several Declarations the Declaration of the Feoffees shall stand for that the Land passeth from them So if Cestuy que use and his Feoffees make a Feoffment in Fee 21 H. 7. And to that purpose he put the Case reported by Plowden 15 Eliz. 464. Husband and Wife seized in right of the Wife they levy a Fine sur Conusans de droit come ceo c and the Conusee renders the Land to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband dieth the Wife discontinues the Land the same is not within the penalty of the Statute of 11 H. 7. For notwithstanding the Wife be now in by the purchase of her Husband yet that purchase is not within the meaning of that Statute because the Law respects the original Seisin which was in the Wife and so it was adjudged Vide Term. Mich. 30 Eliz. Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLXXXVIII The Earl of Northumberlands Case THe Earl of Northumberland brought Debt for Arrearages upon Account The Defendant shewed that before the said Account the Plaintiff of his own wrong imprisoned the Defendant and he so imprisoned assigned Auditors and so the Account was made by Duress It was holden a good Plea by the Iustices of both Benches Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXIX Clark and Kemptons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Leon. 141. Smith and Burds Case Co. 10 Rep. 129. b. Payment of Rents The Defendant leased for years to the Plaintiff rendring rent payable at Michaelmas and the Annunciation or fourteen days after Et si contingat the said rent to be behind post aliquod terminorum vel festorum praedictorum in quo solvi debet by the space of 14 days post aliquod festum praedict that then c. It was adjudged in this Case that the Lessee had fourteen days after the said fourteen days mentioned in the Reservation without danger of the penalty of the condition and the last words post aliquod Festorum praedict for the contrariety shall be rejected Pasc 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXC Harris and Whitings Case DEbt upon an Obligation by Harris and his Wife as Executors of Giles Capel against Whiting the Condition was that if the Obligor before the Feast of Pentecost pay such a sum so as the Obligee be ready at the payment thereof to enter into a Bond of 200 l. with Sureties to purchase such Land c. that then c. The Defendant pleaded that he was ready to pay c. and that the Obligee was not ready to enter into such Bond ut supra The Plaintiff Replicando said that he was ready absque hoc that the Defendant was ready to pay It was moved that the Traverse was not good for the first Act here was to be done by the Obligee viz. to enter into the Bond ut supra for otherwise the Obligor had not any means to compel the Obligee to enter into it But by Wray Chief Iustice the first Act is to be done by the Obligor and at the Payment the other party is to do that which to him belongs to do Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXC Ralph Morris Case RAlph Morris and his wife libelled against one in the Ecclesiastical Court for that the Defendant called the Wife of the Plaintiff Veneficam Sortilegam Incantatricem Daemoniorum And now came the Defendant into the Kings Bench surmising that the matter of the Libel is determinable by the Law of the Land and thereupon prayed a Prohibition and it was holden that although the Offence of Witchcraft be in some cases punishable in our Law yet the same doth not take away the Iurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Law and to call one Witch generally an Action doth not lye in our Law as it hath been adjudged But to say He hath bewitched such a one an Action doth lye And by Wray Witchcraft which is made Felony by any Statute is not punishable by the Ecclesiastical Law but in case of Slander upon such a Witchcraft such slanderous words are of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and for Witchcraft which is not Felony the Ecclesiastical Court shall punish the party and afterwards in the principal Case a Consultation was awarded Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCI. Tyrrels Case TYrrel Warden of the Fleet of an Estate of Inheritance let the said Office for years and afterwards is condemned in London in many Actions of Debt and is there detained in Execution for the sum of fourteen hundred pounds and now one Iden sued the said Tyrrel in the Common Pleas in an Action of debt for 50 l. and had Iudgment to recover and thereupon the said Tyrrel is brought to the Bar and Iden prays he be committed to the Fleet in Execution for his Debt It was first moved by the Court if there was not a practize between Iden and Tyrrel for to deliver him out of the Compter in London to a more easie Prison c. But it was moved by Fenner who was of counsel with the Creditors in London that it should be very dangerous to commit Tyrrel Prisoner to the Fleet because he had the Inheritance of Custody of the said Prison and if the Lessee under whose guard he shall be surrenders his Interest or if he doth not pay his Rent so as in default thereof Tyrrel re-enter or if that the Term expire before that the Creditors of Tyrrel be satisfied then here is an Escape and discharge of Execution and we are without remedy But as to that it was said by Rhodes Windham and Anderson That if the Lessee surrender it shall be an Escape in him and he shall answer for the same Afterwards by Order of the Court Tyrrel was committed to the Fleet in Execution and the Sheriffs of London discharged Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCII Owen and Morgans Case THe Case between Owen and Morgan which was agreed Trin. 29 Eliz. was this Richard Owen was seized of Ante 26. Post 222. c. and levied a Fine to Owen and Morgan and to the Heirs of Owen and they granted and rendred the said Land to the said Richard and Lettice his Wife not Party to the said Writ of Covenant nor to the Conusans and to the Heirs of the body of the said Richard the Remainder over to the said Owen now Demandant in Fee The Husband alone without the Wife suffered a Common Recovery the Wife died the Husband died without Issue If this Recovery by the Husband only should bind the Remainder was the Question And now the Lord Anderson declared openly in Court for himself and in the name of his Companions the other Iustices that the Demandant ought to have Iudgment that the said Recovery should not bind the Remainder But first he spake to the Fine it self for the Wife is not named in the Writ of Covenant nor the Conusans but in the Render the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs
should vest in his Heir It was further given in Evidence that the Conusor named the said Cook one of the Conusees and willed that the other three Conusees should release to him Gawdy Iustice held That that by nomination the use did vest in Cook for he said it had been adjudged that where before the Statute of 27 H. 8. One infeoffed divers persons to his use Feoffment to Uses and the Feoffor willed that his Feoffees should make estate to such person as his Son and Heir should name and died the Son and Heir named one of the Feoffees that the same was a good nomination c. Wray and Jefferies to the contrary for after this release Cook is in the whole by the Conusor and not by his Co-Feoffees and by this limitation the Conusor ought to name such a person which ought to take the estate and so cannot one Ioyntenant from his Companion c. And also the words are so that they four shall take the estate 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXIII The Bishop of Rochesters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case upon Evidence was Grant of a Reversion by a Bishop Attornment the Bishop of Rochester 4 E. 6. made a lease for years to B. rendring rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient rent Habend from the day of the Lease without impeachment of waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. the Lessee did not attorn and in default of Attornment it was holden by the whole Court that the Lease was void for it is made by way of Grant of the Reversion But by Catlin if the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence that B. after the notice of the Grant to C. had speech with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had then in his Lease but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices conceived that that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C to have power to make a new Lease Also the said B. being in company with one R. and seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromely Solicitor Attornment the same is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present It was holden by the whole Court that it was a good Attornment But if the Attornment was not before the Bishop was translated to Winchester the Lease should be void and although the confirmation of the Dean Chapter was before the Attornment so as no estate was vested in C yet it was good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient be it before or after by Catlin Southcoat and Whiddar Iustices but Wray held the contrary Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXIV Russels Case Execution where not good upon a Capias without a Scire Facias RUssel was condemned in an Action of Debt and after the year and day the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad Satisfaciend against him and by force thereof he was taken and committed to the Marshal as in Execution It was the Opinion of the Iustices that it was a void Execution and not only voidable by Error and therefore the Defendant was discharged for it is not any Execution at all and the Plaintiff may have a Scire facias when he pleaseth Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXV Bluet and Cooks Case Action for Words IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for scandalous words viz. Lambert is a Thief and Bluèt innuendo the Plaintiff is his Partaker It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the words were not actionable because they were too general for it may be that the Plaintiff is his Partaker in other Matters But if the words had been That Bluet knowing Lambert to be a Thief was his Partaker there the Action would have lain Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXVI Hunt and Gonnels Case Bail. HUnt recovered in Debt against Gonnel and procured against him a Capias ad Satisfaciend upon which Non est inventus is returned Execution but the Writ is not filed Hunt sued a Capias against the Mainpernors who are taken in Execution It was the Opinion of the Iustices that they should avoid this Execution by Error and not by Plea or Surmise c. But if the Capias returned against Gonnel had been filed and after imbezelled Quaere of the Error for the Court conceived that the matter shall be examined but Quaere to what intent Wray said to punish the Deceit but not to maintain the Execution against the Mainpernors Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LXXVII Saer and Blands Case SAer Parson of the Church of D. libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bland for Tythes Bland came to the Kings Bench and shewed that within the said Parish of D. there is a Hamlet in which the said Bland inhabited and the said Inhabitants within the said Hamlet time out of mind had had a Chappel of Ease within the said Hamlet because the said Hamlet was distant from the Church of the said Parish and with part of their Tythes have found a Clark to do Divine Service within the said Chappel and also had paid a certain sum of money to Saer Prohibition Prescription and his Predecessors for all manner of Tythes and prayed a Prohibition and had it and it was holden a good Prescription LXXVIII Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copyholder with licence of the Lord made a Lease for years and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the rent to the use of a Stranger who is admitted accordingly Attornment It was moved if there needed any Attornment It was the opinion of Rhodes and Windham Iustices that the Surrender and Admittance ut supra are in the nature of an Attornment and so amount to an Attornment or at least supply the want of it Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber LXXIX The Lady Newman and Shyriffes Case THe Lady Newman Sister of James Wingfield 3 Leon. 170. lately deceased exhibited a Bill of Complaint in the Star Chamber against one Shyriffe dwelling in Dublin in Ireland and two others complaining That the said Shyriffe had forged a Deed purporting that the said James had by that Deed given unto him all his Goods and also that the said James had by that Deed assigned to the said Shyriffe a Lease for years of Lands in Ireland and also the said Shyriffe had procured the two other Defendants to depose upon their Oaths before the Town-Clerk of London That the said Deed was Sealed and Delivered by the said James as his Deed. It was moved by the Counsel of the
is not punishable by the Law of the Land no more than if many conspire to indict one but do not put it in Execution it is not punishable but if A. saith that B. lyeth in wait to kill him or rob him there an Action lyeth for insidiatores viarum are punishable But the Opinion of the whole Court was that because these words sound in great discredit of the Plaintiff it is reason he have his Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXL The Lord Stafford and Sir Rowland Heywoods Case THe Lord Stafford brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Rowland Heywood Kt. Abatement of Writ Exception was taken to the original Writ viz. ad respondend c. Quare colloquium quoddam habebatur inter Dominum Stafford Row. Heywood de assurando Castrum to the said Lord Stafford by the said Sir Rowland c. Dictus Rowlandus Castrum illud non assuravit c. where the said Writ said cum colloquium quoddam habebatur for the cause of the Action is not colloquium habitum but the not assurance of the Castle according to the promise made super colloquium praedictum and for that cause the Writ was abated CXLI Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Court If one who is not a common Informer be barred in any Information or Action upon a penal Statute he shall pay costs notwithstanding the Preamble of the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. be for the redressing of divers Disorders in common Informers but if pars gravata be barred in such case he shall not pay costs Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXLII Robinsons Case GEorge Robinson Lessee for years of the Manor of Drayton Basset the Reversion to the King devised his term to his wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow with the Remainder over if she married or died and made his Wife and his Son William his Executors the said William being within age and therefore the administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will and afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and dyed And by Cook nothing passed by this Grant for William had the same before for every Executor hath the whole Interest Popham contrary for at the time of the Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the wife was sole Executrix and by Egerton Solicitor if during the said Executorship by the wife one doth trespass upon the Lands the wife only shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-Executor which Cook denied and he cited the Case 10 H. 7. 4 where two Executors are and the one only is possessed of goods of the Testator and a Stranger takes them our of his Possession to whom the other Executor releaseth and after the Executor out of whose possession the goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespasser who pleads the Release of the other Executor and it was holden a good Plea for the possession of the Plaintiff was also the possession of his Companion The Case was further that Thomas Robinson in pleading shewing that G. Robinson was possessed and the same devised to his wife who granted to William Robinson who devised it to the Defendant And the other side shewed that the said Thomas granted the said term to Paramour and upon that grant they were at Issue if now against his own pleading Thomas might give in evidence that Thomas could not grant for that he had not any thing to grant for if the gift made by the wife to William was void and he had the term as Executor then he could not devise it but his devise to Thomas was void and then Thomas could not grant it and so Ne grant pas It was also shewed that the said Thomas granted the same to Paramour by Indenture if now against that Indenture he might give in evidence such special matter ut supra and if the Party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded to give the Verdict Secundum veritatem facti for they are sworn to say the truth and by Popham and Egerton as well the Iurors as the Parties are bound and concluded by the confession of the Parties on the Record and here all confess that William devised to him virtute cujus he was possessed The Queens Attorney to that said That true it is that Thomas Robinson was possessed but further said that the said Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides Therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary And by Manwood Chief Baron if the Parties admit a thing by not gainsaying it Jurors where bound by confession of the parties where not the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed the Iury shall be bound thereby And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLIII Applethwait and Nertleys Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant promised in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry his Daughter to give to the Plaintiff 40 l. and said he had married his Daughter and yet the Defendant Licet saepius requisitus would not pay it It was moved by Cook in stay of Iudgment that the Declaration is vitious because there is not set forth the place and time when the request was made for the Assumpsit being general it is by Law to be paid upon request Fenner If the promise was expresly to be paid upon request the Declaration was not good And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLIV Wats and Kings Case SAmuel Wats Plaintiff in Ejectione firmae against W. King upon a Special Verdict it was found that W. Wallshot was seized in Fee and he with one Oliver Shuttleworth Octab. Mich. 3 4 Phil. Mary levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to John Hooper who granted and rendred by the same Fine to Oliver for a month the remainder to the said W. Wallshot and to one Anne Cook and the heirs of their bodies c. the remainder to the right heirs of the said W. Wallshot in Fee and that with Proclamation William and Anne intermarry have issue John now alive W. Wallshot 4 5 Phil. Mary levy a Fine with Proclamation to Edward Popham Esq to the use of the said Edward and his heirs W. Wallshot 18 Eliz. died Anne took to husband Richard Stephens and they in the right of the said Anne entred and by Indenture demised the said Land to Richard Hoose the Father Richard the Son and Mary his wife for the term of their lives rendring to the said Richard Stephens and Anne his wife and to the heirs of the body
the Husband dyed the Wife recovered and entred and surrendred to the Lord and by Wray the Stranger to whom the Lord granted it after the Surrender by the Husband should have the Land and not the Lord himself against his own Grant. Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXVII Chomley and Conges Case CHomley brought Trespass of Assault and Battery made to his Wife against Cony and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action was not well brought for the same being an Action of Trespass done to the person of the wife the Writ ought to be brought and prosecuted in both their Names for now if Iudgment be given for the Husband and he dye before Execution the Wife to whom the wrong was done should not have Execution but the Executors of the Husband and afterwards upon advice the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Vide Cont. 9 E. 4. 51. 38 H. 6. 25. Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXVIII Blithe and Colegates Case Vide this Case Reported by Cook 2 Part of his Reports REplevin by Blithe and Colegate who made Conusans as Bayliff to Roger Beckwith Son and Heir of Elizabeth Beckwith for damage feasant and upon a Special Verdict the Case was That the said Eliz. was seized and took to Husband Christopher Kenne and by an Indenture made by the said Eliz. without the assent of her said Husband by the name of Elizabeth Beckwith bearing date 14 March 14 Eliz. declareth the uses of a Fine to be levied c. 1. To the use of the said Elizabeth for life without impeachment of Waste and after to the use of the Conusees for their lives and after to the use of the said Elizabeth and her Heirs And that afterwards the said Christopher Kenne before any Fine levied in Feb. 20 Eliz. by Indenture between himself and the said Elizabeth his Wife of the one part and R. W. of the other part without the consent of the said Elizabeth declared that the uses of the said Fine so to be levied should be to the use of the said Christopher and Elizabeth for life c. And afterwards the said Fine was levied by the Husband and Wife and the only Question upon the matter was if the uses declared by the Wife or the uses declared by the Husband should stand It was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that the uses declared by the Husband should stand and that the Declaration by the Wife should be rejected for a Feme Covert is not sui juris but is sub potestate vâ—ri And therefore â—7 Ass 17. a Feme Covert without her Husband acknowledgeth a Fine the Husband shall avoid it and as to the Declaration of the uses it is no other thing but the shewing of the meaning of the Parties to the Fine how and in what manner the Land of which the Fine is levied shall be disposed of by the Fine but such a power cannot be in a Feme Covert For if an Infant levy a Fine and declare the uses by Indenture the Declaration is void and the Fine shall be to his own use and that was adjudged in the Court of Wards The same Law in case of a man of Non sanae memoriae and if an Ideot levy a Fine and declare uses upon it the Declaration is void and the Fine shall be to his own use and that Case also hath been adjudged in the Court of Wards And by intendment of the Law every Wife is at the disposition of her Husband as in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Husband and Wife the Wife makes default it shall be accounted the default of the Husband for the Law intends that the Wife is ameanable by the Husband 21 Ass The Husband seized in the right of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee and in making of Livery his Wife interrupts him it was not any interruption or impediment quo minus the Livery operetur for cui ipsa in vita contradicere non potuit c. So in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Husband and Wife the Husband pleads one plea and the Wife another the Plea of the Husband shall be admitted 33 H 6. 43. 89 Ass 1 And the Husband may in some case prejudice his Wife in point of Inheritance as by Cession Vide E. 4 2. Fitz. Cui in vita 22. And he argued much upon the ground where it shall be said the folly of the Wife to take such a Husband If the Husband be seized in the right of his Wife they sell the said Land and for Assurance levy a Fine to the Vendee now the Husband alone shall have an Action of Debt for the mony upon the Sale which proves that it is the Sale of the Husband alone which see 48 E. 3. 18. Fenner Serjeant contrary And first he confessed that the Declaration by the Wife is utterly void and also the Declaration by the Husband and therefore when the Husband and Wife levy a Fine the Conusee in judgment of Law is in by the Wife and not by the Husband so as the Husband as to the right is a Stranger to the Land and to the Estate which passeth by the Fine although he be Party to the Fine for that is not for any Interest which he hath in the Land but for the conformity of Law which disables a Wife to levy a Fine without her Husband and therefore it is not any reason that the husband alone shall be received to declare the uses for he is no Proprietor of the Land in right especially forasmuch as in account of the Law the whole passeth from the Wife And the Law in divers Cases frames its Iudgment according to the possession of the Wife and that in acts done by the Husband 14 H. 8. 6 where A seized of a Rent-charge in Fee issuing out of the Land of the Wife A releases the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs the same shall enure to the Wife Vide 38 E. 3. 10. From such Cases the Law respects the nature of the Seisin and the manner of the possession And as to the Case vouched out of Dyer 12 Eliz. where the Husband and Wife were seized of a Messuage to them and to the Heirs of the Husband they suffer a common Recovery and the Husband alone declareth the uses the same is good for in that Case the Fee was in the Husband and always he who hath the Fee ought and may declare the use if all who have interest will not joyn and therefore if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one of them if they both joyn in a Fine he which hath the Fee may by himself declare the uses But if there be two Ioyntenants in Fee they both ought to joyn in the Declaration of the uses or otherwise make several Declarations of their several Moieties So if Cestuy que use and his Feoffees joyn in a Fine and make
any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the reversion although in truth the same doth not touch the Inheritance yet it is a forfeiture Vid. 39 E. 3. 16. If Tenant for life pleads any thing against the right of him in the reversion it is a forfeiture and by Finchden and Belknap he cannot plead in the right 5 Ass 3. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe by a stranger and confesseth the Action upon which the Demandant hath Iudgment the Lessor enters against whom the Demandant sueth Execution The Lessor brought an Assise and had Iudgment to recover for it is a forfeiture because the Tenant for life hath admitted the reversion in another because it is an alienation to the disinheriting of the Plaintiff and of the Lessor 12 E. 3. Fitz Resceipt 14. where Tenant for life pleaded in chief or cannot deny or gainsay the Action of the Demandant or makes default by Covin he shall forfeit his Estate But if a rent be demanded against Tenant for life and he rendreth the same it is no forfeiture 12 Ass 31. Tenant for life is impleaded by Covin between him and the Demandant and pleads in chief without aid prayer upon which Iudgment is given he in the reversion enters in a Juris utrum against Tenant for life who pleads feintly traversing the point of the Action he in the reversion shall not be received for in as much as the Tenant hath traversed the Action he is not within the Statute of West 2. 3 5. Default Reddition but he in the Reversion may enter by the Common Law 22 E. 3. 2. In Scire facias to execute a Fine against Tenant for life who pleaded to the Inquest whereas in truth the Land in demand was not comprised within the Fine Iudgment is given for the Demandant in the Scire facias he in the reversion may enter In our principal case here is apparent and manifest Covin for the Tenant for life voucheth without cause and this Recovery is by assent and is to the use of the Vendee who is Tenant for the life of another and therefore by the Common Law he in the Remainder may enter before Execution sued And it is well known that these common Recoveries are used for to dock Remainders in Tail and that was the scope of this Recovery And as to the Case of 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat who voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the Voucher and it is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but by a Writ of Right and if the Vouchee entreth and loseth by Action tryed or default ut supra that Book is to be intended of a Recovery executed for there in such case he in the Reversion hath not an Entry but is put to his Writ of Entry by the Common Law Vide Br. Title Forfeiture 87. 24 H. 8. Tenant for life is impleaded and prays in the Aid of a stranger he in the Reversion may enter but if he doth not enter until the other hath recovered then he cannot enter but is put to his Writ of Entry Ad terminum qui praeteriit vel de ingressu ad Communem Legem and therein he shall falsifie the Recovery and there by Brook Voucher of a stranger is not cause of Forfeiture for it doth not disaffirm the Reversion in the Lessor And he vouched 24 E. 3. 68. where Tenant for life pleaded in the right with aid prayer And so he argued that before Execution he in the Remainder might enter but after Execution is put to his Action But in our Case although that Execution be good yet he in the Remainder may enter for it is found by Verdict that at the time of the Recovery he was within age and that when he dyed that he in the next Remainder was within age and then no Entry shall be imputed and then he shall not be driven to his Action As if Tenant by the Courtesie makes a Feoffment with warranty and dyeth and the same descends to his Heir within age yet he shall enter although he hath not avoided the warranty in the life of his Ancestors Also he said that the Statute of 32 H. 8. extended to this Case for Sir William Pelham the Vendee was but Tenant for life and although that he be but Tenant for the life of another yet he is Tenant for life as fully as if he were Tenant for his own life or otherwise Tenant for life or lives Note this the words of the Statute As upon the Statute of 20 E. 1. which gives Resceipt de defensione juris the words are Cum quis aliquod breve Domini Regis impetret versus Tenentem per Legem Angliae vel feod taliat ' vel sub Nomine Dotis vel alio modo ad terminum vitae upon these words it is holden 11 H. 4. That where Land was given to one and his heirs for the life of another that upon such an Estate he in the reversion should be received by reason of these words vel alio modo ad terminum vitae c. And although he who enters at the time of the recovery was not next in remainder to the particular Estate yet he is within the Statute of 32 H. 8. For he was in remainder at the time of the recovery and at the time of the entry he in the immediate remainder was dead and then he the next in remainder Vide 15 E. 4. 9. by Litt. If I grant my Services to one for life and he in a Praecipe brought against him pleads in the right or grants to another the said Services in Fee it is not a Forfeiture for it is no Discontinuance It will be objected That the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are That such recoveries shall be utterly void and if so then he in the reversion cannot be damnified and then no cause of Forfeiture So that it may be easily answered That where Tenant for life doth any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the reversion by matter of record although the same doth not devest or otherwise prejudice the Inheritance yet it is a Forfeiture Cook to the contrary Here in our Case is not any Covin in Sir William Pelham the Bargainee he was deceived by the Bargainor for he did not know but that the Bargainor was seized in tail according to the Covenant in the Indenture by which the Bargainor covenanted that he was seized in tail at the time of the Bargain and also to do any other act for assurance of the Estate of the Bargainee and it was lawful for him to Vouch his Bargainor and although he voucheth a stranger it is not a Forfeiture 39 E. 3. 16. Aid prayer of a stranger is a Forfeiture and the reason of that is because he acknowledgeth the reversion to be in a stranger and that is the cause of Forfeiture Vide Book of Entries 254. Where upon
by a Writ of Right So if the Vouchee had entred and lost c. As to that Case we ought to consider That every Book reported in our Law is not Law But let us observe of what Authority the Case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves it but there is no Iudge or Serjeant named in the Case c. The other Case is 5 E. 4. 2. Note by Hendon clearly If my Tenant for life voucheth a stranger who entreth into the Warranty generally and doth not know how to bar the Demandant the Tenant shall recover in value and the reversion of him who hath in value shall be to me in lieu of my former reversion as release to Tenant for life shall enure to him in the reversion But that is but the Opinion of one Serjeant c. But I answer to these Books If the Demandant in such recovery have a good title so as the Tenant or the Voucher as Hendon saith know not how to bar the Demandant there such a Voucher of a Stranger is not a Forfeiture nor such recovery suffered thereupon for against his will and volens nolens he suffered it But if the Tenant had good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher that the vouching of a stranger or suffering of a recovery is a Forfeiture of his Estate And here in our Case the Defendant had not any title The Tenant or Vouchee had not any Warranty or cause of Voucher But the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he pleased And he said That the Voucher only doth not make the Forfeiture but much rather the Recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution had then is the Fee plucked out of him in the reversion 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee it is a Forfeiture but here Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à Fortiori it shall be a Forfeiture But let us a little see what medlings or attempts by the particular Tenant are causes of a Forfeiture and what not 5 Ass 3. Where A. brings an Entry against Tenant for life by collusion to oust B. of his reversion supposing that the Tenant for life held of his Lease The Tenant confesseth the Action upon which Iudgment is given B enters and his entry adjudged lawful for that recovery is adjudged in Law but an Alienation to the disinherisin of him in the reversion and here it appears That such recovery by Covin is but an Alienation and without any strength of a recovery And he cited many other Cases cited before by Altham 14 E 3. Resceit 135. Where Tenant for life pleads in chief or prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and will not it is a Forfeiture And also 22 E. 3. 2. 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat Attorns unto the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him who hath not any thing in the Land the same is a Forfeiture and yet that Attornment doth not divert the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3.7 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the remainder over to a stranger in Fee the Donee took a Wife and dyed without Issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the Remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife that she is Tenant in Dower of the Assignment of a stranger and pleaded to the Title the Demandant recovered she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded dutifully as she ought being a particular Tenant Temps H. 4. Tenant for life loseth his Land in a Recovery against him against his will and thereupon brings Quod ei deforceat and declares upon an Estate tail and recovers the same is a Forfeiture because he hath challenged a higher Estate c. 5 H. 7. Tenant for life joyns the Mise upon the meer Right 2 H. 6. Lessee for years being ousted brings an Assise and recovers 1 H. 7. Accepts a Fine of a stranger sur Conusans c. come ceo que il ad de son done All these are Forfeitures In our principal Case here the Tenant who suffered the Recovery did not plead at all to defend the Right but where he might have barred the Demandant he gave strength to his pretended Title and made it a perfect Title and by suffering the Recovery and Iudgment to pass had taken away the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore it is a Forfeiture And without doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title for the Recoverers in such Cases are but Assignees and Purchasors which appeareth by the Statute of 7 H. 8. cap. 4. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverers c. As to the inventing of Recoveries it was a necessary Device for it was to take away Estate tails which were the causes of grand Mischiefs and Inconveniencies in this Realm and it was great reason for Tenant in tail might by the Common Law alien his Land post prolem suscitat and then he had an Inheritance and might commit Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of Westm 2. all the Realm and the Subjects of it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Farmers Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances defeated by their deaths which was against the Common Law and all Conscience These matters tending to the knowledge of the Iustices and the Mischiefs thereupon ensuing very frequent and that Tenant in tail was become a perillous Fellow and there was no safe dealing with him Then they taking into consideration that several Warranties and Assets and collateral Warranty without Assets for that in it self implyed Assets did bar him Icil. the Entail upon that consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries so that by that means Tenant in tail has potestatem alienandi as he had at the Common Law because his authority was restored to him and injury done to no man But as to Tenant for life he never had potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the Recovery shall stand in force till after the death of the Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is living certainly if the Law should be such great mischief would follow for then greater Ioyntresses the Widows of great Persons having allowed unto them great and sumptuous Houses and Lands furnished with Timber of great value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit Waste and the same should be dispunishable c. which should be an intolerable Mischief And so he concluded that this suffering of a Recovery was a Forfeiture and Iudgment was given accordingly CCLII Grendon and Albanies Case JOhn Grendon brought Trespass for breaking of his Close against Tho Albany And upon the pleading the Case
was That Francis Bunny was seized and 1 May 20 Eliz. by Deed indented enfeoffed N. H. to the use of the said Fr. Bunny for term of his life the Remainder to D. in tail the Remainder to E. in tail the Remainder over to F. in Fee In which Deed of Feoffment a Proviso was That if it should happen one P. P. to dye without Issue Male of his Body that then it should be lawful for the said Fr. Bunny at any time during his life by his Deed Indented to be Sealed and Delivered in the presence of three credible Witnesses to alter change diminish or amplifie any use or uses limited by the said Deed aliquem usum vel usus inde alicui personae c. Limitare post mortem ipsius Fr. to begin After which the said Fr. Bunny 1 Aprilis 23 Eliz by his Deed Indented did renounce relinquish and surrender to the said N. H. D. E. F. all such Liberty Power and Authority which he had after the death of the said P.P. without Issue ut supra And further remised released and quit-claimed to them the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement and all his said Power Liberty and Authority and further granted to them and their Heirs that at all times then after as well the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement as the said Power Liberty and Authority should cease and to all purposes should be void after which P. P. dyed without Issue 1 Maij 23 Eliz. after which 20 March 24 Eliz. the said Fr. Bunny by Indenture between him and the said D. Sealed and Delivered ut supra altered the former uses and covenanted and agreed with the said D. that from thenceforth the said N. H. and his Heirs should be seized to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs c. And note that in this Case Fr. Bunny being but Tenant for life enfeoffed one Tomson upon whom the said D. entred for a Forfeiture And it was argued by Altham That by the Feoffment by Fr. Bunny to Tomson the Liberty and Power aforesaid was not extinct or lost for this Liberty and Power was not then a thing in esse for then was P. P. alive and also the Liberty is meerly collateral to the Land whereof the Feoffment was made 39 E. 3. 43. Fitz The Son and Heir apparent disseised his Father and thereof made a Feoffment to a stranger the Father dyed now against his own Livery the Son shall not enter but if the Son dyeth then his Son shall enter which proves that the Livery is not so violent to determine a future right but that afterwards it may be revived à fortiori in our Case where the thing pretended to be extinct is meerly collateral 36 E. 3. Fitz. garr 69. In an Assise of Common the Release of the Father with Warranty is not a bar because it is of another thing 15 H. 7. 11. Cestuy que use wills by his Will that his Feoffees shall sell his Lands and dyes the Feoffees make a Feoffment to the same use yet they may well Sell so as against their Livery the authority to sell remains to them And he put Brents Case Dyer 340. A future use limited to a Wife which shall be shall not be prevented by a Fine or Feoffment and so by the Statute of fraudulent Conveyances 27 Eliz. cap. 4. where a Conveyance is made with clause of Revocation if afterwards the party who made such a Conveyance shall Bargain Sell or Grant the said Land to another for Money or other good Consideration paid or given the first Conveyance not being revoked that then such former Conveyance against the latter Purchasor shall be void c. The other matter was admitting that the said Power and Liberty be not extinct by the said Feoffment if by the Indenture of Renunciation Relinquishment Release c. it be destroyed and he said that a thing which is not in esse cannot be released Litt. 105. 4 H. 7. 10. A Lease for years to begin at a day to come cannot be released before it comes in esse 11 H. 6. 29. Br. Damages 138. In Detinue the Defendant would confess the Action if the Plaintiff would release the Damages and the Plaintiff would have so done but could not before Iudgment for before Iudgment the Plaintiff had not Interest in the Damages but he is intituled to them by the Iudgment So Lands in ancient Demesne are recovered at the Common Law and Execution had accordingly and afterwards the Tenant releases to him who recovers and afterwards the Lord reverseth the Iudgment the Tenant notwithstanding his release may enter for his Title which accrued to him by the reversal was not in esse at the time of the release Vide 98. contr And it was adjudged 23 Eliz. in the Case of one Falsor That where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife if she should so long live and if she dyed within the term that then the residue of his term should go unto his Daughter which should be then unpreferred and dyed his Daughter unpreferred released to her mother all her right in the said Land the mother dyed within the said term the release shall not bind the daughter for that at the time of that release she had no title Cook to the contrary And he said That by the Feoffment the said Power and Liberty is extinct And he agreed the Case cited before 15 H. 7 for in such Case the Vendee of the Feoffees shall be in by the Devise and not by the Feoffees 9 H. 7. 1. The Husband makes Discontinuance of the Lands of his Wife and takes back an Estate to him and his Wife by which the Wife is remitted they have Issue the Wife dyeth the Husband shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for he hath extinguished his future right by his Livery 12 Ass P. ultimo A Praecipe against A who loseth the Land by an erronious Iudgment and after Execution had enters upon the Demandant and makes a Feoffment his Writ of Error is gone 38 E. 3. 16. In a Scire Facias to execute a Fine the Plaintiff recovers and makes a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Tenant by Scire Facias by Writ of Disceit reverseth the Iudgment now the Plaintiff in the Scire Facias shall not have a new Scire Facias 34 H. 6. 44. A. recovers against B. by false Oath and after Execution had B. enters and makes a Feoffment to a stranger who Enfeoffs him who recovers it is a good Bar in an Attaint 27 H. 8. 29. The Feoffees to an use are disseised the Disseisor Enfeoffs Cestuy que use who Enfeoffs a stranger now by that Feoffment his right to the use is gone And as to the release the same is not properly a release but rather a defeasance to determine the Power and Authority aforesaid as if A enfeoffed B. with Warranty and afterwards B. covenants with A. that the said Warranty shall be void
of the Conusee it might now be Inrolled It was the Opinion of all the Iustices That upon the request aforesaid it might be Inrolled like as it was of a Conusance of a Fine taken before a Iudge which may be removed out of his hands by a Certiorari although it be not a Record before that it be certified in the speaking of that Case It was made a question whether the Court of Chancery might help a man who purchased Lands for valuable Consideration where there wanted the words Heirs in the Deed of Purchase or not but the point was not resolved But in that Case it was agreed by all the Iustices That after a Fine is levied of Land Chancery Attornment that the Chancery may compel the Tenant of the Land to Attorn And so where an Annuity or Rent is granted to one for life or in Fee and the Deed is Executed Sealed and Delivered but no Seisin is given to the party of the Rent or Annuity the Court of Chancery may decree a Seisin of the Rent to be given and the Rent to be paid to the Grantee and that was said to have been often times decreed in the said Court of Chancery CCLXXXIV Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrusion Trespass NOte by Anderson Chief Iustice If one intrude upon the Possession of the King and another man entreth upon him that he shall not have an Action of Trespass for that Entry for that he who is to have and maintain Trespass ought to have a Possession But in such Case he hath not a Possession for every Intruder shall answer to the King for his whole time and every Intrusion supposeth the Possession to be in the King which all the other Iustices agreed except Periam who doubted of it And Rhodes Iustice said and vouched 19 E. 4. to be that he cannot in such Case say in an Action of Trespass Quare Clausum suum fregit CCLXXXV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was holden by Popham Chief Iustice Remainder and so said by him to have been resolved upon a Special Verdict in the County of Somerset 20 Eliz. That where a Lease was made unto Husband and Wife for their Lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor of them that the same was a good remainder notwithstanding the incertainty and that in that case after the death of the Wife he should have Iudgment to recover the Land. But if a man be possessed of a term for 20 years in the right of his Wife and he maketh a Lease thereof for 10 rendring rent to him his Executors and Assigns and dyeth that in such case though the Wife surviveth yet he shall not have the rent because that she cometh in paramount the Lease But if a man be possessed of a term in the right of his Wife Mortgage and Mortgageth for payment of a certain Sum of Money at a day certain and before the day the Wife dyeth and the Husband payeth the Money at the day and then dyeth whether his Executors or the Administrators of the Wife should have the term was not then resolved Ideo Quaere that Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLXXXVI Bartase and Hinds Case NOte Manwood Chief Baron gave it for a general Rule for all Counsellors at Law That they did not advise any Collectors of Subsidies or Fifteens to exhibit Bills in the Exchequer Chamber for the Non-payment of Subsidies c. for such Bills should not be allowed hereafter because they had remedy by Distress Also it was holden That if any be assessed for the Fifteen which he ought to pay or if two Towns are to pay together and the one Town be taxed more than it ought to be or had been accustomed those which are grieved by such Sesment may have a Commission out of the Exchequer which is called Ad aequaliter taxand ' and that was put in ure in a Case between Bartase and Hind where one of them was Lord of the Town of Little Marloe and the other of Hedford And it was also holden That Fifteens are to be levied of Goods and Chattels properly and one Township sometimes is richer than another and therefore it is not reason that they pay their Fifteen always according to the same proportion But by Clark Baron where the Custom hath been that the Fifteen should be taxed according to the quantity of Acres there the Rate and Purport shall be always one whosoever holds the Land and as to the Commission Ad aequaliter taxand ' Manwood and Fanshaw said That they could shew above twenty Presidents of it Mich. 17 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXXXVII Barnard and Tussers Case Debt BArnard recovered in a Scire Facias upon a Recognizance against Tusser and afterwards brought an Action of Debt upon the same Recovery and it was adjudged maintainable notwithstanding that it was Objected That the Iudgment in such Scire Facias is not to recover Debt but to have Execution of the Iudgment And by Wray Chief Iustice If in a Scire Facias to have Execution of an Annuity the Plaintiff hath Iudgment upon such Iudgment he shall have an Action of Debt Mich. 17 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXXXVIII The Earl of Arundel and Bradstocks Case THe Case was The Earl of Arundel let Lands to Bradstock for years upon condition that the Lessee should not do any Act by which his Goods and Chattels might be forfeited Bradstock committed Felony and before any Attainder he obtained his Charter of Pardon It was holden in this case That the Earl might lawfully enter but if the words of the Condition had been Whereby the Goods ought to be forfeited chen it had been otherwise for before Attainder they ought not to be forfeited Mich. 17 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXXXIX Taylors Case Outlawry How avoided by Plea in Person TAylor was Outlawed in Debt and a Supersedeas of Record was delivered to the Sheriff before the awarding of the Exigent It was holden that the party should avoid the same by Plea then it was moved if the Plea should be pleaded by Attorney or in Person To which it was said by Manwood That where matter in fait is pleaded in avoidance of an Outlawry it ought to be pleaded in Person but matter of Record by Attorney And Ford Prothonotary said It was so agreed in Sir Thomas Chamberlains Case in 7 Eliz. and so it was adjudged in this Case CCXC. Mich. 17 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was The Prior of Norwich made a Lease for life by Indenture by which the Lessee covenanted to find Victuals to the Cellerer at all times when the Cellerer came thither to hold Court the Priory was dissolved and the Possessions given to the Dean and Chapter newly erected It was holden in this case That the Lessee should perform that covenant to him who supplyed the Office of Cellerer scil the Steward And
Land Rents and Reversion until of the Issues and Profits thereof certain Sums of Mony should be paid to his younger Sons and dyed And Exception was taken to the pleading because it is not specially shewn that the Land devised was holden in Socage And that was holden a sufficient Exception And the Court was of Opinion That the Opinion of Dyer Devises Whiddon and Bendloes in 16 Eliz. was not Law for by the common Law no Land was devisable but by Custom which ought to be pleaded where Title is made by Devise Tenances And now by the Statute all Lands holden in Socage are devisable and but two parts of the Land holden by Knight Service and therefore he who would make Title to himself by a Devise ought to shew the Tenure of it and so it was lately adjudged in the Kings Bench in Thompsons Case And by Anderson and Periam This Feoffment was well executed for the manner of it Attorneys make Livery for the Letter of Attorney is Conjunctim divisim ad intrandum in omnia singula praemissa and upon these words one Attorney may make Livery in one parcel of the Land and the other Attorney in the other parcel and in this case if one of the said Attorneys make Livery in one part only without medling with the residue by himself or by any other the same shall pass for it is not necessary that all pass or nothing at all 7 Eliz. Dyer 79. CCCXI. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case ADrian Stokes and the Lady Francisca Dutchess of Suffolk his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and others The Bishop pleaded and demanded Iudgment of the Writ because he said It appeareth by the Writ Quod praedicta Francisca uxor praefati Adriani nominatur in dicto Brevi Domina Francisca Ducissa Suffolk ubi per Legem terrae eadem Francisca by her Marriage betwixt the aforesaid Adrian and her the said Frances had lost her name of Dignity and ought to be named Francisca uxor praefati Adriani Wherefore and because the said Frances is named Lady Dutchess of Suffolk in the said Writ therefore he demanded Iudgment of the Writ And afterwards the Plaintiffs did discontinue their Suit and durst not proceed Vide the Case 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. Mich. 4 5 Phil. Mary CCCXII The Queen Due and Kirbys Case THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirby and declared That Colley was seized of certain Lands in Fee and holden of the King and Queen as of their Manor of Westbury which Manor is ancient Demesne and so seized levied a Fine to the said Due for Conusans de droit c. Due rendred unto Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirby in Fee Colley dyed Kirby entred as in his Remainder Kirby pleaded That the Land is Frank-fee c. upon which they are at Issue which Issue depending not tryed Due dyed It was moved that the Writ should abate But it was allowed for this Action is but Trespass in its Nature for to punish the said Disceit And Due had nothing in the Land but is named only because he was party to the Disceit And no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine reversed Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXIII. Russels Case RUssel was condemned in an Action of Debt Execution and after the year and day the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciend ' against him and he was taken by force of it and committed to the Marshal as in Execution It was holden by the Court That the same was a void Execution and not only avoidable by Error and therefore the Defendant was discharged for it is not at any Execution and the Plaintiff may have a Scire Facias when he will. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXIV Wroth and Capells Case BEtween Wroth and Capell the Case was 3 Leon. 102. That A. was indicted upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. and Exception was taken to the Indictment because there were no words of Freehold in it or to prove that the party grieved had any Freehold whereof he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold therefore the Exception was not allowed c. Another Exception was taken to the Indictment for that the words were in unum Tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an incertain word and therefore for that cause the party was discharged But the Indictment was further in unum Tenementum 10 Acras terrae eidem pertinent and as to those Acres he was put to answer CCCXV. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Execution NOte It was agreed by the Court and affirmed by the Clarks That if an Action of Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon one Ioynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath Iudgment to recover that one Ioynt Execution ought to be sued against them both but if the Suit were by Original and several Praecipe's Execution might be sued forth against any of them Mich. 8 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXVI. Belfield and Rous's Case IN Dower by Sibill Belfield who was the Wife of Anthony Rous against Thomas Rous they were at Issue upon Detinue of Charters and it was found for the Demandant and it was further found That the Husband of the Demandant of whose Seisin she demanded Dower dyed having Issue Charles Rous Quodque idem Carolus dict' Sibill perceperunt receperunt per spacium sex annorum proxime post mortem dict' Anthonij the Issues and Profits of the said Lands whereof the Demandant now demands Dower and that the said Charles afterwards dyed without Issue after whose death the said Thomas Rous entred c. And Iudgment was given for the Demandant and to recover damages after the death of her Husband CCCXVII Pasc 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Uses BEfore the Statute of Vses a Feoffment is made to the use of a Man sole and a Woman sole and their Heirs and afterwards they inter-marry and afterwards the Statute of Vses came It was the Opinion of the Iustices That they should hold the Land in such sort as they held the Vse scil by several and divided Moieties for by the said Statute the possession shall be executed to the Vse in such Nature Condition and Quality as it was before Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXVIII Sir Gervaise Clyftons Case A Quo Warranto was brought against Sir Gervaise Clyfton 3 Leon. 184. Quo Warranto and shewed That the said Sir Gervaise was seized of a Manor and a Messuage within which he claimed to have a Court with view of Frank-pledge and other Liberties and that without any Grant or Authority usurpavit Libertates praedictas That the Defendant pleaded Quod non usurpavit Libertates praedictas
another thing 15 H. 7. 11. Cestuy que Use declares by his Will That his Feoffees shall sell his Lands and dyeth the Feoffees make a Feoffment to the same use yet they may sell so as against their Livery the Authority to sell remains to them And he cited Brents case Dyer 340. where a future Vse is limited to his Wife that shall be shall not be prevented by a Fine or Feoffment And vide the Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances 27 Eliz. where a Conveyance is made with Clause of Revocation if afterwards the party makes such a Conveyance bargain sell or grant the said Lands for money or other good consideration paid or given the first Conveyance not being revoked that then such former Conveyance against the last Purchasors shall be void Another matter was admitting that the said Power and Liberty be not extinct by the said Feoffment If by the said Indenture or Renunciation Relinquishment Release c. it be destroyed And he said that a thing in esse could not be released Litt. 105. 4 H. 7. 10. A Lease for years to begin at a day to come cannot be released before that it come in esse 11 H. 6. 29. Br. Damages 138. In Detinue The Defendant would have confessed the Action if the Plaintiff would have released the Damages and the Plaintiff would have so done but could not before Iudgment for before Iudgment the Plaintiff had not interest in the damages but he was intituled to them by the Iudgment so Lands in ancient Demesne are recovered at the Common Law and Execution had accordingly and afterwards the Lord reverseth the Iudgment the Tenant notwithstanding that Release may enter for his title which accrued to him by the reversal was not in esse at the time of the Release And it was adjudged 23 Eliz. that where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife if she should so long live and if she dyed within the said term that then the residue of his term should go unto his daughter who then should be unpreferred and dyed the daughter released to her mother all her right in the said Land the mother dyed within the term That that Release did not bind the daughter for that at the time of the Release she had not any title Cook contrary And he said That by the Feoffment the said power and title was extinct and he well agreed the case cited before of 15 H. 7. for in such case the Vendee of the Feoffees shall be in by the Devise and not by the Feoffees 9 H. 7.1 The husband makes a discontinuance of the Land of his wife and takes back an Estate to him and his wife by which his wife is remitted they have Issue the wife dyeth the husband shall not be Tenant by the Courtesie for he hath extinguished his future right by the Livery 12 Ass ultimo A Praecipe brought against A. who loseth the Land by erronious Iudgment and after Execution had enters upon the demandant and makes a Feoffment his Writ of Error is gone 38 E. 3.16 In a Scire Facias to execute a Fine the Plaintiff recovers and makes a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Tenant in the Scire Facias by Writ of Error reverseth the Iudgment in the Scire Facias Now the Plaintiff in the Scire Facias shall not have a new Scire Facias 34 H. 6.44 A Recovery against B. by false Oath and after Execution had B. enters and makes a Feoffment to a Stranger who enfeoffs him who recovers it is a good bar in an Attaint 27 H. 8.29 The Feoffees to an Vse are disseised the Disseisor enfeoffeth Cestuy que Use who enfeoffs a Stranger now by that Feoffment his right to the Vse is extinct And as to the Release the same is not properly a Release but rather a Defeasance to determine the power and authority aforesaid as if A. enfeoffeth B. with warranty and afterwards B. covenants with A that the said Warranty shall be void that Covenant shall enure to defeat and determin the Warranty And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff See more of this Case in Cook 1. part Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCLV. Owen and Morgans Case Ante 26. 93. GEorge Owen brought a Scire Facias against Morgan to have Execution of a Fine levied 8 Eliz. by which Fine the Land was given to the Conusee and his Heirs and the Conusee rendred the same to Husband and Wife Note that the Husband was the Conusor the remainder in Fee to the now demandant and Note that the Writ of Covenant was between the Conusee Plaintiff and the Husband Deforceant without naming of the Wife and afterwards the Husband suffered a common Recovery without naming of the Wife The Husband and Wife dyes without Issue and now Owen to whom the remainder in Fee was limited by the Fine brought the Scire Facias in bar of which the Recovery was pleaded It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth That the Recovery had against the Husband only was a good bar and should bind the remainder and he said That the Wife ought not to be named in or party to the Recovery for nothing accrued to her by the Fine because she was not party to the Writ of Covenant nor party to the Conusance and none can take by the render who was not party to the Writ of Covenant and to the Conusance Vide 30 H. 8. Fines 108. None can take the first Estate by the Fine but those who are named in the Writ of Covenant c. but every Stranger may take by Remainder Vide 3 E. 3. Er. Fines 114. 6 E. 2. Fines 117. 7 E. 3. Scire Facias 136. It is said by Horton If such a Fine is accepted it is good The Case was adjourned CCCLVI. A. Seized of a Manor to which two parts of the Advowson were appendant presents and afterwards aliens the Manor with the appurtenances the Alienee presents and purchaseth the third part of the Advowson and presents again one A. who was Chaplain to the Duke of Rutland and had a Dispensation from the Pope 1 Eliz. before the Statute was repealed and was instituted and inducted and afterwards accepted of a plurality viz. another Benefice and dyed 11 Eliz. The Queen presented for Lapse and her Clerk was instituted and inducted The said Lord of the Manor dyed seized inter alia and that Manor was allotted to the Wife of D. for her part and he brought a Quare Impedit It was moved if D. should not joyn in the Quare Impedit with him who had the third part and by Walmsley he is not to joyn in it 22 E. 4. by Brian If an Advowson descends to four Coparceners and they make partition to present by turns and the third doth present when the second ought for that time the presentment is gone but when it comes to his turn again he shall present which proves that they are as several
Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXII Barton and Edmunds Case AN Infant and another were bound for the debt of the Infant Infant the Infant at his full age promised to save the other harmless the Infant died It was adjudged that upon this Assumpsit Assumpsit an Action upon the Case did lie against his Executors XXIII Mich. 36 Eliz. In the Kings Bench adjudged IF an Executor promise to pay a Debt when he hath not Assets It was the Opinion of all the Iustices that no Action upon the Case lieth against him but if he hath assets then it is otherwise And the Heir if he hath nothing by descent is not subject to an Action upon such a promise Mich. 28 Eliz. XXIV The Lord Pagets Case Indictments AN Indictment was Quare vi armis clausam A. B. apud D. fregit whereas A. B. then had a Lease at Will of the land the matter was for digging of Turfs the Indictment was holden to be good XXV 25 Eliz In the Kings Bench. Indictments INdictment De uno Equo where it was a Gelding holden not good But otherwise it is where Trespass was brought de Equo castrato and the Iury found a Gelding and adjudged for the Plaintiff 26 Eliz. XXVI Tucker and Nortons Case Execution AN Infant in Execution upon condemnation in Debt sued a Writ of Error his Father and Brother bailed him It was said the Recognisance shall be by them two only that the Infant shall appear and if the Iudgment be affirmed that they pay the mony and not that they shall render his body to prison for when he is once discharged out of Execution he shall never be in Execution again XXVII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Nobleman Recognizance IT was holden by the Iustices That a Nobleman shall be bounden with his bail in a Recognizance that he shall render his body and that upon the Statute of 13 E. 1. If he hath not goods or lands his body shall be taken in execution for the Law in such case excepts only Clarks XXVIII Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer Felo de se THe Queen granted to one Catalla utlagatorum felonum de se within such a Precinct One indebted to the Queen having Goods is felo de se within the Precinct Resolved the Queen should have the Goods to satisfie her debt 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXIX King and Cottons Case LEssee for life the remainder in tail the remainder in fee Disseisin Lessee for life makes a Deed of Feoffment of the Land and delivers it and makes a Letter of Attorney to another to deliver Seisin who enters and makes Livery accordingly adjudged that the Attorney is a Disseisor 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXX Gerrards Case THe Owner of the Lands severed his Tythes Prohibition and a stranger took them and carried them away The Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court against the Owner of the Land for the Tythes who thereupon prayed a Prohibition It was adjudged no Prohibition should issue in this Case for that he might plead the same matter in Bar in the Spiritual Court. Hil. 31 Eliz. XXXI Willet and Wilkinsons Case NOte it was adjudged Surrender that if Lessee for years take another Lease from the Guardian in Soccage that the same is a Surrender of his first Lease Note the second Lease was made in the name of the Guardian Trin. 26 Eliz. XXXII Ould and Conyes Case IT was adjudged Commoner Conies that a Commoner cannot kill Conies which destroy his Common though he hath not any other remedy Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXXIII Mayes Case ONe sent a Letter by a Carrier to a Merchant for certain Merchandizes to send them to him receiving a certain sum of mony the Merchant sent the Merchandizes by the Carrier without receiving the mony It was the opinion of the Iustices that the Buyer should not be charged for the mony for it was a conditional bargain and it was the folly of the Merchant to trust the Carrier with the Wares Mich. 30 Eliz. XXXIV Haltons Case A Recognizance was acknowledged before Sir N. Read one of the Masters of the Chancery Recognizance Inrollment and the Recognizor died before it was enrolled it was doubted if it might be enrolled at the Petition of his Executors it was agreed by the Iustices that it might be well enough for it is like to a Conusans of a Fine before a Iudge which may be removed out of the hands of the Iudge by Certiorari and yet it is not a Record till the perfection of it At the same time it was doubted also if the Chancery would aid a man when there wanted the words Heirs in a Deed where the land was sold for mony Chancery compel Attornment But it was agreed that after a Fine levied the Chancery might compel the Tenant to Attorn Hil. 27 Eliz. XXXV Holland and Hopkins Case IN Ejectione firmae it was agreed by the Court that if a Disseisor be of an 100 Acres and he lets the same to divers for Years that the entry into one Acre by the Disseisee is an entry against them all but if they had been Tenants for life Quaere for that then he might have his Action against them And it was said Entre congeable that if one makes a Lease for years rendring for the first two years 10 l. and afterwards 30 l. every year with condition if the rent of 30 l. or any part of it be behind that the Lessor enter The Lessor enters for not payment of the 10 l. that his entry is lawful for the 10 l. was parcel of the rent for it was but one rent Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXXVI Clamp and Clamps Case Copyholder Surrender A Copyholder in possession surrendred the Reversion of his land post mortem suam to the Lord to an use c. It was adjudged that thereby nothing passed XXXVII Trin. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease was made of a Mannor with all Gardens Orchards Yards c. and with all the profits of a Wood except to the Lessor forty Trees to take at his pleasure It was a Question if the Lessee should have the Wood It was the opinion of Dyer That the Wood was not comprised within the Lease but the Lessee should only have the profits as pawnage Leases herbage c. And he said it was a Case adjudged a man made a Lease of a Wood ad faciendum maximum proficuum meliori modo quo poterit that the Lessee thereby could not cut the Trees nor do waste Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer XXXVIII Butler and Lightfoots Case IT was holden by the Barons Copyholder Surrender 3 Leon. 239. That if Tenant for life be of a Copyhold the Remainder over in Fee to another he in the Remainder may surrender his Estate if there be no custom to
which Ayliffe concessit Wray Chief Iustice was absent in the Star-Chamber Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XLV Harvey and Harveys Case Suit for Legacies Prohibition CLare Harvey libelled against Sebastian Harvey the Executor of Sir James Harvey their Father for a legacy bequeathed to him by his Father in his Will. By which he willed that after his death his Goods should be divided and parted betwixt his Children according to the laudable custom of London and averred in his libel that the Goods and Chattels whereof the Testator died possessed amounts to such a sum and that it belonged unto him being one of his children to demand so much Virtute Legationis praedict The Defendant came and prayed a Prohibition and Wray Chief Iustice conceived he ought to have it for here is not any legacy but the Testator setteth forth his meaning that his pleasure is that the custom of London should be observed in the disposition of his Goods and the said Clare is put to his Writ de rationabili parte Bonorum But yet afterwards a special Consultation was granted Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XLVI Sandersons Case Leet NOte It was adjudged by the Court that Pound-breach is not inquirable in a Leet for it is not a common Nusans But Rhodes Serjeant said that excessive Toll is inquirable in a Leet Vide Book of Entries 390. XLVII Pasc 37 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Abatement of Writ IN a Quare Impedit by the Queen exception was taken to the Writ because the words were quod permittat ipsam praesentare ad Rectoriam de D. where it ought to be ad Ecclesiam the Court awarded that the Writ should be openly amended in Court by a Clerk of the Chancery Amendment XLVIII Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Pleadings IN a Writ of Entry for Disseisin the Tenant said that the House in demand is within the City of London and that the said City is an ancient City and that King Henry 3. concessit Civibus Civitatis praedict quod non implacitentur de terris tenementis suis c. extra Muros Civitatis praedict and said that he himself is a Citizen of London and demanded judgment of the Writ and to the Pleading he further said Sed illis rectum teneatur infra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict Exception was taken to the Plea because the Tenant did not shew before that by their custom they ought to be impleaded And by the Opinion of the whole Court the Tenant ought to have shewed that the Citizens for their lands there ought to be impleaded in the Hustings c. And the general words in the Plea Sed illis rectum reneatur infra Civitatem praedictam secundum consuetudinem Civitatis praedict do not supply the defect aforesaid And afterwards it was awarded that the Tenant plead Ouster Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XLIX Hunt and Sones Case AN Action upon the Case by W. Hunt against W. Sone Assumpsit 2 Leon. 107. Owen 42. 3 Cro. 118. 1 Roll. 29. 30. ibid. The Plaintiff declared Quod cum idem Hunt was seised in his Demesn as of Fee of certain lands and shewed the same in certain praedict Sone in consideration that the said Hunt permit the said Sone occupare terras praedict ab eodem die 20 Julij 27 Eliz. usque ad secundum diem Novembris which should be in Anno 1589. assumed and promised that he the said William Sone ad festum omnium Sanctorum proxime sequend 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ac ab inde annuatim durante dict termino 20 l. 5 s. ad festa Annunciationis Beatae Mariae ac omnium Sanctorum per aequales portiones solvend eidem Hunt bene fideliter contentare vellet at licet praedict W. Hunt permisit praefat Sone occupare terras praedict a dict 20 die Julij 27 Eliz. Usque ad secundum diem Novemb. 28 Eliz. Licetque etiam post dict 20 diem Julij 27 Eliz. ante praedict diem secund Novemb. An 28 Eliz. dict fest omnium Sanctorum An. 27. Supradict ac fest Annunciationis Beatae Mariae Virginis ac fest omnium Sanctorum 28 Eliz. praeterierunt praedict tamen W. Sone dict 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad praedict fest omnium Sanctorum proxime sequend post permissionem assumptionem praedict ac aliam 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad fest Annunciationis 28 Eliz. ac alia 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad fest omnium Sanctorum An. 28. Eliz. superdict nondum solvit The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff entred into parcel of the Premises 6 October 28 Eliz. eadem occupare eundem Sone non permisit upon which they were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff it was moved in stay of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had no cause of Action before that all the Term was expired for it is an entire Assumpsit and cannot be severed by action and therefore it was said that if I promise to pay you 10 l. viz. at such a Feast 5 l. and at such a Feast other 5 l. there before the last day of payment no Action lieth for the sum of 20 l. is one sum entire But if I promise to pay another at Easter next 10 l. and at Midsummer as much here they are several Assumpsits and upon default of payment of the first sum an Action will lie without excepting the latter payment But at last the Court agreed That Iudgment notwithstanding that exception should be given for the Plaintiff and that the Declaration was good enough as well in respect of the Exception aforesaid as also that the word Licet was effectual enough to set forth the permission L. Hil. 31 and 32 Eliz In the Common Pleas. A. Disseised B. of two Acres of Land and leased one of them to C. at will and the other Acre to D. at will and they entred accordingly B the Disseisee by Lease leased both Acres to E. for years and entred into one of the Acres in the name of both and sealed and delivered the Lease to E. It was holden by the Court to be a good Lease to maintain an Ejectione firmae of both Acres LI. Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Cro. 655 656 plus 2 Roll. 416. Johnson versus Smart cont A. Seised of certain Lands and having two Sons devised part of his Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the other part of his Lands to his younger Son in tail with this clause in the Will that if any of his Sons dyed without Issue that then the whole Land should remain to a stranger in Fee and dyed the Sons entred into the Lands devised to them respectively and the younger Son died without issue and he to whom the Fee was devised entred It was adjudged That this Entry was not lawful and that the eldest Son should have the Land by the implicative devise Mich. 32 Eliz. In the
all the Iustices in the Case between Townsend and Pastor two Coparceners are in the use of a Manor after the Statute of 1 R. 3. the one of them enters and makes a Feoffment in Fee of the whole Manor that this Feoffment is not only of the moiety of the Manor whereof she might lawfully and by the said Statute make a Feoffment but also of another moiety by disseisin Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXVII Bulwer and Smiths Case BUlwer brought an Action upon the Case against Smith and declared how that H. H. had recovered against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas 20 l. and before Execution died and that the Defendant knowing that at D. in the County of Norfolk malitiose deceptive machinans to Outlaw the Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment in the name of the said H.H. c. in performance of his said purpose at W. in the County of Middlesex took out a Capias ad satisfaciend in the name of the said H.H. against the now Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment directed to the Sheriff of London and Non est inventus being returned upon that took out an Exigent in the name of the said H.H. which Writ by the procurement of the Defendant was retorned and then the Plaintiff was Outlawed and afterwards the Defendant in the name of the said H. H. took out a Capias utlagatum against the Plaintiff directed to the Sheriff of Norfolk by force of which the Plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for two months until he had gotten his Charter of Pardon by reason of which Outlawries the Plaintiff had forfeited all his Goods and Chattels and upon the said Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law and the principal cause of the demurrer was because that the Action might have been laid in Middlesex where the wrong began scil the Capias ad satisfaciend the Outlawry for this imagination at D. in the County of Norfolk set forth in the Declaration cannot give to the Plaintiff this Action But if divers conspire in one County for to indite one and they put the same in Execution in another County the Party aggrieved may lay his Action in which of the said two Counties he pleaseth 22 E. 4. 14. for a Conspiracy is more notorious than an imagination imaginatio est unius conspiratio plurimorum And in this Case the Deliverance of the Capias at D. in Norfolk is but accessary and the suing of the Process aforesaid at Westminster is the principal upon the part of the Plaintiff it was said that such an action might be laid in the County where the Plaintiff was wronged and the Plaintiff is not tied to lay his Action in the County where the original matter which was but conveyance to the said wrong was done A imprisoned upon a Capias ad satisfaciend in Middlesex escapes into Surrey the Action upon the escape shall be laid in Surrey Reteiner of a Servant in one County who departs in another County the Master shall lay his Action in which of the said Counties he will 15 E. 4. 18 19. 41 E. 3. 1. A Writ of Disceit was brought in the County of York and the Case was that in a Praecipe quod reddat of Land the Tenant shewed forth a Protection at Westminster the which was allowed for a year and within the year the Tenant stayed in the County of York upon his own occasions the said Writ of Disceit was holden to be well laid for there the wrong began notwithstanding that the Original i. e. the casting of the Protection was in Middlesex for the disceit is that the Tenant contrary to the pretence of the Protection continued at York for the Protection was quia Moraturus And always where the cause of the Action consists of two things whereof the one is matter of Record and the other is matter of Fact there the Action shall be laid in such County where the matter in fact may be more properly tried Vide 11 R. 2. Fitz. Action sur le Case 36 Br. Lieu 84. in the principal Case at Bar the Court was of Opinion that the Action was well brought in the County of Norfolk Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff hath there set forth whereas his true name is John Bulwer by which name he now sues he was sued and outlawed by the name of John Buller and then the now Plaintiff upon that matter was never sued nor outlawed and then is not grieved by the Defendant but John Buller for here in his Declaration there is not any averment that John Bulwer and John Buller are one and the same and not divers Persons But the Exception was disallowed for the whole Court held that for As much as the Plaintiff hath declared that he by the name of John Buller was sued and Outlawed the same is an averment in Law c. and amounts to so much Another matter was objected because it appeareth in the Declaration that H. H. was dead before this Process was sued and then the Outlawry was erronious and so the Plaintiff is not at any mischief but that he may reverse the Outlawry by Error as in Conspiracy the Defendant pleads that the Indictment upon which the Plaintiff is arraigned is vitious and erroneous and so his life was never in jeopardy But as to that it was said by the Court that the erronious proceedings of the Defendant shall not give advantage to himself but because the Plaintiff was vexed by colour and reason of the Outlawry and put to his Writ of Error which cannot recompence the loss and damage by him sustained by reason of the Outlawry aforesaid it is reason that the Plaintiff have his Action wherefore Wray Chief Iustice ex assensu Sociorum gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy CErtain Persons were indicted upon the Statute 23 Eliz. for refusing to come to the Church and upon the same were Outlawed and now they came to the Kings Bench ready to make their submission and to conform themselves according to the said Statute and thereupon they prayed to be discharged But the Court would not receive such Submission but advised them to purchase their Pardon for the Outlawry and then to tender their Submission which they did accordingly and at another day came again and shewed to the Court their Pardon whereupon the Clerk of the Court asked them if they would conform themselves according to the said Statute who said they would wherefore they were discharged Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXIX Christian and Adams Case Action for words AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these scandalous words of the Plaintiff scil the Plaintiff did conspire the death of the Defendant it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that upon the matter the Action did not lye for the bare conspiring of the death of a man
of the said Anne and of the right heirs of the same W. Wallshot Anne died and if this Lease should bind the Conusee was the question for it was agreed by all that the Issue in Tail was bound by the Fine Quaere the Case was only put but not resolved CXLV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon a recovery in a writ of Entry sur disseisin of two Acres of Lands an Habere facias seisinam was awarded the Sheriff as to one Acre returned Habere feci and as to the other tarde And that return was shewed to the Court Amercement of the Sheriff and all the Iustices but Periam held that the Sheriff should be amerced for that return being contrary repugnant in it self but Periam said it may be that the Acre of which no seisin is had was so distant from the other Acre whereof the seisin was had that the Sheriff in time could not make execution of both being so remote the one from the other To which it was answered That if the truth of the case was such Then might the Sheriff make Execution in one Acre in the name of both Acres And if upon a Capias ad satisfaciend against two the Sheriff retorn as to one a Cepi and as to the other Tarde he shall be amerced for his several retorns cannot stand together Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLVI Lees and Lord Staffords Case COmpton made Conusans as Bayliff to Edward Lord Stafford and shewed that Henry Lord Stafford Father of the said Edward and Ursula his Wife were seized of the place where and let the same for years to Edward Lees the Plaintiff Robert Lees and Elizabeth Atwood upon Condition they nor any of them should alien the said Term nor any part of the same without the leave of the Lord or his Heirs Henry Lord Stafford and Ursula died and that the Reversion thereof descended to Edward Lord Stafford and shewed further that the said Edward Lees the Plaintiff had aliened To which the Plaintiff in bar of the Conusans said that the said Edward now Lord Stafford gave License that the said Edward Lees Robert or Elizabeth might alien and that was without Deed. It was conceived by some that this Licence was not of any force to dispense with the Condition because it is uncertain and doubtful in the disjunctive and it was resembled to the Case of 11 H. 7. 13. where a man gives a thing to J. S. or A. B. it is void for the incertainty But all the Court was to the contrary For here the thing which is given is but a Liberty and is not to be resembled to a Gift or Interest and the intent of the Lord Stafford was that one of them might alien but not all of them and afterward Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLVII Limver and Evories Case LImver as Administrator of one A. brought Debt against Evory and the case was F. made G. his Executor and G. made H. an Infant his Executor and died and during the minority Administration was granted to the Plaintiff who as Administrator of G brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond made to the first Testator and that was assigned for Error for the Plaintiff ought to bring his Action as Administrator of the first Testator vide 10 E. 4. 1. 26 H. 8. 7. and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLVIII Knevit and Copes Case KKnevit brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared 3 Leon. 266. whereas John Hopkins by his Deed bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him a House and two yard Lands containing forty Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture at Tithingham de forecomb in the Parish of Steep c. and upon Not Guilty the Visne was of Tithingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook that the Declaration had not certainty for it is not shewed certain how much Meadow Land and how much Pasture is contained in the said two yard Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant Guilty as to so much Land but not to the residue also he hath not shewed in the Declaration when the Lease was made but only saith that by Indenture bearing date 20 May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then is the demise To which Exception it was said by the Iustices That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to be delivered at the day of the date Another Exception was taken to the Visne because that the Visne ought to have been from the Parish and not from Tithingham 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Manor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be from the Manor of B. but of B. Gawdy You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is well of Tithingham for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Vill conus from which a Visne cannot come CXLIX Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1027. MIlbourn brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester against the Inhabitants within the Hundred of Dunmow in the County of Essex it was found by Special Verdict that the Plaintiff was robbed 23 Aprilis inter horam secundam matutinam tempore nocturno ante Lucem ejusdem diei and the Opinion of the Court was clear that the Plaintiff should be barred for the said Statute provided for ordinary Travel as in the Case of Archpool who came to his Inn post Sunset ante noctem in tempore diurno which is an usual time for travelling to come to his Inn but the Law doth not receive any in protection of this Stat. who travel in extraordinary hours for it is the folly of the Traveller to take his journy so out of season and the Inhabitants are not bound to leave their Houses and to attend the ways tempore nocturno and another reason was alledged by the Iustices because the said Statute appoints watch to be kept in the time of night à Festo Ascensionis usque ad Festum Sancti Michaelis and this Robbery was done the 23 of April so as it was out of that time and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CL. Barkers Case Estrepement in Partition A Writ of Partition by Barker heir of Gertrude Marquess of Exceter who devised all her Lands to Blunt by which the third part was descended to the Plaintiff and he prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ ought not to be granted for that the Plaintiff might have a more proper remedy upon the Statute cum duo tres c. and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLI Megot and Davies Case
Assumpsit MEgot brought an Action upon the Case against Broughton and Davy upon Assumpsit and it was found by Nisi Prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank Broughton dyed and after Iudgment given Davy the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the said Court scil in the Kings Bench where Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of Broughton depending the Writ vide 2 R. 3. 21. and this Case is not like to Trespass for Trespass done by many are several Trespasses but every Assumpsit is joynt If the Court may reverse their own Judgment and if the Court upon this matter might reverse their own Iudgment was the Question the Case was not resolved but adjourned CLII. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found by Office that J. S. held by the Queen and dyed without Heir whereas in truth he had an Heir scil A. S. who leased the Lands for an hundred years and afterwards traversed the Office Office trove and had an Ouster le mayne le Roy. Now the matter was moved in the Common Pleas by Fenner in behalf of the Sheriffs of London before whom the matter depended to whom it was said by Anderson Chief Iustice Conveyance by the Heir upon Entrusion That where the King is entituled by an Office to a Chattel as to a wardship c. there if the Heir without any intrusion bargain and sell levy a Fine or lease for years during the possession of the King it is void against the King but shall bind the Heir but where the King is intituled to the Fee-simple as in this Case such a Conveyance is meerly void Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIII Samuel Starkeys Case HOmine replegiando by Samuel Starkey to the Sheriffs of London Who returned that the said Starkey was indicted to be de mala fama deceptione Domini Regis with divers other general words and namely that he had deceived J. S. a Clothier and that he was a common Cozener and thereof being found guilty Iudgment was given by the Mayor and Recorder That he should be disfranchized of his Freedom and should be fined and imprisoned for a year and further said that he had not paid his Fine nor the year expired Cook Such Return hath not been seen and it is directly against the Statute of Magna Charta Wray Chief Iustice gave a Rule that the Sheriffs should make their Return at their perils before such a day Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIV. Bushy and Milfeilds Case IN Error brought by Bushy and Milfeild It was assigned for Error that where in the first Action the Iury gave four pence Costs and the Court gave de incremento three and twenty shillings that in the Iudgment the four pence was omitted Error It was the Opinion of the Court That for that Cause the Iudgment should be reversed although it be for the advantage of the Party so where the Iudgment is quod sit in misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLV Bingham and Squires Case BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire Obligation 3 Leon. 151. The Condition was If Squire did procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Archdeaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so as the said Bingham at the said next Avoidance may present that then c. The Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the next Avoidance was made to Bingham but before the next Avoidance the present Archdeacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment of that Avoidance belonged to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case that the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words scil So that Bingham may present And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLVI Mansors Case A. Man bound himself in an Obligation to make an Assurance of Lands the first day of Jan. and the last day of December he to whom the Assurance was to be made scil the Obligee the said last day before Sun-setting came to the Obligor with a Deed ready to be sealed and prayed him to seal it who said to him that he was a man unlearned and said he would shew the same to his Counsel and then he would seal it And if the Obligation was forfeited or not because he did not seal it presently was the question And Fenner argued that it was not for when a thing is to be done upon request then he who makes the request ought to give sufficient and convenient time to perform the Condition I agree That where the Condition is absolute there if the Condition be not performed he shall not be excused by the default of another As if a man be bounden to marry A.S. and she will not marry him or to enfeoff J. S. and he refuseth as 3 H. 6. is the Obligation is forfeited Yet in these Cases if the Obligee himself be the cause that J. S. will not take the Feoffment or he will not marry A. S. the Obligation is not forfeited So in our Case for by his late request it is impossible for me to perform the condition for before my Counsel shall have perused it the time will be past If a man be bound to enfeoff one of Lands in Barwick request ought to be made so long time before that after that he may go to Barwick So if one be bounden to pay 1000 l. to J.S. he ought to make his Tender so long time before the last instant of the last day that the mony may conveniently be told This Case was in question A man made a Feoffment of the Manor of D. with the Appurtenances to which an Advowson was appendant and covenanted that the Manor upon request should be discharged of all manner of Incumbrances and before that the Feoffor had granted the next Avoidance to J. S. the Incumbent died the Clark of the Grantee was instituted and inducted the Feoffee requested the Feoffor to discharge the Incumbrance The opinion of many Sages of the Law was that he had not made his request within convenient time So if a man be bounden to infeoff the Obligee to have and to hold to him and his Heirs as long as J. S. shall have Issue of his Body If the Obligee demand Assurance after the death of J. S. without Issue yet the Obligation is not forfeited In 22 E. 4. if Lessee for the life of another continues possession for two or three weeks after the death of Cestuy que use where he could not have more speedy notice of his death he shall not be a Trespassor In 15 Eliz it was holden in Wottons Case That where he was bound to make a Feoffment to J. B. and J. B. came to him in Westminster Hall and tendred to him a Writing
Marchioness had devised all her Lands and had not left any thing to her Heir for which Case the Heir of the Marchioness entred into the third part of the Manor of Cauford of which the Lease upon which the Ejectione firmae was brought was made by the Lord Mountjoy to Insley and into the third part of the residue of the whole land now his meaning was That if the rent was not well passed by the name of the Manor then the same descended to the Heir which was sufficient for him For the Special Verdict found also That the rent was the third part of the value of the whole Land of the Marquess So that thereupon it may be collected That if a man hath three Manors some of them holden in Capite and of equal value and he deviseth two of them and suffereth the third to descend that the Devise is good for every part of the two Manors and the Heir shall not have the third part of each Manor Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXIII Spring and Lawsons Case ONe recovered in an Ejectione firmae and afterwards the Defendant made a new Lease for years and he who recovered ousted him and he brought an Ejectione firmae and the other pleaded the former Recovery It was holden a good bar by all the Iustices but Windham and Periam and by them the same is no Estoppel for the Conclusion shall be Iudgment if Action and not Iudgment if he shall be answered And although that it be an Action personal and in the nature of a Trespass yet the Iudgment is quod habeat possessionem termini sui during which Term the Iudgment is in force it is not reason that he should be ousted by him against whom he recovered for so Suits should be infinite and by Rhodes an Entry pendent the Writ shall abate it CLXIV Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action of Covenant was brought against one who had been his Apprentice The Defendant pleaded that he was within age The Plaintiff maintained his Action by the Custom of London where one by Covenant may bind himself within age Exception was taken to it that that was a Departure For 18 R. 2. an Infant brought an Action against his Guardian in Socage who pleaded that the Plaintiff was within age The Plaintiff did maintain his Declaration That by the Custom of such a place an Infant of 18 years might bring accompt against his Guardian in Soccage and it was there holden to be no departure Wray Chief Iustice was of Opinion that it was no departure for he said It should be frivolous to shew the whole matter in his Declaration viz. That he was an Infant and that by the Custom he might make a Covenant which should bind him But Quaere of the Matter and of his Opinion for that many learned Lawyers doubted much of it And vide the Case in 19 R. 2. of the Guardian in Soccage Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLXV Savage and Knights Case ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfeild assigned Error because in that Suit there was not any Plaint for in all Inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without it no Process can Issue forth and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant Summonitus fuit c. and because the first entry ought to be A. B. Queritur versus C. Clench a Plaint ought to be before any Process issueth and the Summons which is entred here is not a Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed It was said That after the Defendant appeared a Plaint was entred But it was answered That that did not help the matter for there ought to be a Plaint out of which Process shall issue as in the Soveraign Courts out of the Original Writs 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVI Grindal Bishop of Yorks Case GRindal Archbishop of York made a Lease for one and twenty years another Lease for years of the same Land being in being not expired by four years and dyed and in time of vacation the Dean and Chapter confirmed it Clench It is a good confirmation A Bishop makes a Lease for years reserving the ancient rent but where it was payable at four Feasts of the year it is now reserved payable once in the year the same is within the Letter of the Statute but not within the intent the same Law if the Rent before was usually reserved to be paid upon the Land now it is reserved to be paid at any far remote place And he said that although his lease was in possession yet not to take effect before the four years of the former Lease are expired cannot be said an Estate within the Statute of 1 Eliz. whereby any Estate may pass before the commencement of it for he to whom it was made had but a right to have the Land and he could not surrender And he held that the second Lessee should pay the rent as well by the Contract as by the Estoppel Periam At the Common Law a Bishop with the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter might have made a Feoffment Gift in Tail and a Lease for any Term of years and he spake much What shall be said the Possessions of a Bishop And therefore if a Bishop disseiseth another of certain Lands and makes a Lease thereof under the Seal of his Bishoprick it shall be now his Seal and it shall be his election in what capacity he will take and then this Land is to be reputed parcel of the Possession of his Bishoprick Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVII Hoo and Hoes Case JOhn Hoo brought a Writ of Intrusion against Richard Hoo depending which Writ the Demandant prayed Estrepement and had it and declared upon it scil That the Tenant after the Prohibition fecit Vastum Estrepementum in prosternendo c. To which the Tenant pleaded Not Guilty But the Plea was not allowed by the Court for there is no Issue in this Case but he might to plead Quod non fecit vastum c. after the Prohibition 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVIII Clinton and Bridges Case DEbt The Condition was for performance of an Award which was to pay 10 l. to the Plaintiff and to do divers other things The Defendant pleaded Quod perimplevit Arbitrium and shewed how the Plaintiff assigned for a Breach that the Defendant had not paid the 10 l. The Defendant rejoyned that he rendred it to the Plaintiff and he refused it It was the Opinion of Dyer that the same is a Departure for in the Bar the Defendant pleads that he hath performed the Award and shews how and now in the Rejoynder a Tender and Refusal which is not a performance of the Award although it is not any Breach of it 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CLXIX The Bishop of L's Case Tenures THe Case of the Bishop of
of the body of the Husband and he said a Scire facias did lye upon the Fine well enough for the Fine is not void but only erroneous and being in its force this Writ doth well lye And he cited to this purpose 7 E. 3. Fitz. Sc. fac 136. where upon such a Fine levied and such Exception ut supra taken to it To which it was said by Herle that forasmuch as the Fine is excepted and yet in its force we ought to grant Execution and also 30 H. 6. none can take the first Estate in the Fine but he who is named in the Writ of Covenant but every Stranger may take by way of Remainder and such was the Opinion of the whole Court As to the matter in Law all the Court agreed That notwithstanding the Recovery the Demandant should have Execution for here the Land which by pretence of the said Recovery shall be Recoverd in value cannot go to the Estate which is given for the Estate given was to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Husband and then the Tenant against whom the Recovery was had was impleaded as sole Tenant in which Case the Vouchee when he comes in is to warrant a sole Estate but not another but now the Land to be recovered in value shall go to the Husband alone and the Wife shall have nothing so as the true Estate is not warranted and so not answered And he cited the Case of 38 E. 3. 5. in a Formedon the Tenant vouched himself for to save the tail and shewed that one A. was seized and gave the Land in Demand to the now Tenant and to E. his Wife in tail which E. is now alive and by award the Voucher was disallowed Because it was there said by Knevyt the Recovery in value cannot be according to the gift 45 E. 3. 18. Tenant in tail discontinues and takes back an Estate in Fee is impleaded and voucheth the Donor he shall be ousted of the Voucher for that he is in of another Estate and afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to have Execution Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCIII Foles and Griffins Case DEbt upon Obligation by Foles against Griffin the Condition was That if the Obligee may enjoy certain Tythes demised to him by the Defendant during his Term against all Persons paying yearly the Rent of three pound that then c. To which the Defendant said that the Plaintiff did not pay the said Rent c. Beaumont Serjeant moved that the Plea is not good but he ought to say that the Plaintiff enjoyed the Tythes until such a Feast at which time such Rent was due which Rent he did not pay for which c. Quod Curia concessit Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXCIV Young and Taylors Case IN Debt upon an Obligation upon Condition to perform the Arbitrament the Obligation was laid to be made in the Parish of Bow in London and the submission was of all things depending between them so that they made an Award of the premisses before such a day and said further that no Arbitrament was made The Plaintiff Replicando said that the Arbitrators made an Award in the Parish of Pancras in Warda praedict and layed a breach c. The Defendant rejoyned that 300 l. was depending in Controversie between them for a certain thing of which no Arbitrament was made upon which they were at Issue and tryed by a Visne of the Parish of Bow only which passed for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Iudgment That the Trial was not good for no place is alledged where the Controversie of 300 l. is depending for which cause it shall be tried where the Bond and Arbitrament was made to which it was said That the alledging the place where the Arbitrament was made is superfluous for which Cause the Trial is good And also the Submission being conditional the Award ought to be of all things submitted or else it is void contrary if it be no Condition Vide Cook 8 Part Baspoles Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCV. The Queen and the Bishop of Lincolns Case THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and others And the Case was That F. Bishop of Lincoln Predecessor of the Defendant was Patron of the Church and presented to the same being void one Garth who being inducted took another Benefice by which by reason of the Statute of 21 H. 8. the first Benefice became void and remained void by the space of seventeen years whereupon the Queen was entituled to present to the same by Lapse The said F. then Bishop presented to the same and afterwards was translated to Winchester and the Defendant now Bishop was suffectus And he certified into the Exchequer that the Incumbent presented by the said F refused to pay his Subsidy upon which he was deprived and if now the Queen shall present by reason of her Title by Lapse notwithstanding the plenarty after or if the Title by Lapse of that Presentment of the Bishop was c. was a great Question And the Case late adjudged between Beverly and Cornwel was cited but there the Case was that the Clark presented where the Presentment appertained to the Queen by Lapse died but here he is deprived which may be the Covin betwixt the Ordinary and him Fenner argued to the contrary and put divers Cases to prove that the Prerogative of the Queen did not alter the right of the Parties As the Queen hath a Seignory consisting of Homage Fealty and Rent and the Queen grants the Seignory to a Stranger reserving the Rent and afterwards the Tenancy Escheats the Rent is gone The Queen leases for years rendring rent to a Stranger upon Condition who enters upon the Lessee the Condition of the Queen is suspended The Queen purchaseth Lands in Borough English hath Issue a Son and dyeth seized he hath the Land now by descent afterwards a younger Son is born that Land shall be divested out of the possession of the King and the Royalty of his person doth not alter the right of descent And afterwards forasmuch as the same deprivation is the act of the Incumbent the refusal the act of the Ordinary himself the sentence and not the act of God in the case before cited It was the Opinion of the Court That Iudgment should be given for the Queen CXCVI. Windham and Meads Case WIndham brought an Action upon the Case upon the Common Law of England concerning Hostlers The Case was That the Servant of Windham brought his Masters horse to the Inn and there it was stollen To which the Defendant said That the said Servant brought the said Horse to the said Inn to be put to Pasture and thereupon the said Horse was put to grass and was there stollen it was ruled in that Case that the Inn-keeper should be excused but if the Inn-keeper of his own head without direction of the Owner
or his Servant had put the Horse to grass and afterward the Horse is stollen there an Action upon the Case doth lye Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs Citizens and Commonalty of the City of Norwich the Original Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City And Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriffs of the said City but to the Coroners Sed non allocatur for the Sheriffs are parcel of the Corporation as it is to see by the name by which they of Norwich are incorporated And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself and therefore by the Award of the Court the Writ was allowed to be good Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVIII. Sir John Bromes Case SIr John Brome 33 H. 8. acknowledged a Fine of certain Lands the Kings Silver was entred and the Conusans taken but the Fine was never engrossed and now he who claimed under the Fine came in Court and prayed that the Fine might be engrossed and the Court examined them upon their Oaths to what use the Fine was levied and in the Seisin and Possession of what persons the Lands whereof the Fine was levied had been after the Fine Vpon which Examination it appeared fully to the Court that the Party to whom the Fine was levied was seized after the Fine and suffered a Common Recovery of the Land and that the said Land had been enjoyed according to the said Fine at all such times since c. Whereupon the Court commanded that the Fine be ingrossed Vide Acc. 8 Eliz. Dyer 254. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXCIX The Lord Dacres and Philip Fines Case THe Case between the Lord Dacres and Fines was Tenant in Tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life of Lands holden in Capite levied a Fine thereof without Licence 3 Leon. 261. and Process issued against the Tenants for Life It was holden by all the Barons that by Plea he should be discharged it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands ubicunque in Anglia the Fine for Alienation should be levied upon them But it was moved If the Tenant should be driven to plead it because it appears upon Record that the Conusor was but Tenant in Tail in Remainder and that was in an Office containing such matter which was pleaded by another in another Cause before by which Office it appeared that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to Philip Fines and now Fines had levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit c. and because the same appeared on Record Manwood awarded that the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed Trin. 29 Eliz. CC. Paston and Townsends Case IN Trespass by Paston against Townsend The Defendant pleaded that Tindal was seized in Fee by protestation and dyed seized and the Land descended To which the Plaintiff replyed and said c absque hoc that Tindal was seized in Fee upon which they were at Issue On the part of the Defendant to prove the Issue it was given in Evidence to prove the Issue in his right that the said Tindal long time before his death was seized and aliened and never after was seized It was said that that Evidence did not prove the Issue for the Defendant for the Seisin in Fee intended in the Issue is in the nature of a dying seized and so Periam conceived that the Defendants Plea did not intend any other Seisin a dying seized and the dying seized is taken by Protestation to avoid the doubleness So as the Seisin upon which the Issue is taken ought to be intended a Seisin continuing until the time of the death of Tindal and Seisin at large or a general Seisin at any time during the life of Tindal quod Anderson concessit Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCI. Griffith and Prices Case ERror by Griffith against Price upon a Iudgment in Chester in Ejectione firmae and the Error assigned was because the Original bore date 16 April 28 Eliz. and the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 17 April 28 Eliz. So as it appeareth that the Action was brought before there was any cause of Action and that was holden to be Error And also Ejectione firmae is not a personal Action and afterwards the Iudgment was Reversed Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCII. Harris and Caverleys Case A Iudgment was given in London between Harris and Caverley upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls and upon that Error was brought in the Kings Bench quod nota For this Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in London ought to be sued before the Maior Vide â— N. B. 22 23. And Wray asked Wherefore the Writ of Error was brought here To which it was answered by Dodding Clark that the Record was removed by Certiorari out of the Kings Bench at the Suit of the Defendant to the purpose to bring a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet And the Error was assigned in this that by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is enacted that upon every Information that shall be exhibited a special Note shall be made of the Day Month and Year of the exhibiting of the same into any Office or to any Officer who lawfully may receive the same And here upon this Information there is not any such Note according to the said Statute And in truth no Information may be exhibited for there is not any Officer there appointed for that matter for the entry in such Cases in that Court is Talis venit deliberavit hic in Curia Miloni Sands c. But in the Case at Bar the Entry is Talis venit deliberavit in Curia but without shewing to whom But note that the words of the said Statute of 18 Eliz. are in the disjunctive into any Office or to any Officer and that such Information shall not be of Record but from that time forwards and not before wherefore here this Information is not upon Record and then no Iudgment can be given upon it Cook This Information may be well sued in London for the words of the said Statute of 5 E. 6. give Suit in any Court of Record of the King And the Court in London is a Court of Record of the King and every Court of Record hath an Officer to receive Declarations and Pleas and if it be delivered into the Office it is good enough 2. The Offence is laid in the Parish of Bow in Warda de Cheap alibi in Civitate London and so there is not any place laid where the Offence shall be tryed Cook This Alibi is a Nugation Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCIII Peuson and Higbeds Case IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that he by his Servant had delivered to the Defendant two Bills
Aid prayer the Party to have Aid shewed such Special matter But in our Case the Tenant for life hath vouched his Bargainor and not without cause for he hath a warranty from him and the Demandant cannot Counterplead it for he had a Seisin whereof he might make a Feoffment As to the Case 14 E. 3. Fitz. Resceit 135. Lessee for life in a Praecipe against him without Aid prayer pleadeth to the Enquest the first day he in reversion may enter It is true he may enter and enter into the Resceit but not into the Land for a Forfeiture For then Fitzherbert would have abridged that Case in the Title of Entre Congeable and not in the Title of Resceit And the Book in 5 Ass 3. is good Law for there the Tenant doth confess the reversion to be in another but in our Case the Tenant voucheth which is a lawful Act and according to the Covenants of his Purchase And although the recovery was by agreement yet it is not for that a Forfeiture for if the Tenant for life voucheth truly it is not a Forfeiture Before the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. which gave resceit to a woman and to those in reversion where the particular Tenant is impleaded and made default reddere noluerit no remedy for these Cases but a Writ of Right but no Entry and that was for the credit which the Law gave to recoveries car si puissoit then is resceit given but that only in the two Cases aforesaid But afterward because it was found that many particular Tenants being impleaded would plead faintly The Statute of 13 R. 2. gave resceit in such case And upon what reasons were these Acts made if in such cases the Entry was lawful But after these two Statutes another practise was devised for such particular Tenants would suffer recoveries secretly in such sort that those in the reversion could not have notice of it so as they could not ante judicium and prayer to be received for the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made by which all recoveries had against the Tenant by the Curtesie or otherwise for life or lives by agreement of the Parties of any Land whereof such particular Tenant is seized should be void as Tenant by the Curtesie c. should be void against him in the reversion And yet an Evasion was found out of that Statute for such particular Tenant would make a Feoffment with warranty and then the Feoffor should be impleaded in a Writ of Entry and he vouch the Tenant for life who should vouch over and such a Recovery was out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the recovery was not against such particular Tenant c. For the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 14 Eliz. was made by which it was provided that such recoveries had where such particular Tenant shall be vouched should ve void if such recovery be had between them by Covin And he conceived That the Forfeiture is not in respect of the recovery it self but of the Plea pleaded by the Tenant And here in our Case there is not any Covin found or that Sir William Pelham knew that he was but Tenant for life but it was found that the recovery was with their assent and that was lawful as this Case is for they may agree to have such recovery for further assurance and so Sir William Pelham hath not vouched any but his Bargainor and that according to their Covenants and this Bargainor was not a bare Tenant for life but had also a remainder in tail although not immediately depending upon the Estate for life which he cut off therefore it was not meerly a feigned recovery And Vide 5 E. 4.2 Br. Forfeiture 87. where Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger it is not a Forfeiture for it doth not disaffirm the reversion c. contra of Aid prayer for a stranger may release with warranty to Tenant for life upon which he may vouch And he reported in his Argument That Bromley Chancellor of England sent him to the two chief Iustices to know their Opinions upon these Points and they were of opinion That the Voucher of a stranger was not any Forfeiture and also that after the recovery was executed he in the remainder could not enter but they conceived that the right of him in the remainder was not bound And he said That after the recovery executed he in the remainder could not enter which see Br. Forfeiture 87. 24 H. 8. For if Entry in such Case had been lawful infiniteness of Suits would follow which would be a thing against the credit of recoveries As to the Objection of the Infancy the same will not help the matter 6 H. 8. Br. Saver default 30. Recovery had against an Infant in which he voucheth and loseth is not erronious contrary upon default And if an Infant Tenant in tail suffereth a recovery it is discontinuance for in such Recovery Infancy is not respected And in a Scire Facias upon a Iudgment had against the Father the Heir shall not have his age And he cited a Case out of Bendlowes Reports 5 Eliz. Tenant for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Tenant for life is disseized by Covin in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Disseisor he voucheth the Tenant for life who entreth into the Warranty generally and voucheth over the common Vouchee It was adjudged that that recovery was out of 32 H. 8. for the recovery was not had against the particular Tenant but he was but Tenant in Law quia Vouchee and also the recovery is a good bar to him in the remainder notwithstanding that he was within age at the time of the recovery And at another time it was argued by the Barons and Clark said That he conceived that the Entry of him in the remainder was lawful It hath been objected that Pelham did not know that the Bargainor had but for life or that any other person had any remainder in the Land that is to no purpose to excuse him for 42 E. 3. every Purchasor ought at his own peril to take notice of the Estates and Charges upon the Lands which he purchaseth For the Law presumes that none will purchase without advice of Counsel and without knowing the Titles of the Land. And although Statutes have been made to provide against the practises of particular Tenants yet that is no Argument that no other remedy was before And by Littleton If Tenant for life joyneth the Mise upon the meer right it is a Forfeiture And he held strongly That the Iudgment did not take away the Entry a cause of Forfeiture being given before the Iudgment 5 Ass 3. He in the Reversion after Iudgment and Execution may enter See also 22 Ass 31 to the same purpose For where Tenant for life is impleaded he ought to wait upon him in the Reversion and expect Instructions from him in
he could not put in a true Inventory and upon that the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition surmising that he himself claimed Property in the said Goods and the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of it and the Trial of the said Goods did belong to the Common Law And a Prohibition was granted Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXII Mountjoyes and Andrews Case IN Scire Facias upon a Iudgment in Debt The Defendant pleaded that heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued directed to the Sheriff of Leiceâ—â—er by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendant Execution adhuc doth detain them Retorn of Writ It was holden by the Court a good Plea although he doth not say that the Writ was returned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath remedy against the Sheriff CCLXIII Vide this Case reported by Cook 1 Part by the name of Capells Case THe Case between Hunt and Gately in the Exchequer Chamber was now argued by Fenne That the Rent granted by him in the Remainder upon an Estate tail is good and shall bind the Land after the Estate tail determined notwithstanding the common Recovery suffered by the Tenant in tail in possession Before the Statute of Westm 2. of Donis Condic c. no Remainder could be limited upon an Estate tail for that which remained in the Donor was but a possibility and therefore then a Formedon in Remainder did not lye But the said Statute which provided a Formedon in the Descender provided also by Equity a Formedon in the Remainder for a Formedon in the Reverter as appeareth by the said Statute was in use in Cancellaria And now here in our case is a Remainder lawfully vested in the Grantor which he may dispose of as he sees good and therefore when he grants a Rent-charge out of it the same is a thing vested in the Grantee and by no subsequent act can be divested and although the Estate which was charged be now charged by the Recovery yet it is the same Land which was charged and therefore the charge shall continue as if a gift in tail be rendring Rent and the Donee levieth a Fine yet the Rent remaineth and the Donor shall distrain 48 E. 3. 3 9. So here If after the grant of this Rent Tenant in tail in possession levies a Fine by which the Remainder which was charged is discontinued and afterwards the Conusor dyes without Issue the Grantee shall distrain upon such possession which passed by the Fine As if A. lease to B. for life and afterwards grants a Rent out of the same Land to C. B. aliens in Fee and dyes although that A. cannot re-enter but suffers the said torcious Estate gained de novo by wrong to continue yet B upon such possession shall distrain for the Rent for it is the same Land which was charged and by Law a thing in abeyance may be charged As if a Parson grant a Rent-charge to begin after his death and the Patron and Ordinary confirm it it shall bind although the Grant doth not take effect in the life of the Grantor but when the Freehold is in abeyance So if the Patron and Ordinary in the time of Vacation grant a Rent-charge out of the Parsonage the same is good and shall bind the Successor and yet at the time of the Grant the Freehold of the thing granted is in abeyance Vide 5 E. 6. Dyer 69. That a Rent which is not in esse shall be bound by a Iudgment 22 E. 3. 19. 5 E. 3. Fitz. Dower 343. By Bracton Jus concerning a real thing is threefold 1. Jus terrae scil the Ownership of the Land. 2. Jus in terra as a Rent Common c. 3. Jus ad terram scil Right permanent And by this Common Recovery in our case Jus terrae shall be bound but not Jus in terra And he said That if Land be given to A. in tail the Remainder to the Kings Villain in Fee and before any claim by the King A. suffers a common Recovery and dyes without Issue this Recovery shall not bind the King. And as to the Case of 26 H. 8. 2. which hath been Objected against the falsifying of the Recovery where a Parson made a Lease for years and afterwards in a Quare Impedit brought against him and the Patron they pleaded faintly to the intent to make the Lessee lose his Term now such a Lessee cannot falsifie in such case the Parson by another way might have defeated the Lease as by Resignation but in our case the Grantor of this Rent by no way might defeat his Grant And he said a common recovery did not bind Dower therefore nor this rent And if Tenant in tail in possession grants such a rent and after suffers a common recovery the rent shall stand why not also in the case of a remainder for upon them both as well the remainder as the possession the recovery operatur And recoveries shall always bind the possession and no farther and shall not disprove the right but the possession And the recovery by it self doth not bind the possession but in respect of the Voucher without which no recovery shall bar and that in respect of the recompence which the Law presumes c. which recompence cannot extend to this Rent-charge and then there is no reason that he to whom it was granted should be prejudiced by this recovery and always in case of recompence the Law is very precise As if I grant unto you an Annuity of 30 l. per Annum until you be presented to a competent Benefice a litigious Benefice is not a recompence intended nor shall determine the Annuity nor a Benefice of 15 l. If two make an exchange for their Lives and one of them dyeth the exchange is not determined but the Heir of him who dyeth shall enter and retain the Land as long as the other shall live Ad quod Manwod Chief Baron subsidebat And there is a great difference between a Lease for years and a Rent-charge for at the Common Law upon such Recovery the Lessee for years was bound contrary of a Rent-charge for it was unreasonable that a thing not demanded by the recovery should be bound by it especially because that the Land rendred in value shall not be charged with the rent Walmesley Serjeant contrary A remainder upon an Estate tail is debile fundamentum and cannot uphold with assurance a Rent-charge against a common recovery and it cannot be found in any Book but in 5 E. 4. 2. That a remainder upon an Estate-tail expectant may be charged for an Estate-tail is in Law presumed to be perpetual and therefore what Lands are entailed by Fee the words of the Fine are Sibi haeredibus de Corpore suo exeuntibus imperpetuum And it is the common learning in our Books that every Estate of Inheritance be it Fee-simple or Fee-tail shall be
rather a portion of the profits c. and therefore the Land shall be said the Chauntry and not the Sum and here the intent of the Statute extends to the intent of the Founder So that if the intent of the Founder was to give the Land to Superstitious Vses the same is within the Statute If Cestuy que use wills that his Feoffees have the profits of his Lands ut supra to the Sustentation of a Chauntry Priest and the Feoffees imploy but 20 l. per Annum whereas the Land is of the value of 100 l. per Annum by this Statute the King shall have all for the intent of the Founder was That all should be imployed And so here for upon the Matter the Dean and Chapter are but as Feoffees and see that this Statute of Chauntries makes a great difference between Obits and Lights and Chauntries for in the Case of Obits and Lights the King shall not have but that which was imployed Whetstones Case was That Whetstone seized of the Manor of Cocke made a Feoffment thereof to certain Feoffees to find two Obits in such a Chappel and with the residue of the profits to maintain the Chappel and Iudgment was given for the Queen Here the Condition knit to the Reversion upon a Lease made by the Dean and Chapter to Nicholas Wilford passeth to the King by the Act of Parliament for a Condition is an Hereditament and when the King grants over the reversion to Butcher the Condition also passeth by 32 H. 8. Bromley Solicitor The Statute extends to Chauntries in existence only and not to Chauntries in reputation Chauntry hath divers significations in Law 1. For the Service which the Chauntry Priest is to do as cessavit de Cantaria 2 Sometimes for the Advowson of the Chauntry scil Quod permittat praesentare ad Cantariam 3. Sometimes for the Body of the Chauntry scil the Land of which it is endowed and in that sense it is taken by the Statute I will agree if the same had been an ancient Chauntry time out of mind c. and the Incumbents thereof had taken the profits and made Leases of it that then it should be a Chauntâ—y within this Statute for it might be corporated by prescription But the Chauntry here in question is not a Chauntry by prescription for the beginning of it is known so it is a Chauntry in reputation only and not in facto And he said That in that case the rent limited to the sustentation of the Priest shall go to the King and not to the Land for the Land was not given for the sustentation of a Priest but the rent only so as the Land was not immediately imployed for the finding of the Priest And he resembled this case to the case lately in question upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. An Abbot was seized of a great Wood which was never imployed in kind to the use of the House being seven Miles distant from the House but was never in Lease but was yearly sold by parcels and the Woodward rendred an Account of the same to the Auditor And the Opinion was That a Lease for years made of it within a year before the Dissolution was not within the said Statute for it was not immediately imployed for Hospitality But see the same reported by the Lord Dyer to the contrary 3 4 Eliz. 207. that such a Demise was void although that the Wood was not immediately imployed c. And see also the words of the Statute scil That the Land shall be in the actual Possession of the King in as ample manner as the Priest had it and the Priest had nothing in the Land but only in the Rent It was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXVI. Harveys Case HArvey seized of a Manor made a Feoffment thereof to divers persons to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his Son and the Heirs Males of his Body and if the said Son or any of the Heirs males of his Body discontinue or alien otherwise than for 21 years or three lives that then his Feoffees should be seized to the use of Nic. Harvey his Brother in Fee the Feoffor dyed the Son made a Lease for 21 years and afterwards discontinued against the Proviso if that lease should bind Nic. Harvey who came in by the latter use c. Dyer It is hard to avoid the lease for at the time of the making of it the lessor had a good interest and authority to make the lease and the act which impeacheth the Estate of the lessor commenceth after the lease by the discontinuance and therefore shall not avoid the lease Manwood The second use doth determine the first use and all Estates derived out of it Mounson contr ' For here this word Otherwise than for 21 years c so as such a lease is excepted As if a man man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of J. S. and his Heirs until J. D. shall pay to him 20 l. and then to the use of J. D. and his Heirs here if J. S. makes a a lease for years and afterwards the Monies are paid to J. D. now J. D. shall hold the Land discharged of the lease for there is no word Otherwise c. for these words Otherwise qualifie the second use Dyer The word Otherwise amounts to an Exception Manwood doubted of it and moved and demanded if the wife of the Cestuy que use should have Dower or not Barham conceived that she should c. CCLXVII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in Socage made a lease for four years and dyed his Heir within age of 8 years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased by Indenture to the same lessee for 14 years It was holden that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise it is of a lease made by Guardian in Nurture CCLXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt it was found for the Plaintiff 20 Eliz. and 21 Eliz. the Plaintiff released to the Defendant and the continuance was made until this Term scil Mich 29 Eliz. per Curiam advisare vult And now the Plaintiff against his own Release prayed and had Iudgment A Release pleaded after Judgment and Verdict without any knowledge to the Defendant and Process of Execution issued and now Walter a Clerk of the Court on the behalf of the Defendant shewed the Release to the Court and also the whole special matter and prayed the Release of the Court against this practice Anderson presently granted a Supersedeas But afterwards before the Process issued forth he and the other Iustices were of Opinion That the Defendant could not plead the said Release nor any further matter after Verdict and demanded the question of Nelson chief Prothonatory who advertised the Court That he could shew a President where an Arbitrement had been pleaded after a Verdict and Issue joyned upon it and that
he is not to have Damages because the Waste was not to his disinheresin and the Land he shall not recover against the Defendant for the Term is not determined and such was the Opinion of the Court. As to the matter in â—aw Shuttleworth said That the Action of Waste ought to be brought against the Lessee himself and not against the Assignee for when he grants over his Term excepting the Trees it is a good Exception for when the Land upon which the Trees grow is leased to another the Trees pass by the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the Term by which when he grants his Land he may well except them as the first Lessor might have done and if the Lessee for years cutteth down the Trees the Lessor cannot take them for that he hath other sufficient remedy scil an Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley contrary And they conceived that the Lessee had but a special Property in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough bote House-bote c. But if he demiseth the Land or granteth his Interest in it he cannot except the Trees nor his special Property in them no more than he who hath Common appendant may grant the Land excepting the Common And in such case the general Property in the Trees remains in the Lessor as parcel of his Inheritance And this appeareth by many cases 27 H. 8. 13. Lessee for life and he in the remainder joyn in a lease for life the Lessee commits Waste the Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in an Action of Waste the Tenant for life shall recover the place wasted and he in the reversion all the damages Vide 2 H. 7. 10 H. 7. cited before That the Lessor may licence the Lessee to cut the Trees which proves that the Property is in him And Vide 40 Ass 22. the Lessor shall have the Windfalls And as to that which hath been said That by the Exception of the Trees the Soil it self is also excepted that is true as to the Trees for nourishment and not otherwise for if the Lessor cutteth down the Trees or roots them up he shall not after meddle with the Land where c. but the Soil shall be entirely to the Lessee The Lessor during the Term may grant the Trees so cannot the Lessee therefore the greater and better Property in the Trees is in the Lessor and not in the Lessee and the Trees proprie loquendo are not parcel of the thing demised If this Exception of the Trees or Woods should hold place Inconvenience would follow for as it is holden in 15 H. 7. 11. If the Termor of Wood commits Waste in one corner of the Wood he should not lose all the Wood but that place only But if in the said Wood there are divers Plats of Land in divers places of the Wood if the Termor commits Waste in that Wood he shall lose all the said Plats although he hath not done waste in them for they are parcel of the Wood. Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Waste 127. and Vide ibidem Waste 112. 8 E. 2. Waste done in parcel of an House the whole House shall be recovered Vide also 30 E. 3. Fitz. Amendment 67. and 4 E. 3. Waste 10. Now if that be Law and the Exception be good how shall the place wasted be recovered here and against whom It seemed to the Lord Anderson That the Exception was void and that the Action was brought against the Assignee and he said it was a knavish and foolish Demise and if it should be effectual in Law some Mischiefs would follow which he would not remember Windham was of the same Opinion and that the Lessee could not assign his Estate with such Exception for he hath but a special Interest in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough-bote c. which should go with the Land. Periam conceived That as to such special Property that none could have it but he who hath the Land and therefore the Exception is void but as to the Fruit-trees such an Exception might be good and although that the Trees are not expresly demised yet quodam modo and after a sort they may be said demised as annexed to the Land and if waste be brought against him who made the Exception scil the Lessee he cannot say they were not let to him and therefore he doubted of the Exception And Rhodes doubted also of the Exception and Anderson said that he was clear of opinion that the Lessor should have the Windfalls and afterwards the Case was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXX. Audleys Case Uses THe Lord Audley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as followeth in effect viz My Will is that my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the said Lands â—00 l which he had lent to the said Lord Audley and also to stand seized to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after â—he Debts paid that the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the said Lands to him the said Lord Audley and Joan his wife and to the heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord Audley had Issue by the said Joan and also having Issue by a former wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his wife and by the opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Law upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an Intent and although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because no consideration was wherefore they should be seized to their own uses yet the same could not make a new use to the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate c. for the wife is a stranger to the Land and the same cannot be a Will or Testament for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who could not take by his own Will and this matter was depending in the Chancery And the advise of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by that writing no use was changed nor any use vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly until proof was made that such an Estate was made c. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXI. Walgrave and Somersets Case IN Trespass by Walgrave against Somerset the Case was That tenant at will cut down Trees and the Lessor brought Trespass vi armis And the Court was clear of opinion that the Action was well maintainable modo forma and Iudgment
the whole matter is not any sufficient demand and so Wray Chief Iustice said CCLXXVIII Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ACtion upon the Case was brought for these words Thou wouldst have stoln my Cloak if J.S. had not come in the way and thou art a Thief and I will prove it After Verdict it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in Arrest of Iudgment That these words were not actionable For the first words Thou wouldst have stoln my Cloak c. do not by Law give any cause of Action and when the words subsequent Thou art a Thief are depending apon the said former words and to be construed as spoken in respect of them and upon that intent But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary And that the said latter words should be taken and construed in abstracto by themselves as in gross and not as dependant upon the former words and afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXIX Hungerford and Watts Case HUngerford brought an Action upon the Case againts Watts Words for that the Defendant had said That the Plaintiff had caused the Defendant to be arrested with forged Writs It was objected That the words were not actionable for it might be that the Writs were forged by strangers without the privity of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff not knowing them to be forged procured the Arrest But the Opinion of the Court was That the words were actionable for the word Caused extends as well to the Forgery as to the Arrest and so amounts to the slander of Forgery CCLXXX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs IN an Action upon an Escape the Plaintiff is Nonsuited It was holden that the Defendant should not have Costs Note The words of the Statute upon an Action upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for any offence or tort personal to be supposed to be done immediately to the Plaintiff Notwithstanding this Action is quodam modo an Action upon the Statute 1. by Equity of the Statute of West 2. cap. 11. which giveth it expresly against the Warden of the Fleet Yet properly it is not an Action upon the Statute for in the Declaration in such an Action no mention is made of the Statute which see in the Book of Entries 169 171. and also here is not supposed any immediate personal offence or wrong to the Plaintiff And an Action upon the Case it is not for then the Writ ought to make mention of the Escape and that it doth not here and yet at the Common Law before the Statute of Westm 2. an Action upon the Case lay for an Escape and so by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Costs are not given in this Case And by Dyer upon Nonsuit in an Action upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. the Defendant shall not have Costs for it is not a personal wrong for the Writ is quod disseisivit which is a real wrong Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXXI Hollingshed and Kings Case HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bound to him in a Recognisance in 200 l. before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera of Guildhall in London Vpon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed before brought a Scire Facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he had brought this Action and upon the Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that the Plaintiff in the setting forth of the Recognizance had not alledged That the Mayor of London had authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he had not then is the Recognizance taken coram non Judice and so void and as to the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 45. the same cannot extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordata sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui recordum habent in rotulis eorum irrotulantur c. and also at the time of the making of that Statute the City of London had not any Sheriffs but only Bayliffs And the Statute ordains That upon Recognizance Process shall go to the Sheriffs c. therefore not to them But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for we well know that they of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which do concern the Iurisdiction of that Court and which arise by reason of the matters there depending Another matter was Objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera therefore it was not well taken But as to that Anderson Chief Iustice said Admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in a Scire Facias sued upon it the Defendant shall not take any advantage he shall be now bound by that admittance As if one sues a Scire Facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any such Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him the same is not void but voidable And Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove the Courts of the King ought to take notice that those of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo Warranto issueth to the Iustices in Eyre it doth not belong to them of London to claim their Liberties for all the Kings Courts have notice of them And at the last after many Motions the better Opinion of the Court was That the Plaintiff should recover Periam aliquantum haesitavit And it was said by Anderson and in a manner agreed by them all That if dependant this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire Facias is reversed yet the Court here shall proceed and take no notice of the reversal CCLXXXII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seized of a Barn in which the Tythes of certain Lands have used to be inned let the same by these words Demises .. Demise and to Farm-let the Barn with all Tythes belonging to the same It was holden That by that Demise the Tythes did not pass but Tythes which had usually been demised with the Barn passed by such words as by the Demise of an House Cum omnibus terris eidem pertinent ' all the Lands pass which have used to be demised with the said House for the demising usually of the Tythes with the Barn makes the Tythes belonging to the Barn but not the Inning Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXXII Haltons Case Recognisance Inrollment A Recognizance was acknowledged before J. S. who was one of the Masters of the Chancery and before the same was Inrolled the Conusee dyed the point was whether at the request of the Executors
it was also holden That the Lessee should have an Action of Covenant against the Assignee of his Lessor or his Lessee at his Election CCXCI. Mich. 19 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. B. C. three Ioyntenants give their Lands to D. in tail Joyntenants the remainder to A. in tail It was the opinion of Mead That the remainder is void Manwood and Harper A. and B. Ioyntenants Grants A. makes a Lease for life of his Moiety to C. and grants the reversion to B. the same is good quod Curia concessit A. and B. Ioyntenants of a Term A. grants his Moiety to his Companion the same is good without question if it be by Deed but if it be by Word Quaere Hil. 20 Eliz. CCXCII Hills Case HIll 20 Eliz. Rot. 371. Giles Hill seized of a Close of Pasture called Pitmonde and of Broome Acre two other Closes in his Demesne as of Fee and so seized the said Giles and Agatha his Wife and Robert their Son and B. his Wife by Indenture leased the same Broome Acre and the said other two Closes to W. Hutchin and B. and his Wife for 90 years Si quis eorum tam diu vixerit reddendo inde annuatim praedicto Egidio Uxori ejus Haeredibus ipsius Egidij viz. pro Broome Acre 3 s. 4 d. pro una Clausura 10 s. pro altera 20 s. ad quatuor anni Terminos with Clause of Re-entry If any part or parcel of the said rent be behind c. Giles and Agatha dyed The Son sold the reversion of Broome Acre 12 Febr. 12 Eliz. by Deed Indented rendring rent to Smith and Heale the rent of Broome Acree is behind Smith and Heale enter and lease the same to Reynolds for three years who being Ejected brings Ejectione firmae and Iudgment was given for him for that they are several Reservations and several Conditions And a difference was taken between this and Winters Case for in Winters Case the rent reserved originally is entire but in this Case the rent is originally several and also in Winters Case the condition was That if any part of the rent be behind that the Lessor should re-enter into the whole Note that the rent reserved for Broome Acre was 3 s. 4 d. and the condition was si contingat praedict ' reddit ' ou ascun parcel de ceo to be behind in part or in all by one Month after any Feast c. in quo solvi debuit Quod tunc bene licebit praefat ' Egidio c. in omnia singula praemista superius specificat ' re-entrare Et nomine That pro 10 de nariis pro Broome Acre pro uno quarterio anni aretro existent the Vendees of the Reversion did enter CCXCIII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Leases NOte by Dyer and Manwood Iustices A. leaseth to B. for years the remainder to the right Heirs of the said B. and makes Livery accordingly that the said remainder is void because that there is not any person in esse who can take presently by the Livery and every Livery ought to have its operation presently But where a Lease is made to B. for life the remainder to his right Heirs that he hath a Fee executed and it shall not be in abeyance and Iudgment was given accordingly CCXCIV. Hil. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was a Man made a Lease of a Garden containing three Roods of Land the Lessee is ousted and he brought Ejectione firmae and declared That he was Ejected of three Roods of Land And by Rhodes Serjeant The Declaration shall not be intended that the Plaintiff was Ejected out of the Garden of which the Lease was made which Dyer granted for Gardinum is a thing which ought to be demanded by the same name in all Praecipe's And this Action of Ejectione firmae is higher than an Action of Trespass and the Plaintiff if he recover shall be put into possession by it Mead and Windham held the contrary and they agreed That in all real Actions a Garden shall be demanded by the name of Gardinum But this Action of Ejectione firmae is in the nature of Trespass and it is in the Election of the party to declare as he doth or for to declare of the Ejectment of a Garden For a Garden may at one time be used for a Garden and at another time for Plough-Land But they conceived the better course to be and the better order of pleading to have been if the Plaintiff had declared That he was Ejeected of a Garden containing three Roods of Land as in the Lease it is specified Vide 22 E. 4. 13. Assise of a Garden Vide Cook 11 Part Savells Case Ejectione firmae of a Close vocat ' Leedes containing three Roods a Rule that such Action lyeth not of a Close although it hath a certain name but it ought to be of so many Acres and of what nature every Acre is CCXCV. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Debt was brought by an Administrator who declared That the Administration was committed unto him by the Archbishop of Canterbury It was holden That in such Case he needed not to declare Ratione Praerogativae suae or that the Intestate had bona notabilia in divers Dicocesses for if the Intestate had not Goods in divers Diocesses the same shall come and be shewed on the other side and then the Plaintiff shall shew the same in certain and to that purpose divers Presidents were shewed to the Court by Sandbege and Best principal Clerks of the Court and the same was also affirmed by the Prothonotaries of the Court of Common Pleas. CCXCVI. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared upon Trover and Conversion to his use It was pleaded by Plowden That the Defendant before the Action brought had lawfully sold the Goods whereof c. and he demanded Iudgment of the Action As if one hath Goods by Trover and Bails them over before any Action brought against him Detinue doth not lye against him which Wray Chief Iustice concessit as to the Detinue But where such a person who hath Goods by Trover Bails them quibusdam ignotis such an Action will lye against him CCXCVII. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Dower the Demandant recovered by default Retorn of the Sheriff and the Sheriff took an Enquest de Officio by which it was found that the Husband did not dye seized prout eis constare poterit and that Inquisition is retorned by the Sheriff and filed It was moved by Mead That the Office and Inquisition was not good for the Office ought to have expresly found That the Husband dyed seized or not and not ambiguously as it doth here prout eis constare poterit and therefore by the Award of the Court the Retorn was taken off the File because it was insufficient
Bayliff of his Lord could not do better than admonish the said Bayliff of his duty for it concerned the Honour of his Master and also his Inheritance in the said Liberty But if the said Townsend had been a meer stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them the same had been clearly Maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in that Court in the case of one Gifford where the parties being at Issue and a Venire Facias to the Sheriff to retorn a Iury a stranger wrote to one of the Iurors who was retorned in the Pannel praying him to appear at the day and to do in that cause according to his Conscience and the same was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the Sentence of the Court was acquitted of any Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Counsel there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CCCXXVII Mich. 15 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition the Defendant prayed in Aid the Plaintiff counterpleaded the Aid upon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff It was the Opinion of the Court That it was peremptory for the Defendant And the Plaintiff shall have the Partition scil Quod fiat Partitio and the reason thereof is for the delay of the Plaintiff and for the vexation of the Country who are to try it otherwise it had been if it had been adjudged against the Defendant upon a Demurrer CCCXXVIII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Formedon of a Manor the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that Issue was joyned and found for the demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereas upon Ioyntenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any Averment by the Demandant against it the Averment hath been received against the Law And by Southcote at the common Law If the Tenant plead Ioyntenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. but Ioyntenancy by Fine doth remain as it was by the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that because by that Plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given away the Moiety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioyntenancy and the Law doth not intend that he will so slightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ Else in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be Villain to a Stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment of Frank-estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not enthrawl himself without cause Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith he is Tenant for life the Remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant the day of the Writ brought was seized in Fee. Note That in this Fine Ioyntenancy was pleaded but for parcel and it was holden by â—ray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate as in a Writ against many the misnosmer of the one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the Land in demand be one entire thing it shall abate the Writ in all In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ a Foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded for this dismembring of the Manor and destruction of the Land whereof the Ioyntenancy is pleaded is peravail and beneath the Gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore it ought to be demanded accordingly with a Foreprise But if A. gives to B a Manor except 13 Acres in Tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the Issue in Tail is to have a Formedon in such Case there needs not any Foreprise for the said 10 Acres were never severed from the Manor upon the Gift But if Land in demand be several as 20 Acres but two this Foreprise is not good Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Br. 866. Praecipe unam bovat ' terrae except a Selion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Selion is a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places it is an Acre in some more and in some less Another point was That because that the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil Sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth if the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party ex Officio abate the Writ And Wray conceived that it might for it is a possitive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without Challenge or Exception yet the Court shall abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And Vide the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such a Writ without any Exception unto it yet the Court shall abate the Writ ex Officio Vide 38 H. 6. 30. CCCXXIX Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte this Case A. makes a Feoffment in Fee to B. and binds himself only to warranty without more B. is impleaded and voucheth A. who enters into the Warranty and loseth so as Iudgment is given against B. and also to recover in value against A. who before Execution dyeth It was the opinion of the Court that B. should have Execution in value against the Heir of A. CCCXXX Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in the right of his Wife for the term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life In that case the wife is remitted and it is not like Townsends Case Plowd Com. 111. for in that case the Entry of the Wife was not congeable for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband Periam Iustice cited Siâ—enhams case Baron seized in the right of his Wife for the term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Land to them and a third person And it was holden that the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband
she might disagree CCCXXXI Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. B. and C. three Brothers A. hath issue and dyeth the middle Brother Purchaseth Land and deviseth the same to his Son in Tail and if he die without Issue that the Land shall remain to the King and Lineage of the Father sc of the middle Brother and if the Son of the eldest Son or the youngest Brother should have the Land was the Question and it was the opinion of the Lord Dyer That the Son of the eldest Brother should have it CCCXXXII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for life was made to B the Remainder to C. and D. in Tail It was holden that in this case C. and D. cannot disagree to that Remainder without matter of Record for they are Tenants in Common but if the Remainder had been limited to them in Fee so as they took joyntly it had been otherwise for then by the disagreement of the one the other shall take the whole Land. Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXIII Waite and Coopers Case IN Ejectione firmae between Waite and Cooper It was found by Verdict That Cranmer late Archbishop of Canterbury was seized of the Manor and Borough of Southwark in the right of his Bishoprick and that the Prior of Morton was seized of the House in which the Ejectment is supposed and held the same of the said Archbishop as of his said Manor and Borough after which 30 H. 8. the said Archbishop gave to the King the said Manor and Borough with confirmation of the Dean and Chapter and that the same year the said Prior surrendred by which the said King was seized as well of the said Manor and Borough as of the said House and afterwards the King by his Letters Patents gave the said House and other Lands in Middlesex and Essex to Curson and Pope in Fee tenend in Libero Burgagio per fidelitatem tantum non in Capite pro omnibus serviciis demandis And afterwards King Edw. 6. gave the said Manor and Borough to the Mayor and Commonalty of London Curson and Pope covey the said House to Welsh in Fee who dyed without Heir All the Question was What Tenure is here reserved upon the Words and Grant made by King Hen. 8. to Curson and Pope It was said It could not be a Tenure in Burgage because here is not any Rent reserved which see by Littleton 162 163 164. And the Lord Anderson at the first very strongly insisted upon that Another matter was because here is reserved for all the Lands and Tenements but one Tenure so that if the Court should adjudge the Tenure reserved to be Burgage then Lands at the Common Law out of Boroughs should be holden in Burgage Also a Tenure in Burgage cannot be created without these words ut de Burgagio And to that purpose Shute Iustice agreed Vide Br. Tenures 94. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXIV Fullers Case NOte It is holden by the whole Court in Fullers case That if one give 300 l. to another to have an Annuity of 50 l. assured to him for 100 years if he his Wife and four of his Children so long shall live That this is not within the Statute of Vsury So if there had not been any Condition but care is to be taken that there be no Communication of borrowing of any Money before Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXV Goore and Winkfields Case 3 Leon. 223. DEbt upon an Obligation by Goore against Winkfield the Obligation was written in this Form Know all by these Presents That I H. Winkfield am bound to William Goore in the Sum of c. for the payment of which Sum I give full power and authority to the said Goore to keep the said Sum upon the Profits of the Bayliwick of Swinstall from year to year until the same be paid To which the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff had levied parcel of the said Sum c. and did not shew how much and therefore the pleading was holden not good And it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That the Plaintiff was at Liberty either to bring his Action upon the said Obligation or to levy the Debt according to the Clause aforesaid Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXVI Powley and Siers Case POwley brought Debt against Sier Executor of the Will of one A. The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ For he said That one B. was Executor of the said A. and that the said B. constituted the said Defendant his Executor so as the Writ ought to have been brought against the Defendant as Executor of an Executor and not as immediate Executor of the said A. The Plaintiff replyed That the said B. before any probate of the Will or any Administration dyed and so maintained his Writ upon which the Defendant demurred Wray was for the Writ for although here be not any Probate of the Will of A. or any other Administration yet when B. makes his Will and the Defendant his Executor it is an acceptation in Law of the Administration and Execution of the first Will. Gawdy and Ayliff Iustices that the Writ was not good Vide 23 Eliz. Dyer 372. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXVII Taylors Case TAylor was Outlawed in Debt where a Supersedeas upon Record was delivered to the Sheriff before the award of the Exigent It was holden that the Party should avoid the same by Plea Then it was moved If the Plea should be pleaded by Attorney or in Person To which it was said by the Iustices That where matter in fact is pleaded in avoiding of an Outlawry he ought to plead it in Person but matter of Record by Attorney And so Ford Prothonotary said it was agreed in the Case of Sir Thomas Chamberlain 7 Eliz. and so it ought to be in the principal Case here CCCXXXVIII Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed for Law in the Kings Bench if Lessee for years grant all his Estate and Interest to A rendring rent by Indenture and for default of payment a re-entry And the Grantor demandeth the rent and A. demands an Acquittance but the Lessee for years refuseth in such case A. may refuse to pay such rent for the rent is to be paid in this nature without an Acquittance but contrary if Lessee for years had leased parcel of his Estate rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry c. CCCXXXIX Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe King seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presented and his Clerk in by 6 Months It was holden that in such case the Grantee may present for the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passed to the Grantee for it was not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have Quare Impedit
Tenants and therefore ought not to joyn c. It was Adjourned Temps Roign Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCLVII The President of Corpus Christi Colledge Case NOte It was holden by Cholmley Serjeant Plowden and many others in the Case of the President of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford That if the said Master or President of any such Colledge by his Will deviseth any Land to his Colledge and dyeth such Devise is void For at the time when the Devise should take effect the Colledge is without a Head and so not capable of such Devise for it was then an imperfect Body And so it was holden by the Iustices upon good advice taken thereof CCCLVIII Temps Roign Eliz In the Kings Bench. IN a Warrantia Chartae the Defendant said that the Plaintiff had not any thing in parcel of the Land the day of the Writ brought If in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant aliens and afterwards vouches the Vouchee is not bound to enter into the Warranty But here in this Case it may be That at the time that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to warrant he was Tenant of the Land in which Case the warranty is attached and then if ever the Land be recovered against him he shall have this Writ and of this Opinion was Brown Iustice For the Land which the Defendant had at the time of the request is bound by the request but if he alieneth after the request he shall not have the Warranty CCCLIX Mich. 9 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man seized of a Manor in which there are divers Copy-holds and the Custom there is That if any Copyholder leaseth his Land above the term of one year that he shall forfeit his Copyhold A Copyholder committed such a Forfeiture and afterwards the Lord leased the Manor for years and the Lessee entred for the Forfeiture and Weston said that his Entry was not lawful for although that the Heir may enter for a Condition broken in the time of his Ancestor because he is privy in blood yet the Lessee or Feoffee cannot do so for he is a Stranger such a one of whom an Estranger shall not take advantage Dyer If this forfeiture be preserved by Homage and enrolled in the Court Rolls the Lessee may well afterwards enter for by the forfeiture the Copyhold Estate is void and determined as if a Leafe for years be made rendring Rent upon Condition to cease if the Rent be not paid here presently by the not payment the Interest of the term is determined and of that the Grantee of the Reversion shall have advantage CCCLX Mich. 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought for stopping of a way The Plaintiff declared that the Duke of Suffolk was seized of a House in D. and let the same to the Plaintiff for life and that the said Duke and all those whose Estate c. have used time out of mind c. to have a way over the Land of the Defendant to the Park of D. to carry and recarry Wood necessary for the said House from the said Park to the same House and further declared That the Defendant Obstupavit the way It was moved by Carus That upon that matter no Action upon the Case lay because the Freehold of the House is in the Plaintiff and also the Freehold of the Land over which c. is in the Defendant But if the Plaintiff or the Defendant had but an Estate for years then an Action upon the Case would lye and not an Assize and it is not material If the Plaintiff had but an Estate for years in the Park quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam It was also holden That this word Obstupavit is sufficient without any more without shewing any special matter of the stopping as the erecting of any Gate Hedge Ditch c. for Obstupavit implyes a Nusance continued and not a personal disturbance as forestalling or saying to the Plaintiff upon the Land where c. that he should not go over or use the said way for in such case upon such a disturbance an Action upon the Case lyeth But as to a local and real disturbance the word Obstupavit amounts to Obstruxit and although in the Declaration is set down the day and year of the stopping yet it shall not be intended that it continued but the same day for the words of the Declaration are further By which he was disturbed of his way and yet is and so the continuance of the disturbance is alledged and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Leonard Prothonotary He hath declared of a Prescription habere viam tam pedestrem quam equestrem pro omnibus omnimodis Carriagiis and upon that Prescription he cannot have a Cart-way for every Prescription est stricti juris Dyer That is well observed and I confess that the Law is so and therefore it is good to prescribe habere viam pro omnibus Carriagiis without speaking either of a Horse or a Foot-way CCCLXI. A. Enfeoffed B. to the intent that B. should convey the said Land to such person as A. should sell it A. sold it to C. to whom B. refused to convey the Land and thereupon he brought an Action upon the Case against B. And by Wray Chief Iustice and Gawdy Iustice here is a good consideration for here is a trust and that which is a good consideration in the Chancery is in this case sufficient Shute Iustice was of a contrary Opinion And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXII Sir Richard Lewknors Case SIr Richard Lewknor seized of Wallingford Park Ante 162. made a lease thereof for years and dyed the Lessee granted over his term to another excepting the Wood the term expired and an Action of Waste was brought against the second Lessee by the Coparceners and the Husband of the third Coparcener being Tenant by the Courtesie Shuttlewood and Snag Serjeants did argue That the Action would not lye in the form it was brought and the first Exception which was taken by them was because the Action was general viz. Quod fecit vastum in terris quas Sir Roger Lewknor pater praedict ' of the Plaintiff cujus haeredes ipsae sunt praefat ' Defendent demisit And the Count was that the Reversion was entailed by Parliament unto the Heirs of the Body of Sir Richard Lewknor and so they conceived that the Writ ought to have been special cujus haeredes de Corpore ipsae sunt For they said that although there is not any such Writ in the Register yet in novo Casu novum est apponendum remedium And therefore they compared the Case to the Case in Fitz. N. B. 57. viz. If Land be given to Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Wife and the Wife hath Issue and dyeth and the Husband committeth waste the Writ in that case and the like
But all the Court held the contrary and that the Copy should bind the Feoffee and the ceremony of admittance was not necessary For otherwise every Copyholder in England might be defeated by the sole act of the Lord viz. his Feoffment But the Lord by his own act which shall be accounted his folly hath lost his advantages viz. Fines Heriots and such other Casualties Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXV Boxe and Mounslowes Case THomas Boxe brought an Action upon the Case against John Mounslowe That the Defendant slandred him in saying That the said Thomas Boxe is a perjured Knave and that he would prove the said Thomas Boxe had forsworn himself in the Exchequer c. and supposed the said words to be spoken in London 4 Feb. 28 Eliz. Et praedict ' Johannes Mounslowe per Johannem Lutrich Attornatum suum venit defendit vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit quod praedict ' Tho. Boxe actionem suam versus eum habere non debet quia dicit quod praedict ' Thomas Boxe being one of the Collectors of the Subsidies before the speaking of the said words viz. 27 28 Eliz. in Curia Scaccarij apud Westm ' did Exhibt a Bill against the said John Mounslowe containing That the said John being assessed in ten pounds in Goods the said Thomas Boxe came to him and demanded of him sixteen shillings eight pence which the said John Mounslowe did refuse to pay and that demand and refusal was supposed to be in London in Breadstreet Et pro verificatione praemisiorum adâ—unc ibid ' Sacramentum Corporale per Barones praefat ' Thomae Boxe praestitit The said Thomax Boxe swore the said Bill in substance was true ubi revera the said John Mounflowe did not refuse per quod the said John Mounslowe postea viz. praedict tempore quo c. dixit de praefat ' Thoma Boxe praedict verba c. pâ—out ei bene Leuit The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant spake the words de injuria sua propria absque causa per praefat Johannem Mounslowe superius allegata Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Curiam praedict defendens similiter And a Venâ—re Facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages 400 l. And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there was no good Trial nor the Issue well joyned for the Issue doth consist upon 2 points triable in several Counties viz the Oath which was in the Exchequer and that ough to have been tryed in Middlesex and the matter which he affirmed by the Oath viz the demand and the refusal to pay the subsidy and that was alledged to be in London and is there to be tryed and the Issue viz. de 〈…〉 propria goeth to both for the ubi revera will not amend the Case as Penam Iustice said and both are material For the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff made such Oath and also that the substance and matter of the Oath was not true for otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be proved perjured And therefore the Counties here if they might should have joyned in the Tryal And the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff For Anderson and Wincham said That if this Issue could have been tryed by any one of the Counties without the other it should most properly and naturally have been tried in Middlesex where the Oath was made for the Perjury if any were was in the Exchequer But they said The Issue here was ill joyned because it did arise upon two points triable in several Counties which could not joyn whereas the Plaintiff might have taken Issue upon one of them well enough for each of them did go to the whole and if any of them were found for the Plaintiff that he had sufficient cause to recover Gawdy moved that it should be helped by the Statute of Ieofails which speaks of mis-joyning of Issues Anderson The Issue here is not mis-joyned For if the Counties could joyn the Issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyn it cannot be well tryed But the Issue it self is well enough Windham and Rhodes were of the same Opinion but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an Issue tryable in one Court be tryed in another and Iudgment given upon it it is Error And afterwards Lutrich the Attorney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quod mirum For first the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of Process and not mis-joyning of Issues and admit that this Case is not within any of those Clauses each of them being considered by it self yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32 H. 8. cap. 30. 18 Eliz. cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both Statutes was to waste delays circuits of Actions and Molestations and that the party might have his Iudgment notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appear to the Court. And here the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause to recover if any of the points of the Issue be found for him For if it be found that the matter and substance of the Oath be found true which might be tryed well enough by those in London the Plaintiff had cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the Verdict in London is good enough and effectual And note that Rhodes said that he was of Counsel in such a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevil and Dent. CCCLXVI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Leon. 103. THe Case was A. granted B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to commence when J. S. dyes without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue and the Issue dyeth without Issue Dyer said That the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore the Grant shall not then commence and if he dyeth then not at all by Manwood And Dyer and Manwood said If the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dyes without Issue c. And they said That if the Donee in tail hath Issue which dyeth without Issue the Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself dyed with Issue for there is an Interest And there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A and B. for the term of their lives if either of them dyeth the Survivor shall hold the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. or C. dyeth the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest CCCLXVII Temps Roign