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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
one John Whettesley and Ann his Wife examinand ' Ann ' praedict ea intentione That the said John and Ann should take back an Estate thereof for their lives the Remainder to one John Buck in Fee. Note the Surrender ought to be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot Two several Surrenders of the said Husband and Wife of the said two Messuages and took an Estate for their lives the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay certain Moneys c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the Warrant was ad Capiend ' unam sursam redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the Warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Letter of Deputation should be absolute and without condition and now in the Execution of it is conditional so as the conditional Estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the Court was clear of Opinion to the contrary in both the points That the proceedings here are sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because the Surrender and Regrant is entred into the Roll of a Court dated to be holden 2 Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the 3 of June after but as to that the Court was clear That the Mis-entry of the Date of the Court should not prejudice the party for that Entry is not any matter of Record but only an Escroll and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country And the party shall give in Evidence to the truth of the matter and shall not be bound by the Rolls and according to this Resolution Iudgment was given Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXLIX Long and Hemmings Case GIles Long brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester Hemmings and Hadnell Hemmings pleaded That one Tho. Long seized of the Manor of F. to which the Advowson was appendant by his Deed granted the Advowson unto him 17 Eliz. The Incumbent pleaded the same Plea to which the Plaintiff Replicando said That before the said Grant viz. 6 Eliz. the said Tho. Long granted to him the said Manor c. and upon Issue joyned the Iury found this Special Matter That the said Feoffment was by word and Livery and Seisin was made and afterwards the said Tho. Long granted the said Advowson to the Defendant and afterwards Attornment was had and if without Attornment the Advowson passed with the Manor was the Question Shuttleworth argued That the Advowson passed as appendant to the Demesns for an Advowson shall be more properly appendant to the Demesns than to the Services for the Services may be determined many ways so cannot the Demesns for if the Services be determined by Escheat c. yet the Advowson remains appendant to the Demesns and an Advowson may be appendant to an acre parcel of the Manor but not to the Services and so an Advowson may well pass without Deed as upon a Feoffment of a Manor the Services pass without Deed. And if a man seized of a Manor with an advowson appendant makes a Feoffment of one acre parcel thereof with the advowson the advowson is appendant to that acre 33 H. 6. 5. although it be not by Deed. Vide contra Temps E. 1. Faits Feoffments 115. 17 E 3. 4. It ought to be by Deed 43 E. 3. 24. Walmsley argued to the contrary The Verdict is That Tho. Long give not the Manor but the Capital Messuage of F. and all other Lands and Tenements of the same which words of the same have relation to the Messuage and therefore neither the Manor of F. nor the advowson pass and admit that all the Demesns pass yet the advowson cannot pass as appendant for that advowson shall pass as appendant to the whole Manor and not to such or such part of it And by Littleton 7 E. 4. 27. if a man holds of me three acres by 12 d. and I grant the Services of the third acre the same is void so here there is no advowson appendant to the Demesns And he said That in this case the advowson is appendant to the Services and although Services are Inheritances incorporeal yet an advowson may be appendant to them as one Office may be appendant to another Office and one advowson to another advowson 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. A Man seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant enfeoffeth one by Deed of one acre parcel thereof and also by the same Deed grants the Advowson the Advowson shall pass as in gross for they are several Grants although but one Deed. Another matter was That Thomas Long enfeoffed and here the Iury have found that Thomas Long gave in tail c. And he conceived that the Plaintiff upon that Verdict should have Iudgment As in Waste the Plaintiff assigns the Waste in cutting down of 20 Oaks and upon Not Guilty It was found that he cut down but 10 the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment upon that Verdict The Case was adjourned CCCL Trin. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was Lessee for life of another bargains and sells by Deed indented and enrolled and afterwards levies a Fine to the Conusee Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c It was holden by the whole Court That it was a forfeiture of his Estate for when the Bargainee being now Tenant for the life of another accepts a Fine of a Stranger sur Conusans de droit c. that he admit the Fee in him by matter of Record otherwise it is of a Fine sur Release And by Manwood If Lessee for life be disseised and levies a Fine to the Disseisor sur Conusans de droit c the Lessor shall re-enter Quod Dyer negavit Because that the Lessor at the time of the Fine levied had not any thing in the Reversion but only a Right Manwood put this Case Land is given to A. and B. and to the Heirs of B. they are disseized by two A releaseth to one of the Disseisors now they are Ioyntenants but for a moiety and the Estate in the other moiety is changed into an Estate for life Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLI The Queen and the Bishop of Norwich's Case IN a Quare Impedit the case was That the title to present to the Church was devolved to the Queen by Lapse The Patron himself presented and his Clerk was inducted and afterwards deprived It was the Opinion of the whole Court That if the Deprivation was without any covin that the title of the Queen by Lapse was gone Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLII. Ashpool and the Inhabitants of Everinghams Case IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Ashpool
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
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
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. a House called a Stable a Barn and another House called a Carthouse and Garnier And that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy said it was good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment but if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
one who had an Estate so determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure could not begin in his Life 2. The Letter of the Act is 21 years or under and the word under strongly expounds the meaning of the Act to be not to extend to such an Estate for hereupon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land leased is the Inheritance of the Wife and it was said that in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act of Parliament was strictly construed Acts of Parliament It was enacted that all Copies for three Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife which was Queen Katherine should be good The Admiral granted in Reversion for three Lives It was holden that the Grant was void and not warranted by the said private Act of Parliament Dyer The words are general omnes dimissiones therefore not to be restrained to special Leases Manwood A Feme covert by duress joyns in a Lease with her Husband it shall bind her The Case was adjourned LXI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen leased for years rendring 10 l. Rent the Lessee granted the Land over to A. rendring 20 l. Rent A. granted the Land over to B. who surrendred to the Queen and took a new Lease And Manwood said that the first Lessee should have an Action of Debt for the Rent of 20 l. against him Debt for Rent who was possessed of the Land and not against A. his Assignee for it is a Rent issuing out of the Land and he who hath the possession of the Land shall pay it and no other for if any part of the Land be evicted the Rent shall be apportioned and because it is meerly a Rent and ensues the privtiy real viz. the possession of the Land and not the privity personal the Person of him who was party or privy to the Contract and he said If the first Lessee who reserved the Rent entred upon the Land the Rent is suspended Dyer The first Lessee hath Election which of them he will sue 18 H. 6. 1. in Debt against Lessee for years for the Arrearages of Rent reserved upon it he needs not declare that the Lessee had entred for the Contract is the ground of the Action 44 Eliz. 3. 5. Debt against the Lessee notwithstanding the Assignment Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXII Bluets Case BLuet granted the next Avoidance to Stell and Brooks and was bound to Brooks in an Obligation that he should enjoy the said Presentment without any disturbance or claim of the said Bluet Stell released to Bluet his Interest on the said Advowson The Church became void Bluet offer'd to joyn with Brook Obligation forfeited in presenting to the Avoydance It was holden in this Case that the Obligation was forfeited although that Bluet had a puisne Title to it after the Obligation was entred into Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXIII Shrewsbury and the Inhabitants of Ashtons Case Action upon Statute of Huy and Cry. AN Action was brought by Shrewsbury against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Ashton in the County of Bucks upon the Statute of Huy and Cry It was moved by Fleetwood Serjeant for the Defendants That if upon such Huy and Cry the Inhabitants do their endeavours as much as in them is to pursue and take the Malefactors and yet they cannot apprehend them that in reason they ought not to be charged But the whole was very strongly against him For Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Inhabitants of the Hundred in which the Robbery is done are bound to apprehend the Felons or to satisfie the Party robbed and the Party robbed is not bound to give notice to the Inhabitants nor to direct them which way the Felons took their flight but the Inhabitants are bound to pursue the Felons without any such instruction And afterwards the Inquest was taken and gave a Verdict in this manner That where the Plaintiff had declared that the Robbery was done in the Parish of D. in the Hundred aforesaid the Iury found that the place where the Robbery was done was a Lane within the said Hundred and that the one side of the said Lane was within the Parish of S. and the other side within the said Parish of D. and that the Robbery was done on the side of the said Lane which was in the Parish of S. and prayed the Opinion of the Court upon the matter And the whole Court was clear of Opinion That notwithstanding the Exception the Plaintiff should have Iudgment for here is the right Hundred which ought to be charged and the mistaking of the Parish was not to the purpose Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXIV Josselin and Josselins Case IN Debt the Plaintiff declared That he let certain Lands for years to the Defendant rendring Rent payable at the Feasts of the Annunciation and St. Michael or within forty days after every of the said Feasts and that the Rent was behind at the Feast of St. Michael last past unde actio accrevit The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet upon which they were at Issue It was shewed to the Court that here upon the Pleading is a Ieofail for the Rent is reserved payable at the said Feasts Jeofails or within forty days after and he declares that the said Rent upon which the Action was brought was behind at St. Michael without respect to the forty days after which cannot be for before the forty days after each Feast no Action did lie whereupon the Court awarded a Repleader Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXV The Queen and the Earl of Shrewsburies Case THe Queen granted to George Earl of Shrewsbury Grants of the King. Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench. An. 15 Eliz. the Office of Earl Marshal of England and now came the said Earl and prayed that J. N. one of his Servants to whom he had granted the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench might be admitted to it because that the same is an Office incident to his Office and in his power to grant and that Knowles to whom the Queen had granted the same Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench which she had by the Attainder of Thomas Duke of Norf. might be removed And a President was shewed M. 14 and 15 Eliz. between Gawdy and Verney where it is agreed That the said Office was a several Office from the said great Office and not incident to it And as to the Case of 39 H. 6. 33 34. the truth is that the said Marshal of the Kings Bench was granted expresly to the Duke and so he had it not as incident to his Office of Marshal of England On the other side were three Presidents shewed In the time of Edward 2. That the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench was appendant to the said Office of Marshal of England And 8 H. 2. when the said Great Office was in the
reversion shall be to both of them but if it be by Deed indented the rent shall go to one only according to the literal reservation Vide Litt. 80. 346. But if the Lease had been made by several Limitations as Habendum one Manor for 20 s. and the other Manor for 10 s. then the Lease and the Reversion had been several but here the rent shall not rule the reversion but the reversion the rent and the rent shall be of the same nature as the reversion Tenant for life makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition and re-enters for the condition broken now by that re-entry the Freehold is reduced to the Lessee for life and the Fee unto the Lessor but the Forfeiture remains Two Ioyntenants one of them makes a Feoffment in Fee of his Moiety upon condition and for the breach of the condition re-enters the Ioynt Estate is revived And he conceived that the Grantee of part of the Estate or part of the Land should not take advantage of the condition and he said that the Bargainor is an Assignee within the Statute If Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion the Vendee hath a Fee simple determinable and may enter for the condition broken If a reversion be granted to two and to the Heirs of one of them they are Assignees within the Statute and if he who hath but an estate for life surviveth he also is an Assignee for the entire reversion passeth out of the Grantor and that is my Rule Iudgment was given against the Re-entry LXXXIII Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Surrender LEssee for 21 years took a Lease of the same Lands for 40 years to begin immediately after the death of J. S. It was holden in this case that the same was not any present Surrender of the first term but if J. S. dye within the term then it is a Surrender for it may be that J. S. shall survive the first term Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXIV Anderson and Heywoods Case Copyholder A Copyholder of an Inheritance of a Manor which is in the hands of the King is ousted of his Copyhold It was holden that he hath not gained any Estate so as he may make a lease for years upon which the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firmae but he hath but a possession against all Strangers And it was holden in this case that if a Copyholder dyeth 1 Leon. 100. Rumny and Eves his heir within age he is not bound to come to any Court during his Nonage to pray admittance or to tender his Fine also if the death of his Ancestor be not presented nor proclamations made he is not at any mischief although he be at full age Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXV Cook and Songates Case IN Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared whereas Lis controversia had been moved between the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold the same by Copy c. And both the said parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrement of Mr. Godfrey a man learned in the Law. concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to the same The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said Mr. Godfrey should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the said Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation the Defendant reciprocally promised to the Plaintiff that if the said Mr. Godfrey should adjudge the said Copy not to be sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the Land to the Plaintiff without any Suit. And shewed further that the said Mr. Godfrey did award the said Copy utterly to be insufficient c. Yet the Defendant continued the possession of the said Land It was moved that the same was not a good and sufficient consideration to ground an Assumpsit But Gawdy Iustice said it was a good and sufficient consideration because it was to avoid Controversies and Suits And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LXXXVI Taylors Case IN Assumpsit the Case was Assumpsit That the Defendant promised to carry certain Apples for the Plaintiff by Boat from Greenwich in the County of Kent to London and the Apples being in the Boat the Boat in which they were by a great and violent Tempest was sunk in the River of Thames so as the said Apples perished c. It was holden to be no Plea in discharge of the Assumpsit by which the Plaintiff had subjected himself to all adventures LXXXVII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise A. Seized of Lands in Fee and having Issue two Sons Richard and Gilbert by his Will willed That if his Son Richard dye before Issue so that the Land descend to my Son Gilbert then I will that my Overseers shall have the Government of my Lands and of my Son Gilbert Richard took a wife and dyed she being young with Child with a Daughter the Devisor died the Daughter was born It was adjudged in this Case that by this Devise the Daughter was excluded from the Inheritance and that Gilbert should have the Land. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXVIII Lukes Case LUke Esq of Tedcaster was Indicted upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap 8. for being a Broker in a Vsurious Contract for which he encurred a Praemunire Who pleaded Not Guilty upon which they were at Issue and at the day of the Return of the Distringas the Iurors appeared and the same day that the Iury was to be taken Popham Attorney General sent for the Distringas and for certain causes for the Queen would not proceed Note that the Attorney was informed that the Iury was partial It was moved by Cook that the Attorney could not stay the Proceedings the Writ being returned and the Iury appearing he could not stay the Tryal for no President is thereof Popham The Entry shall be in this case Vicecomes non misit breve Cook That is false and the Sheriff is sworn to make a true return but by consent of the Parties such a thing may be done for Consensus tollit Errorem Quaere 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer LXXXIX The Queen and Painters Case Accompt of the King against a Stranger SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordnance and delivered the money of the King to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden in this case That for the said money the Queen might have Accompt against Painter although he wanted a privity which cannot be so in case of a common person for if any Receiver make one his Deputy I shall not have an Accompt against him Popham Attorney General If one of
that Reversion shall descend to all the daughters notwithstanding the half blood for the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by license of the Lord is a demise and a Lease according to the order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the demise the Possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder for his possession is customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be the possession of the other therefore there shall be no Possessio Fratris in this case Possesso Fratris But if one had been the Guardian by custom or the Lease had been made by Surrender there the Sister of the half blood should not inherit And Mead said the Case of the Guardian had been adjudged Mounson agreed And it was said that if a Copyhold doth descend to the Son he is not a Copyholder before admittance but he may take the profits and punish a Trespass before admittance CIV Pasc 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Parson let his Rectory for three years and covenanted that the Lessee shall have and enjoy it during the said term without expulsion or any thing done or to be done by the Lessor and is also bound in an Obligation to the Lessee to perform the said Covenant Forfeiture Quaere Afterwards for not reading of the Articles he was deprived ipso facto by the Statute of 13 Eliz. The Patron presented another who being inducted ousted the Lessee wherefore an Action was brought upon the Obligation It was the Opinion of all the Iustices That this matter is not any cause of Action for the Lessee was not ousted by any Act done by the Lessor but rather for Non feasans and so out of the compass of the Covenant aforesaid as if a man be bound that he shall not do any waste permissive waste is not within the danger of it Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CV King and Cottons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Lessee for years the Remainder for life the Remainder in Tail to Lessee for years Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee with warranty and dyed he in the Remainder for life dyed the Issue in Tail entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff It was clearly resolved by the Court in this Case Entre Congeable That the entry of the Issue in Tail was lawful notwithstanding that the disseisin was done to another Estate than that which was to be bound by the warranty scil to the Estate for life Vide 50 E. 3. 12 13 46 E. 3. 6. Fitz. Garr 28. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CVI. Scot and Scots Case BArtholomew Scot brought a Writ of Accompt against Thomas Scot Accompt Thomas Scot sum ' fuit ad respondend Barth Scot quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit receptor denariorum c. And declared quod cum the said Thomas Scot fuit receptor denariorum c. recepisset so much by the hands of such a one c. Cumque idem Thomas habuisset recepiâ—â—et diversa bona and shewed what ad merchandizand c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Writ and Declaration is general against the Defendant as Receiver whereas for such goods as the Defendant had received ad merchandizand he ought to have been charged as Bayliff Quod Curia concessit Vide Book Entries 19. 46 E. 3. 9. and afterwards the Defendant traversed severally both the Charges whereupon several Issues were joyned and both found for the Plaintiff And as to the monies with the Receipt of which he was charged as Receiver the Plaintiff had Iudgment and as to the others Abatement of Writ which he received ad Merchandizandum the Writ abated And it was said by the Court That the Writ should have abated in the whole unless the several Issues had helped the matter because the Plaintiff might have had an Action for part in other manner Vide 9 H. 7. 4. by Brian 17 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber CVII Morgan and Coxes Case MOrgan exhibited a Bill of Perjury in the Star-Chamber against one Cox setting forth that whereas he was bound to his good behaviour by Recognizance acknowledged in the Kings bench and he in discharge of the said Recognizance had obtained a Writ De Fama gestu to enquire of his Conversation and therefore at the Sessions in the County of Devon where the said Morgan was dwelling the grand Iury charged with the said Matter the said Cox gave Evidence to the said grand Iury in maintenance and continuance of the said Recognizance and upon the Evidence given by Cox the said Bill was conceived It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant That that Bill upon the matter did not lye for that the Evidence in the Bill for the Perjury was given for the Queen in maintenance of the Recognizance and that to the grand Iury which was charged for the Queen But as to that it was said by the Lord Chancellor and both the Chief Iustices that the Writ De fama gestu Brief de Fama gestu is an especial Writ at the Suit of the Party and not of the Queen and the Court cannot deny it to him who asketh it and the grand Iury as to that matter shall be accounted a special Iury c. Mich. 16 Eliz In the Common Pleas. CVIII Jackson and Darcys Case Tail barred by a Fine 3 Leon. 57. IN a Writ of Partition betwixt Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and dyed it was adjudged that the Issue was barred and yet the Remainder to the Queen was not discontinued for by the Fine an Estate in Fee-simple determinable upon the Estate in Tail passed to the Conusee Trin. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CIX Stroads Case Tenures IN a Replevin the Case was Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries The King granted the Lands over unto another it was holden in this Case that the Patentee should hold of the King according to his Patent and not of the ancient Lord but the Patentee should pay the rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent-seck distrainable of Common right to the Lord and his Heirs of whom the Land was before holden CX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in Fee devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease Estate she to give the same to whom she will He had Issue two daughters and died Devises Leon. 121â— the wife granted the Reversion to a Stranger and committed waste and the two daughters brought an Action of waste In this Case it was holden that by that Devise the wife had but an Estate for life but she had also an authority
where the Suit is Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso CXXII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Debt IF Rent-corn be reserved upon a Lease for years and it is behind for two or three years the Lessor may have Debt for the Corn and shall declare of so much Corn and it shall be in the Detinet but yet he shall not have Iudgment to have Corn but so much mony as the Corn was worth every several year being accompted Clark Baron doubted if he shall recover the price of the Corn as it was at the time when it was payable or it was at the time of the Action brought Manwood The Law is clear that the Lessee shall pay according to the price it was at the time of the payment and delivery limited by the Lease Clark said A is bound to pay and deliver to the Obligee 10 Bushels of Wheat and no place is appointed where the payment shall be made the Obligor is not bound to seek the Obligee in what place soever as it is in Case of payment of mony for that the importableness therefore shall excuse him which Manwood granted CXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Barons Fine for Alienation without Licence that for Fines for Alienation without licence not only the Land aliened but the other Lands of the Alienor shall be chargeable Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXXIV Prowses Case IT was holden in the Case of one Prowse by Egerton Solicitor Tythes upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. where an Abbot had a Rectory impropriate and also Land within the same Parish c. and so paid no Tythes because he could not pay them to himself and for no other cause was discharged and after the Dissolution the Rectory is granted to one and the Land to another that in such Case the King nor his Patentees should not be discharged of Tythes for the Lands were not discharged in Right but if the Lands in the hands of the Abbot were discharged in Right as by composition or lawful means there the King and his Patentee should be discharged from payment of Tythes And it was said by Burliegh Lord Treasurer that if the Composition or Custom was that the Abbot and his Successors should be discharged without extending to Farmors or Lessees if the Abbot made a Lease and the Lessee paid Tythes as he ought and after the Reversion cometh to the King the Lessee should pay Tythes during his Lease but after the Lease determined the King and his Patentee should not pay but should be discharged by the said Statute and said the like matter was in the Chancery Trin. 30 Eliz. The Abbot of Tewkesbury having the Rectory impropriate of Tewkesbury 11 H. 7. purchased Lands within the said Parish to him and his Successors Unity no discharge of Tythes after the dissolution the King granted to G. the Rectory and to W. the Lands and if W. should pay Tythes was referred to Manwood and Periam who gave their Resolution that Tythes were payable Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXV Ropers Case ROper was robbed by Smith and within a week after the Robbery he preferred an Indictment against him and within a month after the Robbery he sued an Appeal against Smith and prosecuted it until he was out-lawed and thereupon Cook moved to have Restitution and they of the Crown Office said that the Fresh-suit was not enquired for upon an Appeal one shall not have Restitution without Fresh-suit Restitution Cook The Books are if the Defendant in the Appeal of Robbery be attainted by Verdict Fresh Suit. the Fresh-suit shall be enquired of But here he was attainted by Outlary and not by Verdict and so the Fresh-suit could not be enquired of and here the Indictment is within a week and the Appeal within a month after the Robbery is a Fresh-suit Wray Chief Iustice In our Law he is to pursue the Felon from Town to Town but the suing of the Appeal is no Fresh-suit vide 21 F. 4.16 Restitution grounded upon Outlawry and Appeal of Robbery without Fresh-suit enquired of 1 H. 4. 5. if he confess the Felony and so is 2 R. 3. 13. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVI Piers and Leversuches Case IN Ejectione firmae by Piers against Leversuch It was found by Verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grandfather of the Defendant was Tenant in Tail of the Land whereof c. and made Lease for years to Purn who assigned it over to Piers the Plaintiffs Father Robert Leversuch died W. his Son entred upon Piers who re-entred W. demised the Lands without other words to P. for life the remainder to Joan his wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney to re-enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made Livery to Joan W. died Edward his Son and Heir entred upon his Wife she re-entred and let the Land to the Plaintiff who upon an Ouster brought the Action Heal Serjeant When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the Issue in Tail he was a Disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry was taken away of W. Leversuch Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a Disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a Deed of W. it appeared that his intent was not to enter as a Disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas it was Skipwiths Case Grandfather Tenant in Tail Father and Son the Grandfather died the Father entred and paid the rent to the Lessor and died in possession and it was adjudged the same was not any descent for the paying of the rent explained by what title he entred and so shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVII Penhalls Case PEnhall was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying that he drew it with intent to strike the Party and for that cause the Indictment was holden void as to the Statute It was moved if it should not bee a good Indictment for the Assault so as he should be fined for the same By Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court the Indictment is void in all for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and then the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVIII Weshbourns Case WEshbourn and Brown were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. and exception was
and prayed him to seal it And Wotton said that he would not that the Obligation was forfeited contrary if he had not denyed to seal it but had shewed the same to his Counsel as in our Case But the Opinion of the Iustices was that the Obligation was forfeited For when he knew the last instant of the time he ought to have had his Counsel there ready with him Vide the Case of Arbitrement 18 E. 4. 21. At another day the Case was argued again by Andrews and he said that the Obligation was not forfeited For he said it is a Rule in Law Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas and in E. 4. a man was bound upon request to relinquish and renounce Administration and there it was holden that after the request he ought to have convenient time to go to the Ordinary before it shall be said that he had forfeited his Obligation In 33 E. 3. it is said that if J. S. be bound That if A B infeoff C. that then he shall pay to the Obligee 10 l. Now if the Feoffment be made after Sun-setting as it well may be yet it is sufficient to save his Obligation if he pay the mony the next day And 19 H. 6. an Annuity was granted to an Infant until he was promoted to a Benefice if a Benefice be offered unto him before he be of sufficient age and he refuseth it the Obligation is not forfeited If a man be bound to enfeoff and make Livery and Seisin of the Manor of D to one upon request and afterwards the Party is made King in which Case he cannot take Livery now if upon request the Party refuseth yet it is no Forfeiture And it hath been holden here by you all That if a man unlearned seals a Deed which is written contrary to the intent of the Parties the same not being read unto him by that he shall not be bound for ever But the Opinion of the Court was as before That the Obligation was forfeited CLVII Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte that Mead and Windham the other Iustices being absent were of Opinion That a Copyholder in Fee who by Custom may surrender in Fee may make a surrender in Tail without any Special Custom to warrant it and he who may prescribe to make a Feoffment in Fee may make a Lease for Life and it shall be good because Omne majus continet in se minus Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLVIII Trecarram and Friendships Case 1 Leon. 287. TRecarram made a Demise by these words This Indenture between Trecarram c. of the one part and Friendship his Wâ—â—e and their Children lawfully begotten at the Assignment of the said Friendship of the other part The Question was if L. the Daughter which the Husband and Wife had at the time of the Lease made was Party to the said Indenture and so took by it Or if another Son of Friendship which after he made his Executor should have the Term. Hamon 30 E. 3. If a Gift be made to Infants of such a man it is a good Name of purchase and if he hath but one Infant it is good to him and so in our Case where Friendship had Issue a Daughter at the time of the Lease that she should take only otherwise where he had many And the words viz. at the Assignment of Friendship are mere surplusage as 20 Ass where a man gave twenty loads of Wood in such a Wood whereof fourteen he hath of the gift of such a one these words whereof he hath of the gift of such a one are surplusage Cook conceived that the Daughter who was in esse at the time of the demise should have the Term For if a man make a grant to two as the one of them is not Capax he who is capable shall have the whole As a Feoffment to J. S. and the right Heirs of J. D. J. D. being alive J. S. shall have the whole So Ass a gift to a man and to such a wife which he shall have he shall have the whole and the wife nothing The words At the Assignment c. are void for there is not a Person able to take at the time of the grant therefore he shall not take afterwards and because the Daughter is able she shall Wray Iustice conceived that these words At the Assâ—gnment of Friendship were not void but that he had reserved to him liberty to make his Son party or not and because he had not assigned him that he took nothing Ayliffe If Lands be leased to me my Wife and William my Son whereas his Name is John it is void as to the Son for the Misnomer but if he had said Son without more it had been good to the Son and so here if he had not mentioned any Assignment then the Daughter should have had it but contrary by the words of the Assignment Clench The intent of the parties is to be considered As if I grant to you Common within my Manor of D. it shall be construed to be within my Lands commonable and not in my Orchard And here it shall be intended those Children which he shall name when the sealing was and if he name others after it shall be void as a Lease to you and to her who you shall take to wife is void for there ought to be such a person at the time of the commencement of the Deed which might take And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Defendant who claimed by the Executor should have the term and not the Plaintiff who claimed by the Daughter and therefore Iudgment was entred that the Plaintiff nihil capiat per Billam Pasc 24 Eliz. CLIX. The Countess of Sussex and Worths Case IN 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary 1 Leon 35. â— 3 Leon. 132. Co. 6 Rep. 33. Fitz-williams Case a private Statute was made by which the Manor of Barnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture Proviso that it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to make a Lease or Leases for 21 years The Earl made a lease for 21 years and afterwards he made another lease for 21 years within a year before the first lease ended and the second lease was to begin at the end of the first lease and if the second lease was good and within the intent of the Act was the question Popham Attorney That it was not 1. Because it is to begin at a day to come 2. Because it is made during the first lease But it may be objected that it is said lease or leases It is not the sense of the Act for by it he might only make leases in possession and not in futuro and so he might make a lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the intent of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and W.
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
on the other side That the Estate of the Alien is so weak that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be infeoffed to anothers use and if he be such use is void For there is not a sufficient seisin in an Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged on Forset Case Where an Alien and the said Forset were Ioynt-Purchasers and the Alien dyed that Forset should not have the whole by Survivour but that upon Office found the Queen should have the moiety Vide 11 Eliz. Dyer 283. Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVI Jermine and Arscots Case THe Case between Jermine and Arscot was this A seized of Lands in Fee had Issue six Sons and one Daughter and devised the Manor of c. parcel of his said Lands to J. S. for ninety years if the said J. S. and G. his Wife or any of them should so long live the remainder to P. his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his other Sons in tail the remainder to his Daughter Provided That if the said P. his Son or any of the Sons of the Devisor or any of the heirs males of their bodies should endeavour by any Act or Thing to alien bargain or discontinue c. that then after such attempt or endeavour and before such Bargain and Sale c. were executed that the estate of such Person attempting should cease as if he were naturally dead and that then the premises should remain and come to such person to whom the same ought to come remain or be by the intent and meaning of his Will and died P. levied a Fine of the Manor he in the next remainder entred and claimed the Land by force of the Devise This Case was this Term argued by Walmesly Serjeant that an Estate tail cannot cease for it is an Estate of Inheritance and here is not any limitation for the Estate tail by the meaning of the Devisor shall remain revivable upon the death of the Offender but a Limitation determines the Estate utterly which is not here but here it appeareth as well by the meaning of the Devisor as by the words of the Devise that the Estate tail upon such act should be suspended and it cannot be resembled to the Case cited on the other side 22 E. 3. A Rent granted to one in Fee and that it shall cease during the Nonage of every Heir the Rent is but suspended between the Parties and Privies to the Gift as in the Case of Littleton of Re-entry and Retainer quousque but that a Stranger should re-enter and retain quousque that cannot be And in the Case of Scholastica reported by Plowden the Estate tail by such Offence is determined by the limitation But in our Case by the meaning of the Devisor only suspended so our Case is not like to that Case Shuttleworth to the contrary The purpose of the Devisor appeareth to be the continuance of the Land in the name and Family of the Caries and as to the difference of ceasing and suspending of an Estate tail the same is not to the purpose for the Tenant in tail himself may suspend his Estate tail therefore à fortiori the Donor upon the Creation of the Estate tail As by Littleton Tenant in Tail grants totum statum suum the Estate tail is thereby suspended and by Anderson if in such a Case after such a grant Tenant in tail levy a Fine in our Case If Tenant in tail offend and the party to whom the next interest is limited enters and after the Offender levies a Fine to a Stranger there although his Estate was determined by the offence yet the Estate tail is bound by the Fine Ad quod caeteri Justiciarii murmurabant Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the eldest in the life of his Father levieth a Fine and after the Father dieth the Estate tail is bound contrary if the Father had survived his eldest Son And afterwards in the end of this Term Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for by the Will here is a good limitation and an estate to cease upon an act and upon another contingent to be revived is good enough Vide 30 E. 3. 7. A Lease for life rendring rent and if the rent he behind that the Lessor shall return quousque agreement be made so as a Freehold may cease and rise again according as the same is limited And all this was agreed by Rhodes Periam and Windham and afterwards Walmsley for the Plaintiff took an Exception to the Bar for that the Defendant pleaded Quod Petrus Cary tempore levationis finis praedict non habet exitum and doth not say that tempore quo ipse Henricus clamabat reversionem praedict the said Peter had not Issue for he said if Peter had Issue when Henry claimed the Reversion nothing had vested on him by the said claim But all the Court besides Anderson said that needed not be but if the matter had been such the same should come on the part of the Plaintiff Also they said That the Estate was vested in Henry without claim and although after the Offence committed and before claim Peter have Issue yet Henry should retain the Land during the life of the Offender against such Issue born after the Fine levied for by the Fine levied the Reversion vested in Henry without any claim by force of the said limitation CLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Alien suffers a common Recovery 9 Co. 141. LAnd was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder over to another in Fee the Alien suffered a common Recovery and died without Issue All this matter was found by Office. It was moved That this Office should have return so as upon the matter the Alien was not Tenant of the Land at the time of the Recovery suffered But the whole Court held the contrary and that the Recovery was good and should bind him in the Remainder Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVIII Seixtbark and Percies Case EJectione firmae of Lands in Knolton and Woodland the Parties were at Issue and the Venire facias was of Knolton only and it was found for the Plaintiff It was shewed in stay of Iudgment that the Venire facias was not well awarded for it ought to have been De vicineto de Knolton Woodland which was granted by the Court And that that defect was not relieved by any Statute for it is a Mis-trial and for that cause Iudgment was stayed and a Venire facias de novo granted 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXIX The Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxfords Case THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital and Meason de Dieu in Southampton and they make a Lease of Lands parcel of the Possession of the said Hospital to one Hagel for term of years by the name of
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
of Debt amounting to the sum of 80 l. Solubiles eidem querenti to be received by the Defendant at Roan in Normandy to his own use the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 60 l. and upon this matter Iudgment was given and now a Writ of Error was brought and assigned for Error because it is not shewed in the Declaration that the Bills were sealed or that they were made to the Plaintiff and here is not any consideration for the Defendant hath not any remedy to compel the Parties to pay the said debts if they refuse Godfrey If the mony be not paid at Roan to the Defendant he shall have an Action upon the Case for this is an Assumpsit in Law which Wray concessit for it is a mutual promise and agreement And it was argued to the contrary that here is not any sufficient consideration for it doth not appear that the Defendant hath any remedy for to recover the mony And 13 Eliz. it was holden that where the Plaintiff declared in an Action upon the Case that in consideration that he had delivered a Bill of Debt to the Defendant and hath made a Letter of Attorney upon it c. the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 20 l. and because that the Plaintiff notwithstanding that might release the debt or revoke the Letter of Attorney and so defeat the Defendant of the whole profit c. that the Action upon the matter did not lye Also for another cause the consideration is not sufficient for it is illegal because maintenance but if it was upon the consideration precedent it had been good enough As if J be indebted to A. and B. is indebted to me J. may assign to A. the debt which B. oweth me Golding Although the consideration be but of small value yet it is good enough And if A. in consideration B will assure to him the Manor of D. promise to pay to B. 100 l. although the Party hath not any interest or title to it yet it is good and also though the consideration be Executory yet it is valuable for if the mony be not paid at Roan the Defendant shall have an Action upon the Case against the Plaintiff It was also objected that upon the Declaration it doth not appear that the Defend if the two Bills be not paid may have an Action upon the Case against the Plaintiff for there is not any express Assumpsit on the Plaintiffs part that the monies due by the Bills to the Plaintiff shall be paid to the Defendant for if it had been so then it had been good for then there had been a reciprocal promise which is not here nor can be collected by any words in the Declaration Cook It doth not appear upon the Declaration by whom nor to whom the mony due by the two Bills shall be paid for it may be that they are due to the Defendant and then the delivery of the two Bills is not any consideration Quod Clench Gawdy concesserunt The Case was adjourned CCIV. Temps Roign Eliz. THe Case was A. enfeoffed B upon Condition that if he pay ten pound to the Feoffee his Executors and Assigns within three years next ensuing that then c. The Feoffee hath Issue three Sons whom he makes his Executors and dyeth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits Letters of Administration to J. S. during the minority of the Executors It was the Opinion of Dyer that it was the surest way for A. to pay the monies to the Executors no withstanding the administration committed to another for the Administrator in such Case is but a Bailiff or Receiver to the Executors and shall be accountable to them which Harper concessit And Manwood said That if in that Case the monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the monies to be paid upon that conditional Feoffment are as a sum in gross and not in the nature of a Debt quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCV Temps Roign Eliz. A Lease is made of certain Lands for years Proviso that the Lessee shall not put his Cattel upon the Land from Michaelmass to St. Andrews Tide the Question was If this Proviso and Restraint shall reach for the whole Term or but to the first year Dyer Conditions are stricti juris and ought not to have liberal constructions therefore he conceived that the condition should be restrained to the first year and should not further extend Manwood If I be bound that I will not go to London between Easter and Michaelmas it shall not extend only to the first year after the date of the Obligation but for my whole life Hil. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCVI. Doughty and Prideaux Case ACtion upon the Case by Doughty against Prideaux upon these words Thou art a wicked and perjured Fellow 3 Leon. 269. and art forsworn in the Court of Star-Chamber as it appeareth by an Exemplification here under the Seal of that Court The Defendant justified by reason of a Bill exhibited in the said Court by one Brooks against the now Plaintiff for conspiring with another to endite the said Brook of certain Felonies and the Defendant now Plaintiff in his answer to his said Bill denied upon Oath the said Conspiracy and Sentence was given in the said Court against the now Plaintiff ubi revera such Conspiracy was The Plaintiff by Replication said That the said Brook was arraigned and endicted upon the said Indictment and prayed his Clergy whereupon it appeared that the said Brook was not legitimo modo acquiet ' and the same can be no Conspiracy in the now Plaintiff to prove the said Brook to be indicted And by Walmesley and Periam the Replication is not good for it may be that Brook was acquitted and yet that the Plaintiff conspired upon which a Writ of Conspiracy perhaps will not lye but an Action upon the Case without doubt for the Replication doth not prove that the Plaintiff did not conspire but that the Plaintiff was not punishable for such Conspiracy CCVII. Pasc 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Abbot made a Lease to three men for eighty years and in the end of the said Lease there was a clause Proviso That if they dyed within the said Term that then the Lessor might enter The Possessions of the Abby came to the King who granted the Reversion to J. S. who made a new Lease to J. D. for twenty and one years to begin after the Expiration Determination or Surrender of the former Lease The three Lessees dyed within the term If J. D. might enter before J. S. had entred was the Question It was the Opinion of the Iustices that he could not for it is in the Election of J. S. if he will take advantage of the Condition and defeat the Lease but that ought to be by Entry and none can make such Entry but the Lessor himself or by his express direction Trin. 31 Eliz. In
the Office. Vide Stanford Prerogat 54 55. and Vide 20 E. 4. 11. A. seized of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant is attainted of Treason the Church void the King without any Office shall have the presentment But admitting that it is not in the King without Office yet the Pardon of 23 Eliz. doth not extend to it For the words of the Pardon are Treasons Felonies Offences Contempts Trespasses Entries Wrongs Deceits Misdemeanors Forfeitures Penalties and Sums of Moneys and if by any of these words the matter be helped is to be considered and if any thing shall help it it is the word Forfeiture But I conceive that the same doth not extend to this matter for although it be an ample word yet it shall be construed to extend beyond the words accompanied with it which concern only personal things as Contempts Wrongs Trespasses as the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which is penned by general words as Colledges Deans and Chapters Parsons Vicars and others having Spiritual Promotions that Statute doth not extend by construction to Bishops and they have Spiritual Promotion yet the Statute shall be construed to extend to the Parties named and other Inferiour Orders and Degrees and shall not be extended higher So in the Commission of the Peace ad diversas Felonias alia Malafacta c. those general words do not extend to Treason c. Vide for the Residue of this Case Venable and Harris's Case which was the same Case and is Reported in Leonard 2 Part fol. 122. Placito 169. Pasc 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXIX Downhall and Catesoy's Case IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 3 Leon. 267. the Parties were at Issue and it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Bank because that some of the Iury did eat and drink before they gave their Verdict that the Court would not receive the Postea Curia that we cannot do for we not know whether your Information be true or not and this matter ought to be examined by the Iustices of Assize or Nisi prius before whom the Trial was and they are to certifie thereof and then we shall have good cause to stay the Entry of the Postea In that Case it was said If any of the Iurors eat and drink before their Verdict at their own Costs it doth not make the Verdict void but if at the Costs of the Plaintiff or Defendant it is otherwise CCXXX Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Sheriff took an Obligation of a Prisoner bailable upon condition that he should personally appear in the Kings Bench c. It was holden a good Condition not against the Statute of 23 H. 6. So if the Condition had been that he should appear for to answer contrary that he shall appear and answer for in the principal Case the word personally is not of substance for although he appears by Attorney yet the Condition is well performed and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anderson reclamante Vide 27 Eliz. B. R. Sedford and Cutts Case 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXXI Haselwoods Case THe Case of Haselwood A seized of Land is indebted to the King by Obligation and enfeoffed B. of his Land And the Case of Fleetwood 15 Eliz. was vouched where it was holden That in purchase the debtor of the King was lyable But by Pigot who was of Counsel with Haselwood the Obligation in this Case was made before the Statute of 33 H. 8. or otherwise he should be charged 32 Eliz. CCXXXII Sir William Pelhams Case SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordinances and delivered of the Kings money to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden That for that money the Queen might have Account against Painter See this Case before Sect. 81. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXIV. Ognell and Vnderhills Case IN Replevin the Case was as appeared upon the pleading That Rob. Bouchier was seized of a certain Farm called Cruchefield Grange and leased the same to Sir William Raynsford for thirty years who dyed thereof possessed by reason of which the Interest thereof came to Raynsford as Executor of the said Sir William Raynsford who assigned the said Farm except a parcel of it called Hobbes to Sir Henry Bear for parcel of the term and afterwards assigned the said parcel called Hobbes for part of the term to Frekington and others and afterwards granted the residue of the said term not expired to the said Bear and Frekington and afterwards the said Rob. Bouchier granted a Rent-charge of 40 l. per annum percipiendum de omnibus terris renementis quibuscunque vocat the Grange of Cruchefield in the Parish of Stoneleigh in the County of Warwick nuper in tenura occupatione William Raynsford milit nunc in tenura occupatione Hen. Bear. Bouchier granted the reversion of Hobbes to Lewknor in Fee to whom Scarre releaseth all his right estate and demand in the said Land called Hobbes the Lease expired the rent behind Lewknor leased at will to R. the first Question was If the said Rent-charge shall be said issuing out of the said Lands called Hobbes for if c. then by that Release the rent is gone But the whole Court was clear of Opinion That the rent was not issuing out of Hobbes but out of the Lands then in the possession of Bear and not out of the Lands in the possession of Frekington Although it was objected by Walmesley Serjeant That the words in the Grant of the rent in tenura occupatione Bear shall be construed in the disjuncive quasi sive and then the Close called Hobbes although it was not in the Occupation yet it was in tenura of Bear. The Matter was at another day argued by Fenner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he much relyed upon the word quibuscunque in the Grant of the Rent de omnibus terris quibuscunque commonly called Cruchefield Grange As if I grant to you all my Trees my Apple-trees shall not pass but if the Grant was omnes arbores meas quascunque they pass and that by the Emphasis of this word Quibuscunque So if I grant you Common for your Cattel in such a place none shall have Common but those which are Commonable shall have Common there contrary where the Grant is pro averiis quibuscunque And it was adjudged in the Chancery in the Case of the Bishop of Ely That where the said Bishop leased all the Demeasns of a Manor for years that by the said Lease the Park within the said Manor should not pass But perhaps if such a Lease had been Omnes singulas terras dominicales quascunque the Park would have passed And afterwards the Counsel of the Plaintiff seeing that the Court was of Opinion with the Defendant took Exception to the pleading The Defendant made Conusans ut Ballivus Administratoris of the Grantee of the Rent and doth not shew the Letters of Administration And as to
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
the Covenant shall enure to defeat and determine the Warranty And afterward Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLXXIII Sir Francis Englefields Case Vide this Case Reported by Cook in Rep. 7. and by Popham 18. THe Case to recite at large was this Sir Francis Englefield Kt. being seized in Fee of the Manor of Englefield in the County of Berks and of divers other Lands in the first year of Queen Eliz. departed out of the Realm by Licence of the Queen for a time and remained out of the Realm in the parts beyond the Seas above the time of his Licence whereby the Queen by her Warranty under her Privy Seal required him to return upon which he was warned but did not come whereupon the Queen seized his Lands for his contempt After which the Statute of Fugitives was made 13 Eliz. upon which by Commissions found upon this Statute all his Lands were newly seized and afterwards 17 Eliz. by Indenture made between him and his Nephew and Sealed by the said Sir Francis at Rome the said Sir Francis covenanted with his said Nephew upon consideration of Advancement of his Nephew and after consideration to raise an use that he and his Heirs and all others seized of the said Manor c. shall hereafter stand and be seized of them to the use of himself for the term of his life without impeachment of Waste and afterwards to the use of his Nephew and of the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs and Assigns of the Nephew for ever with a Proviso that if the said Sir Francis shall have any Issue Male of his Body that then all the said Vses and Limitations shall be void and that the said Manors c. shall be as before Afterwards the said Sir Francis was attainted of Treason supposed to be committed by him 18 Eliz. at L. in partibus transmarinis and the Attainder was first by Outlary and afterwards by Act of Parliament 28 Eliz. by which the Forfeiture of the said Condition was given to the Queen and at the same Parliament it was Enacted That all and every Person and Persons which had or claimed to have any Estate of Inheritance Lease or Rent they not entred of Record or certified into the Court of Exchequer of into or out of any Manors Lands c. by or under any Grant Assurance or Conveyance whatsoever had or made at any time after the beginning of her Majesty by any persons attainted of any Treasons mentioned in the said Act after the 8 day of Feb. 18 Eliz. or within two years next ensuing the last day of the Session of the said Parliament shall openly shew in the Court of the said Exchequer or cause to be openly shewn the same his or their Grant Conveyance or Assurance and there in the Term time in open Court the same shall offer and Exhibit upon his or their Oath affirming that they have not the same nor can come by it or that it was never put in writing then the Effect thereof to be entred and inrolled of Record or else every such Assurance should be void and of none Effect to all intents and purposes saving to every person and persons other than the parties and privies to such Conveyance and such as shall not Exhibit the said Conveyance according to the true meaning of this Act all such rights c. Whereupon the said Francis the Nephew the 20 day of November 30 Eliz. in his own person affirmed upon his Oath that he had not the said Conveyance nor knew not how to come by it but delivered the Effect of the Assurance omitting the time when it was made otherwise than that it was made after the beginning of the Queens Reign and before the Treason committed by Sir Francis and before the Statute of 13 Eliz. against Fugitives and omitting also the last clause of the tender of the King and this he offered openly in the Court of the Exchequer the same day After which the Queen being moved with the said Condition made a Warrant by Letters Patents under the Great Seal dated 17 Martii 13 Eliz. to Rich. Broughton and Henry Bourcher Esquires for her and in her place and stead to deliver or tender to the said Francis the Nephew a Ring of Gold to the intent to make void the uses and limitations limited by the said Indenture and to return their proceedings upon it into the Court of Exchequer whereupon they made a tender of a Ring of Gold to the said Francis the Nephew the 18 day of November 31 Eliz. which he refused to receive And the two years after the said Session of Parliament was the 13 day of March 31 Eliz. and the said Broughton and Bourcher returned all this that they had done as before with their Commission out of the Exchequer And this Case being a great case and consisting of many doubts and questions was often argued And this Term scil 33 Eliz. It was argued by Moor of Counsel on the part of Francis Englefield and he said when Sir Francis Englefield covenanted to stand seized to the use of himself for life c. this was not any new use but part of the ancient use which was in Sir Francis before for there was no Consideration to raise a new use to himself for a Consideration is a cause or an occasion meritorial requiring a mutual recompence in fait or in Law Dyer 16 Eliz 33. b. mutual 1. of each part and here this ancient use remaineth For Sir Francis cannot simul semel agree and suffer and here is a bare Covenant without any Consideration on the part of Sir Francis which see Dr. and Student 100. cited by Br. Feoffments to Uses 46. A man cannot limit an use to himself to be a new use upon an Estate executed as upon a Feoffment but it shall be the ancient use much less upon a Covenant And that was Milfords Case Pasch 31 Eliz. Rot. 154 in the Kings Bench where an use limited to the right Heirs of the Feoffor was holden the ancient use quod vide also in the case of the Earl of Bedford and there is no difference between our case and the said cases unless in the said cases the use is limited in the end and in our case in the beginning of the Conveyance But perhaps it will be Objected That the particular Estate shall be good for necessity for to support the Estate limited in the Remainder which is limited upon good consideration for otherwise the Remainder shall be distrained That is not any reason for that conceit in Bayntons case in Plow Com. 307. 8 Eliz. hath been over-voted to be no Law in the case of the Lord Paget in this Court very lately And he said That the condition conceived in the Proviso is not given to the King. By the Common Law in case of Escheat the party comes in the Post but a Condition runs in privity And although
the said Grant to the said Lord Owners of the Soil there might dig there It was further moved in this Case That the said Lord had demised the said Interest to one Laycott who assigned it over to A. and B. and if the said Assignment to two were good or not was a further question for if to two so he might do to twenty and so a surcharge might be to the Tenant of the Soil And as to that the said Iustices were of Opinion That the said Assignment to two was good But the two Assignees ought not to work severally but together with one Stock and with such Workmen as belonged to them two And Note it was holden in this Case That this word Proviso being coupled with other words of Covenant and Grant did not create a Condition but should be of the same nature as other words of Grant. CCLIX Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found upon a Special Verdict in Trespass that the place where c. was Copyhold Land and that the Custom there is That every Feme covert there might devise her customary Lands to her Husband and surrender the same in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and it was further found That A. was seized of certain Copy Land having Issue B. and C. his Daughters and dyed they both took Husbands and B. devised her part by her Will to her Husband in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and afterwards at another day she surrendred to the use of her Husband who was admitted accordingly the Wife dyed the Husband continued the possession and the Husband of the other Daughter brought Trespass Rhodes Serjeant The Custom is not good neither for the Surrender nor for the Will for it is not certain what Estate she might devise by the Custom and also it is against reason that a Feme covert surrender to the use of her Husband And he cited the Case in Fitz. 13 E. 3. Dum fuit intra Aetatem 3. where Custom is pleaded in the City of Gloucest That every person might alien his Land when he knew how to tell 12 d. and to measure an Ell of Cloath and that Custom was disallowed for the incertainty for he ought to have shewed the certainty of the time scil at what age and the certain number of years Vide also 19 E. 2. Fitz. Gard. 127. That an Infant should be out of Ward when he could do as aforesaid And as to the Surrender it is against reason that a Feme covert should give to her Husband for the Wife hath not any will but the will of her Husband and the Statute of Wills utterly excepts Feme coverts as an unreasonable thing to suffer them to make Devises and although the Statute doth not extend to Customary Lands yet the like reason the like Law. But by Anderson the Equity of that Act extends to Copyholds as also doth the Statute of Limitations And it was said by some of the Serjeants that because the Husband was admitted Trespass did not lye against him for his Entry was continued with a lawful Ceremony In this case it was moved by Anderson If a Copyholder maketh a Lease for years by word if the Lessee might maintain Ejectione firmae and he conceived not for that ought to be a Title in facto and not by conclusion for neither the Iudge nor the Iury are estopped And he said that if the Tenant at will makes a Lease for years that it is not a good Lease between the parties to it but that the Lessee might well say that he had nothing c. Mead contrary And Anderson said The Book of 12 E. 4. 12. is not Law scil If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years it is not Disseisin but the said Book is contrary Also Anderson said That in the principal Case the Presciption is not well laid Quod quaelibet foemina cooperta viro poterit c. whereas there should be also words scil Et usae fuerunt c. And it was said That if the Devise be good then the Plaintiff and Defendant are Tenants in Common and the Action not maintainable Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLX Jeroms Case JErome made an Affray of which complaint being made to the Mayor the said Mayor sent the Defendant being Constable to bring the said Jerome to him by virtue of which they went to the house of the Plaintiff and signified to him the command of the Mayor and would have brought the Plaintiff to him and the Plaintiffs Wife assaulted them and they gently lay their hands upon the Wife which is the said Assault Battery and Wounding c. upon which it was demurred Cooke for the Plaintiff Customs The Custom is not good nor reasonable vide Magna Charta 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur nec imprisonetur c. nisi c. per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae Ergo shall not be taken and imprisoned upon a bare suggestion Vide 24 E. 3. Br. Commissions 3. That where a Commission issued to apprehend all who were notoriously suspected for Felons and Trespassors although they were not Indicted it was holden against Law and therefore was revoked Vide the Statute of 1 E. 3. cap. 9. 25 E. 3. 4. 28 E. 3. 3. Justice of Peace not by Prescription 37 E. 3. 18. 42 E. 3. 33. 2. To be a Iustice of Peace doth not lye in Prescription for no Iustice of Peace was before the Statute of 1 E. 3. and the beginning of them being known Prescription cannot be 3. Admit that the Mayor was a Iustice of the Peace yet he cannot determine any thing out of Sessions 4. The Prescription is That the Mayor may send for him and doth not say within the City and it shall be an unreasonable Prescription to say that the Mayor may send for him for in such case in any place within England may he send 5. It is not shewed that they had a Corporation which might prescribe 6. The Wounding is not answered for Molliter injicere manus cannot be taken for a Wounding nor for an answer to the Battery Fleetwood Serjeant and Recorder of London If the Statute of Magna Charta should be observed no Felon is duly handled at Newgate and here we have not pleaded by way of Prescription but of Vsage Consuetudo and Vsage are all one And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Plea in bar was holden to be naught because the Wounding was not answered and the Custom is too general and also for the fourth Exception Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXI Goram and Fowks Case Prohibition THe Case was The Defendant libelled in the Spiritual Court that whereas he was Administrator to one A. and was bound in the Spiritual Court to bring in a true Inventory of all the Goods of the Intestate that the Plaintiff detained Jura Credita by reason of which
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
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
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
and a Writ de novo awarded CCXCVIII A. Is bound to B. upon Condition to stand to the Arbitrement of certain persons who award that B shall make a Release to A. of all Actions Debts Duties and Demands at the request of A. and afterwards A. comes to B. and requires him to make him a Release who said to him That he was unlearned and that he would go to one to make it and the next day after the request he seals and delivers it to A. who accepts of it It was holden by Windham and Mead That notwithstanding that Acceptance the Obligation was forfeited for they said That presently after request he ought to have done it in the speediest manner that might be Vide acc ' 15 E. 4. 31. Vide also Wottons Case 16 Eliz. Dyer 338. Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXCXI The Dean and Chapter of Christ Church and Parotts Case Grants of the King. NOte in the Common Pleas in a Case between the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church in Oxford and Parott It was holden by the Iustices that if the King grants Lands unto a Corporation by another name than that which they were named before yet the Land shall pass and the Letters Patents shall be to them as a new Incorporation c. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCC Beechers Case Jurors BEecher being a Gentleman of the Middle-Temple was Retorned in an Attaint and before the Retorn of the Pannel he became a Minister of the Church and now at the day of the Retorn he appeared and prayed to be discharged according to the Priviledge of those of the Ministry But the Court would not allow of his prayer because that at the time of the Pannel made he was a Lay-man Wherefore he was sworn one of the Iury. Hil. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCI. Vernon and Sir Thomas Staveleys Case TEnant in Tail made a Lease for the life of the Lessee according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. Discontinuance and by Wray and Gawdy Iustices the same was not a Discontinuance But if Tenant in Tail levyeth a Fine which bindeth his Issue by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. that same is a Discontinuance Look upon the Statute of Leases and of Fines the words in the former are scil Such Fines shall be good and effectual in the Law but in the other scil Such Fines shall be a bar against the Conusor and his Heirs And if Tenant in Tail after such a Fine dyeth without Issue the Donor cannot enter but is put to his Formedon And as to the principal Case Dyer agreed in opinion with Wray and Gawdy Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 1027. CCCII Milborne and the Inhabitants of Dunmowes Case MIlborne 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 Upon Statute of Hue and Cry. That the Plaintiff was robbed the 23 of April 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 provides for ordinary Travel as in the case of Archpole who came to his Inn after Sun-set ante Noctem in tempore diurno which is an usual time for Travellers to come to their Inn but the Law doth not receive any in protection of this Statute which travel in extraordinary hours for it is the folly of the traveller to take his journey so out of season and the inhabitants are not bound to leave their houses and attend the high-ways tempore Nocturno And another reason was alledged by the Iustices because that the said Statute appoints Watch to be kept in the time of night à festo Assensionis usque festum Sancti Mich. and this Robbery was done the 23 of April so out of the said time And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCIII. Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Devises SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court upon this Case A. devised Lands to his Wife for life and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife dyed before that his said Son should attain to the said age of 24 years that then J S. should have the said Lands until the said age of the said Son A dyed J. S. dyed the Wife dyed the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J. S. should have the Lands after the death of J. S. until the said age of the Son was the question Anderson and Periam conceived that he should not for this Interest limited by the Will to J. S. was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executors Rhodes and Windham doubted of it And Fenner put the Case 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. where Land is Mortgaged to J. S. upon payment of Money to the said J. S. or his Heirs such a day and before the said day J. S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Money that then A. B. shall have them that this Devise of that possibility is good which Case all the Iustices denied And Windham put the Case between Welden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plowd 519. where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife for so many of the years of the said term as she should live and if she dyed within the term that then his Son Francis should have the residue of the years not incurred Francis dyed intestate the Wife dyed within the term the Administrator of Francis had the residue of the term and yet nothing was in Francis the intestate but a possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he so long live and if he dye within the said term that then the said Wife should have the said term for so many of the years as should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband and if she dyed also within the said term that then the Child party to the Demise should have the same for so many of the years of the said term as should be not expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the case of Cicell was cited Dyer 8 Eliz. 253. A Lease was made to William Cecill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Eliz. uxor praedict Will Cicell habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praedict incompleti si tam diu vixerit Et si praedict Eliz. obierit infra terminum praedict Tunc Willielmus Cicell the Son c. shall have and hold it pro residuo termini praedict completi And it was holden by Catlin and
Dyer that these Remainders were void for the term is determinable upon the death of William Cecill the Father and the residue of the said term cannot remain And by the Lord Anderson the Remainders of the term limited ut supra are utterly void for every Remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessioner of the term may live longer so as he in the Remainder cannot know what he shall have And such was also the Opinion of Rhodes And he put the Case between Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture Et provisum fuit by the same Indenture That if the Lessee dyed within the term of sixty years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have in right of the Lessee so many of the years as should amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture and it was holden That that secondary Interest to the Executors was void and that the words concerning the same did sound in Covenant CCCIV. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A made B. and C. his Executors Executors Action they took upon them the charge of the Administration and afterwards B. dyed and now an Action of Debt was brought against the surviving Executor and the Executor of the other Executor and the Writ was abated because against the surviving Executor it ought only to be brought Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCV Smith and Babbs Case SMith brough an Action upon the Case against Babb for stopping of Water incessanter decurrent by his Land Action upon the Case Stopping of Water by which his Land was drowned and his Grass rotted Exception was taken to it because it is not alledged That the Water had so run time out of mind Gawdy Iustice If the Water hath run there but for one year if the Defendant hath diverted it so as he hath drowned the Plaintiffs Land the Action will lye well enough Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVI Basil Johnsons Case BAsil Johnson one of the Clerks of the Chancery Priviledge of a Clerk in Court. was impleaded in the Common Pleas by Bill of Priviledge by an Attorney of the said Court and now Basil came into Court and shewed that he is one of the Clerks ut supra and prayed his Priviledge but the whole Court was against it because the Plaintiff is as well priviledged in this Court as the Defendant is in the Chancery and was first interessed in his Priviledge by the bringing of his Writ but the Defendant was not entituled to his Priviledge before the Arrest and afterwards by the award of the Court the said Basil was ousted of his Priviledge 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVII Collier and Colliers Case Prohibition BEtween Collier and Collier the Case was That the Plaintiff was Sued for Incontinence in the Spiritual Court and there they would have him Answer upon his Oath if he ever had Carnall Knowledge of such a Woman upon which he prayed a Prohibition Vide inde F. N. B. 41. a. Register 36. Et nemo tenetur seipsum prodere But the Court would advise of it 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVIII Mountney and Andrews Case Execution IN a Scire Facias by Mountney against Andrews of Grays-Inn upon a Iudgment in Debt the Defendant pleaded That heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued to the Sheriff of Leicester by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendants and that as yet he doth detain and keep them It was holden by the whole Court to be a good Plea although he did not say That the Writ was retorned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath his remedy against the Sheriff Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCIX Dawbney and Gores Case BEtween Dawbney Plaintiff and Gore and Gon Defendants in a Writ of Disceit In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That two are accountable to one and the one of them accounts without the other that that is not any account and then no account can be assigned in that As to that it was said by Popham Attorney-General That notwithstanding that one be not compellable to account without his Companion and by way of Action of Account the one shall not account without the other unless the Process be determined against him and then he who appeareth hath accounted and the other against whom the Process is determined hath purchased his Charter of Pardon the account made by his Companion shall bind him Vide inde 41 E. 3. 13. Yet if one of the Accomptants will account willingly the same is a good account And in account if one confesseth and the other pleadeth in bar the confession of the one shall bind the other and such was the Opinion of the Court. Another matter was moved in this case because that one Tedcastell and Swinnerton being accountable to the said Gores and Dawbney they have accounted to Dawbney only and he alone hath accepted of the account and that is not any account therefore no desceit but the Action of Account doth remain To which it was answered by Popham That the same was a good account being accepted by Dawbney and should bind the Gores for an Account is a personal thing as an Obligation which may be released by one of the Obligees Vide 14 E. 4. 2. Where one was accountable to two and the one of them did assign Auditors before whom the Accountant is found in Arrearages and thereupon both of them brought Debt upon Account and well And so none of the Exceptions were allowed by the Court. Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCX Trivilians Case THo Trivilian Tenant in tail of White Acre Black Acre and Green Acre leased White Acre for years to B. and Black Acre to C. and afterwards made a Feoffment of all three Acres to F. and others by Deed in which Deed was comprised a Letter of Attorney in which he ordained Harris and three others his Attorneys joyntly and severally to enter in the Premises and every part thereof in the name of the whole and possession in his name to receive and afterwards to make Livery c with other ordinary and usual words and it was expressed in the said Deed of Feoffment that the Feoffment should be to the intent to perform his last Will and afterwards one of the said Attorneys entred into the Land demised for life and expelled the Tenant for life and made Livery and Seisin to the Feoffees accordingly and afterwards the said Harris another of the Attorneys scil one of the Ioynt Lessees being one of the three Attorneys made Livery of the Land demised for years and after the Feoffor in the time of Queen Eliz. by his last Will devised That the Feoffees should be seized of the
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
against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Everingham It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth for the Hundred and he insisted upon this That the Robbery for which the Suit was brought was committed in the night and Vide Stamford 33 38. If a man be robbed in the day and the Chief escape and be not taken the Town or Hundred shall answer for it as if he should have said If the Robbery was not done in the day the Town or Hundred should not answer for it and by 11 H. 7 5. the Lord cannot distrain in the Night for Rent arrear for the Tenant is not bound to tender his rent in the night time And although there are no express words in the Statute of Winchester that Huy and Cry shall be made by the party robbed yet in reason it is to be presumed that the same was intended by the Statute Vide that by these words in the Statute it may be implyed viz. That no pain as yet hath been appointed for their Concealments and Lachess which Lachess imports That none ought to be charged in such case but here there was a defalt and no defalt can be where there was not notice and all the course is Hutesiam clamorem fecit notitiam inhabitantibus dedit and also this word Concealment amounts to as much for none can be said to conceal that whereof he had no notice And vide Stamford 35 36. if the Felon escape the Hundred shall answer to the party robbed who hath made Huy and Cry But the whole Court was clear that Huy and Cry or Notice to the Inhabitants was not requisite by the Statute for as it was said by the Lord Anderson it might be that the party robbed was bound so as he could not give notice or make Huy and Cry or it may be he was killed by the Thieves and b. 28 E. 3. 11. Fresh suit is to be made from Town to Town and from Country to Country and that Fresh suit is to be made by the Inhabitants of the Hundred and not by the party robbed for no mention is made of such Fresh suit And that will more clearly appear if we take to the Common Law before the Statute of Winchester for before the said Statute the Law was That every Town and City should be guarded by the Inhabitants c. so that if any suspected persons did resort to such Town or City he should be stayed until the next Sessions in which Case he should have deliverance according as he could acquit himself And if any Town or City failed therein and then a Robbery had been done the County should answer for it for at their own peril they were bound to guard the Country But there was some difference betwixt Robberies committed in the day time and Robberies done in the night which see 3 E. 3. so Corone 293. Where a man killed another in the day and the Felon was not taken but escaped in the night and the Town was amerced for the same because there the Adventurers came in the day time and the Felon was not taken And as to that which is found by the Verdâ—ct That the Robbery was done post occasum solis per lucem diurnam the Opinion of all the Iustices was That with such a Robbery the Hundred should be charged for that at such time of the day Travellers are commonly drawing to their Lodgings And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCLIII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs and Commonalty of the City of Norwich The Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City and Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriff of the same City but to the Coroners But the Exception was disallowed by the Court for the Sheriff was part of the Corporation And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself The Writ was holden good CCCLIV. JOhn Grendon brought Trespass for breaking of his Close against Thomas Albany and upon the pleading the Case was That Francis Bunney was seized and 1 Maij 20 Eliz. by Deed indented enfeoffed M. H. to the use of the said Francis Bunney for the 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 there was a Proviso 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 Francis Bunney at all times 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 Vse or Vses limited by the said Deed or any Vse or Vses thereof to any person or persons and to limit after the death of the said Francis to begin After which the said Francis Bunney 1 Aprilis 23 Eliz. by his Deed indented did renounce relinquish and surrender to the said M. H. D. E. F. all such liberty power and authority of revocation which he had after the death of the said P. P. without Issue c. and further did remise release and quit-claim to them the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement aforesaid and all his said Power Liberty and Authority and further granted to them and their Heirs that at all times then after the said power liberty and authority should cease and to all intents and purposes should be void After which P. P. dyed without Issue Note that in this Case Francis Bunney being but Tenant for life enfeoffed one T. upon whom the said D. entred for a Forfeiture 1 Maij 23 Eliz. after which 20 Maij 24 Eliz. the said Francis Bunney by Indenture between him and the said D. sealed and delivered as abovesaid altered the former Vses and covenanted and agreed with the said D. that from thenceforth the said M. H. and his Heirs should be seized to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs It was argued by Altham That by that Feoffment made by the said Francis Bunney to the said F. the liberty and power aforesaid was not extinct or lost for the liberty and power was not then a thing in esse because then P. P. was alive and also the liberty is collateral to the Land whereof the Feoffment is made 39 H. 6. 43. The Son and Heir apparent disseiseth his Father and hereof enfeoffeth a Stranger the Father dyeth now against his own Livery the Son doth not enter but if the Father dyeth then the Son shall enter which proveth that the Livery is not so violent as to destroy a future Right but that afterwards it may be well revived à fortiori in our case where the thing pretended to be extinct is meerly collateral 34 E. 3. Fitz. Garr 69. In Assize of Common the Release of the Father with Warranty of the Land is no bar because it is of
that the Son for a Fine of three years paid should have the Land for his life Hutton said That the Traverse was good for if there was not any such Custom that the Son should have it so for life then ex consequente sequitur that there is not any such Custom that the Son should have it after the death of the Wife or her Surrender and therefore he needed not to Traverse the last Custom alledged But the whole Court was against him and ruled That the Traverse was not good for he ought to have traversed the last Custom because there are several Customs and the one is immediately to him the other not and the Defendant claimed by the Second Custom and therefore the Court awarded That he should amend his Plea. Pasc 12 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCVII Sir Henry Rolls and Osborns Case Hob. Rep. 20. More Rep. 859 2 Brownl 169. SIr Henry Rolls brought a Writ of Warrantia Chartae against Sir Robert Osborn and Katharine his Wife and shewed That the Defendant ought to warrant him a Messuage 40 Acres of Land 700 Acres of Pasture in Kelmarsh and shewed That Sir Robert Osborn and his Wife levied a Fine to him and his Heirs of a Manor and of the Lands aforesaid with warranty to him and his Heirs and further shewed That a Writ of Entre sur disseisin was brought against him of the said Messuage 40 Acres of Land 700 Acres of Pasture and that he had demanded the Warranty of the Defendant or that he would minister to him a Plea which the Defendant hath refused to do to his damage of 1000 l. the Defendant confessed the Fine and Warranty as aforesaid but further pleaded That in the same Term that the Fine was levied a Writ of Entry was brought against Sir Henry Rolls in which Writ he vouched to Warranty the said Defendant who alone entred into the Warranty and vouched over the common Vouchee and so a Recovery was had accordingly And averred That the said Recovery was to the use of Sir Henry Rolls for his life and if there was a Marriage between him and A. S. within 4 years then to the use of the said A. S. for her Ioynture with divers remainders over and averred the life of Sir H. Rolls Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Shirley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That the Warranty was not destroyed but that the Plaintiff might well mantain his Warrantia Chartae and for the same he vouched 22 H. 6.22 Cliffords Case That there ought to be an alteration of the Estate to which the Warranty is annexed and here is no alteration of the Estate for although the Recovery was had the said Term and a Voucher upon it yet because the uses did not take effect presently but were contingent uses he remained Tenant in Fee-simple as he was before and so the first Warranty remained and was not destroyed Mountague Serjeant contrary and that the Warrantia Chartae was gone and that for four Causes 1. He who comes to an Estate in the Post shall not have a Warrantia Chartae but Sir Hen. Rolls cometh to the Estate in the Post ergo he shall not have Warrantia Chartae And for that vide 29 Ass 34. Lord by Escheat shall not have Warrantia Chartae 22 Ass 57. The Lord of a Villain shall not have a Warrantia Chartae 21 H. 6. Disseisor shall not have Warrantia Chartae and so 19 H 6.25 10 H. 7.10 Tenant by the Courtesie shall not have the Writ because all these come to the Lands in the Post But see Cook 3. part Lincoln Colledge Case they may have peradventure benefit of a Rent or of a Condition but not of a Warranty 27 E. 3. garr ' Statham acc ' 2. Every Warranty ought to have the same Estate continuing to which the Warranty is annexed but Sir Hen. Rolls had not the same Estate continuing ergo he shall not have the Warranty because the Fine was to him and his Heirs with Warranty but this Recovery which was but a further assurance was but to the use of himself for life with divers Remainders over so as the first Estate is altered And 42 E. 3.2 40 E. 3. 14. it is a good Plea in a Warrantia Chartae that the Demandant is not Tenant And 41 Eliz. in Bointon Chesters Case it was adjudged in this Court That if a man makes a Feoffment with Warranty who enfeoffs the first Feoffor upon Condition that that Warranty remains he shall vouch by reason of the first Warranty but if upon that Feoffment he had limited any new use there because the Estate was altered the Voucher was gone Vide F. N. B. 135. 19 E. 3. T. Voucher 12.2 48 E. 3. 18. acc ' And it was Resolved 34 Eliz in Banco Regis in Kempe Henninghams Case That in such Case he should not have several Warrantia Charta's And therefore because in the principal Case he hath once vouched upon this Recovery and upon that the Estate is altered he cannot now have Warrantia Chartae 3. Every Warranty is a Covenant real which consists in privity and therefore destroy the privity and the warranty is gone But now in this Case the first privity is destroyed therefore the warranty is gone And therefore 11 H. 4. 8. if two Ioyntenants be with warranty and one of them maketh a Feoffment in Fee the warranty is destroyed because the first privity is destroyed 21 H. 6. 51. acc ' But Vide 19 E. 3. Statham Garr ' 31. If two Ioyntenants are with warranty and the one Releases to the Feoffor there the warranty remains because the privity remains Vide 2 H. 6. 7. Cook 1 Part Chudleighs Case 125. acc ' And see M. 31 Eliz. in this Court King and Watts Case Land is given to Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband and Wife the Husband levies a Fine and dyes without Issue the Wife is impleaded and adjudged that she could not have Aid nor Warrantia Chartae because the Estate was bound by the Fine the Husband being Tenant in special Tail. 4. No warranty can have but one recompence and if there be recompence given the warranty is gone and extinct But here is a recompence made by the Voucher in this Recovery therefore the warranty is extinct 34 Ass pl. 15. 23 E. 3. garr ' 77. acc ' and 15 E. 4. 13. 12 E. 4. 12. If he will not take advantage of the warranty when he may he shall never have it after Vide F. N. B. 134. acc ' And 36 Eliz. it was adjudged in Owens Case That if Tenant in Tail bargains and sells his Lands and suffers a Recovery and afterwards Inrolls the Deed that that Recovery is a good bar to the Estate tail because there is a supposition of recompence and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendants It was adjourned Vide this Case now Resolved in the Lord Hoberts Reports
A TABLE OF THE Principal Matters Contained in this BOOK Abatement of a Writ IN Account the Writ abated for part and for part the Plaintiff had Judgment 39 In Action upon the Case and why 55 Account Of the King against a Stranger 32 Actio personalis moritur cum persona Trover is an Action personal for it is grounded upon a personal wrong and ariseth upon a disceit and wrong and if there was no Conversion then an Action of Detinue should lye 44 Where one takes my Horse and dyes I shall not charge his Executor 46 If a Smith pricks my Horse my Executors shall not have an Action for it ibid. Action upon the Case Assumpsit Where it is requisite for the party in an Action upon the Case to express the Assumpsit with the Request and where not 2 If one promise in consideration c. to assign to J. S. the Lease of a Stranger for this an Action will lye Adjudged 2 If A. Prisoner at the Suit of B. escapes and being at liberty promiseth to B. that if he will permit him to be at large c. that he will pay to him 10 l. for this no Action will lye Adj. 3 A Promise against a Promise will maintain an Action upon the Case ibid. By an Executor to a Creditor upon forbearance to pay his Debt makes him lyable to pay it of his own Goods Adj. 1. ibid. Will lye against the Executors of A. upon his Promise at full Age to save one harmless who was bound with him for his Debt when he was an Infant 5 Will not lye against an Executor if he promises to pay a Debt and hath not Assets ibid. Nor is an Heir subject to an Action upon such a promise if he hath nothing by Descent 6 An intire Assumpsit cannot be severed by Action ibid. To avoid Controversies and Suits is a good and sufficient Consideration to ground an Assumpsit upon 31 The Defendant exhibited a Bill to the Justices of Peace complaining that the Plaintiff is a disquieter of his Neighbours c. and served a Process upon J. S. on a Sunday and the Justices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Suerties for his good Behaviour by virtue of which he was taken and imprisoned For this an Action of the Case will not lye 35 Action upon the Case for Words What words are actionable and what not 24 54 121 181 Action upon the Statute Upon 5 Eliz. of Apprentices holden clearly That if one hath been an Apprentice for seven years at any Trade mentioned within that Statute he may exercise any Trade named in the said Statute although he hath not been an Apprentice to it 9 Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry. 18 Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 25 Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Usury 43 Upon the Statute of Hue and Cry 51 Upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy 54 Upon the Statute 4 Eliz. of Perjury 105 Upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases made by Bishops 61 Upon the Statute of Hue and Cry 85 Upon the Statute 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls 103 Upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Partition 106 Upon the Statute of Hue and Cry 191 Alien Purchaser 82. suffers a Common Recovery 84 Amendment If a Writ of Error be brought and delivered to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and allowed by him under his hand the Record cannot afterwards be amended 50 Day given by the Court to amend the Count in Disceit 123 Of a Writ of Quare Impedit openly in Court by a Clerk of the Chancery 12 Amercement Of the Sheriff for making a Retorn contrary and repugnant in it self 57 Appeal If Robbery may be brought 20 years after the Robbery committed and the party robbed shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day 16 If the Defendant be attainted by Verdict in an Appeal of Robbery the fresh Suit shall be inquired of but otherwise if he be attainted by Outlary 48 Assignment Of Debts to the King. 80 No Bonds shall be assigned to the Queen but such as are made for payment of Mony. 9 Attaint Where the King is sole party against the Subject and the Jury find for the King no Attaint lyeth 46 But where the Suit is tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso contrary ibid. Attornment What shall be a good Attornment what not 23 Surrender of a Copyhold Reversion with the Rent to the use of a Stranger and his admittance thereupon are in the nature and so amount to an Attornment 25 If A. seized of a Manor Lease the same for years rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry and afterwards levy a Fine sur Cognizance de droit c. to the use of himself and his Heirs and the Rent being demanded is behind he cannot re-enter nor avow for the Rent but is without remedy for the same without Attornment 34 If A. seized of a Rent in fee grants the same by Fine to B. to the use of C. there needs no Attornment to the Conusee because all the right of the Rent is out of the Conusor and transferred to Cestuy que use instantly 50 Attornment doth not give a right but is only a consent 129 Bargain and Sale. IF the Bargainee levies a Fine and within six months the Deed be inrolled the Land shall pass by the Fine 4 Bayl. If a Scire Facias issue against them before a Capias issue against the Principal and they be taken they shall be put to their Writ of Error 36 Bills The King may exhibit one Bill in the Exchequer for several causes arising within several Counties and it shall be good 26 Carrier SEnt with a Letter by one to a Merchant for Merchandizes to send them to him receiving a sum of Mony the Merchant sent them by the Carrier without mony the Buyer shall not be charged for the mony the Bargain being conditional and it was the Merchants folly to trust the Carrier with those Wares 7 Chancery May compell a Tenant to Attorn 8. 184. Common and Commoner A Commoner cannot kill Conies which destroy his Common 7 In what Case Common appurtenant by Prescription sans number is improveable by the Lord of the Waste 41 Condition Broken by Lessee for years 5 Destroyed in part good in part 27 Divided ibid. Grantee of parcel of the Reversion is an Assignee within 32 H. 8. of Conditions 28 Apportioned ibid. Suspended ibid. Conditions by Act in Law divided not by Act of the Party ibid. Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions taken by Equity 29 Condition suspended in part is suspended in all ibid. Shall be taken favourable for him who is to perform it 70 Consultation Was granted because the Prohibition was general where it ought to have been special 16 Conversion In Trover is Traversable and therefore ought to be certainly alledged 45 Conveyance By the Heir upon Intrusion 60 Copyholder Baron Surrenders Femes