for which the Statute was well recited and not about burning which was mistaken it was for that reason good
of Record the Proceedings may be denied and tryed by Iury. But the Court inclined that it was pleaded well enough and that it was the safest way to prevent mistakes but if the Plaintiff had replied de injuria sua propria absque tali causa that had traversed all the Proceedings Quaere whether such a Replication had been good because the Plaintiff must answer particularly that Authority which the Defendant pretended to have from the Court but no Iudgment was given Sherrard versus Smith TRespass Quare clausum fregit and for taking away his Goods the Defendant justifies the taking by the command of the Lord of the Mannor of which the Plaintiff held by Fealty and Rent and for non-payment thereof the Goods were taken nomine Districtionis The Plaintiff replies that the locus in quo est extra Hors de son Fee when to be pleaded absque hoc quod est infra feodum The Defendant demurrs specially because the Plaintiff pleading hors de son fee should have taken the Tenancy upon him 9 Co. Bucknal's Case 22 H. 6. 2 3. Keilway 73. 14 Ass pl. 13. 1 Inst 1. b. where this is given as a Rule by my Lord Cook Serjeant Pemberton on the other side agreed Ex parte Quer. 13 Assize 28. 28 Assise 41. that in all cases of Assize hors de son fee is no Plea without taking the Tenancy upon him 2 Ass placito 1. And in 5 E. 4. 2. 't is said that in Replevin the Party cannot plead this Plea because he may disclaim but Brook placito 15. tit hors de son fee saith this is not Law and so is 2 H. 6. 1. and many Cases afterwards were against that Book of Ed. 4. and that a Man might plead hors de son fee as if there be a Lord and Tenant holding by Fealty and Rent and he makes a Lease for years and the Lord distrains the Cattel of the Lessee though the Tenant hath paid the Rent and done Fealty there if the Lessee alledge that his Lessor was seised of the Tenancy in his demesn as of fee and held it of the Lord by Services c. of which Services the Lord was seised by the hands of his Lessor as by his true Tenant who hath leased the Lands to the Plaintiff and the Lord to charge him hath unjustly avowed upon him who hath nothing in the Tenancy 't is well enough 9 Co. Case of Avowries and the reason given in 5 Edw. 4. about disclaimer will not hold now for that course is quite altered and is taken away by the Statute of the 21 H. 8. cap. 19. which Enacts That Avowries shall be made by the Lord upon the Land without naming his Tenant But in case of Trespass there was never any such thing objected as here for what Tenancy can the Plaintiff take upon him in this case He cannot say tenen ' liberi tenementi for this is a bare Action of Trespass in which though the pleading is not so formal yet it will do no hourt for if it had been only extra feodum without the Traverse it had been good enough and of that Opinion was the Court in Hillary-Term following when Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff absente Scroggs And the Chief Iustice said That the Rule laid down by my Lord Coke in 1 Inst 1. b. that there is no pleading hors de son fee without taking the tenancy upon him is to be intended in cases of Assize and so are all the Cases he there cites for proof of that Opinion and therefore so he is to be understood but this is an Action of Trespas brought upon the Possession and not upon the Title In the Case of Avowry a Stranger may plead generally hors de son fee and so may Tenant for years and this being in the Case of a Trespass is much stronger and if the Plaintiff destroys the Defendants justification 't is well enough Sir William Hickman versus Thorne alios Prescription against another Prescription not good without a Traverse IN a Replevin The Defendant justifies the taking for that the locus in quo was his Freehold and that he took the Cattel there damage fesant The Plaintiff in bar to the Avowry replies that the locus in quo c. is parcel of such a Common Field and prescribes to have right of Common there as appendant to two Acres which he hath in another place The Defendant rejoyns that there is a Custom that every Free-holder who hath Lands lying together in the said Common Field may enclose against him who hath right of Common there and that he had Lands there and did enclose The Plaintiff demurs and Serjeant Newdigate took Exceptions to the Rejoynder Ex parte Quer. 1. For that he did not averr that the Lands which he enclosed did lye together and therefore had not brought his case within the Custom alledged Sed non allocatur because he could not enclose if the Lands had not laid together 2. He gives no answer to the Plaintiffs right of Common but by argument which he should have confessed with a bene verum est and then should have avoided it by alledging the Custom of Enclosure like the Case of * 2 Leon. 209. Russel and Broker where in Trespass for cutting Oaks the Defendant pleads that he was seised of a Messuage in Fee and prescribes to have rationabile estoverium ad libitum capiend ' in boscis the Plaintiff replies that the locus in quo was within the Forest and that the Defendant and all those c. habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium c. per liberationem Forestarii and upon a Demurrer the Replication was held naught because the Plaintiff ought to have pleaded the Law of the Forest viz. Lex Forestae talis est or to have traversed the Defendants Prescription and not to have set forth another Prescription in his Replication without a Traverse 3. The Defendant should have pleaded the Custom and then have traversed the Prescription of the Right of Common for he cannot plead a Custom against a Custom 9 Co. 58. Aldred's Case where one prescribes to have a Light the other cannot prescribe to stop it up Serjeant Pemberton contra Ex parte Def. He said that which he took to be the only Question in the Case was admitted viz. That such a Custom as this to enclose was good and so it has béen adjudged in Sir Miles Corbet's Case 7 Co. But as to the Objections which have been made the Defendant admits the Prescription for Right of Common but saith he may enclose against the Commoners by reason of a Custom which is a Barr to his very Right of Common and therefore need not confess it with a bene verum est neither could he traverse the Prescription because he hath admitted it 'T is true where one prescribes to have Lights in his House and another prescribes to stop them up this is not good because
pleaded Debt for Escape lies against the Warden of the Fleet as superior the Grantee for life being insufficient Jones 60. 1 Vent 314. the Iury found a special Verdict upon which the Case was this Viz. That Sir Jeremy Whitchot was seised in Fee of the Office of Warden of the Fleet and of several Mesuages thereunto belonging and being so seised did make a Grant thereof to one Duckenfield for life and for the lives of three more Duckenfield by Rule of Court was admitted into the said Office being approved by the Court and esteemed a Man of an Estate He suffers a Prisoner afterwards to Escape and being not able to make the Plaintiff satisfaction this Action was brought against Sir Jeremy Whitchot the now Defendant and whether he was chargeable or not with this Action was the Question Wallop who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. That he would not take up any of their time to make a Narrative of Imprisonment for Debt or what remedy there was for Escapes at Common Law and what remedy by the Statute but supposing an Action of Debt will lye whether it be by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. for at the Common Law before the making of that Act Sid. 306 397. an Action of Debt would not lye against the Goaler for an Escape but a special Action on the Case grounded on a Trespass or whether this Action lay against the Defendant by the Statute of 1 R. 2. 2 Inst 382. cap. 12. which gives it against the Warden of the Fleet who in this case had not the actual Free-hold in possession but the inheritance and not the immediate Estate but the Reversion is in Question The Office of the Warden of the Fleet may be taken in two capacities either as an Estate or common Hereditament wherein a Man may have an Inheritance and which may be transferred from one to another or as a publick Office wherein the King and the People may have a special Interest As 't is an Inheritance transferrable 't is subject to the Rules of Law in point of Descent and is demisable for Life in Fee Tayl Possession or Reversion and in many things is common and runs parallel with other Estates of Inheritance 'T is true he cannot grant this Office for years not for any disability in the Grantor but in respect of the matter and nature of the thing granted it being an Office of Trust and Personal for otherwise it would go to the Executor which is inconvenient 9 Co. 96. Sir George Reynell's Case To enquire what superiority the reversioner hath over the particular Estate is not to the point in Question but there is such an intimacy and privity between them that in Iudgment of Law they are accounted as one Estate And therefore Littleton Sect. 452 453 saith that a Release made to a Reversioner shall aid and benefit him who hath the particular Estate and likewise a Release made to the Tenant of the Freehold shall enure to him in Reversion because they are privies in Estate so that these two Estates in the Case at Bar make but one Office This is a publick Office of great Trust and concerns the Administration of Iustice and therefore 't is but reasonable to admit the Rule of Respondeat Superior lest the Party should be without remedy and the rather because Execution is the life of the Law 39 H. 6. 33. He who is in the Office as Superiour whether it be by droit or tort is accountable to the King and his People and this brings him within the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. or 1 R. 2. If the Defendant had granted the Office in Fee to Duckenfeild before any Escape had been and the Grantee had been admitted the Defendant then had been discharged or if he dye before or after the Action brought and before Iudgment moritur actio cum persona for if he had not reserved something he could not be charged and if he had parted with the Inheritance the privity had been gon but by reserving that he hath made himself liable for now he is Superiour he may exact Homage and Fealty and the particular Tenant is said to be attendant upon the Reversion and these are marks of Superiority And this Rule of respondeat superior holds not only between the principal Officer and his Deputy and between the Master and his Servant but in many other Cases one is to be answerable for another as 1. Where a Man has power to elect an Officer he is chargeable so the County hath power to elect Coroners and if they fail in their Duty the County shall be charged for by reason of the power they had to elect they are esteemed Superiours 4 Inst 314. 2 Inst 175. 2. Where one Man recommends another to an Office concerning the Kings Revenue the person who recommends is liable if the other prove insufficient and for this there is a notable Case 30 E. 3. 6. 'T is Porter's Case cited in the Case of the Earl of Devonshire 11 Co. 92. b. Where Porter being Master of the Mint covenanted with the King to deliver him Mony within 8 days for all the Bullion delivered ad Cambium Regis to Coyn which he did not perform Et quia Walwyn Picard duxerunt praesentaverunt the said Porter ideo consideratum est quod onerentur versus Dominum Regem 4 Inst 466. And why not the Defendant in this Case who praesentavit the said Duckenfeild to the Court tanquam sufficientem the reason being the same and the King is as much concerned in the ordering this Court of Iustice as in the ordering of his Coffers for as the Treasure is Nervus Belli so the execution of the Law is Nervus Pacis 3. In the Case of a dependant Officer though he is a proper Officer and no Deputy the person who hath the Reversion shall answer as in 32 H. 6. 34. 2 Inst 382. 9 Rep. 98. Dyer 278. b. The Duke of Norfolk who had the Inheritance of the Marshalsea was charged for an Escape suffered by one Brandon who was Tenant for Life in possession of the said Office and there is great reason it should be so for when a principal Officer may make an inferiour Officer who afterwards commits a Forfeiture the superiour shall take advantage of this Forfeiture and 't is as reasonable he should he answerable for his Miscarriage Cro. Eliz. 384. Poph. 119 The Earl of Pembrook against Sir Henry Berkley And therefore admitting the Defendant is out of the Statute yet he is within the Maxim of Respondeat Superior which is not grounded upon any Act of Parliament as appears in the Case of the Coroner and the Statute of Westm 2. And all other Acts which inculcate this Rule are but in affirmance of the Common Law and this is not only a Rule of the Common but also of the Civil Law which is served with the Equity of this Maxim in
likewise addressed to my Lord as before making several Protestations of his Innocency But having once in a Passion said that he scorned to submit My Lord for that Reason would not remit the Damages it was therefore moved for a new Tryal upon these Reasons 1. Because the Witnesses who proved the Words were not Persons of Credit and that at the time when they were alledged to be spoken many Clergy-men were in Company with the Defendant and heard no such Words spoken 2. It was sworn that one of the Iury confessed that they gave such great damages to the Plaintiff not that he was damnified so much but that he might have the greater opportunity to shew himself noble in the remitting of them 3. And which was the principal Reason because the Damages were excessive Curia The Court delivered their Opinions seriatim and first The Chief Iustice North said In Cases of Fines for criminal Matters a Man is to be fined by Magna Charta with a salvo contenemento suo and no Fine is to be imposed greater than he is able to pay but in Civil Actions the Plaintiff is to recover by way of compensation for the damages he hath sustained and the Iury are the proper Iudges thereof This is a Civil Action brought by the Plaintiff for Words spoken of him which if they are in their own nature actionable the Iury ought to consider the damage which the Party may sustain but if a particular Averment of special damages makes them actionable then the Iury are only to consider such damages as are already sustained and not such as may happen in futuro because for such the Plaintiff may have a new Action He said that as a Iudge he could not tell what value to set upon the Honour of the Plaintiff the Iury have given 4000 l. and therefore he could neither lessen the Sum or grant a new Trial especially since by the Law the Iury are Iudges of the damages and it would be very inconvenient to examine upon what account they gave their Verdict they having found the Defendant guilty did believe the Witnesses and he could not now make a doubt of their Credibility Wyndham Iustice accorded in omnibus Atkins Iustice contra That a new Trial should be granted for 't is every days practice and he remembred the Case of Gouldston and Wood in the Kings Bench where the Plaintiff in an Action on the Case for Words for calling of him Bankrupt recovered 1500 l. and that Court granted a new Tryal because the damages were excessive The Iury in this Case ought to have respect only to the damage which the Plaintiff sustained and not to do an unaccountable thing that he might have an opportunity to shew himself generous and as the Court ought with one Eye to look upon the Verdict so with the other they ought to take notice what is contained in the Declaration and then to consider whether the Words and Damages bear any proportion if not then the Court ought to lay their hands upon the Verdict 'T is true they cannot lessen the damages but if they are too great the Court may grant a new Tryal Scroggs Iustice accorded with North and Wyndham that no new Tryal can be granted in this Cause He said that he was of Council with the Plaintiff before he was called to the Bench and might therefore be supposed to give Iudgment in favour of his former Client being prepossess'd in the Cause or else to shew himself more signally just might without considering the matter give Iudgment against him but that now he had forgot all former relation thereunto and therefore delivered his Opinion that if he had been of the Iury he should not have given such a Verdict and if he had been Plaintiff he would not take advantage of it but would overcome with Forgiveness such Follies and Indiscretions of which the Defendant had been guilty but that he did not sit there to give Advice but to do Iustice to the People He did agrèe that where an unequal Tryal was as such must be where there is any Practice with the Iury in such Case 't is good reason to grant a new Tryal but no such thing appearing to him in this Case a new Tryal could not be granted Suppose the Iury had given a scandalous Verdict for the Plaintiff as a Penny Damages he could not have obtained a new Trial in hopes to increase them neither shall the Defendant in hopes to lessen them and therefore by the Opinion of these three Iustices a new Tryal was not granted Afterwards in this Term Serjeant Maynard moved in Arrest of Iudgment and said that this Action was grounded upon the Statute of R. 2. Which consists of a Preamble reciting the Mischief and of the Enacting part in giving of a Remedy and that the Defendants Case was neither within the Mischief or the Remedy This Statute doth not create any Action by way of particular design and if the matter was now Res integra much might be said that an Action for Damages will not lye upon this Statute for the Statute of Westm 2. appoints that the Offender shall suffer imprisonment until he produces the Author of a false Report Ca. 33. and the Statute of 2 R. 2. which recites that of Westm 2. gives the same punishment and the Action is brought qui tam c. and yet the Plaintiff only recovers for himself It was usual to punish Offenders in this kind in the Star Chamber as in the * Earl of Northampton's Case where one Goodrick said of him That he wrote a Book against Garnet and a Letter to Bellarmine 12 Co. 132. intimating that what he wrote in the Book was not his Opinion but only ad captandum populum which was a great disgrace to him in those days being as much as to say he was a Papist Cro. Eliz. But the Serjeant would not insist upon that now since it hath been ruled that where a Statute prohibits the doing of a thing which if done might be prejudicial to another in such case he may have an Action upon that very Statute for his Damages But the ground on which he argued was that these words as spoken are not within the meaning of the Act for they are not actionable 1. Because they are no scandal and words which are actionable must import a great Scandal which no circumstance or occasion of speaking can excuse and if they are scandalous and capable of any mitigation by the precedent discourse the pleading of that matter will make them not actionable and for this the Lord * 4 Co. Cromwel's Case is a plain Authority the Words spoken of him were You like those that maintain Sedition against the King's Person the occasion of speaking of which was to give an account of his favouring the Puritan Preachers which was all that was intended by the former discourse for that Lord had approved a Sermon which was preached by a Parson
against the Common Prayer Book and the Defendant having forbid such Preaching the Lord told him that he did not like him upon which he spoke those Words so that the subject matter explained the sense for which reason it was adjudged that the Action would not lie 2. The scandal for which an Action may be brought within this Statute must be false for that word goes quite through the whole Act viz. false News false Lyes c. and the words here are so general that it cannot appear whether they are true or false for there can be no Iustification here as in case where a Man is charged with a particular Crime my Lord Townsend is not charged with any particular Act of Injustice as a Subject nor with any Misdemeanour as a Peer nor with any Offence in an Office If therefore in all Actions brought upon this Statute the Defendant may justifie and put the matter in Issue to try whether it be true or false and in this Case the Defendant can neither justifie nor traverse for this reason the Action will not lie That the Words are general and of a doubtful signification it cannot be denied for to say He is an unworthy Man imports no particular Crime Unworthy is a term of Relation as he is unworthy of my Friendship Acquaintance or Kindred and so may be applicable to any thing and a Lord may in many things be unworthy of a particular Mans Friendship as if he promises to pay a Sum of Mony at a day certain and faileth in the payment as 't is often seén such is an unworthy Man but that will not bear an Action He is an unworthy Man who invites another to Dinner to affront him but it will not bear an Action to say That a Lord invited me to a Dinner to abuse me neither will it be actionable to say He is an unworthy Man because such instances may be given of his Vnworthiness which will not bear an Action If my Lord had beén compared to any base and unworthy thing these Words might have béen actionable and that was the Case of the Lord Marquess of Dorchester it being said of him That there was no more value in him than in a Dog Then to say A Man acts against Law this is no Scandal because every Man who breaks a Penal Law and suffers the Penalty is not guilty of any Crime The Statute commands the burying in Woollen the Party buries one of his Family in Linnen in this he acts against the Law but if the Penalty is satisfied the Law is so likewise A Man who acts against Law acts against Reason because Lex est summa ratio but no instance is here given wherein he did thus act 'T is not said that he did act against Law wilfully or that he used to do any thing against Law and so cannot be like the Case of the Duke of Buckingham who brought an Action for these Words viz. You are used to do things against Law and put Cattle into a Castle where they cannot be replevied for there was not only an Vsage charged upon him but a particular instance of Oppression This Action lies for Words spoken of a Iudge of either Bench and of a Bishop as well as of a Peer Now if a Man should say A Judge acted against Law will an Action lie Because a Iudge may do a thing against Law and yet very justly and honestly unless all the Iudges were infallible and could not be subject to any mistakes which none will deny So if a Bishop return the Cause of his Refusal to admit a Clerk quia criminosus this is a Return against Law because 't is too general but if J. S. should say A Bishop acted against Law and shew that for Cause an Action would not lye If the the Lord Townsend had commanded his Bayliff to make a Distress without Cause that had been acting against Law and Reason He agreed the Words to be uncivil but not actionable for if such Construction should be made a Man must talk in Print or otherwise not speak any thing of a Peer for fear of an Action There are many Authorities where a Péer shall not have an Action for every trivial and slight Expression spoken of him As to say of a Péer He keeps none but Rogues and Rascals about him like himself by the Opinion of two Iustices Yelverton and Flemming the Action would not lie because they are Words of Scolding and this was the Case of the Earl of Lincoln Cro. Jac. 196. But the Court was divided the Defendant died and so the Writ abated Actions for Words have béen of late too much extended formerly there were not above two or three brought in many years and if this Statute should be much inlarged the Lords themselves will be prejudiced thereby by maintaining Actions one against another Vpon this Statute of 2 R. 2 c. 5 there was no Action brought till 13 H. 7. which was above an hundred years after the making of that Law and the occasion of making the Law was because the Duke of Lancaster who was then the first Prince of the Blood took notice that divers were so hardy as to speak of him several lying Words 1 R. 2. num 56. and therefore this Statute was made to punish those who devised false News and horrible and false Lies of any Peer c. whereby Discords might arise between the Lords and Commons and great Peril and Mischief to the Realm and quick Subversion thereof Now from the natural intent and construction of these Words in the Act can it be supposed that if one should say Such a Peer is an unworthy Man that the Kingdom would be presently in a flame and turned into a state of confusion and Civil War and to say That he acts against Law that the Government would thereby be in danger to be lost and quick Subversion would follow This cannot be the common and ordinary understanding of these Words If therefore the Plaintiff by speaking these Words was in no hazard nor any wise damnified if he was not touched in his Loyalty as a Péer nor in danger of his Life as a Subject if he was not thereby subjected to any Corporal or Pecuniary Punishment nor charged with any Breach of Oath nor with a particular Miscarriage in any Office if the Words are so general that they import no Scandal and are neither capable of any Iustification and lastly if they are not such horrible Lies as are intended to be punished by the Statute for these Reasons he concluded the Action would not lie and therefore prayed that the Iudgment might be arrested Serjeant Baldwin and Serjeant Barrel argued on the same side for the Defendant but nothing was mentioned by them which is not fully insisted on in the Argument of Serjeant Maynard for which Reason I have not reported their Arguments But Pemberton Serjeant who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. that it would conduce much to
Case of * Sid. 233. the Marquess of Dorchester He is no more to be valued than the Black Dog which lies there which were Words of disesteem and only the Opinion of the Defendant in which Case Iudgment was affirmed in a Writ of Error Object If it be objected to what purpose this Statute was made if no Action lies upon it but what lay at the Common Law Answ The Plaintiff now upon the Statute must prosecute tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso which he could not do at the Common Law And it has beén held in the Starr-Chamber that if a Scandalum Magnatum be brought upon this Statute the Defendant cannot justifie because 't is brought qui tam c. and the King is concerned but the Defendant may explain the Words and tell the occasion of speaking of them if they are true they must not be published because the Statute was to prevent Discords Object These Words carry in them no disesteem Answ According to a Common Vnderstanding they are Words of disrespect and of great disesteem for 't is as much as to say that the Plaintiff is a Man of no Honour he is one who lives after his own Will and so is not fit to be employed under the King if any precedent discourse had qualified the speaking these Words it ought to have been shewn by the Defendant which is not done and therefore he concluded that the Words notwithstanding what was objected were actionable and so by the Opinion of him Wyndham and Scroggs Iustices Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Atkins Iustice of a contrary Opinion Anonymus AN Action of Assault Battery Amendment after a Demurrer joyned and before Judgment given good Wounding and false Imprisonment for an hour was brought against the Defendant who pleads quoad venire vi armis Not-Guilty and as to the Imprisonment he justified as Servant to the Sheriff attending upon him at the time of the Assize from whom he received a Command to bring the Plaintiff being another of the Sheriffs Servants from the Conventicle where finding of him he to wit the Defendant did molliter manus imponere upon the Plaintiff and brought him before his Master quae est eadem transgressio To this the Plaintiff demurred and shewed for Cause 1. That the Substance of the Iustification is not good 2 Cro. 360. because the Servant could not thus justifie though his Master might for the Lord may beat his Villain without a Cause but if he command another to do it an Action of Battery lies against him 2 H. 4. 4. But though this might have been good if well pleaded yet 't is not good as pleaded here for 2. The Defendant saith quoad venire vi armis Not-Guilty Harding and Ferne Postea but saith nothing of the wounding which cannot be justified and therefore this Plea is not good for which reason it was clearly resolved that the Plea was ill but the Court inclined that the Substance of the Plea was well enough The Chief Iustice and Iustice Scroggs were of Opinion that a Man may as well send for his Servant from a Conventicle as from an Alehouse and may keep him from going to either of those places And the Chief Iustice said that he once knew it to be part of a Marriage Agreement that the Wife should have leave to go to a Conventicle But in this Case Leave was given to amend the Plea Sid. 107. and put in quoad vulnerationem Not-Guilty and it was held that though the Parties had joined in Demurrer yet the Defendant might have Liberty to amend before Iudgment given Singleton versus Bawtree Executor Traverse must be where the Charge in the Declaration is not fully answered ASsumpsit against the Defendant as Executor who pleads the Testator made one J. S. Executor who proved the Will and took upon him the Execution thereof and administred the Goods and Chattels of the Testator and so concludes in Abatement Et petit Judicium de Brevi with an Averment that J. S. Superstes in plena vita existit To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred because the Defendant ought to have traversed absque hoc that he was Executor or administred as Executor and so are all the Pleadings 9 H. 6. 7. 4 H. 7. 13. 7 H. 6. 13. But Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendant said that there is a difference when Letters of Administration are granted in case the Party die intestate and when a Man makes a Will and therein appoints an Executor for in that Case the Executor comes in immediately from the death of the Testator but when a Man dies intestate the Ordinary hath an Interest in the Goods and therefore he who takes them is Executor de son tort and may be charged as such but 't is otherwise generally where there is a Will and a rightful Executor who proveth the same for he may bring a Trover against the Party for taking of the Testators Goods though he never had the actual possession of them and therefore the taking in such case will not make a Man Executor de son tort because there is another lawful Executor but 't is true that if there be a special Administration 't is otherwise as if a Stranger doth take upon him to pay Debts or Legacies or to use the Intestates Goods such an express Administration will make him Executor de son tort and liable as in Read's Case 5 Co. So in this Case the Defendant pleads that J. S. was Executor which prima facie discharges him for to make him chargeable the Plaintiff ought in his Replication to set forth the special Administration that though there was an Executor yet before he assumed the Execution or proved the Will the Defendant first took the Goods by which he became Executor of his own Wrong and so to have brought himself within this distinction which was the truth of this Case and that would have put the matter out of dispute which not being done he held the Plea to be good and so prayed Iudgment for the Defendant The Court were of Opinion that prima facie this was a good Plea for where a Man * 2 Sand. 28. confesses and avoids he need not traverse and here the Defendant had avoided his being chargeable as Executor de son tort by saying that there was a rightful Executor who had administred the Testators whole Estate but the Surmise of the Plaintiff and the Plea of the Defendant being both in the * 2 Cro. 579. pl. 9. Sid. 341. 1 Sand. 338. affirmative no Issue can be joined thereon and therefore the Defendant ought to have traversed that he was Executor or ever administred as Executor the rather because his Plea gives no full Answer to the Charge in the Declaration being charged as Executor who pleads that another was Executor and both these matters might be true and yet the Defendant liable as Executor de son tort which
upon complaint made and Conviction he shall forfeit 500 l. so that as to himself whatever he doth in his Office is void but it was never the intent of the Act to work a Mischief or Wrong to Strangers for the Law favours what is done by one in reputed authority as if a Bishop be created who upon a Presentation made admits a Parson to a Benefice or collates by Lapse the former Bishop not being deprived or removed such acts are good and not to be avoided Cro. Eliz 699. Cro Car. 97. 2 Cro. 260. But admitting it to be an Error it cannot now be assigned for such because the Parties in Pleading have allowed the proceedings to be good upon Record and there is Iudgment against the Defendant but if he had been taken upon that Iudgment he might have brought an Action of false Imprisonment 2 Cro. 359. Cro. Eliz. 320. Wild Iustice You shall not assign that for Error which you might have pleaded especially having admitted it by pleading and one Musgrave's Case was cited which was that there is an Act of Parliament which lays a Tax upon all Law proceedings and makes them void if the Kings Duty be not paid and it was adjudged That if the Duty was not paid but admitted in pleading you shall not afterwards alledge what before was admitted viz. That the Duty was not paid Vpon a Writ of Error in Parliament it cannot be assigned for Error that the Chief Iustice of the Kings-Bench had not taken this Oath the same might be also of a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber for an Error in Fact cannot be there assigned Sid. 253. but at the last the Iudgment was Reversed See the Reasons thereof by the Chief Iustice Jones in his Reports folio 81. Higginson versus Martin in C. B. IN an Action of Trespass and false Imprisonment If Cause of Action doth not arise within the Jurisdiction tho' Judgment is given below an Action will lie here the Defendant justifies by Process issuing out of the Court of Warwick upon a Iudgment obtained there and sets forth that there was a Plaint there entered in placito transgressionis to which the Defendant appeared super quo taliter processum fuit that Iudgment was given against him upon which he was taken and Imprisoned The Plaintiff replies That the Cause of Action did not arise within the Iurisdiction of that Court. The Defendant rejoyns that the Plaintiff is now estopped to say so for that the Declaration in the Inferiour Court against the now Plaintiff did alledge the cause of Action to be infra jurisdictionem of the Court to which he pleaded and Iudgment was given against him The Plaintiff demurrs And Newdigate Serjeant took Exceptions to the Plea 1. Ex parte Quer. 'T is said a Plaint was entered in placito transgressionis but 't is not said what kind of Trespass it was whether a clausum fregit or other Trespass 2. 'T is said that the Defendant appeared super quo taliter processum fuit that Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Antea and no mention was made of any Declaration and the pleading taliter processum est in an Inferiour Court is not good 3. The Iustification is ill because the Inferiour Court had no Iurisdiction and so the Proceedings are coram non Judice for the Plaintiff in his Replication saith That the Trespass for which the Recovery was had in the Court of Warwick Moor 422. Latch 180. Cro. Jac. 184. was done at a place out of the Iurisdiction of the Court which the Defendant hath admitted by relying on his Plea by way of Estoppel 4. It did not appear by what Authority the Court at Warwick was held whether by Grant or Prescription These Exceptions were answered by Serjeant Hopkins Ex parte Def. and first he said That the Plaintiff there sets forth that levavit quandam querelam in placito transgressionis which was well enough Secondly taliter processium fuit is the shorter and better way of Pleading and therefore in a Scire Facias nothing is recited but the Iudgment 't is true in a Writ of Error the whole Record must be set out but that is not necessary here Thirdly 't is too late now to question the Iurisdiction of the Inferiour Court after the Party hath admitted it below he ought first to have pleaded to the Iurisdiction but now is Estopped by his own admittance there and since Iudgment is given upon it 't is not now to be questioned but however this being in the Case of an Officer if it was out of the Iurisdiction he is bound to execute the Process of the Court and so this is a good excuse for him Dyer 61. 10 Co. 77. But let the Pleadings be good or bad if the Declaration here be ill the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgment and that it was so he said that the Writ alledged an Imprisonment generally but the Count an Imprisonment donec he paid 5 l. 10 s. which is variant and the Prothonotaries said that the Writ used always to mention donec c. Curia But the Court were all of Opinion that the Count was well enough for there was no matter therein contained which was not in the Writ the Imprisonment was the Gist of the Action and the donec c. might have been given in Evidence because 't is only an aggravation and a consequence of the Imprisonment so that the Count is not larger but more particular than the Writ And as to the two first Exceptions the Court was also of Opinion that there was no difficulty in them or in the last Exception but thought the Plea was well enough as to those And they also agreed that the Officer in this Case was to be discharged for though the Process be erronious yet he is to obey and not to examine 2 Cro. 3. Weaver versus Clifford The great doubt in this Case was upon the third Exception as to the point of Iurisdiction Sid. 151. Latch 181. and whether the other Defendant who was the Plaintiff below should be likewise discharged was the Question And as to that the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustice were of Opinion That this was no good justification as to the Plaintiff below for if the cause of Action did arise without the Iurisdiction of which he is bound to take notice the proceedings quoad him are all coram non Judice and he cannot justifie the serving of any Process so that if the Trespass was done out of the Iurisdiction of the Court the Defendant below may bring an Action against the Plaintiff and is not concluded here by the proceedings there but may alledge the cause of Action to arise out of the Iurisdiction and as to his being Estopped by admitting of the Iurisdiction below that cannot be because an admittance cannot give the Court a Iurisdiction where it had none originally and so he said it was resolved in one Squib's Case in a
inconvenient that the Capias against the Defendant should be delivered to the new Sheriff and not the Supersedeas which was to admit the Charge and not the Discharge Westby's Case 3 Co. 73. And it was the constant practice not only to deliver the Supersedeas but the very Book in which 't is allowed and this he said appeared by the Certificates of many Vnder-Sheriffs which he had in his hand 2. If the Sheriff hath an Exigent against B. who appears and brings a Supersedeas to the old Sheriff and then a new Sheriff is made if he hath not the Supersedeas he may return him outlawed by vertue of the Exigent so in the Case of a Iudgment set aside for Fraud or Practice and a Supersedeas granted and the like in the case of an Estrepment which is never returned and it would be an endless work upon the coming in of every Sheriff to renew this Writ As to the Objection that the old Sheriff may have occasion to plead it As often as such occasion happens he may have recourse to it in the Office of the new Sheriff and he can have no Title to it by the direction of the Writ for that is Vicecomiti Berks and not to him by express Christian and Sirname and of that Opinion was all the Court and Iudgment was given accordingly nisi causa c. Hamond versus Howel Recorder of London An Action will not lie against a Judge for what he doth judicially tho' erroniously Mod. Rep. 184. FAlse Imprisonment The Defendant pleads specially the Substance of which was that there was a Commission of Oyer and Terminer directed to him amongst others c. and that before him and the other Commissioners Mr. Penn and Mr. Mead two Preachers were indicted for being at a Conventicle to which Indictment they pleaded Not-Guilty and this was to be tried by a Iury whereof the Plaintiff was one and that after the Witnesses were sworn and examined in the Cause he and his Fellows found the Prisoners Penn and Mead Not-Guilty whereby they were acquitted quia the Plaintiff male se gesserit in acquitting them both against the direction of the Court in Matter of Law and against plain Evidence the Defendant and the other Commissioners then on the Bench fined the Iury 40 Marks a-piece and for Non-payment committed them to New-gate c. The Plaintiff replies de injuria sua propria absque hoc that he and his Fellows acquitted Penn and Mead against Evidence and to this the Defendant demurred Serjeant Goodfellow who would have argued for the Defendant said that he would not offer to speak to that Point whether a Iudge can fine a Iury for giving a Verdict contrary to Evidence since the Case was so lately and solemnly resolved by all the Iudges of England in * Vaugh. 146. Bushel's Case that he could not fine a Iury for so doing But admit a Iudge cannot fine a Iury yet if he doth no Action will lie against him for so doing because 't is done as a Iudge 12 H. 4. 3. 27 Ass pl. 12. 1 Roll. Abr. 92. Liter Q. pl. 1. But the Court told him that he neéd not to labour that Point but desired to hear the Argument on the other side what could be said for the Plaintiff Serjeant Newdigate argued that this Action would lie 1. It must be admitted that the Imprisonment of the Iury was unlawful and then the consequence will be that all that was done at that time by the Commissioners or Iudges was both against Magna Charta and other Acts of Parliament the Petition of Right c. and therefore their Proceedings were void or at least very irregular to imprison a Iury-man without Presentment or due Process in Law and consequently the party injured shall have an Action for his false Imprisonment In 10 H. 6. f. 17. In an Action brought for false Imprisonment the Defendant justifies the Commitment to be for Suspicion of Felony but because he did not shew the ground of such Suspicion the Iustification was not good The Trial of Penn and Mead and all incidents thereunto as swearing the Iury examining of the Witnesses taking of the Verdict and acquitting the Prisoner were all within the Commission but the fining of the Iury and the imprisoning of them for Non-payment thereof was not justifiable by their Commission and therefore what was done therein was not as Commissioners or Iudges If this Action will not lie then the Party has a Wrong done for which he can have no remedy for the order for paying of the Fine was made at the Old-Bayly upon which no Writ of Error will lie and though the Objection that no Action will lie against a Iudge of Record for what he doth quatenus a Iudge be great the Reason of which is because the King himself is de jure to do Iustice to his Subjects and because he cannot distribute it himself to all persons he doth therefore delegate his Power to his Iudges and if they misbehave themselves the King himself shall call them to account and no other person 12 Co. 24 25. But that concerns not this Case because what was done here was not warranted by the Commission and therefore the Defendant did not act as a Iudge and this difference hath beén taken and allowed that in the Case of an Officer if the Court hath Iurisdiction of the Cause no Action will lie against him for doing what is contrary to his Duty but if all the Proceédings are coram non Judice and so void an Action doth lie 10 Co. 77. So in the Case of a Iustice of the Peace or Constable where he excéeds his particular Iurisdiction so if a Iudge of Nisi Prius doth any thing not warranted by his Commission 't is void And that the Commissioners here had no power to impose this Fine he argued from the very nature of the pretended Offence which was neither a Crime or in any wise punishable because what the Plaintiff did was upon his Oath and for that reason it hath béen adjudged in the Case * Bridgman 131. Agard and Wild that an Action would not lie against one of the Grand Iury after an acquittal for procuring one to be indicted for Barretry because he is upon his Oath and it cannot be presumed that what he did was in Malice The Habeas Corpus gives the Party Liberty but no Recompence for his Imprisonment that must be by an Action of False Imprisonment if otherwise there would be a failure of Iustice and it might encourage the Iudges to act ad libitum especially in inferior Courts where Mayors and Bayliffs might punish Iuries at their pleasures which would not only be a grievance to the Subject but a prejudice to the King himself because no Iuries would appear where they are subject to such arbitrary Procéedings An Action on the Case lies against a Iustice of the Peace for refusing to take an Oath of a Robbery committed 1 Leon. 323.
and yet it was objected that there he was a Iudge Quaere Brook 204. March 117. for which Reasons he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Curia But the whole Court were of Opinion that the bringing of this Action was a greater Offence that fining of the Plaintiff and committing of him for Non-payment and that it was a bold attempt both against the Government and Iustice in general The Court at the Old-Bayly had Iurisdiction of the Cause and might try it and had power to punish a Misdemeanour in the Iury they thought it to be a Misdemeanour in the Iury to acquit the Prisoners which in truth was not so and therefore it was an Error in their Iudgments for which no Action will lie How often are Iudgments given in this Court reversed in the Kings Bench And because the Iudges have been mistaken in such Iudgments must that needs be against Magna Charta the Petition of Right and the Liberties of the Subject These are mighty words in sound but nothing to the Matter There hath not béen one Case put which carries any resemblance with this those of Iustices of the Peace and Mayors of Corporations are weak instances neither hath any Authority been urged of an Action brought against a Iudge of Record for doing any thing quatenus a Iudge That Offences in Iury-men may be punished without Presentment is no new Doctrin as if they should either eat or drink before they give their Verdict or for any contempt whatsoever but 't is a new Doctrin to say that if a Fine be set on a Iury-man at the Old-Bayly he hath no remedy but to pay it for a Certiorari may be brought to remove the Order by which it was imposed and it may be discharged if the Court think fit As to what hath been Objected concerning the Liberty of the Subject that is abundantly secured by the Law already a Iudge cannot impose upon a Iury for giving their Verdict contrary to Evidence if he doth any thing unjustly or corruptly complaint may be made to the King in whose Name Iudgments are given and the Iudges are by him delegated to do Iustice but if there be Error in their Iudgments as here 't is void and therefore the Barons of the Exchequer might refuse to issue Process upon it and there needs no Writ of Error for the very Estreats will be vacated Though the Defendants here acted erroneously yet the contrary Opinion carried great colour with it because it might be supposed very inconvenient for the Iury to have such liberty as to give what Verdicts they please so that though they were mistaken yet they acted judicially and for that Reason no Action will lie against the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly The Case of the Warden of the Fleet. COmplaint was made by Serjeant Turner on the part of the Parishioners of St. Brides London against the Warden of the Fleet and his Prisoners for that he suffered several of them to be without the Walls of his Prison in Taverns and other Houses adjoyning to the Prison and fronting Fleet-Ditch where they committed Disorders and when the Constable came to keep the Peace and to execute a Warrant under the Hand and Seal of a Iustice of Peace they came in a tumultuous manner and hindered the execution of Iustice and rescued the Offenders and often beat the Officers the Warden often letting out 20 or 30 of his Prisoners upon any such occasion to inflame the Disorder It was prayed therefore That this Court to which the Prison of the Fleet doth immediately relate might give such Directions to the Warden that these Mischiefs for the future might be prevented and that the Court would declare those Houses out of the Prison to be subject to the Civil Magistrate The Court were all of Opinion but Iustice Atkins Curia who doubted that nothing can properly be called the Prison of the Fleet which is not within the Walls of the Prison and that the Warden cannot pretend an exemption from the Authority of the Civil Magistrate in such places as are out of the Prison Walls though Houses may be built upon the Land belonging to the Fleet for the preservation of the Kings Peace is more to be valued than such a Private Right But Iustice Atkyns said if such places were within the Liberties of the Fleet he would not give the civil Magistrate a Iurisdiction in prejudice of the Warden but thought it might be fit for the Court to consider upon what reason it was that the Warden of the Fleet applied such Houses to any other uses than for the benefit of the Prisoners whereupon the Court appointed the Prothonotaries to go thither and give them an account of the matter and they would take farther Order in it St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey Church in Southwark In Scaccario Rate for Building a Church shall be set by the Parishioners Jones 89. Mod. Rep. 236. IN a Prohibition it was the Opinion of the whole Court That if a Church be so much out of Repair that 't is necessary to pull it down and that it cannot be otherwise repaired that in such case upon a general warning or notice given to the Parishioners much more if there be notice given from House to House the major part of the Parishioners then present and meeting according to such notice may make a Rate for pulling down of the Church to the Ground and Building of it upon the old Foundation and for making of Vaults where they are necessary as they were in this Church by reason of the springing Water and though the Rate be higher than the Mony paid for doing all this yet 't is good and the Churchwardens are chargeable for the Overplus they not being able to compute to a Shilling That if any of the Parishioners refuse to pay their Proportion according to the Rate they may be Libelled against in the Spiritual Court and if the Libel alledge the Rate to be pro reparatione Ecclesiae generally though in strictness Ecclesia contains both the Body and Chancel of the Church yet by the Opinion both of the Court of Common Pleas and of the Exchequer It shall be intended that the Rate was only for the Body of the Church but in this Case it was made appear clearly that the Rate was only for the Body and that the Minister was at the charge of the Chancel And both Courts agreed That when a Prohibition is moved and desired on purpose to stop so good a Work as the Building a Church the Court will not compel the Parties to take Issue upon the Suggestion when upon examination they find it to be false and therefore will not grant a Prohibition for if the Rate be unduly imposed the Party grieved hath a Remedy in the Spiritual Court or may Appeal if there be a Sentence against him The Bishop or his Chancellor cannot set a Rate upon a Parish but it must be done by the Parishioners themselves
of a Bond was that the Defendant should shew the Plaintiff a sufficient discharge of an Annuity who pleaded that he tendered a good and sufficient discharge in general without setting it forth it was not good Mod. Rep. 67. 3. The Plea is that the Indenture had the usual Covenants but doth not set them forth and for that cause 't is also too general In 26 H. 8. 1. The Condition was for the performance of Covenants one whereof was that he should make such an Estate to the Plaintiff as his Council should advise The Defendant pleaded that he did make such Conveiance as the Council of the Plaintiff did advise and the Plea was held ill and too general because he shewed not the Nature of the Conveyance and yet performance was pleaded according to the Covenant But notwithstanding these Exceptions the whole Court were of Opinion that this Plea was good for if the Defendant had set forth the whole Deed verbatim yet because the Lands are in Jamaica and the Covenants are intended such as are usual there the Court cannot judge of them but they must be tried by the Iury. He hath set forth that the Conveyance was by a Deed of Bargain and Sale which is well enough and so it had been if by Grant because the Lands lying in Jamaica pass by Grant and no Livery and Seisin is necessary if any Covenants were unreasonable and not usual they are to be shewed on the other side And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Spring versus Eve Verdict cures the misrecital of the time of the Session of Parliament DEBT upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 4. by the Sheriff for his Fées for serving of an Execution After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in an arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Pemberton because the time of holding the Parliament was mis-recited being mistaken in both the Statute Books of Poulton and Keble as it appeared by the Parliament Roll whereupon Iudgment was staied till this Term and the Court had Copies out of the Rolls of the time when the Parliament was held and they were all clear of Opinion that the time was mistaken in the Declaration and so are all the Presidents for the Plaintiff here declared that this Statute was made at a Session of Parliament by Prorogation held at Westminster 15 Febr. 29 Eliz. and there continued till the dissolution of the same whereas in truth the Parliament began 29 Octob. and not on the 15th of February for it was adjourned from that time to the 15th of February and then continued till it was dissolved My Lord Coke in his 4th Institutes fol. 7. takes notice of this mistake in the printed Books But the Court were all of Opinion Curia that though it was mistaken and ought to have been otherwise yet being after * Dyer 95. Yelvert 127. 2 Cro. 111. pl. 9. Br. Abr. tit Parl. 87. Verdict 't is well enough and the rather because this is a particular Act of Parliament and so they are not bound to take notice of it and therefore if it be mistaken the Defendant ought to have pleaded Nul tiel Record but since he hath admitted it by Pleading they will intend that there is such a Statute as the Plaintiff hath alledged and they could not judicially take notice of the contrary The Serjeant perceiving the Opinion of the Court desired time to speak to it being a new Point and told the Court that they ought to take notice of the Commencement of private Acts which the whole Court denyed And the Chief Iustice said that they were not bound to take notice of the Commencement of a general Act for the Court was only to expound it and though this had not been in the Case of a particular Act where 't is clear the Defendant ought to plead Nul tiel record yet being after Verdict 't is well enough because the Party took no benefit of it upon the Demurrer and because of the multiplicity of Presidents which run that way So in the Case upon the Statute of Tythes though it be mistaken yet it hath often been held good as if an Action be brought upon that Statute for not setting out of Tythes declaring quod cum quarto die Novembris anno secundo Edw. 6. It was Enacted c. and the Parliament began 1 Ed. 6. and was continued by Prorogation until 4 Novembris yet this hath often been held good and Multitudo errantium tollit peccatum And though in this Case the Parliament was adjourned but in that upon the Statute of Ed. 6. it was prorogued yet the Chief Iustice said that as to this purpose there was but little difference between an Adjournment and a Prorogation for an Adjournment is properly where the House adjourn themselves and a Prorogation is when the King adjourns them But Iustice Atkins doubted whether the Court ought not to take notice of the Commencement of a general Act and could have wished that there had been no such resolution as there was in the Case of Partridge and Strange in Pl. Commentaries for that he was satisfied with the Argument of Serjeant Morgan in that Case who argued against that Iudgment and held that he who vouched a Record and varies either in the Year or Term hath failed of his Record But since there had been so many Authoritis since in confirmation of that Case he would say nothing against it But he held that there was a manifest difference betwéen an Adjournment and a Prorogation for an Adjournment makes a Session continue but after a Prorogation all must begin de novo and that an Adjournment is not always made by themselves for the Chancellor hath adjourned the House of Péers ex mandato Domini Regis and Queen Elizabeth adjourned the House of Commons by Commission under the Great Seal 4 Iust 7 Mires versus Solebay Servant shall not be charged in Trover for taking Goods by the Command of his Master IN a Special Verdict in Trover and Conversion the Case was this viz. H. being possessed of several Sheep sells them in a Market to Alston but did not deliver them to the Vendée and afterwards in that very Market they discharge each other of this Contract and a new Agreément was made between them which was that Alston should drive the Sheep home and depasture them till such a time and that during that time H. would pay him so much every Week for their Pasture and if at the end of that time then agreed between them Alston would pay H. so much for his Sheep being a price then also agreed on that then Alston should have them Before the time was expired H. sells the Sheep to the Plaintiff Mires and afterwards Alston sells them to one Marwood who brought a Replevin against the Plaintiff for taking of the Sheep and the Officers together with Solebay the Defendant who was Servant to Marwood did by his Order and in assistance
upon the Statute and then the Defendant might have pleaded the Act of Indempnity of which he might have the benefit but if not he may be let into the Equity of the Statute of the 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which gives liberty to Purchasers to have contribution and to plead sufficient matter if they have any in discharge of the Debt Ex parte Quer. But on the other side it was said that the Replication was good for if the Sale was after his being Receiver though before he became indebted yet by the Statute of the 13 Eliz. the Lands are subject to a Debt contracted afterwards because it hath a Retrospect to the time he was first Receiver Pl. Com. 321. Dyer 160. By the Common Law both the Body and Lands of the Kings Debtor were lyable from the time he became indebted but because such Debtors oftentimes sold those Lands which they had whilst they were Officers and so the King was defeated therefore was this Statute made to supply that defect of the Common Law by which Statute all the Lands he had at any time during his continuance in the Office were made lyable And though it may be objected That because of this Inquisition the King is limited to a time Viz. that inquiry should be made what Lands Havers had in the 20th year of the King yet it was said the Inquiry may be general The Elegit anciently left out the time because the Law doth determine from what time the party doth become lyable so that the question is about the King's Title which if it appear to precede that of the Ter-tenant then the King's Hands are not to be amoved and thereupon Iudgment was prayed for him Bro. Prerogative 59. Curia adversare vult Barker versus Keat IN a Special Verdict in Ejectione firmae Reservation of a Pepper Corn a good consideration to raise an use to make a Tenant to the Praecipe Mod. Rep. 262 the Iury made a special Conclusion by referring to the Court whether there was a good Tenant to the Praecipe or not which was made by a Bargain and Sale but no Mony paid nor any Rent reserved but that of a Pepper Corn to be paid at the end of six Months upon demand and the Release and Grant of the Reversion thereupon was only for divers good Considerations The Question was if this Lease upon which no Rent was reserved but that of a Pepper Corn be executed by the Statue of Uses or not if it be Cro. Jac. 604. Jones 7. 1 Cro. 110. 5 Rep. 124. b. then there is no need of the Entry of the Lessee for the Statute will put him in actual possession and then the Inheritance by the Release or Grant of the Reversion will pass But if this Lease be not within the Statute because no Vse can be raised for want of a Consideration then it must be a Conveyance at the Common Law Lit. Sect. 465. Co. Lit. 46. b. and so the Lessee ought to make an actual Entry as was always usual before the making of the Statute Serjeant Waller and Maynard argued that here was no Consideration to raise an Vse for the reservation of a Pepper-Corn is no profit to the Lessor 't is not a real and good Rent For so small and trivial a matter is no Consideration for that which must be a good Consideration ought to be Mony or some other valuable thing Then this Conveyance is not executed by the Statute of Vses and if so 't is not good at the Common Law it being only a Lease for years and no Entry without which there can be no possession and if not then there can be no Reversion upon which the Release may operate 't is only an interresse termini and so was the Opinion of my Lord Coke since the Co. Lit. 270. making of this Statute 1 Leon. 194 195. And that no Vse was raised here the Case of my Lord Paget was cited to which this was compared My Lord being seised in Fee Covenanted to stand seised to the Vse of Trentham and others in consideration of payment of his Debts out of the Profits of his own Estate this was adjudged a void Vse because there was no consideration on Trentham's part to raise it the Mony appointed to be paid being to be raised out of the Profits of my Lords Estate The Words of the Lease are Demise Grant c. which are Words at the Common Law Co. Lit. 45. b. and 't is not possible that a future executory Consideration should raise a present Vse for the Pepper Corn is not to be paid till the end of six Months and as this Consideration is executory so it is contingent too for the Lessor might have released before the expiration of the six Months If the Case of * Cro. Jac. 604. pl. 32. Lutwitch and Mitton be objected where it was resolved by the two Chief Iustices and Chief Baron that upon a Deed of Bargain and Sale of Lands where the Bargainee never entred and the Bargainor reciting the Lease did grant the Reversion expectant upon it Cro. Car. 110 400. that this was a good grant of the Reversion from which the Possession was immediately divided and was executed and vested in the Bargainee by virtue of the Statute of Vses This is no Objection to the purpose because in that Case the Bargainor was himself in actual possession So that if there be no good Tenant to the Precipe in this Case though all that joyn in it are Estopped to say so yet the Tenant in Tail who comes in above is not barred 5 H. 5. 9. But on the othe side it was said that the Lessee was in possession by the Statute for the Word Grant being in the Lease and the reservation being a Pepper Corn that will amount to a Bargain and Sale though it hath not those precise words in it 8 Co. 94. Pl. Com. 308. Dyer 146. b. contra But if it should not yet another Vse may be averred than what is in this Lease like Bedel's Case 7 Co. 40. b. Where a Man in consideration of Fatherly Love to his eldest Son did covenant to stand seised to the Vse of him in Tail and afterwards to the use of his second Son there though the consideration respected his eldest Son only in Words yet a consideration which is not repugnant to it may be averred and though an Entry is not found yet it shall not be intended since the Iury have not found the contrary North Chief Iustice At first when this sort of Conveyance was used the Lessee upon the Lease for a year did always make an actual Entry and then came the Release to convey the Reversion but that being found troublesome the constant Practice was to make the Lease for a year by the Deed of Bargain and Sale for the consideration of five shillings or some other small sum and this was held and is so still to be good
Defendant demands Dyer of the Indenture wherein was a variance between the Covenant which was for notice to be given to the Testator and this Declaration by which notice is averred to be given to the Executor and for this reason he demurred And Serjeant Dolben Recorder of London argued for him that this was in the Nature of a Condition precedent and therefore they ought to have given the Testator notice which according to the Agreement ought also to have been personal which not being done but only notice given to his Executor did make a material and fatal difference between the Covenant and this Declaration 14 H. 6. 1. 1 H. 6. 9. And that in this Case there was no Covenant by the Testator at all for all agree to pay their proportions and the Testator should pay his part which is not a Covenant Barrel Serjeant on the other side said that the Executor doth represent the person of the Testator and that though this Covenant was to give notice to the Testator yet if the Declaration had been of a Covenant to give notice to him his Executors and Administrators c. it had been no material variance so as to prejudice the Action of the Plaintiff because 't is no more than what the Law implies Pl. Com. 192. And upon the first opening this Matter this Term the Chief Iustice and Iustice Atkins enclined that the notice ought to be personal and that the variance was material But afterwards in Hillary Term following mutata opinione the whole Court agreed it to be otherwise because the Covenant runs in Interest and Charge and so the Executor is bound to pay and therefore 't is necessary that he should have notice and that there was no material difference between the Declaration and the Covenant And lastly Antea that the Testator being a Party to the Deed his Agreement to pay amounts to a Covenant though the formal Words of Covenant Grant c. were wanting But then Serjeant Dolben perceiving the Opinion of the Court insisted that the Declaration was naught for another reason viz. they had not declared that this notice was given in writing which is expresly agreed in the Covenant to which it was answered that the Defendant having pleaded that he gave notice secundum formam effectum Conditionis it was well enough But he said that would not help the want of Substance Dyer 243. b. and cited a Case where an Action of Debt was brought for the performance of an Award so as the same was delivered in Writing c. The Defendant pleaded Non deliberavit in scriptis The Plaintiff replyed and set forth the Award in Writing but did not directly answer the Plea of delivering it in Writing only by way of Argument and upon Demurrer there omnes Justiciarii contra Querentem and so they were in this Case that the notice must be pleaded in Writing and that secundum formam Conditionis was not good And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Frosdick versus Sterling THE Plaintiff alone brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant and sets forth Baron and Feme where the Action if it s not discharged shall survive to her they must both join that he and his Wife in her Right were seised of a Messuage Bake-House and Cole-Yard c. and that the Defendant had erected two Houses of Office so near the said Bake-House that the Walls thereof became foundrous and the Air so unwholesome that he lost his Custom and that the Defendant had digged a Pit so near the said Cole-Yard that the Walls thereof were in danger of falling and that he had built another Wall so near the said Messuage that he had stopped an old Light therein Vpon Not-guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff And now Serjeant George Strode moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Wife should have been joyned in this Action for where she may maintain an Action for a tort done in the Life-time of her Husband if she survive and where she may also recover Damages in such Cases she must joyn and it hath been adjudged that she ought to joyn with her Husband for stopping a way upon her Land Cro. Car. 418. 1 Roll. Abr. 348. pl. 1. 20 H. 6. 1. â— Ed. 4. 15. Cro. El. 461. So also for cutting down Trees on the Ioynture of the Wife made to her by a former Husband by reason whereof the present Husband lost the Loppings they both joyned for though the wrong was done to his Possession and he might have Released yet because there was also a wrong done to the Inheritance they ought both to joyn Cro. Car. 438. 3 Inst 650. So it hath been adjudged that the Husband and Wife in Right of the Wife jojned in an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. for not setting out of Tythes and held good and where the Wife cured a wound 2 Cro. 205 399. 9 E. 4. 55. both joyned in the Action 11 H. 4. 16. 46. E. 3. 3. The Court held That where the Action if not discharged shall survive to the Wife they ought both to joyn which if they had done here it would have been hard to have maintained this Action because entire Damages are given and for losing the Custom to his Bake-house the Husband alone ought to have brought the Action He may bring an Ejectment of the Lands of his Wife but Iudgment was stayed till moved on the other side Barker versus Warren Justification where 't is not local a Traverse of the place makes the Plea naught AN Action was brought against a Carrier and laid in London for losing of Goods there which were delivered to him at Beverly in Yorkshire to re-deliver at London The Defendant pleads That he was robbed of the said Goods at Lincoln absqe hoc that he lost them in London And the Plaintiff demurred 1. For that Robbery is no excuse for a Common Carrier so that the Plea is not good in substance 2. This was no local Iustification so that the Traverse was ill But on the other side it was said by Serjeant Hopkins that the Plea was good and that the Defendant might Traverse the place For in Trespass for the taking of Goods in Coventry the Defendand pleaded that the Plaintiff did deliver the Goods to him at London to deliver at Dale by force whereof he took them at London and delivered them at Dale accordingly absque hoc that he took them at Coventry and held good for by his Plea he hath confessed the delivery and the taking both at one time and place and he could not have pleaded the delivery at London and justifie the taking at Coventry because the Possession is confessed by the first delivery at London and therefore the justification of the taking at Coventry had been inconsistent 24 H. 6. 5. But it had been otherwise if the Defendant had justified because the Plaintiff
that he was seised of a Mesuage and several Lands in the Parish of Dale and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have right of Common for all Commonable Cattle Levant and Couchant upon the Premisses in a certain Meadow there called Darpmore Meadow and in a certain place called Cannock Wood. That the Defendant praemissorum non ignarus had enclosed the said places in which the Plaintiff had right of Common and likewise put in his Cattle as Horses Cows Hoggs Geese c. so that he could not in tam amplo beneficiali modo enjoy the same The Defendant as to the Inclosure and putting in of his Hoggs and Geese pleaded Not Guilty And as to the residue That the Lord Paget was seised of a Mesuage 300 Acres of Land 40 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture and likewise of Darpmore Meadow and Cannock Wood and being so seised did by Deed of Bargain and Sale enrolled in consideration of 2000 l. convey the said Mesuage 300 Acres of Land 40 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture to the Defendant and his Heirs and by the same Deed did Grant unto him all Waies Commons and Emoluments whatsoever to the said Mesuage and Premisses belonging or therewithal used occupied or enjoyed or taken as part parcel or member thereof virtute cujus the Defendant became seised of the Premisses and that the same were leased and demised for years by the said Lord Paget and all those whose Estate he had a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit and that the Tenants or Occupiers thereof a tempore cujus c. used to have Common in Darpmore Meadow and Cannock Wood for all commonable Cattle Levant and Couchant upon the Premisses and used to put in their Cattle into the said places in which c. virtute cujus the Defendant having Right did put in his said Cattle into the said Places to take Common there and averred That there was Common sufficient both for the Plaintiff and himself To this Plea the Plaintiff Demurred This Case was argued by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Weston for the Defendant Ex parte Quer. and for the Plaintiff it was said That it was no good Plea but rather a design to introduce a new way of Common The Reasons offered why the Plea was not good were 1. Cro. Car. 419. That the Defendant could not prescribe because of the Vnity of Possession for the Lord Paget had the Premisses in and to which c. and therefore he hath prescribed by a collateral matter Viz. by alledging that the Land was usually let to Tenants for years but doth not say whether they were Tenants by Copy of Court Roll or not neither doth he make out any Title in them In some Cases where a Man is not privy to the Title he may say generally that the Owners and Occupiers used to do such a thing c. and this way of Pleading may be good but here the Defendant claiming under them ought to set forth their Title or else he can have no Right to the Common 2. By this Plea he intended that the Lord Paget had made a New Grant of this Common for he sets forth That he granted the Premisses and all Commons used with the same and so would intitle himself to a Right of Common in those two places as if Common had been expressly granted to him there which if it should 't is but argumentative and no direct affirmance of a Grant upon which the Plaintiff might have replied non concessit for no Issue can be joyned upon it 3. He ought to have set forth That the Tenants lawfully enjoyed the Common there but he lays only an usage to have Common which may be tortious 4. He doth not say That there is sufficient Common for all the Commoners but only for the Plaintiff and himself 'T is true the Owner of the Soil may feed with his Tenant who hath a Right of Common but he cannot derogate from the first by streightning the Common by a second Grant and so leave not sufficint for the Tenant 5. This Plea amounts to the General Issue Cro. Car. 157. and the Plaintiff hath specially assigned that for a Cause of Demurrer for he saith That the Defendant without any Title put in his Cattle by which the Plaintiff had not sufficient Common and the Defendant pleads he put in his Cattle rightfully and the Plaintiff had Common enough which if it signifie any thing must amount to Not Guilty Ex parte Def. But on the other side the last Objection was endeavoured to be answered first because if that hold yet if the Plea be never so good in Substance the Plaintiff would have Iudgment It was agreed that this Plea doth amount to a General Issue and no more but that every Plea that doth so is not therefore bad for if it otherwise contain reasonable matter of Law which is put upon the Court for their Iudgment rather than referred to the Iury there is is no cause of Demurrer for it is the same thing to have the doubt or question in Law before the Iudges in Pleading as to have it before them upon a Special Verdict In 2 R. 2. 18. A Retainer was pleaded specially by an Administrator which is no more than Plene Administravit yet no Demurrer but the Book saith that the Court ought to be moved 2. The Plea is good as to the matter of it for the Defendant claims the same Common by his Grant which had been used time immemorial and alledges it to be of all Common used with the Premisses and this was a Common so used In Trespass the Defendant justified that Godfrey was seised in Fee of a House and of 20 Acres of Land and that he and all those c. had Common in the place where c. to the said Messuage belonging and that he made a Feoffment to Bradshaw of the same who made a Lease thereof to the Defendant with all Profits and Commodities thereunto belonging vel occupat vel usitat cum praedicto Mesuagio It was adjudged that though the Common was gone and extinct in the Hands of the Feoffor by the unity of the Possession yet those Words were a good Grant of a New Common for the time granted in the Lease and that it was quasi a Common in the Hands of Godfrey the Feoffor Cro. Eliz. 570. Godfrey versus Eyre And though it hath been objected That this Plea is not formally pleaded because it ought to have been direct in alledging a Grant whereas it was only argumentative and brought in by a side Wind he said That as bad as it was 't was drawn by that Serjeant who argued against him and who did very well know that the Averment of sufficiency of Common was needless Curia The Court were all of Opinion That though the Plea did amount to the general Issue yet for that
reason the Iury might find for him 'T is true he might have pleaded Plene computavit which is the general Plea But it may as well be presumed that the Verdict was against the Plaintiff because the Action would not lye and the Matter being in dubio the Court will intend it against the Pleader he not having averred to the contrary and so they held the Plea to be ill DE Termino Paschae Anno 30 Car. II. in Communi Banco Osborn versus Wright ACtion on the Case for words Viz. The Plaintiff declares that she was unmarried but about to marry one J. S. and that the Defendant to hinder her Marriage spoke these Words of her Viz. She is a Whore a Common Whore and N's Whore per quod maritagium amisit The Iury found the Defendant guilty of speaking the Words but that she did not lose her Marriage thereby and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that these Words are not actionable being only Scolding and of that Opinion was all the Court and Iudgment was arrested Hambleton versus Justice Scroggs alios In Camera Scaccarii Serjeant at Law whether Priviledge to be Sued only in the Common-Pleas AN Assault and Battery was brought against the Defendants in the Kings-Bench to which one of them pleaded that he was a Serjeant at Law and so ought to have his Priviledge to be sued by Bill in the Common Pleas and in no other Court To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given in my Lord Chief Iustice Hales's time by the Opinion of him and the whole Court of Kings-Bench That a Serjeant at Law might be sued there and was not suable in the Court of Common-Pleas only 2. That in this Action the Defendant should not have his Priviledge because it was brought against him and another And afterwards a Writ of Error was brought upon this Iudgment returnable before the Lord Chancellor and Chief Iustices of the Kings-Bench and Common-Pleas and the Errors were argued before the two Chief Iustices at Serjeants-Inn in Chancery Lane Mr. Holt for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error Ex parte Quer. That a Serjeant at Law is to be sued only in the Court of Common-Pleas and not elsewhere because there is an absolute necessity of his Attendance there He is sworn and no other person can plead at that Bar and therefore if he should be sued in any other Court Vaugh. 155. it would be an Impediment to the Business of that Court where not only the Officers but their Servants have Priviledge In the 11th of E. 4. 2. There was some discourse about the Priviledge of Serjeants at Law where it was held that he is not to be sued in that Court by Bill but by Original but either way he is to have his Priviledge So the Servant of an Officer is not to be sued by Bill Cro. Car. 84. but he is still to have the Priviledge of the Court and so had Serjeant Hedley's Clerk in the Reign of King Charles the first The Serjeants receive a kind of Induction to the Bar and have a place assigned them and that they ought to have Priviledge the very Words of the Writ are observable Viz. mentioning a Serjeant at Law ex officio incumbit in Curia illa And though it hath been said and given as an answer to that Case in Cro. Car. That where the Serjeants Clerk was Arrested in an Inferior Court as in that Case he was there he shall have Priviledge but not against the other great Courts in Westminster-Hall this is a difference never yet taken notice of in any Book nor doth the Writ warrant this distinction 2. He shall have his Priviledge though he be joyned with another because the Action is joynt and several and the one may be found guilty and the other acquitted and it would be an easie way to oust a Man of his Priviledge if it might be done by joyning him with another who hath none 14 H. 4. 21. But the Person with whom the Serjeant is joyned may be sued in the Common-Pleas likewise so that he shall not hinder him from having Priviledge who of right ought to have it 10 E. 4. 15. Offley contra As to the first point Ex parte Def. the Court of Kings-Bench agreed that a Serjeant at Law shall always have the Priviledge of the Court of Common-Pleas against all Inferiour Courts but not against the other Courts in Westminster Hall for he may be sued in any of them A Serjeant is not like the Common Officers of the Court for they are to be attendant there and no where else but a Serjeant at Law is not confined to that Court alone he may be assigned of Council in any other Court and doth usually put his hand to Pleas both in the Kings-Bench and the Exchequer but a Philazer or Attorny of that Court cannot practise in his own Name in any other All Cases of Priviledge ought to be taken strictly And that which was cited concerning the Priviledge of a Serjeants Clerk is not like this because the Arrest was in an Inferiour Court In the 11 E. 4. 2. b. The Chief Iustice of the Kings-Bench came to the Common-Pleas Bar and told a Serjeant who he had assigned for a Pauper That if he would not come into that Court and plead for his Clyent he would forejudge him so that if he could be fetch'd out of the Common Pleas and carried to the Kings-Bench he is not confined to that Court alone In the 5 H. 5. nu 10. Complaint was made that the Subjects of the King were not well served in his Courts the Parliament thereupon Ordered that one Martin and others should take upon them the Dignity of Serjeants at Law so that it appears that their Business lies in other Courts as well as in that of the Common-Pleas 2. As to the second Point Here is a joynt Action for any thing that appears to the contrary 2 Rol. Abr. 275. pl. 4. and the Plaintiff may proceed against one in the Kings-Bench and therefore the other shall be ousted of his Priviledge if he have any in the Common-Pleas Moor 556. 20 H. 6. 32. North Chief Iustice said That he always took it to be an uncontroverted point That a Serjeant at Law should be sued only in the Court of Common-Pleas by Bill he is bound by Oath to be there and when he brings a Writ of Priviledge 't is always out of that Court and no other Curia advisare vult The Attorny General versus Sir John Read In Scaccario INformation A special Verdict was found Disability by a Statute ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office The Case was thus Viz. Sir John Read 1 Apr. 24 Car. 2. was by Sentence in the Spiritual Court divorced a Mensa Thoro and for Non payment of Alimony was excommunicated Afterwards it was Enacted by the Statute of 25 Car. 2.
as much as is required by Law 'T is true a Subject is bound to serve the King in such capacity as he is in at the time of the Service commanded but he is not obliged to qualifie himself to serve in every capacity Neither doth it appear in this Case that the Defendant was able to remove this Incapacity and that should have been shewn on the other side and all Iudges are to judge upon the Record The intent of the Statute is That if persons will not qualifie themselves they shall not execute any Office and it was made to keep Roman Catholicks out of Places but not to force them to accept of Offices of Trust in the Government and it designs no punishment for quitting but for executing of a place contrary to the Law but if this be an Offence this Information will not lie and for that 2. It was argued That if a thing be either commanded or forbidden by a Statute the transgression in either Case is an Offence punishable by Information 25 H 6. pl. 9. b. 7 H. 4. 5. but when an Act doth not generally command a thing but only sub modo the party offending is punishable no otherwise than designed by that Law as where the Statute of 18 H. 6. cap. 11. prohibits any Man from being a Iustice of the Peace unless he have 40 l. ê‘ AnÌ„ and the Statute of 5 6 E. 6. cap. 16. which makes such Bargains as are therein mentioned about buying of Offices void if such Office be forfeitable then an Information will lie but when 't is ipso facto void as in both the former Cases then 't is otherwise because the punishment is executed by the Statute it self and therefore where the avoidance is made by the Act there is no need of an Information And the Objection of impotentia voluntatis is not material to this purpose because Symony buying of Offices not subscribing the 39 Articles according to the Statute of the Queen these are all voluntary Acts yet no Information lies against such Offenders because the Statutes execute the punishment The intent of the Parliament is here declared the disability of the person makes the Office void void to all intents for the Right of Infants or Men in Prison is not saved so that admitting it to be an Offence if the Duty be not performed yet if such a qualification be requisit to make a Man to act in such an Office or perform such a Duty if that qualification be wanting the Party is only punishable by the loss of the Office The Act doth not distinguish between Offices of Trust and Profit And as to the other Objection viz. That 't is in the power of the Defendant to qualifie himself the same might as well be objected against all the Popish Recusants upon the Statute of 3 Jac. and if a Statute doth disable persons or abridge the King of their Services there is no injury done because the King himself is party to the Act but if mischiefs were never so great since they are introduced by a Law they cannot be avoided till that Law is changed 3. But admitting the Information to be good and that this is an Offence for which it will lie yet the Excommunication is a sufficient excuse it appears by the Verdict that the Defendant was absolutely disabled to be Sheriff for if he is to take the Oath and receive the Sacrament in order to it if he cannot be admitted to the Sacrament as being under the Sentence of Excommunication that is an excuse The Defendant is only argued into a Guilt for the Iury have not found any they do not say that it was in his power to yield Obedience or that he might have enabled himself they only find his incapacity and though it was a voluntary Act which was the cause of his disability yet in such Cases the Law doth not look to Causes so remote If a Man be in Prison for Debt it is his own Act for contracting it and not paying but yet an Outlary against him whilst in Prison shall be reversed because the immediate Cause viz. the Imprisonment and the Iudgment was in invitum and the Law looks no farther and so Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant But the Court were all of Opinion that this Information would lye and that the Defendant was punishable for not removing the disability it being in his power to get himself absolved from the Excommunication And so Iudgment was given against him and a Writ of Error brought c. Godfrey versus Godfrey In Communi Banco Intrat ' Hill ult Rot. 321. DEBT upon a Bond for performance of an Award Award of a lesser Sum in satisfaction of a greater and good in which the Arbitrators had taken notice of 72 l. in controversie and had awarded 50 l. in satisfaction The Defendant pleads Nullum fecerunt Arbitrium the Plaintiff replies an Award and sets it forth and assigns a Breach to which the Defendant demurred because it appeared by the Award that 72 l. was in controversie for Rent due and that 50 l. was awarded in full satisfaction of 72 l. and general Releases to be given but it did not appear that any other Matter was in Controversie between the Parties though the Submission was general and Arbitrators may reduce incertain things to a certainty but they cannot make a Debt certain to be less except there were other differences for which likewise this Release was to be given 10 H. 7. 4. But the whole Court were of Opinion that the Award was good Curia for that the Arbitrators might consider other Matters between the Parties neither did it appear by the Award that the 72 l. was due but in demand only and 't is unreasonable for him to find fault with his own case for he alledges that he ought to pay 72 l. and complains because the other Party is contented with 50 l. and demands no more Iudgment for the Plaintiff Wright versus Bull. Condition where 't is disjunctive 't is in the Election of the Party to have either DEBT upon a Bond for payment of 40 l. The Condition whereof was That if the Defendant should work out the said 40 l. at the usual Prices in packing when the Plaintiff should have occasion for himself or his Friends to imploy him therein or otherwise shall pay the 40 l. then the Bond to be void The Defendant pleads that he was always ready to have wrought out the 40 l. but that the Plaintiff did never imploy him and upon Demurrer the Plea was held ill because the Defendant did not averr that the Plaintiff had any occasion to make use of him and for that it was at his Election either to have Work or Mony Basket and Basket Antea and not having imployed him but brought his Action that is a request in Law and so he hath determined his Election to have the Mony and Iudgment was accordingly given for the
Anno 30 Car. II. in Communi Banco The Case of one Randal and his Wife an Administrator c. Judgment may be avoided without a Writ of Error by a Plea where the Party is a Stranger to it DEBT upon a Bond against the Defendant as Administrator They plead a Iudgment recovered against the Intestate in Hillary Term 26 27 Car. 2. and that they had not Assets ultra The Plaintiff replies that there was an Action against the Intestate but that he dyed before Iudgment and that after his death Iudgment was obtained and kept on foot per fraudem The Defendant traversed the Fraud but did not answer the death of the Intestate and upon a Demurrer it was said for the Plaintiff that the Iudgment was ill and that he being a Stranger to it could neither bring a Writ of Error or Deceit and had no other way to avoid it but by Plea and that 't is put as a Rule That where Iudgment may be reversed by a Writ of Error the Party shall not be admitted to do it by Plea but a Stranger to it must avoid it by Plea because he is no Party to the Iudgment as if a Scire Facias be brought against the Bail 't is a good Plea for them to say that the Principal was dead before Iudgment given by way of excusing themselves to bring in the Body but 't is not good to avoid the Iudgment because 't is against the Record Cro. Eliz. 199. which must be avoided by Writ of Error 1 Roll. Abr. 449 742. The Court were of Opinion that the Plaintiff might avoid the Iudgment without a Writ of Error especially in this Case where 't is not only erroneous but void Hill versus Thorn IN an Arbitrament it was held by the Court Rules in an Award that if two things be awarded the one within and the other not within the Submission the later is void and the breach must be assigned only upon the first 2. If there be a Submission of a particular difference and there are other things in Controversie if in such Case a general Release is awarded 't is ill and it must be shewed on the other side to avoid the Award for that cause 3. If the Submission be of all differences till the 10th day of May 1 Sand. 33. and a Release awarded to be given of all differences till the 20th day of May if there be no differences between those two days the Award is good if any it must be shewed in Pleading 1 Roll. Abr. 257. otherwise the Court will never intend it 4. Smith and Shelbury Antea That reciprocal Covenants cannot be pleaded in barr of another and that in the assigning of a Breach of Covenant 't is not necessary to averr performance on the Plaintiffs side Staples versus Alden DEBT upon a Bond conditioned to deliver forty pair of Shooes within a Month at Holborn-Bridge to Henry Knight a Common Carrier to G. for the use of the Obligee Tender of Goods to the Man shall be a Tender to the Master The Defendant pleaded that in all that space of a Month Henry Knight did not come to London but that such a day at Holborn-Bridge he delivered forty pair of Shooes to A. G. the Carriers Porter To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred for that the Condition being to do something to a Stranger the Defendant at his peril ought to perform it 33 H. 6. 13. 4 H. 7. 4. like the Case where the Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond conditioned that the Defendant should give such a Release as the Iudge of the Prerogative Court should think fit the Defendant pleaded that the Iudge did not appoint any Release and it was adjudged no good Plea because the Obligation is on his part and he ought to tender a Release to the Iudge Cro. Eliz. 716. But on the other side it was said that a delivery to the Servant is a delivery to the Master himself and if parcels of Goods are delivered to the Porter and lost an Action lies against the Master Curia The Court absente North Chief Iustice held the Plea to be good and that such a Construction was to be made as was according to the intent of the Parties and that a delivery to the Man was a delivery to the Master whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Gillmore versus Executor of Shooter In Banco Regis A new Act shall not take away an Action to which the Plaintiff was entituled at the Commencement of the Act. INdebitatus Assumpsit There was a Treaty of Marriage between the Plaintiff who was of kin to the Testator and the Daughter of one Harris with whom he afterwards had 2000 l. as the Marriage Portion and Mr. Shooter in his Life time promised to give the Plaintiff as much or to leave him worth so much by his Will This Promise was made before the 24th day of June before this Action brought the Marriage took effect Harris paid the 2000 l. and Shooter dyed in September following having made no payment of the Mony or any Provision for the Plaintiff by his Will This Action was commenced after Shooter's death and upon the Tryal a Special Verdict was found upon the Act of Frauds and Perjuries 29 Car. 2. c. 29 Car. 2. which Enacts That from and after the 24th day of June in the year 1677. no Action shall be brought to charge any person upon any Agreement made in consideration of Marriage c. unless such Agreement be in Writing c. And that this was a bare Promise without Writing And by Wyld and Jones absente Twisden Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for it could not be presumed that the Act had a retrospect to take away an Action to which the Plaintiff was then intituled For if a Will had been made before the 24th day of June and the Testator had dyed afterwards yet the Will had been good though it had not been in pursuance of the Statute Aster versus Mazeen In C. B. IN Covenant Breach assigned did relate to three Covenants the Declaration concludes sic fregit Conventionem and good the Plaintiff declared upon an Indenture in which the Defendant had covenanted that he was seised in Fee c. and would free the Premisses from all Incumbrances in which there was also another Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and the Breach assigned was upon an Entry and Eviction by another and concludes sic Coventionem suam praedictam fregit in the singular Number And upon a Demurrer to the Declaration Maynard Serjeant said That the Breach did relate to all the three Covenants and therefore the Conclusion was ill because he did not shew what Covenant in particular and if he should obtain a Iudgment upon such a Declaration the Recovery could not be pleaed in Barr to another Action brought upon one of the other Covenants But Conyers for the Plaintiff said that Conventio is
Nomen collectivum and if twenty Breaches had been assigned he still counts de placito quod teneat ei Conventionem inter eos fact ' And of that Opinion was the Court and that the Breach being of all three Covenants the Recovery in one would be a good Barr in any Action afterwards to be brought upon either of those Covenants Parrington versus Lee. INdebitatus Assumpsit Limitation of personal Actions only extends to accompt between Merchants Mod. Rep. 268. 2 Sand. 125 127. Pl. Com. 54. for Mony had and received to the use of the Plaintiff a quantum meruit for Wares sold and an Insimul computasset c. The Defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations viz. non assumpsit infra sex annos The Plaintiff replyed that this Action was grounded on the Trade of Merchants and brought against the Defendant as his Factor c. The Defendant rejoyns that this was not an Action of Accompt and the Plaintiff demurred for that this Statute was made in restraint of the Common Law and therefore is not to be favoured or extended by Equity but to be taken strictly and that if a Man hath a double remedy he may take which he pleaseth and here the Plaintiff might have brought an Action of Accompt or an Action on the Case grounded on an Accompt But Baldwyn Serjeant insisted that the Declaration was not full enough for the Plaintiff ought to set forth that the Action did concern Merchants Accompts and that the Replication did not help it The Court were of another Opinion for that it need not be so set forth in the Declaration because he could not tell what the Defendant would plead so that supposing him to be within the Saving of the Act his Replication is good and 't is the usual way of Pleading and no departure because the Plea of the Defendant gives him occasion thus to reply But the Saving extends only to Accompts between Merchants their Factors and Servants and an Action on the Case will not lie against a Bayliff or Factor where Allowances and Deductions are to be made unless the Accompt be adjusted and stated as it was resolved in Sir Paul Neals Case against his Bayliff Where the Accompt is once stated as it was here the Plaintiff must bring his Action within six years but if it be adjusted and a following Accompt is added in such case the Plaintiff shall not be barred by the Statute Mod. Rep. 71. because 't is a running Accompt but if he should not be barred here then the Exception would extend to all Actions between Merchants and their Factors as well as to Actions of Accompt which was never intended and therefore this Plea is good and the Saving extends only to Actions of Accompt whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Astry versus Ballard In Banco Regis Principals in Execution the Bail are lyable 1 Ventris 315 THE Defendant became Bail for six persons against whom the Plaintiff got a Iudgment and two were put in Execution the Plaintiff afterwards brought a Scire Facias against the Bail who pleaded that two of the Principals were taken in Execution before the Scire Facias brought and whether the Bail was not discharged thereby was now the Question It was agreed that if five had surrendred themselves after Iudgment 2 Cro. 320. 1 Roll. 897. yet the Bail had been lyable but are not so if the Plaintiff as in this Case hath once made his Election by suing out Execution against the Principals and thereupon two are taken and in Custody Before the Return of the second Scire Facias they have Liberty by the Law to bring in the Principals but the Plaintiff having taken out Execution he hath made it now impossible for the Bail to bring them in to render themselves But Sypmson argued that the Bail was not discharged for he ought to bring in the other four or else he hath not performed his Recognizance and so it was adjudged by the Court Sid. 107. for the Law expects a compleat satisfaction The like Resolution was in this Court between Orlibear and Norris Steed versus Perryer IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment the Case was this Republication makes it a new Will viz. Robert Perryer being seised in Fee of the Lands in question had Issue two Sons William his eldest and Robert his youngest Son and being so seised he devises these Lands to his youngest Son Robert and his Heirs Robert the Devisee dies in the Life time of his Father Jones 135. 1 Ventris 341 Mod. Rep. 267. and leaves Issue a Son named Robert who had a Legacy devised to him by the same Will The Grandfather afterwards annexed a Codicil to his Will which was agreed to be a Republication and then he expresly publishes the Will de novo and declared that his Grandson Robert should have the Land as his Son Robert should have enjoyed it had he lived And whether the Grandson or the Heir at Law had the better Title was the Question Pemberton and Maynard Serjeants argued for the Title of the Plaintiff who was Heir at Law That if a Devise be to S. and his Heirs if S. dye living the Devisor the Heir shall take nothing because no Estate vested in his Ancestor so if a Devise be to the Heirs of S. after his decease the Heir shall take by Purchase for he cannot take as Heir for the Reason aforesaid By the death of Robert the Son the Devise to him and his Heirs was void and the annexing a Codicile and Republication of the Will cannot make that good which was void before if it cannot make it good then the Heir cannot take by Purchase and by descent he cannot take for his Ancestor had no Estate and therefore he shall have none Besides this is not a good Will within the Statute which requires it to be in Writing Now the Devise by the written Will was to the Son and the Republication to the Grandson was by Words and not in Writing so that if he cannot take by the Words of the Will he is remediless and that he cannot take as Heir because his Ancestor dyed in the Life time of the Testator Moor 353. Cro. Eliz. 243. Cro. Eliz. 422. Moor 353 404. Skipwith and Barrel on the other side That the new Publication makes it good for it makes a new Will in Writing and it shall take according to the Publication which makes it have the effect of a new Will 'T is true Deeds shall not be extended father than the intent and meaning of the Parties at the time of the Delivery but Wills are to be expounded by another Rule therefore though by the death of the Son the Will was void yet by the Republication it hath a new Life 1 Roll. Abr. 618. 5 Co. 68. 8 Co. 125. The Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices were of Opinion for the Grandson against the Heir at Law viz. That the Republication made it a
new Will and the Grandson should take by the Name of Son And Iustice Atkins relied on the Case of Brett and Rigden in the Commentaries where new purchased Lands passed by a Republication but a Writ of Error being brought upon this Iudgment in the Kings Bench it was reversed Anonymus In Banco Regis MR. Sanders moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court in the Case of the Children of one Collet and Mary his Wife to stay Proceedings there upon a Libel against them that the said Collet had married Anne the Sister of the said Mary They both appear and confess the Matter upon which a Sentence of Divorce was to pass whereas in truth Collet was never married to Ann but it was a contrivance between him and his Wife to get themselves divorced and the Marriage declared void ab initio to defeat their Children of an Estate settled upon them in Marriage with Remainders over by bastardizing them after they had been married and lived together 16 years The Reason why a Prohibition was prayed was because Marriage or no Marriage was to be tried in pais for that the Inheritance and Freehold of Land were concerned in this Case The Court directed that they should suggest this Matter Curia and that it was a Contrivance to obtain a Sentence of Divorce to defeat them of their Estate entailed on them and then to move for a Prohibition Smallwood versus Brickhouse THE Suggestion was Spiritual Courts are proper to determine where a person is capable of making a Will Godolph 276. that B. being under the Age of sixteen years had made a Will and that the Prerogative Court proceeded to the proof of it whereas by the Common Law a person is not capable till 17 years and therefore a Prohibition was prayed And that the Common Law hath determined the time my Lord Coke's Comment upon Littleton was cited 1 Inst 89. b. where 't is said That at 18 years of Age he may make his Testament and constitute Executors and the Age of a person is triable also in pais But the Court said Curia that the Proof of Wills and the Validity of them doth belong to the Ecclesiastical Court and if they adjudge a person capable the Court will not intermeddle for 't is within their Iurisdiction to adjudge when a person is of Age to make a Will and sometimes they allow Wills made by persons of 14 years of Age and the Common Law hath appointed no time it depends wholly on the Spiritual Law and therefore a Prohibition was denied Joan Bailies Case NOTA. One Joan Bayly being in Execution Administration was committed to the Debtor in Execution the Plaintiff dyed intestate and the Right of Administration came to her and a Motion was made for a Habeas Corpus to bring her from the Compter into this Court for that having administred to her Creditor she might be discharged but it was denyed for she could not be thus discharged because non constat de persona neither can she give a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge satisfaction therefore let her renounce the Administration and get it granted to another and then she may be discharged by a Letter of Attorny from such Administrator Anonymus Mandamus MAndamus to swear one who was elected to be one of the Eight Men of Ashburn Court it was denyed because it is incertain for it ought specially to be inserted what the Office is and what is the place of one of the Eight Men of Ashburn Court that it may appear to the Court to be such a place for which a Mandamus doth lye and though such a Writ hath been granted for one of the approved Men of Guilford yet it was specially set forth what his Office was Birch versus Lingen Trin. 34 Car. 2. in B. R. Discontinuance where amendable JVdgment was obtained upon a Bond 25 years since and in one of the Continuances from one Term to another there was a blank The Executors of the Defendant now brought a Writ of Error and the Plaintiff in the Action got a Rule to amend and insert the Continuance suggesting to the Court that it was a Iudgment of a few Terms and so aided by the Statute of 16 17 Car. 2. cap. 8. Hughes Abr. tit Costs 480. 2 Sand. 289. Moor 710. Cro. Eliz. 320 489 553 619. Cro. Jac. 211 353 528. Vpon this Rule the Plaintiff fills up the Blank and the Record was certified so filled up into the Exchequer-Chamber And Mr. Pollexfen moved for the Defendant that the Record might stand as it did at first and that the Rule was got by a trick and on a false Suggestion it being a Iudgment before the Restoration of this King and a Discontinuance not amendable for 't is the Act of the Court and for an Authority in the Point the Case of Friend and Baker was cited where after a Record certified Stiles 339. a Motion was made to amend it because day was given over to the Parties from Easter to Michaelmas-Term and so Trinity-Term left out where by the Opinion of Roll Chief Iustice that the giving of a day more than is necessary is no Discontinuance but where a day is wanting 't is otherwise But Sanders for the Plaintiff said that this was only a Misprision of the Clerk and no Discontinuance but amendable The Clerks commonly leave Blanks in the Venires and if they neglect to fill them up 't is only a Misprision and amendable by the Court and the Record being now filled up by the Rule of the Court ought not to be razed to make an Error The Chief Iustice was of Opinion That this was not a discontinuance but an insufficient continuance and an omission of the Clerk only who if he had filled up this Blank himself without Rule it could not afterwards be set aside But Iustice Jones was of another Opinion That it was such a misprision of the Clerk as was not amendable by the Statute of H. 6. since it was not the same Term and all the Proceedings being in the Breast of the Court only during the Term it ought not to be altered but left in Blank as it was for where Iudgment is entred for the Plaintiff the Court may upon just cause alter it the same Term for the Defendant but not of another Term the whole Term being but one day in Law And though the Writ of Error be returned into the Exchequer that will make no alteration for the Record it self remains still here and 't is only a Transcript that is removed thither Sed Adjornatur Anonymus TRespass for breaking of his Close The Defendants plead Power where 't is coupled with an Interest is assignable That the place where were c. the Lands of one Martin who made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff and did thereby except the Trees growing on the same In which Lease the Plaintiff did Covenant with the said Martin his
Heirs and Assigns that he and they from time to time during the said Lease should have liberty and full power to Fell the said Trees and root them up repairing the Hedges where they did grow That the said Martin granted some of the Trees to the Defendant by virtue whereof he and the rest of his Servants did cut them down which is the same breaking of the Close of which the Plaintiff complains To which Plea Mr. Pollexfen did demurr for the Insufficiency because the Defendant did not shew that upon cutting down the Trees he did repair the Hedges as by the Agreement ought to have been done for this being a limited and qualified power ought to be set forth at large and that it was a power only annexed to the Reversion and not assignable to any one else and so the Defendant hath wholly failed in his Plea he might have justified under Martin but not in any of their own Rights But the Court were of Opinion That an Action doth lie in this Case both against the Lessor and his Assignee acting under his Power and they agreed that a bare power was not assignable but where 't is coupled with an Interest it may be assigned and here was an Interest annexed to the power for the Lessor might sever the Trees from the Reversion Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Scoble versus Skelton Presciption must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee THE Plaintiff declared That he was seised of a Tenement called East and the Defendant of another Tenement called West Travallock and that he and all those whose Estate he had did use to fetch Pot Water from the Defendants Close c. Issue was taken upon this Prescription and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Mr. Pollexfen moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration did set forth generally that he was seised and it did not appear it was in Fee for if it be for Life only then the Action doth not lie because a Prescription cannot be annexed to an Estate for Life Tremain insisted that the Declaration was sufficient and certain enough for when the Plaintiff doth alledge that he was seised generally it shall be intended a seisin in Fee especially after Verdict But the Court held the Declaration to be defective in Substance because a Prescription cannot be annexed to any thing but an Estate in Fee and therefore 't is not helped after Verdict The Iudgment was reversed Putt versus Roster A Recovery in Trespass good Plea in bar to an Action of Trover TRespass for taking of his Cattle The Defendant justifies for a Herriot and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment The Plaintiff did afterwards bring an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same Cattle and the Defendant pleaded the former Iudgment in Trespass in barr to this Action of Trover and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Maynard argued That the Plea was not good because Trespass and Trover are distinct Actions and one may be where the other is not as if an Infant give Goods to one an Action of Trover doth lie to recover them but Trespass will not So if Goods be delivered to another and he refuse to deliver them upon demand Trover but not Trespass will lie and therefore these being different Actions a Recovery in one shall be no barr to the other A Formedon brought in the Descender and Iudgment thereon is not pleadable in barr to a Formedon in Remainder There is a great difference between a barr to the Action 5 Co. 33.6 Co. 37. a. Cro. El. 667. Eo Entr. 38. b. 2 Cro. 15. pl. 20. Antea and to the Right as where an Administrator sues not knowing that he was made Executor and Iudgment against him and he afterwards proved the Will and brought an Action as Executor the former Iudgment had against him as Administrator shall not be a barr to this new Action because 't is not a barr to the Right for by misconceiving his Action the former abated But Mr. Holt argued That these were Actions of the same nature and therfore a Iudgment in one was a good Plea in barr to the other Trespass or Trover lies for taking or carrying away the Goods of another and when he hath made his Election which to bring a Recovery there shall be a perpetual barr to the other In an Appeal of Mayhem 4 Co. 39. the Defendant pleaded a former Recovery in an Action of Assault and Battery and held good though one is of a higher nature than the other But the Court were of Opinion Curia Rose and Standen Antea That an Action of Trover doth lie where a Trespass doth not and if the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action that shall be no barr to him As to the Case put of the Mayhem Rozal and Lampen Antea that doth not agree with this because there can be no Mayhem without an Assault but there may by a Trover without a Trespass and though the Appeal of Mayhem be of a higher nature than the Assault because it doth suppose quod felonice Mayhemiavit yet the Plaintiff can only recover damages in both If a Man bring Trespass for the taking of a Horse and is barred in that Action yet if he can get the Horse in his possession the Defendant in the Trespass can have no Remedy because notwithstanding such Recovery the Property is still in the Plaintiff The Defendant in this Case hath justified the taking of the Cattle for a Herriot and by the Demurrer the justification is confessed to be true in fact now by the taking for a Herriot the property of the Goods was altered and wherever the Property is determined in Trespass an Action of Trover will never lie for the same but 't is a good Plea in barr and so it was adjudged here James versus Trollop Prescription for a Modus good ERror of a Iudgment in the Common-Pleas on an Action upon a Prohibition where the Plaintiff did suggest That William late Prior of Norbury in Staffordshire was seised of the said Mannor and of the Tythes thereof simul semel as of a portion of Tythes c. That the said Prior 25 H. 1. granted the said Mannor and Tythes to William Fitzherbert and his Heirs rendring Rent That the said Fitzherbert did Enter and was seised and held it discharged of Tythes that his Heirs afterwards granted two Hides of Land part of the said Mannor to S. with the Tythes at 5 s. Rent and so draws down a Title by Descent for 300 years to F. who being seised devised the same to Dorothy James under whom the Plaintiff in the Prohibition claimed and then concludes That Fitzherbert and all those whose Estate c. did pay the said Rent to the said Prior which since the Dissolution was paid to the King and his Assigns in discharge of all Tythes c. The Defendant having craved Oyer of the Deed demurred to the Suggestion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff
Where 't is good without the word tunc where not 129 Of words where the Pronoun pro makes the Contract conditional 33 34 F. Factor WHere he cannot sell but for ready Mony 100 101 Factum valet quod fieri non debet 194 Failure Of Record certified 246 Feoffment To Uses the Estate is executed presently 208 209 Fine Of Lands in a Lieu conus good 49 In a Scire facias to have such Fine excuted the Vill must be named 48 Good by Estoppel levied by a Remainder man in Tail 90 No Uses can be declared of such Fine ibid. Fine sur concessit the nature and effect of it 110 111 112 By such a Fine nothing shall pass but what lawfully may 111 Fines shall work a disseisin where they can have no other interpretation 112 Fines in Criminal Cases must be with Salvo contenemento 150 Flotsam Where it shall be sued for at Common Law and not in the Admiralty 294 Forbearance And doth not say from the making of the promise hucusque held good 24 Formedon In Descender the difference in pleading between that and a Formedon in Remainder or Reverter 94 25 Fraction Where an Estate shall pass by Fractions where not 114 115 G. Gaming WHat Acts amount to make it penal within the Statute 54 Not within the Statute where the Security is given to a third person 279 Grant of the King Where a false recital shall not make it void 2 3 Where the first description is full the misrecital afterwards shall not make it void 2 3 4 He may grant what he hath not in possession 107 Where words shall be rejected rather than his Grant shall be void ibid. Where an Advowson passeth though not named 2 Where a thing will pass by general words ibid. Misrecital where it doth not concern his Title shall not make the Grant void 2 3 Grant of a common Person Of the next Avoidance where it shall not bind the Successor 56 Must be taken according to usual and common intendment 193 Grant where the word in a Deed will make a thing pass by way of Use 253 Guardian In Socage where a doubt is of his sufficiency he may be compelled to give Security 177 H. Harmless vide Condition COndition to save harmless the Plea indempnem conservavit generally is not good 240 305 Habeas Corpus Cannot be granted by the Court of Common Pleas in Criminal Cases 198 199 306 Heir Where he takes by the Will with a Charge he comes in by Purchase and not by Descent and the Lands shall not be Assets 286 Where a general Replication to Riens per descent is good 50 51 Where he shall have a thing though not named 93 Hors de son Fee When to be pleaded 103 I. Ieofails THE Statute of 16 and 17 Car. 2. helps a misrecital in a proper County but not where the County is mistaken 24 An immaterial Issue not arising from the matter is not helped after a Verdict 137 Inducement Not such certainty required as in other Cases 70 Indebitatus Assumpsit Where it will not lie for want of Privity 262 263 Imparlance Tout temps prist not good after an Imparlance 62 Implication Where a Man shall have an Estate for Life by Implication 208 Imprisonment False Imprisonment will not lye against a Judge for committing of a Jury Man for finding against Evidence 218 It lies not against an Officer for refusing Bail but a special Action on the Case lies against the Sheriff for it 32 Information Upon the Statute of Philip and Mary for taking away a Maid unmarried within the Age of sixteen years 128 It will not lie where the Punishment is executed by the Statute 302 Infant When he may make a Will 315 Interest Where 't is vested in the King 53 Where it differs from an Authority 79 What words give an Interest 80 81 Where the word Interest signifies the Estate in the Land 134 Intention Of the Parties where to be considered 76 77 80 111 116 234 280 281 310 Where a thing shall be intended and where not 227 280 282 Grants where they shall be taken according to common intendment 193 Ioynder in Action Covenant to two not to do a thing without their consent one may bring the Action 82 Issue Where Time shall be made parcel of the Issue 145 Iudge and Iudgment Judge cannot fine a Jury for finding against Evidence 218 Action will not lie against him for what he doth judicially though erroneously 221 Judgment may be avoided by Plea without a Writ of Error 308 Iustification Vide Pleading Where 't is local you must traverse both before and after 68 Under a Lease for the Life of another Man and doth not averr that the Life is in being ill 93 Where 't is not local a Traverse makes the Plea naught 270 271 By vertue of a particular Estate you must shew the commencement of it 70 Where it is general and yet good 144 In Assault Battery and Wounding and saith nothing to the Wounding not good 167 Of a Servant by Command of his Master and good ibid. In Assault Battery and Imprisonment for 11 l. 10 s. the Defendant justifies by a Warrant for the 11 l. and saith nothing of the 10 s. not good upon Demurrer 177 Where 't is but of part the general words Quoad residuum transgressionis will not supply the rest 259 K. King THE Defendant cannot justifie in a Scandalum Magnatum brought upon the Statute of R. 2. because the King is a Party tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso 166 Where his Title is not precedent to that of the Ter-tenant the Lands of his Receiver shall not be charged by the Statute of 13 Eliz. 247 248 Difference between the Case of the King and of a common person 263 A person disabled by Outlary may sue for him but not for himself 267 Where an Interest is vested in him it shall not be divested by a general Pardon 53 L. Lease BY a Bishop and more than the old Rent reserved good 57 Where it shall be made by the words Covenant Grant and Agree and where not 80 81 Lessee for years assigns over his whole Term whether Debt will lie on the Contract or not 174 175 Liberties What is meant by the Word 48 Limitation of Action Extends to Indebitatus Assumpsit though not named in the enacting Clause 71 72 73 Statute no Barr where the Sheriff levyed Goods by a Fieri Facias and did not pay the Mony within nine years 212 Doth not extend to an Action on the Case Indebitatus Assumsit Quantum meruit and Insimul computasset 311 312 Limitation of Estate What are good words to take by Purchase from a Stranger 210 211 Limitation of Estate when void makes the Estate absolute 227 Livery Secundum formam Chartae where good or not 78 79 M. Mannor WHere a thing becomes in gross it can never after be united to it 144 What may be appurtenant to it ibid. N. Negative WOrds must
be in an Act of Parliament to restrain the power of the Courts at Westminster 128 Negative pregnant 138 Negative Plea that three did not such a thing it must be said nec eorum aliquis 284 285 Non Obstante Where it makes a Grant good 107 Where a general Non obstante will not dispense with a particular Statute 261 Notice Where the Agreement is that it shall be in writing it must be so pleaded 268 Where 't is made to the Testator alone it shall not be personal but is good if given to the Executor 268 269 O. Oath EX Officio lawful 118 Where it ought to be made of the loss of a Deed to entitle a Man to a Bill in Equity 173 Office and Officer Grant thereof to two and the Survivor one surrenders and another is admitted the benefit of Survivorship is gon 95 96 Of the Warden of the Fleet not to be granted for years 120 Where a person recomended proves insufficient the recommender shall be liable 121 In an Office of Trust there shall be no Survivorship 260 Officer excusable for executing an erroneous Process 196 Ordinary When his Power began 148 Outlary Pleaded in Disability to an Information and good 267 268 Where it needed not to be pleaded sub pede sigilli being in the same Court 267 P. Parish HOW it differs from a Vill 237 Pardon Where nothing vests but by Office found a Pardon restores the Party 53 Where the thing it self is pardoned and the consequence not 52 Parliament Where the time of the Session is misrecited and yet good 241 Where the Court ought to take notice of the commencement of a private or general Act 241 Difference between an Adjournment and a Prorogation 242 Partners The Action cannot be brought against one without setting forth the death of the other 280 If Judgment be against one the Goods of the other may be taken in Execution ibid. Paying In the Case of an Heir is not a Condition but a Limitation 286 Place Where it shall be intended not being laid in the pleadings 304 Pleas and Pleading What the Parties have admitted in pleading shall be good though the Jury find otherwise 5 Shall not afterwards be assigned for Error 193 194 Pleading of a Grant of a Reversion without hic in Curia prolat ' whether good or not 19 In Dower that the Demandant ought to have Judgment de tertia and doth not say parte and yet good 17 18 19 Award nullum fecerunt arbitrium de praemissis whether good without adding nec de aliqua parte 27 28 29 Plea to a Bond not good 33 A Judgment ultra quod no Assets where good 36 Estoppel you must relie upon it and not conclude with a Traverse 37 38 One promise in discharge of another where good or not 43 44 Of an accord in must be averred to be executed in all points 43 Replication where the Heir pleads a Settlement in Tail and a Lease for 99 years and that he had not Assets praeter the Reversion a general Replication of Assets is good because the praeter is idle 50 51 Justification in Trespass for taking corrupt Victuals held good 56 Justification by Arrest upon process out of an Inferiour Court 58 59 Justification by the Defendant where he must shew the Commencement of his Estate or not 70 71 Where 't is incertain 76 Touts temps prist not good after Imparlance 62 Profert hic in Curia where it must be pleaded formally 77 78 It must be pleaded when the Title is by Deed either as party or privy 64 De injuria propria sua where a Servant is Defendant 't is good without a Traverse 68 Plea where 't is naught with a Traverse ibid. Where the Defendant may plead any thing which amounts to a performance 139 Where the Defendant was charged with receiving 80 Pigs of Lead and he saith that he was not Receiver but omits aliquam partem inde the Plea was ill 146 Hoc paratus est verificare where good or not ibid. The Defednant was charged as Bayliff 1 Martii he saith he was not from the 1st of March and so excludes the day 146 In Covenant for not Repairing the Defendant pleads recuperavit generally and held good after Verdict 176 Affirmative Plea ought to be particular as if the Defendant pleads a Conveyance made he must shew what 239 Of another Action depending for the same Cause in another Court 246 Where good though it amounts to the general Issue 274 275 276 277 278 Argumentative Plea where good 276 Negative Plea viz. that three did not such a thing the Defendant must say nec eorum aliquis 284 Otherwise in an affirmative Plea ibid. Plea puis darrein Continuance must be certified as part of the Record of Nisi Prius 307 Non damnificatus generally no good Plea where the person and Lands are to be indempnified 305 Where a Judgment shall be avoided by a Plea without bringing of a Writ of Error the party being a Stranger to it 308 Prescription Not to be pleaded against another without a Traverse of the first 104 Must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee and not for Life 318 To a Modus where good 320 Presentation The King being entituled by the Symony of the Patron presents though the Symony be pardoned the Presentee shall not be removed 52 53 54 Between three by turns they are Tenants in Common of the Advowson and one may grant the next Avoidance the Church being full 97 How it must be pleaded tempore pacis 184 185 Possibility A Grant made thereof and good 106 107 By an Executor before Probate is but a Possibility and yet good 108 Priviledge Will not extend to a Case of necessity 182 Of a Serjeant at Law 296 Of an Attorny of the Kings Bench 181 Process Where an Action will not lie against the Defendant for doing a thing in Execution of the Process of Law 244 Prohibition To the Bishops Commission to set Rates upon the Parishioners to repair the Church 8 Prohibition printed in English and dispersed a Crime fit to be punished 119 Not granted for a Rate for building of a Church 222 223 Where it shall be granted at any time 273 Where a Sentence of Divorce was intended to adnul a Marriage 314 Upon a Suggestion of Excommunication because he refused to accuse himself 278 Power Where 't is coupled with an Interest 't is assignable 317 Promise Where they are mutual the performance need not be averred 33 34 Purchase Where the Heir takes by Purchase the Ancestor must depart with his whole Fee 208 Where the Heir shall take by Purchase and where by Descent 286 Q. Quare Impedit REal Mainpernors must be returned upon the Summons Pone and Grand Cape if the disturber do not appear and not John Doe and Richard Roe 264 265 Que Estate Where 't is pleadable 143 144 R. Rates FOR building of a Church shall be set by the Parishioners 222 Recital Where a Title is set
Defendant by the Steward of the Burrough of Southwark for that he refused to take the Oath and serve as a Scavenger in the said Burrough though duly Elected according to Custom there and upon nil debt pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict the substance of which was Viz. They find the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 2. And the Proviso therein which governed this Case viz. That all Streets and Lanes in London Westminster and the Liberties thereof shall be Paved as they have alwayes used to be Then follows another Clause by which it is Enacted That Scavengers shall be Chosen in the City of London and the Liberties thereof according to the Ancient Usage and Custom so likewise in the City of Westminster but nothing is therein mentioned of Southwark And in all other places a new form of choosing is prescribed Viz. In the other Parishes the Constables Church-Wardens c. shall meet in the Easter-Week and choose two Scavengers in every respective Parish so that the intent of the Act must be though Southwark is not named that still Scavengers shall be chosen there as formerly because London and the Liberties thereof are to follow their Ancient Custom in the choice of this Officer and Southwark is within the City Liberties But whether the Custom of choosing of him was not taken away by this Statute and so the Fine not well Assessed was the Question Ex partte Quer. Baldwyn for the Plaintiffs argued That admitting in Southwark a Scavenger may be chosen according to the new form prescribed in the Act yet this Statute was only in the * Hob. 173. Dyer 341. b. Affirmative and did not thereby take away the custom of choosing him at the Leet Like the Case in Dyer 50. An Act that the Youngest Son shall have an Appeal of the death of his Father Hob. 17. yet that doth not exclude the Eldest because 't is the Common Law and there are no words to restrain him In the 11 Co. 63. Doctor Foster's Case By the Statute of 35 Eliz. against Recusants which gives the Penalty of 20 l. ê“ Month against the Offender the 12 d. for the neglect of every Sunday given by a former * 1 Eliz. Statute is not taken away But where there is a Negative Clause in an Act of Parliament the Law is otherwise as an Act that the Sessions of the Peace shall be kept at Beaumarris tantum non alibi infra ComÌ„ c. and the Iustices kept it at another place and several were Indicted before them at that time but the Iustices were fined and all their proceedings held Coram non Judice by reason of the Negative Prohibition Dyer 135. 1 Inst Sect. 500. 2 Inst 68. By the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 34. a Woman shall bring no Appeal but for the death of her Husband which she might at Common Law before the making of this Statute if therefore she is Heir to her Father the Appeal which she might have brought for his death by these Negative words is taken away Ex parte Def. Barrell for the Defendant though this Law be in the Affirmative yet since it doth not prejudice any person neither can it be injurious if Scavengers are chosen as directed by the Act it shall be taken as a Negative Clause and for this many Instances may be given as the Statute for devising part of the Testators Land doth not take away the custom to devise the whole for that would be an apparent prejudice to the Parties but not so in this Case where 't is not found that the Lord of the Mannor sustains any loss for he is to have nothing when a Scavenger is chosen in the Leet nor are the Inhabitants prejudiced for by this New choosing their Streets shall be kept as clean as before The Form here established doth not consist with the Custom and so hath the Effect of a Negative Clause Hob. 298. It appears by the Scope of the Act That the intent of the Parliament was to take away those old Customs of choosing because the Customs are expressly saved in London and Westminster but in all other places a new way is appointed The pavement of the Streets in Southwark shall be as before but that Clause goes no farther and therefore concerns not the Case of a Scavenger whose duty is not to pave but cleanse the Streets And the words viz. Liberties of the City of London will not help because Southwark is not comprehended under them in that Clause no more than are the Lands which they have in Yorkshire for the word Liberties * Postea 48. there is taken for Limits and can admit of no other Construction Lastly that the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgment because he hath no alledged the Custom to be That the Steward may Fine in case of the refusal to take the Oath c. and Customs are to be taken stictly The Chief Iustice and Iustice Atkins said That 't is true Scavengers are under the power of the Court Leet by Custom and in case of refusal may be fined as well as an Ale-Taster But this Act of Parliament having taken notice that there were Scavengers before that time and Southwark being therein named as distinct from the Liberties of London for 't is provided That Westminster London and the Liberties thereof and Southwark are to have the Streets paved as before which doth not belong to the Office of a Scavenger and so that Clause in the Act concerns not this Case But where it Enacts That in London and Westminster Scavengers shall be chosen as before but in all other places appoints a new way this is as much as if it had said That Scavengers shall be chosen in every place as by the Act prescribed and no other way except in London and Westminster and so great is the inconsistency between the Custom and the Act that they cannot stand both together therefore though the Act is but temporary the Custom is suspended and though it may be some damage to the Lord to make such Construction yet that will not alter the Case for Law-Makers are presumed to have respect to the publick Good more than to any private Mans profit and the Lord may be said in this case to have dispensed with his Interest being a Party to the Act and consenting thereunto But Wyndham and Ellis Iustices inclined That the Custom did continue because the Act was in the Affirmative and therefore they would not construe it to take away a Mans Right and Interest or a Custom where he hath a benefit as the Lord of the Mannor had in this Case who is prejudiced by the loss of his Fees and the intent of the Statute seemed to them to be That Scavengers should be chosen where none were before but not to take away Customs for chusing of them But another Argument was desired by Serjeant Howel the Recorder of London Rozal versus Lampen Variance in the Actions no
without any actual Entry 2 Cro. 604. and the Bargaineé thereby is capable of a Release though he cannot bring an Action of Trespass without Entry for when Mony is the Consideration of making the Bargain and Sale 't is executed by the Statute of Vses and so the Release upon it is good but if the Deed be not executed 't is otherwise But this being to support a Common Recovery Antea Addison and Otway was to be favoured and therefore the Court took time to consider till the next Term and then The Chief Iustice said That if a real Action be brought against A. who is not Tenant to the Praecipe and a Recovery be had against him the Sheriff can turn him out who is in possession but if he who is not in possession comes in by Voucher he is estopped to say afterwards that he was not party to the Writ so that he who is bound must be Tenant or Vouchee or claim under them Conveyances have been altered not so much by the Knowledge of the Learned as by the Ignorance of Vnskilful Men in their Profession The usual Conveyance at Common Law was by Feoffment to which Livery and Seisin were necessary the Possession being given thereby to the Feoffee Antea Lord Salisburies Case but if there was a Tenant in Possession and so Livery could not be made then the Reversion was granted and the particular Tenant always attorned and upon the same reason it was that afterwards a Lease and Release was held a good Conveyance to pass an Estate but at that time it was made no question but that the Lessee was to be in actual Possession before the Release Afterwards Vses came to be frequent and Settlements to Vses were very common by reason whereof many inconveniencies were introduced to prevent which the Statute of the 27th of H. 8. was made by which the Vse was united to the Possession for before that Statute Vses were to be executed according to the Rules of Equity but now they are reduced to the Common Law and are of more certainty and therefore are to be construed according to the Rules of Law At the Common Law when an Estate did not pass by Feffoment the Lessor or Vendor made a Lease for years and the Lessee actually entred and then the Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee attorned and this was good Afterwards when an Inheritance was to be granted then also was a Lease for years usually made and the Lessee entred as before and then the Lessor released to him and this was good But after the Statute of Vses it became an Opinion That if a Lease for years was made upon a valuable Consideration a Release might operate upon that without an actual Entry of the Lessee because the Statute did execute the Lease and raised an Vse presently to the Lessee Sir Francis Moor Serjeant at Law was the first who practised this way Nota. But because there were some Opinions that where Conveyances may enure two ways the Common Law shall be preferred unless it appear that the party intended it should pass by the Statute thereupon the usual course was to put the Words Bargain and Sale into the Lease for a Year to bring it within the Statute and to alledge that the Lease was made to the intent and purpose that by the Statute of Vses the Lessee might be capable of a Release but notwithstanding this Mr. Noy was of the Opinion That this Conveyance by Lease and Release could never be maintained without the actual Entry of the Lessee This Case goes farther than any that ever yet came into Iudgment for Mony is not mentioned here to be the Consideration or any thing which may amount to it unless the Pepper Corn which he held to be a good Consideration The Lease and Release are but in nature of one Deed and then the intent of the Parties is apparent that it should pass by the Satute and eo instanti that the Lease is executed the Reservation is in force The Case put by Littleton in Sect. 459. is put at the Common Law and not upon the Statute where he saith That if a Lease be made for years and the Lessor releaseth all his Right to the Lessee before Entry such Release is void because the Lessee had only a Right and not the Possession which my Lord Coke in his Comment upon it calls an interesse termini and that such Release shall not enure to enlarge the Estate without the Possession which is very true at the Common Law but not upon the Statute of Vses And therefore Iudgment was given by the whole Court Judgment that the Word Grant in the Lease will make the Land pass by way of Use that the Reservation of a Pepper Corn was a good consideration to raise an Vse to support a Common Recovery that this Lease being within the Statute of Vses there was no need of an actual Entry to make the Lessee capable of the Release for by vertue of the Statute he shall be adjudged to be in actual possession and so a good Tenant to the Praecipe and Iudgment was given accordingly in Michaelmas Term following Kendrick versus Bartland THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case for stopping the Water going to his Mill with a Continuando c. Continuando laid after a Nusance abated yet Damages shall be recovered for what was done before The Defendant pleads that the stopping was contra voluntatem and that tali die which was betwéen the first and the last day laid in the Continuando the Plaintiff himself had abated the Nusance and so he had no cause of Action To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Serjeant Baldwyn who argued to maintain the Plea did not relye upon that part of it where the Defendant saith that the stopping of the Water was involuntary because he doing the thing it could not be contra voluntatem but the Question would be whether the Plaintiff had any cause of Action to recover damages after the Abatement of the Nusance and he said that he had abated it before the Action brought and counted for damages after the Abatement for which he had no Cause of Action and this he had confessed by his Demurrer But the Court were of Opinion that it was not a good Plea and took this difference between a Quod permittat or an Assize for a Nusance and an Action on the Case for the same for the end of a Quod permittat or an Assise was to abate the Nusance 2 Cro. 207 618 but the end of an Action on the Case was to recover damages therefore though the Nusance was removed the Plaintiff is intituled to his damages that accrued before and 't is usual in Actions of this nature to lay the Sid. 319. Continuando for longer time than the Plaintiff can prove but he shall have damages for what he can prove and so here he shall recover the
damages which he sustained before the Abatement And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Walwyn versus Awberry and others Tythes of a Rectory shall not be sequestred for Repairs of the Chancel Mod. Rep. 258. TRespass for the taking and carrying away of four Loads of Wheat and four Loads of Rye c. The Defendants justifie for that the Plaintiff is Rector of the Rectory impropriate of B. and that the Chancel was out of Repair and that the Bishop of Hereford after Monition first given to the Plaintiff had granted a Sequestration of the Tythes of the Rectory for the repairing the Chancel and that the Defendants were Churchwardens of the Parish and that the particulars mentioned in the Declaration were Tythes belonging to the Plaintiff as Rector aforesaid and that by vertue of the said Commission they took the same for repairing of the said Chancel and that for these Tythes so taken they had accounted to the Bishop To this the Plaintiff demurred The Question was whether an Impropriate Rectory be chargeable for the Repairs of the Chancel by the Sequestration of the Tythes by the Bishop and those who argued in the negative for the Plaintiff could not deny but that Church Reparations did belong to the Ecclesiastical Courts and that as often as Prohibitions have been prayed to that Iurisdiction Consultations have been as often granted notwithstanding in many Cases the Rates for such Reparations have been very unequally imposed and the reason is because those Courts have original Iurisdiction of the Matter It was admitted also that Parishioners are bound to repair the Church and the Rector the Chappel and in this respect of their Lands and therefore if a Man hath Lands in one Town and dwell in another he shall be contributory to the Reparation of that Church where his Lands are and not where he inhabits And that all this was by the common Custom of England long before the making of the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Parsonages were made Lay Fees but then it must be understood that this was no real Duty incumbent upon them but was a personal burden for which every Parishioner was chargeable proportionably to the quantity of Land which he held in the Parish in which Case if he refused to be contributory the Ordinary did never intermeddle with the possessions but always proceeded by Ecclesiastical Censures as Excommunication of the Party refusing which is the proper remedy But in case of an Appropriation in the Hands of an Ecclesiastical Corporation as Dean and Chapter c. there if a Refusal be to contribute to the Repairs the Ordinary may sequester and the reason is because a Corporation cannot be excommunicated The Ordinary may also sequester in things of Ecclesiastical Cognizance as if the King do not present so he may take the Profits within the six Months that the Patron hath to present and apply them to the Pastor of the Church by him recommended because the Ordinary hath a provisional Superintendency of the Church and there is a necessity that the Cure should be supplyed until the Patron doth present and this is a kind of Sequestration But in some Cases the Ordinary could not sequester the Profits belonging to Spiritual Persons though he was lawfully entituled to them for a particular time and purpose For by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. 't is Enacted That if a Parson make a Lease of his Living for a longer time than he is resident upon it that such Lease shall be void and he shall for the same lose one years Profits of his Benefice to be distributed by the Ordinary amongst the Poor of the Parish Now he had no Remedy to recover the Years Profits but in the Ecclesiastical Court he could not sequester and to give him Authority so to do a supplemental Statute was made five years afterwards in the 18th year of the Queens Reign cap. 11. by which Power is given him to grant a Sequestration so that if he could not sequester in a Case of which he had a Iurisdiction by a precedent Statute à fortiori he cannot in a Case exempted as this is from his Iurisdiction But admitting a Sequestration might go then this inconveniency would follow that if other Lands should be sequestred for the same purpose the former Sequestration could not be pleaded to discharge them because the interest is not bound thereby no more than a Sequestration out of Chancery is pleadable to an Action of Trespass at the Common Law This Case cannot be distinguished from that of Jefferies in 5 Co. and from what the Civilians testified to the Court there viz. That the Churchwardens and greater part of the Parishioners upon a general warning given may make a Taxation by Law but the same shall not charge the Land but the person in respect of his Land so that 't is he that is chargeable and may be excommunicated in case of refusal to contribute but his Lands cannot be sequestred because 't is not the business of the Ordinary to meddle with the temporal possessions of Lay-men but to proceed against them by Ecclesiastical Censures and the Parishioners Lands may be as well sequestred for the Repairs of the Church as the Lands of the Impropriator for the Repairs of the Chappel for which Reasons it was held that a Sequestration would not lie Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that before the making of the Statute the Rector was to repair the Chancel under pain of Sequestration which the Ordinary had power to grant in case of refusal and that his Authority in many Cases was not abridged by the Statute The Case of * 2 Cro. 518. Parry and Banks was cited where in the 24th Year of H. 8. a Parsonage was appropriated to the Deanary of St. Asaph and a Vicaridge endowed which the Bishop dissolved in the 24th Year of Queen Elizabeth and Parry pretending that notwithstanding this Dissolution it was in the Kings Hands by lapse obtained a Presentation and it was resolved that after the Statute of Dissolutions which made Parsonages Lay Fees the Ordinary could not dissolve the Vicaridge where the Parsonage was in a Temporal Hand but being in that Case in the Hands of the Dean he might The Rector is to repair the Chancel because of the Profits of the Glebe which is therefore Onus reale impositum rebus personis and of that Opinion was Johannes de Atkin who wrote 100 years before Lynwood where in fol. 56. he saith That if the Chancel was out of repair it affected the Glebe And that the Constitution of the Canon Law is such will not be denied Vaugh. 327. and if so Canons being allowed are by use become parcel of the Common Law and are as much the Law of the Kingdom as an Act of Parliament for what is Law doth not suscipere magis aut minus Several Cases were put where the Bishop doth intermeddle with the