Baron answered that he should have them of right see Bartues case in Dyer but the Lord Treasurer said that he saw no reason to satisfie himself thereof Doillie against Joiliffe DOillie Plantiff against Joiliffe in an Action upon the case for false imprisonment of the Plantiffs wife the case was that Leonard Lovies was formerly Plantiff in an action in the Common Pleas against Julian Goddard a feme sole and in this action the Plantiff and Defendant were at issue and a venire facias was awarded and before the return thereof the said Julian took to husband Doillie now Plantiff and after upon a special verdict found in the suit judgement was given in the Common Pleas for the said Julian against th◠said Leonard upon which judgement Leonard brought error in the Kings Bench and a scire facias was awarded against Julian by the name of Julian Goddard as a feme sole and she appeared by Attorney as a feme sole and this as the Defendant said in his answer was by the consent of her husband now Plantiff and after judgement was given to reverse the judgement in the Common Pleas and the entrie of that judgement as it was pleaded by the Defendant here was quod praedict Leonard Lovies recuperet c. versus praedict Julianam c. and costs and damages were taxed c. upon which judgement the said Lovies sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Julian Goddard and by vertue of that writ the Defendant here the Sheriff or Devon took the said Julian being the Plantiffs wife and imprisoned her until the Plantiff paid 10. l. which was the cost taxed by the Kings Bench for her deliverance upon which imprisonment the husband only hath brought his action against the Defendant being Sheriff Davenport of Grayes Inne argued for the Defendant and first he thought that between the parties to the error and the first action in the Common Pleas there is an estoppel and admittance that the said Julian continued a feme sole for the process in all the proceedings ought to be as it was in the Original and he vouched 18. Assise pla 16. by which book it appears that if a man bring an assise for lands in the Countie of O. and the Tenants plead a Common recovery of the same land in the Common Pleas this doth conclude the partie to say that the lands did lie else where c. also if an original be depending and before the first Capias or process awarded the Defendant intermarrieth and after a capias issueth against her as a feme sole this is well awarded lib. 5. E. 4.16 and also 5. E. 3. fo 9. and 10. also he said that such a thing as is done between the plea and not after the judgement is not material to alter the proceedings in that course it was begun for the same partie against whom judgement is given shall error have against him for whom the judgement is given except she had married after the judgement for then he agreed that the writ of error shall be brought by the husband and wife in case judgement had been given against the wife while she was sole 35. H. 6. fo 31. and 12. Assise pla 41. and it also appears by 18. E. 4. fo 3. if Trespas he brought against a married wife as against a feme sole and she appears as a feme sole and judgement is given and execution accordingly this is good until it be reversed by error and the Sheriff in such case never ought to examine if it be evil or nor no more then if Trespas be brought against A. my servant by the name of B. and A. is taken in execution the Master shall not take benefit of this misnaming admitting that A. should punish the Sheriff for it also he vouched one Shotbolts case 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer and 15. Eliz. Dyer 318. in the Earl of Kents case which prove that the Sheriff is to be excused for taking me by a false name and if the Iudges admit this false name yet this judicial writ ought not to be examined by the Sheriff and it was adjourned Shoftbey against Waller and Bromley SHoftbey brought an action upon the case against Waller and Bromley and declared that the Defendants conspired that the said Bromley should commence a suit against the Plantiff and that the Plantiff was then worth 5000. l. and that he was then dwelling in Middlesex and that the Defendants knowing thereof maliciously and falsely agreed that the said Bromley should lay his action in London and prosecute it until the Plantiff were outlawed in the said suit to the intent that his goods should be forfeited to the King and after in performance of the agreement aforesaid the Plantiff suggested that he was dwelling in London and laid his action here which was prosecuted until the Plantiff here was outlawed to his damage c. Tanfield chief Baron thought that if the suggestion was by Bromley to make the process into a wrong County it seemed that the Action should lie against him only but in regard it is shewed in the Declaration that the said suggestion was made by him in performance of the precedent agreement that the action lieth against both which the Court granted Godfrey in this action moved in arrest of judgement and that for two causes the action lieth not upon the matter here it appears by the 4. Eliz. Dyer 214. that a man may say his action wherein an outlawry lies in London and then by the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 4. proclamation shall issue into the Countie where he dwelleth therefore the suing of him in another Countie is no such act wherefore an action should be brought no more then if before the Statute of W. 2. cap. 12. a man had brought an appeal Maliciosè yet no remedy before the said Statute as appears in the 13. H. 7. in Kellawaies case because it was lawful to bring an appeal and so notwithstanding the said Statute no action did lie against him who brought an appeal if it abated 9. H. 5. cap. 1. also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth remedy for false appeals or judgement in another Countie maliciosè c. by action of the case whereby it appeareth that in such case the Common Law allowed no action also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth another remedy then that Statute and therefore no action lies against us no more then in the case aforesaid at the Common Law Secondly here is no issue joyned if the Defendants be guiltie of the execution of this practice but only if they be guiltie of the agreement and this is found for the Plantiff but clearly such agreement without execution giveth no cause of action and the word Practizatione comprehends only the going about and not the executing of this conspiracy and therefore the issue should have been general if the Defendants be guiltie or not and therefore he prayed judgement might be stayed and he cited Owen
therefore he had done well to shew the special matter as he had done and not to confess it as it is in the in formation nor to traverse the said demise because it is matter in Law 5. H. 7. and Vernons case Cook lib. 4. he needs not traverse absque hoc that the lease was made for and in satisfaction of Dower and to shew the special matter viz. that it was a conditional lease and so leave it to the Iudges for the matter in Law if it be a joynture or not also it seemeth to me that it is sufficient for the Bar to say that the Commission was not returned by Hammond and Porter for that is a Traverse to the information and it cannot be intended to be returned by any other of the Commissioners in regard that those two only did execute it for the taking of the acknowledgement as the information mentions but he said nothing in this case if this Commission may be returned by those Commissioners who took not the acknowledgement also by him and Snig Bromley absent sigillo suo ratificat is good enough without saying sigillo suo sigillat contrary to Baron Altham also the Defendants have shewed the time in their Bar when the first lease was intolled so that it is certain but it seems to me that admit the matter in Law was for the King yet upon this information we cannot give judgement for him for the information is for the mean profits incurred before the inrolment and this is clear that the King cannot have them without doubt admit that the Bishop had been living yet the inrolment cannot relate as to the mean profits although it should be admitted to be good to make the lease good at the time of the inrolment and so upon all the matter he agreed that judgement ought to be given against the King and so it was Tanfield chief Baron said that if a man take a lease of my land from the King by Patent rendring rent this is not an Indenture to compel him to pay the rent for the King had nothing to grant whereupon a rent might be reserved to him Altham Baron said that the King shall have the rent here as by estoppel between common persons but it was adjourned It was said by Tanfield chief Baron that a Collector of a fifteenth may levie all the Tax within one Township upon the goods of one inhabitant only if he will and that inhabitant shall have aid of the Court to make each other inhabitant to be contributory which was granted by the Court Bromley being absent Tanfield chief Baron said that if a man had judgement against A. upon an Obligation who dieth and another Obligee of the said A. assignes his Obligation to the King the Executors of A. satisfie the said judgement it is good against the King in respect the debt now due to the King was not upon Record before the death of the Testator which was granted by the Court. Levison against Kirk THis Term the case between Levison and Kirk which was opened the last Term was adjudged and the case was that Levison brought an Action upon the case in the office of Pleas against Kirk and declared that whereas the Plantiff was a Merchant and 13. Martii 40. Eliz. intended to go beyond the Seas to M. to Merchandise and the same day and year at D. he acquainted the Defendant with his determination and then in the same place appointed and trusted the Defendant being his servant to receive for him all such Merchandise and goods which should be sent over or carried or conveyed by the Plantiff in the same voyage and to pay for the custome of them and to dispose of them and convert them for the profit and commoditie of the said Plantiff and thereupon conveyed divers goods to the Defendant and that the same day and year the Plantiff took shipping and sailed to M. and that within five dayes following 20. pieces of Velvet were brought into the Port of S. consigned by the Plantiff to the Defendant in the absence of the Plantiff and that the Defendant on purpose to deceive the Queen of her custome and to make the Plantiff to allow custome unto him did take of the said goods so consigned and land them on the land at S. aforesaid the custome not paid whereby the Plantiff lost his goods as forfeited for default of payment of custome to the damage of c. and upon not guiltie pleaded a venire facias was awarded to the the Sheriff that he should cause to come 12. from the Venue of D. and those c. viz. from the place where the trust was reposed and from the place where the trust was broken and thereupon the Defendant was found guiltie and damages 50. l. and in Pasch Chibborn Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement that the Action did not lie for every fault against the servant although it be such a misfeazance for which the Plantiff receives prejudice and therefore if you will have an Action in this case you ought to shew a special trust reposed and a breach of that trust by the servent or otherwise an Action upon the case lieth not and that is not observed here for although that you shew that the Defendant being your servant was appointed and trusted for the goods to be consigned in the said voyage yet you did not shew that these goods were not consigned in the said voyage neither do you shew that he was such a servant generally used to be imployed in trading for your goods neither do you shew that you have allowed or delivered moneys to him to make him able to pay the custome and to say that by the sale of the goods themselves he may pay it himself and you appointed him to dispose them at his pleasure yet hereby you do not inable him thereunto for he ought to pay the custome before he sell them and them peradventure he had not money to discharge the custome wherefore there is no cause of your Action as this Declaration is and therefore he prayed that judgement may be stayed George Crook prayed that judgement may be given for although it bâ— not expresly shewed that the Plantiff continued beyond the Seas in the said voyage at the time of the coming of the goods to the said Port yet the intendment ought to be so of necessitie in regard it is shewed that within five dayes after his departure and in his absence these goods were consigned c. and his return cannot be intended in so smal a time and he vouched 21. E. 4. fo 13. also it is not material in the case to shew that the Master hath left where withal to pay the custome for here the Action is brought in respect of deceipt and fraud in the Defendant and this is inferred divers wayes the first that the Defendant ought to receive my goods Secondly that he should pay the custome Thirdly that he should dispose of them at his pleasure for
demurrer joyned George Crook for the King conceived that the lease made in the 26. Eliz. is good first he said that although the Queen cannot take an inheritance of freehold without matter of Record yet she may take Chattels upon a surmise made that they were granted unto her and therefore he vouched 21. H. 7. fo 19 that an Obligation may be granted to the King without inrolment of the grant and 40. Assise pl. 35. Brook tit suggestion pl. 5. it appears that the King shall have a Chattel by a demise by parol upon a suggestion made thereof in the Exchequer without a Record and in the 15. H. 7. fo 15. the Kings Baylie who is not of Record may be compelled to accompt upon a suggestion made Brooks suggestion pla 31. and in the 37. H. 6. fo 7. 18. if the King gives goods with his hands this is good although no record be made thereof because it is but a Chattel and by the same reason he inferred that he may also accept of Chattel without a Record but admitting that he cannot take without a Record it seemeth that here is a thing well enough Recorded to intitle the King after the return made by the Commissioners for the Commissioners are officers of Record to this purpose and they endorse the prayer of the partie to have it Recorded and this being after the return is a sufficient Record to intitle the King and he vouched the 2. H. 7. fo 10. where the servant of Iustice Catesby after the death of the Iudge made a return and this was good and the 8. H. 4. a Record certified by a Iudge after he was displaced and 43. Assises if a Coroner makes his Rols and dies before he certifie them they may be certified after his death and so here this acknowledgement and prayer being certified may at any time after be inrolled and although it seemeth by the Book in the 19. Eliz. Dyer fo 355. that a grant being made to the King and acknowledged before one of the Masters of the Chancery and inrolled in the time of another King maketh not the Grant good yet he said that it was adjudged for another grant made to the King by the Duke of Somerset and acknowledged before one of the Masters of Chancery and inrolled in the time of another King was good enough to perfect the grant and this was by a grant made by the Duke of Bozoms Inne in London and he said that it is not reasonable that the Law should adjudge otherwise for it may be that the Clark will not inroll it untill such a time viz. a moneth within which time the King may die should it now be reasonable that it should not be inrolled at all he said it was unreasonable and he said that it appeareth by the 37. H. 6. fo 10. that a deed delivered at the Kings Coffers is good enough to avoid his lease made in the 44. Eliz. for although that it be true that a grant of a reversion shall never operate to the destruction of a right of a third person yet it seemeth that an Act commenced may be confirmed well enough to the destruction of a mean interposed Act and it seemeth that the inrolment here is but a confirmation of a precedent lease and not a relation to make a thing which was not before and therefore to examine what thing an inrolment is and it seemed to him that it is no matter of Record as it appears 24. E. 3. and 29. H. 8. fo 15. and therefore it appears by Wymacks Case Cook L. 5. that a deed inrolled ought to be pleaded hic in Curia Prolat which proveth that the deed and not the inrolment thereof is the thing which passeth the estate and therefore he vouched the case in the 6. E. 6. Brook title faits if one joynt Tenant sells all his land in D. and after his companion dieth and then the deed is inrolled yet a moitie only shall pass and 41. Eliz. Cook Perimans Case lib. 5. if a man make a feofment of lands and inroll the Deed within the Mannor as by the custome it ought to be yet the inrolment shall pass nothing and therefore it is there said the inrolment may be good enough after the death of the parties so by the same reason aforesaid it is put in the same Case of Perimon and also in Butlers and Bakers Case Cook lib. 3. that if a man deliver a writing as an escrow to be his Deed upon certain conditions performed and after the Obligor and the Obligee die and then the Conditions are performed the Deed is good for there was traditio inchoata in the life of the parties and this being after consummated takes his effect by force of the first delivery and acknowledgement and therefore also he said that it was lately adjudged that if two men are mentioned to be bound by one Obligation and the one seals at one day and the other at another day this is as good as if it had been at one day and therefore he said that there is no doubt but if a lease be made to the King by a Bishop and after another lease is made also of the same land or if the Bishop die yet if after the first lease be inrolled this is good and therefore also he cited a case to be adjudged in Banco Regis 41. Eliz. between Collins and Harding that if a man be seised of freehold and Coppihold land and makes a lease of both for years with licence rendring rent and after he grants the reversion of the freehold and makes a surrender of the Coppihold to the use of the same person and an attornment is had for the freehold and the presentment of the surrender for the Coppihold is not made untill a year after yet he in reversion shall have an action of debt for all the rent for the presentment of the surrender is but a perfection of the surrender before made also he cited the case as I observed him to this effect in the 9th of Eliz. in the Abbot of Colchesters Case where he said that the Abbot of Colchester committed treason and after made a lease for years and then he surrendred to the King all his lands and after an office found the treason and it was holden the lease is good against the King who took by the surrender and not by the treason committed before but as Walter said the case was adjudged that the King should avoid the lease for now he is in by the treason paramount the surrender Phillips against Evans IN an Ejectione firmae brought up three acres in the forrest of Kevington in the Countie c. the Defendant pleaded not guiltie and the Venire facias was awarded de vicineto of the forrest and the Defendant moved in arrest of judgement because the Venire facias de vicineto of the forrest was not good for as Stephens for the Defendant said that a forrest and the name thereof is but
adjudged in the Exchequer chamber and in this case the scire facias ad audiendum errores and all the writ and this scire facias in our case ought to have been made against the said Julian as against a married woman and the writ of execution which is the warrant to the Sheriff is not in such words as the judgement in the Kings Bench is upon which it is founded viz. that he should take the aforesaid Julian c. but that he take the said Julian Goddard then the Sheriff shall not say in his defence that all the proceeding in the writ of error was against the person and aided himself by entrie in the roll of the Court viz. quod praedict Julianum capiat c. but he ought to rely only upon the writ and if in this case he would save himself then he should have inquired upon the delivery of the writ unto him by Lovies who was that Julian Goddard and if thereupon Lovies had informed him that it was Julian Doillie then the Sheriff should have an action upon the case against Lovies upon this false information viz. if A. prosecute a replevin to replevy his Cattle and thereupon he cause the Sheriff to deliver unto him the Cattle of B. for this here B. hath his remedy against the Sheriff and the Sheriff against A. for this false information also he said that if a fieri facias cometh to make execution of the goods of B. if the Sheriff take others goods in execution a Trespass lieth and therefore to secure himself he ought to impannel an inquest to finde if they be the goods of B. or not and then as he conceived it is good but the opinion of the Iudges in the Kings Bench in Mich. 5. Jac. in Trespass between Rookwood and Beal was to the contrary for there a Trespass was brought by Rookwood and the Defendant justified the taking and so forth as Sheriff by vertue of a fieri facias as of the goods of Edward Rookwood father of the Plantiff and upon the execution of this writ the Defendant impannelled a Iury who found the goods to be the goods of the said Edward Rookwook for which c. the Plantiff in the replication Traversed that they were his goods absque hoc that the Iury found that they were the goods of Edward Rookwood c. whereby it seemeth that the finding of the Iury in this case is not material and so the Court then conceived therefore quaere the opinion of Tanfield chief Baron in that point and see the 17. E. 2. pl. 373. and 31. E. 3. Assise pla 378. and 7. H. 4. fo 27. Trespass pla 279. what acts a Sheriff may justifie by reason of a commandment and authoritie from the Court which commanded him Snig Baron seemed that the action did lie for the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum maketh no mention that Julian Doillie is the same person against whom judgement was given in the Kings Bench by the name of Julian Goddard and although that the entrie in the Roll is against the said Julian c. yet the writ is directed that he should take Julian Goddard and then the Sheriff had not done according to the writ in the taking of Julian Doillie and he said that if A. binde himself by the name of I. and judgement is given against him by the name of I. without appearing in person and execution is granted against him by the name of I. in this case an action lies against the Sheriff if he take the said A. in execution for it appears not to him that it is the same person but for the other cause it seemeth that the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the Sheriff is no such person who ought to be priviledged here and therefore the Plantiff should have his remedy else where and he said that such a case hath been reversed in the Exehequer Chamber for error for the under-Sheriff is but an Attorney for a partie priviledged that is for the Sheriff but all the Clarks of the Court and the other Barons were against him in that and also all the presidents Altham Baron had never heard it argued before and therefore he respited his opinion till another day at which day he said that the arrest is not justifiable and so for the matter an action well lieth for by him the arrest ought to be in this case with a special recital that whereas judgement was given and so forth as in the 1. and 2. H. 6. if an Abbot hath judgement to recover and after he is deposed a scire facias lieth not against him as Abbot to reverse this judgement and see 10. E. 4. a capias against A. the son of R. c. see the 19. of H. 6. fo 12. Summons against Iohn S. c. see 18. H. 8. fo 1. a replevin was brought in the Countie Palatine against A. widdow and after she married D. and the plaint was removed into the Common Pleas mentioning her marriage c. and so here the scire facias ought to mention all the special matter and thereupon the writ of execution upon the reversal of the judgement ought to be against Iulian Doillie and not being so the Sheriff is punishable c. but it seemed to him that in this action the wife ought to have joyned with her husband for the false imprisonment or at the least if the husband had brought the action alone there ought to have been a special mention of the loss which the husband particularly had sustained as per quod consortium uxoris suae amisit or otherwise clearly it lieth not for the husband alone and he resembled this case to the cases in the 9th of E. 4. fo 51.22 Assise pla 87.46 E. 3. fo 3. where husband and wife ought to joyn in an action or at the least the declaration ought to be special as aforesaid and so are the books of the 20. H. 7. and Kellaway to be intended and for this cause he thought the Plantiff shall not have jugement here Tanfield chief Baron as I conceived said unto him that the writ ought to have been with a special averment but a surmise ought to have been made against Iulian Doillie as she now is for as the writ is the Sheriff may safely return she is not to be found and thereupon c. quaere if he intended the writ of scire facias ad audiendum errores or the writ of execution awarded upon the judgement in the Kings Bench for he did not mention any particularity of the writ but it seemeth that he intended the writ of execution and then the surmise whereof Tanfield spoke ought to be made upon the roll of the judgement given upon the writ of error and Tanfield chief Baron said as to the joyning in action that clearly for a battery made upon the wife the husband and wife ought to joyn in the action as the books are cited before by Baron Altham and so
be construed to be conditionall because the consideration intended is executed viz. that he hath assumed c. Dyer 76. and 44. Eliz. in the Kings Bench Sir William Lees case in consideration that he had assumed to make a release another promised to pay him 10 l. an action may be brought for the 10 l. without averment of making the release because the consideration is a thing executed viz. the Assumpsit c. but if Executory then the Grant is conditionall as 9. E. 4.19 15. E. 4.9 If an Annuity be granted pro concilio impendendo this makes the Grant conditionall and void for not giving counsell but otherwise it is if it be pro consilio impenso 4. But admitting that here it was conditionall yet the Queen cannot avoid it without Office and so the Plaintiff had no title to enter for an avoidance which was before his grant and so the lease is in esse at the time of the Grant made to the Plaintiff your Grant is without recitall thereof and therefore is void see Knights case Coo. lib. 5. If there be a condition to re-enter for non-payment an Office ought to be found but if it be upon condition to cease for non-payment then it is void to the King without Office as it was agreed in this Court in Sir Moyle Finches case and he vouched Cook lib. 1. Altonwoods case to prove that the lease ought to be recited in the Grant of the reversion or future interest and here although there be a non abstante in your Patent this doth not aid you because it is not found in the speciall Verdict Also for another cause the Plaintif shall not have judgement here for it is not found that the Queen died seised neither that it came to the King that now is and so it cannot come to the Plaintiff and although a fee-simple shall be intended to continue in the same person yet without shewing it shall not be intended to come to the heir 7. H. 7. 3. and so he prayed judgement for the Defendant Tanfield chief Baron said that the case here is by Verdict therefore we ought to intend such circumstances if they be not expressed to the contrary also the seisin of the Queen is shewed to be in Jure Coronae and therefore the intendment that it may be devised by disseisin or abatement between common persons holdeth not here Carew against Braughton Mich. 7. Jacobi in the Exchequer THomas Carew Exequetor of William Carew brought debt against Morgan Broughton Sherif of the County of Cardigan and the case was that John Wyner was in execution upon a Iudgement for William Carew and that after William Carew dyed and that John Wyner brought an Audita querela against Carew Executor of William Carew and upon that Writ he had a venire facias against Thomas Carew and thereupon as the Stat. apoints of 11. H. 6. cap. 10. he put in baile by recogni-zance in the Chancery to the said Thomas Carew and one of the parties for his baile was Thomas Wyner and after upon the Audita Quaerela Iudgment was given against the said Wyner and a Scire facias awarded issued against Thomas Wyner as Bail and after the said Thomas Winer was in execution upon this Recognizance as Bail to the said Thomas Carew and the said Morgan Broughton being Sheriff suffered him to escape upon which escape Thomas Carew brought debt against the Sherif in the debet and detinet and had a verdict to recover and now in arrest of judgement it was moved by Jefferies that the action ought to be brought in the detinet only and he said that if an Action be brought as Executor this alwaies ought to be in the detinet only and he vouched Hitchcock and Browns case remembred at the end of Hargraves case lib. 5. where the case was that one Anthony Brown Executor brought debt against one Lister and that Lister being in execution the wife entermarried the said Lister escaped the Husband and Wife brought debt for his escape in the debet and detinet and there it was resolved that it ought to be in the detinet only and so here and see the custome to plead mentions that the Recognizance acknowledged was to the use of the Executor and not to the use of Thomas Carew by his name but Wild of the Inner Temple prayed judgement and said that the Action is well brought in the debet and detinet and he vouched 9. H. 6. and 20. H. 6. if an Executor recover and after upon the Iudgement he brings debt it ought to be in the detinet but if an Executor sels goods of the Testator and takes an Obligation in his name as Executor yet here the Action upon this Obligation ought to be in the debet and detinet because it is upon his own contract and 1. E. 3. Brooke Executor pla 287. although it appears there and so by 9. H. 6. fo 11. That is good either way and 41. E. 3. Brook pla 545. that if a debt be brought against the Executor upon a contract made by them it ought to be in the debet and detinet or otherwise the Writ shall abate and as 9. H. 6. is at his pleasure to name him Executor or not and therefore c. Snig the second Baron if the Executors bring an Action of goods carried away in the life of the Testator c. and hath judgement to recover 20 l. and dammages for them and upon this judgement he brings debt this shall be in the detinet Altham 3. Baron if an Executor sells the goods of the Testator and an Obligation is made to him for the money for which they were sold without doubt this action shall be in the debet and detinet for the action concerns him in his person and so if he with his own money redeem goods which was pawned by the Testator c. and the Stat. of the 11. H. 6. cap. 10. is that upon an Audita Querela the party who sueth it shall put in Bond to the party c. and the Testator is not party at the time of this Audita Querela but Thomas Crew who is the Executor and it is not as a Proces of execution pursuant c. but is a new thing and so for his opinion suddenly it is good in the debet and detinet Bromley the 4. Baron seemed cleer that if a Bond be made to an Executor upon a simple Contract made with him for the goods of Testator there the action ought to be brought in the debet and detinet but this account is conceived upon a dependency of a duty to the Testator and therefore it ought to be detinet only Tanfield chief Baron the case is doubtfull and therefore it is good to be advised but for this time it seemeth there is a diversity where the Recognizance is Legally forced and where it is voluntary for in our case the Law compels this Recognizance upon the suite which the
a place priviledged for Venison and not a place certain from whence a Venue may come and it was said that in the 16. Eliz. in Banco Regis in the Lord Padgets Case a Trespass was brought of 3. Acres of land in Beer-wood and the venire facias was awarded de vicineto de Beer-wood and the chief Baron Tanfield said that in this case the venire facias was not well awarded and so it was holden in the Kings Bench and therefore he would be advised in this Case and after at another day it was moved and then the chief Baron said that he had perused the Books touching the Case in question and that it appears by the 47. E. 3 fo 6. by Fuchden that a forrest is many times out of any Parish and therefore shall not be intended to be within any Parish and he said that the Defendant in this case ought to have pleaded that the forrest was within such a Parish and demanded judgement if he shall be answered without alledging it to be within a Parish and that otherwise judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and so he said that it was now lately adjudged in the Kings Bench where a man was indicted for Hunting in a forrest and a venire facias was awarded de Foresta and good and he vouched also the 8th of H. 8. in Savages Case and the 7. of E. 3. and Baron Altham Accorded and he vouched also the Book of the 18. of E. 3. fo 36. where it is said expresly that if shall not be intended to be within a Parish except it be shewed in the pleading on the other side and he vouched also 27. H. 8. fo 12. and then all the Barons agreed that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Airie and Alcock THe Case was argued again between Airie and Alcock concerning the misnaming of Corporations which was argued before as appeareth fo and Thomas Stephens the Princes Attorney argued that the lease is void by the reason of the misnosmer and he observed the Misnosmer to be principally in these two material things First where the foundation was by the name of the Hall or the Colledge of the Queen c. the presentation of the Parson and also the confirmation of the lease made by the name of the Queens Colledge c. omitting the word Scholers which should immediately precede the word Aulae Reginae which he held a material variance the second variance he observed to be thus that where the foundation was by the name of the Hall or Colledge of the Queen in Oxford the presentation and confirmation of the lease was by the name of Provost of Queens Colledge in the Vniversitie of Oxford so that the word Vniversitie was added which was not in the foundation and to prove that these variances were material for the avoiding of leases he cited the case often remembred in the argument before which conceived Merton Colledge in Oxford and the parties to this case were Fish and Boys which was in Trin. 30. Eliz. Banco R. Rot. 953. wherein the case was that the said Colledge was incorporated by the name of Warden and Scolers of the house or Colledge of Scholers of Merton in the Vniversitie of Oxford and that they made a lease by the name of the Warden and Scholers of the house or Colledge of Merton Colledge in Oxford so that the word Scholers which did immediately preceed the word Merton in the foundation is omitted in the lease as in the principal Case also where the word Vniversitie was added in their Corporation the same was omitted in the lease whereas on the other side this was not mentioned in Airies Case to be contained in the foundation but added in the lease and he said that for these variances in Merton Colledge Case the lease was holden to be void which he held to be all one with our case but he agreed that in divers cases variances in addition of surpluage shall not be hurtful in a lease as appears by 21. and 22. E. 4. and therefore though in the principal Case the word fellows was added in the lease which was not in the foundation he would not argue that this should be any variance to hurt the lease Hern Baron seemed that the verdict is not sufficient to move him to give judgement for the Plantiff for he said although it be admitted that the lease by reason of the variance is not good yet the verdict doth not sufficiently finde that Doctor Airie is a person who may take advantage of the invaliditie thereof for it appeared not of whose presentation Doctor Airie came to have the Parsonage for although that it should be admitted as it is said in Heckers Case 14. H. 8. that here might be Parson of his own presentment yet it is not found that he did so here and he said that in every quare Impedit it ought to be expressed what person made the presentation to the variance he thought the lease to be good notwithstanding that for he said that the word Scholers is not added in the foundation as a part of the name of a Corporation but only to express what kinde of Colledge this should be viz. to distinguish it from a Merchants Hall or Colledge and therefore though the word Scholers be put in yet we properly call it the Queens Colledge and not the Queen Scholers Colledge for it is not of necessitie that the Scholers of the said Colledge should he the Queens Scholers but that they are Scholers of the Queens Colledge and he vouched 2. H. 7. Fitz. Titles Grants and as to the case of Merton Colledge cited by Stephens he said that in that Case there was a main imperfection in the verdict which as he thought might move the said judgement to be given as it was and not the matter in Law for they did not finde that the lessor was warden of the Colledge at the time of the lease made also he vouched Cook lib. 6. Sir Moil Finches Case and he vouched Sir Peter Seawels Case where in a lease made by a Corporation that these words ex fundatione Regis E. 6. which were part of their foundation were omitted and yet the lease good and he cited also the case of the Bishop of Peter Bourough where the Corporation was by the name of Episcopi de Burgo Sancti Petri and a lease was made by the name of the Bishop of Peter Bourough and the lease good and that no difference in substance and if a Corporation were made by the name of Scholers and fellows and in a lease the word fellows is omitted yet it is good and therefore in the principal Case it seemeth that the omission of the word fellows is not material also he said that the addition of the word Vniversitie which is no part of the Corporation is not fatal to the lease for in the Lord Norths Case 36. 37. Eliz. the addition of the word Vniversitie or the omission thereof was holden
Woods case in Cook lib. 4. Tanfield chief Baron it is true that the issue should be better if it were general not guiltie of the Trespass aforesaid but yet it is good enough in this case for the special words comprehend as much as the words not guiltie of the practice and agreement aforesaid c. and the word Practizatione comprehends aswel the subsequent Acts of execution as the precedent combination and therefore Tantamounts a general issue and it was good by the Court and as to the action Altham Baron conceived that it lieth although it be for a lawful cause for the Law abhoreth fraud and conspiracy as if two conspire to vex me for my land by suit an action lieth F. N. B. yet it is lawful for every man to sue me without title and he vouched 16. Assise and here it is laid that the Defendants indeavoured to make the Plantiff forfeit his goods which are worth 5000. l. and this is reasonable that it should lie and 9. E. 2. Fitz. discents 52. is our case directly upon the matter and therefore it seemeth to me that it lies Tanfield chief Baron said that 9. E. 2. crosseth this case in part and yet he thought that the action lies to which Snig agreed and it seemed the cases of appeal put by Godfrey did lie well enough without aid of the Statute of W. 2. if there be such a conspiracy Tanfield chief Baron accordingly if it be legally thought without cause yet if without conspiracy the action lieth not for it as it appears in Owen Woods case Cook lib. 4. and in all cases where strangers have nothing to do with the suit brought for the conspiracy and yet combine with the Plantiff in the suit an action upon the case lieth for this vexation and judgement was entred for the Plantiff by the Court. An inquisition for the King was returned here and it was found that Fleet-wood the Kings debtor for his office of receiver for the Court of Wards did purchase a certain Term and interest of and in the rectory of Yeading for divers years then to come and that being so possessed he became indebted to the King and that this term is now in the hands of the Lady Edmonds and by colour of this inquisition the land is extended for the Kings debt Harris Serjeant moved that this inquisition is insufficient to extend the land but good to sell a term and he vouched Palmers case Cook lib. 4. to which the Court inclined but it was adjourned If a Bishop becomes indebted to the King for a subsidie and dieth his successors shall not be charged upon the lands of the Bishoprick but the executors of the predecessor or his heir and if they have nothing the King shall lose it as chief Baron Tanfield said which the Court granted upon the motion of Bridgman for the Bishop of Saint Davids Trallops case A Scire facias issued against Trallop the father and Trallop the son to shew cause wherefore they did not pay to the King 1000. l. for the mean profits of certain lands holden by them from his Majesty for which land judgement was given for him in this Court and the mean rates was found by inquisition which returned that the said mean profits came to 1000. l. upon which inquisition this scire facias issued whereupon the Sheriff returned Trallop the father dead and Trallop the son now appeared and pleaded that he took profits but as a servant to his father and by his commandment and rendred an accompt to his father for the said profits and also the judgement for the said land was given against his father and him for default of sufficient pleading and not for the truth of the fact and he shewed the Statute of the 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which as he pretended aided him for his equitie whereupon the King demurred Hitchcock for Trallop seemed that the Statute did aid him by equity and he moved two things the one that if here be such a debt that the Statutes intends to aid it the other if the Defendant hath shewed sufficient matter of equitie within the intent of the Act and he thought that it is such a debt as the Statute will aid for although that here be au uncertainty of the time of the judgement given for the King that being reduced to a certainty by the inquisition after it shall be within the intent of the Statute for id certum est quod certum reddi potest and the words of the Statute are if any judgement be given for any debt or duty c. and here although that there was no certainty unto how much these mean rates extended at the time of the judgement given yet it is clear that it was a duty at the time of the judgement and then it is within the Statute also he said that the words in the proviso of that Statute explain that the intent of the makers of the Act was so for the words are for any thing for which the partie is chargable and the mean rates are a thing for which he is chargable see Cook lib. 7. fo 20. and the Lord Andersons case there fo 22. as to the point of equitie there seem to be two causes First he shewed that he was but a servant to his father and had given an accompt to him Secondly the judgement was given against him upon a point of mispleading Tanfield chief Baron said that the matter in equitie ought to be sufficiently proved and here is nothing but the allegation of the partie and the demurrer of Mr. Attorney for the King and if this be in Law an admittance of the allegation and so a sufficient proof within the Statute it is to be advised upon and for that point the case is but this a scire facias issueth out of this Court to have Execution of a recognizance which within this Act ought by pretence and allegation of the Defendant to be discharged for matter in equitie and the Defendant pleads his matter of equitie and the King supposing this not to be equity within this Statute demurreth in Law whether that demurrer be a sufficient proofe of the allegation within the Statute or not and it was adjourned Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Doillie and Joiliffs case again Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer CRessey for the Plantiff said that the Plea in Bar is not good because the Defendant justified by force of a Capias ad satisfaciendum and pleads no return thereof and moved that it is not justifiable without returning of the writ but the Court seemed the plea to be good notwithstanding that but if it were a mean process then it ought to be pleaded to be returned see Cook lib. 5. Hoes case fol. 19. according to this diversitie Tanfield chief Baron thought that the Plantiff shall recover for first the writ of error here is not a writ but a commission and therefore false lattin shall not abate it as it hath been
the profit and comoditie of his Master the Plantiff and it is shewed that he intended to deceive his Master and the Queen also and where a wrong is made to another in my name whereby I am damnified there I shall have an Action and if in this case the Defendant had left the goods in the ship then the Plantiff had suffered no loss and therefore his taking them out of the ship is the cause which occasions the loss to the Plantiff and therefore it is reasonable that he should render us damages and he vouched the writ of deceipt in F. N. B. and divers cases therein put and 21. E. 4. that if a man bring an Action in London and the Defendant to delay my Action brings a writ of priviledge be shall have an Action upon the case and he vouched the like case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. between Byron and Sleith upon an Action of the case brought by the Defendant because he sued a scire facias against a Bail in a Court where he ought Bromley Puisne Baron said that the Plantiff shall have judgement First it shall be intended that the Plantiff was beyond the Seas at the time in respect of the Minute of time between his departure and the landing of the goods Secondly he said that it needs not be expressed that the Master had left moneys wherewith to discharge the custome for it shall be intended in this case because the Defendant had taken upon him to meddle according to the appointment of the Plantiff wherefore c. and so he departed to the Parliament Altham second Baron agreed that the Statute for the paying of custome appointeth that if the goods of any man be laid upon the land the custome not paid that then the goods shall be forfeited and therefore here he shall not lose his goods by reason of this Act made by the Defendant so that if the Defendant be a meer stranger to the Plantiff without question an Action of Trespass lies for this taking then in the principal case by reason of this trust an action of the case lies and if a stranger drives my Cattle upon your land whereby they are distrained by you I shall recover against the stranger for this distress by you in an action against him for by reason of this wrongful Act done by him I suffer this loss and he vouched 9. E. 4. fo 4. a case put by Jenney Snig third Baron to the contrary I agree that if a stranger put in my Cattle to the intent to do hurt to me a Trespass lieth but here is an Action upon the case and that lies not because it appears not sufficiently that the Defendant was servant to the Plantiff to Merchandise but generally his servant and therefore an Action of Trespas rather lieth generally for in an Action upon the case he ought to hit the bird in the eye and here it is not shewed that the goods were for the same voyage nor that the Defendant is a Common servant in this imployment also the Declaration is not good because he doth not shew that the Defendant had moneys or means from the Master to pay the custome and he is not compellable to lay out money of his own besides he cannot dispose of the goods until the custome be paid wherefore c. Tanfield chief Baron there are two matters to be considered in the case First if here you charge the Defendant as your special servant or if as a stranger Secondly if as a stranger then if an Action upon the case or a general Action of Trespass lieth and as to the first if in this case you have shewed him to be such a servant as a Bayliff or Steward and he hath misbehaved himself in such a thing which belongs to his charge without any special trust an Action upon the case lieth but if he be taken to be your general servant then he is to do and execute all Acts and lawful commands and against this general servant if his Master command him to do such a thing and he doth it not an action upon the case lieth but yet this is with this diversitie viz. if the Master command him to do such a thing which is in his convenient power or otherwise not and therefore if I command my servant to pay 100. l. at York and give him not money to hire a horse an Action lieth not for the not doing of this command but if I furnish him with ability to do it and then he doth it not an action lieth well against him and in the principal case it is shewed that the Plantiff appointed the Defendant being his servant generally to receive c. and to pay all customes c. then it is examinable if the Plantiff sufficiently inabled this Defendant to do this command and the woâ—ds of the command seem to be all one as if he had commanded the Defendant to receive the Wares paying the custome and therefore the Defendant needs not to receive them if he had not money to pay for the custome and so it is not within the Plantiffs command to receive the Wares and then if he doth receive them not paying for the customes this is another thing then the command anâ— therefore it is no misfeazance as my particular servant but being my general servant he had done another thing then I commanded him whereby I receive some damage and by consequence is in case of a stranger for if my general servant who is not my horse keeper take my horse out of my pasture and ride him this is a thing which he doth not as a servant but as a stranger then as to the second matter the Defendant being as a stranger if an action upon the case or a general action of Trespass lieth for this is as if my general servant take my horse and rides him without my appointment a general action of Trespass lieth but if by reason of his riding my horse die an action upon the case lieth and so it is in the case here the Defendant had laid the goods upon the land by reason whereof they were forfeited it is collourable that an Action upon the case lieth but if a man take my goods and lay them upon the land of A. a Trespass or an Action upon the case lieth against him who took them by the better opinion but it is good to be advised and it was adjourned and at another day Altham Baron said that an Action upon the case or a Trespass generally did lie well enough and he vouched F. N. B. that if a Bailiff arrest one without any warrant I shall have Trespass generally or an Action upon the case at my election and so in the like case 18. E. 4 fo 23. Trespass or Action upon the case lies also by F. N. B. if Executors be outed by the Testators Lessor there they may have an Action upon the case if they will or Trespass generally and in
Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
by express terms quaer if in this case there was any land occupied with Parkhal which was not parcel of Cudworth nor of Parkhal for if so then it seems that Blackclose will be within the exception in regard that the words and lands occupied therewith viz. Parkhal are well satisfied Harris Serjeant said that the case is to be resembled to the point in Carter and Ringsteeds case concrrning the Mannor of Odiam where a man was seised of of a Mannor within which the Mannor of D. did lie and is parcel thereof and he by his will devised the Mannor of D. excepting the Mannor of Odiam where the Mannor passeth by the devise and is not excepted Snig and Altham Barons agreed that this proves the case in equity but by the chief Baron Tanfield because this is a rare case that we should reverse or undo a decree made by our predecessors in the very point decreed by them it is good to be advised and therefore they directed Arden to finde presidents if he could by search made for them in the said case and therefore the Attorney general who was of Councel for Darcie had demurred upon the Bill which was exhibited by Arden and that he being not present day was given until another term to hear Councel on both parts at which day the Attorney said that he conceived it a strange case and without president that a Court should impeach and reverse the decrees given in the same Court and that if it should be suffered the subjects would be vexed and troubled without any end or quiet and this stands with the gravity of every Court to maintain their own judgements and therefore several Statutes were made to reverse judgements upon erroneous proceedings and judges of other Courts constituted to examine them which proveth that before the Statutes aforesaid and without aid of them the Iudges would not reverse their own Iudgements and so here Harris to the contrary it is not without presidents that in a Court of equity one and the same decree in the same Court hath been reversed by decree of the same Court upon some consideration had of the erroneous misprisions of Law and it is no dishonour to a Court of justice so to do for matter in Law but otherwise it were for matter of fact for then that betrayeth an Ignorance in the Iudges which would be a dishonour to the Court but for Law men are not Angles and for that point there may be errour to prove that the Court of equity may do so he vouched the Book of 27. H. 8. fo 15. Martin Dockwraies case which is our very case ruled in the Chancery and so he said that in this Court 3. Jac. a decree made in the time of Baron Manwood was reversed upon the like reason and Tanfield chief Baron said to Serjeant Harris that if it appear by your president that if the same matter in Law which was decreed was reversed in the same point in Law then this proveth for you but if it were for matter of fact otherwise it is and therefore we will see your president Kent and Kelway KEnt and Kelway entred Hil. 6. Jac. Rot. 722. in the Exchequer in the case between Kent and Kelway which was debated Pasc 8. Jac. the Iudges pronounced in the Exchequer Chamber that judgement ought to be affirmed notwithstanding their opinion before to the contrary as it appeareth and therefore I demanded of Mr. Hoopwel Clark of the Errors what was the reason of their opinions and he told me that the case was debated by them this Term at Serjeants Inne and then they resolved to affirm the Iudgement and the reasons as he remembred were as followeth and he also delivered unto me the case as he had collected it out of the Records and delivered it to the Iudges which was that the Plantiff in the Kings Bench declared that one Benjamin Shephard was indebted to him in 300. l. and that he sued out of the Kings Bench an Alias Capias directed to the Sheriffe of N. to the intent to compel the said Benjamin Shephard upon his appearance to put in Bail according to the custome of that Court for the Recovery of his debt which writ was delivered to John Shaw Sheriffe of the said County to be executed the Sheriffe made his warrant to the Bailiffe of the liberty of the Wapentake of Newark and the Plantiffe himself delivered it to James Lawton Deputy of the Lord Burley the Kings chief Bailiâ—e of that liberty to be executed and the Deputy Bailiffe by vertue of the said warrant arrested the said Benjamin Shephard whereupon the Defendant with others made an Assault and rescued the said Benjamin Shephard out of the custody of the said Deputy Bailiffe whereby he lost all his debt and damages were assessed at 172. l. and cost 10. l. and in this case the Iudges agreed that notwithstanding the Defendant had rescued the said Benjamin Shephard out of the hands of c. when the said Benjamin Shephard was arrested upon an Alias Capias out of the Kings Bench which writ is only in nature of a plea of Trespass yet the party who rescued him shall answer in this action damages for the debt because the Plantiffe by this means had lost his debt And yet it is not shewed that the Rescuer knew that the Plantiffe would declare for his debt but if in this case the Sheriffe or Bailiffe had suffered a Negligent escape they should be charged only with the damages in the same plea as the writ supposeth and no for the debt and so a diversity also they agreed that the Declaration is good enough to say that he was rescued out of the hands of the Deputy Bailiffe and the course in the Kings Bench was alwayes so upon the return of a rescue notwithstanding the Book of the 7. Eliz. Dyer fo 241. also it was resolved that the Declaration was good saying that he sued an Alias Capias without mention of any latitat before sued also it was agreed that the arrest was good made by the Deputy Bailiffe by vertue of a warrant delivered to the Sheriffe but quere if they should not examine if the Bailiffe had a power given to make a Deputy by his Patent for this appears not in the case Bently and others against Leigh in Trespas Hill 45. Eliz. Rot. 1231. Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer TPe Iudges affirmed a Iudgement this Term between Leigh Plantiffe in a writ of Error and one Bentley and others Defendants and the matter assigned for Error was because the Trespass was brought in the year 45. Eliz. for a Trespass made in the 42. Eliz. and the judgement upon the verdict was against the Defendant and the Margent of the Roll it was entred quod Defendens capiatur where it ought to be pardonatur as he pretended for the general pardon which was in 43. Eliz. had pardoned the fine to the King for the Trespass and this is a thing whereof the Iudges
Rot. 906. in the Common Pleas and this was upon a new and Collateral matter as our case is Trin. 20. H. 8. Rot. 247. or 2447. upon an Arbitrament pleaded and he vouched divers other precedents upon the same point Trin. 3. H. 8. 446. or 466. and 14 H. 8. Rot. and 11. H. 8. Rot. 446. and Mich. 31. H. 6. Rot. 141. and. Hill 33. H. 6. Nota that here it was admitted without any doubt that an Ejectione firmae lyeth of a Mannor although it was said at the Bar that Williams Iustice was of opinion to the contrary the last assises at Norwich and so by all Iudgement was entred for the Plaintiff immediately and a Writ of Error was brought but never prosecuted for the Countesse of Pembrook had day given to remove her goods out of the Mansion House and so she relinquished the possession of all the premisses as I heard Trespasse against Gibson and others VPon evidence to a Iury an Action of Trespass against Gibson and others it appears that the Defendant was Deputy to the Duke of Lenox upon his Patent of Vlnage and that by vertue thereof he pretended to make search of certaine Stuffs called new Drapery which the Plaintiff were carrying to London and at the Town of Ware two or three strangers affirming themselves to be servants of the said Gibson did unpack the said Drapery and laid it in the dirt whereby the Plaintifs were hindred of the sale c. And in this case it was agreed if they as Servants to Gibson without his precedent appointment doe seise the Plaintifs goods and the said Gibson approve them to be seised although his Servants without his consent abuse the goods yet Gibson shall be Trespasser ab initio Also they agreed without any scruple although that the first seisure of these goods be admitted to be lawfull as by the pretence or licence in Law yet the abusing of them makes the originall seisure to be wrongfull and trespass lyeth and therefore in this case although it were not proved that Gibson himself appointed or was privy to the misusing aforesaid yet he shall be charged in dammages and so he was for severall seisures in an Action to 32. pounds viz. 30. l. for one seisure and 2. l. for another seisure and so severall dammages for severall Trespasses in one Action and although that by the abusing of an Authority or licence in facto a man shall not be a Trespassor ab initio but an Action upon the Case lyeth yet for misusing of an Authority in Law Trespass lyeth ab initio for if he who hath power to seise Estrayes will labour the Estray a Trespas lyeth for the seising thereof Bagshews case Hill 4. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. Bromleys Case Hill 8. Jacobi in the Exchequer HUtton Serjeant came to the Bar and shewed that one Bromley had before this time made a Lease for years in County Palatine of Durham of certaine Cole-mines in that County rendring rent 100. l. per annum which rent is arreare for divers years and that Bromley became outlawed here in the Common Pleas for debt at the Suit of Cullamour a Merchant and that the King had granted this debt due upon this Lease for years as forfeited for outlawry unto him And Hutton for the Bishop said that it belongs to him because he had all the goods of men outlawed within his County and if this debt belongs to the King or the Bishop it was the doubt the party being outlawed in the County of Northumberland which is out of the County Palatine of Durham Tanfield chief Baron said that the debt shall follow the person and he said that in 21. Eliz. Vere and Jefferies case it was a question if debt upon a Bond shall be forfeited to him who had such a priviledge where the Bond is and he said that in this case it was resolved that he shall have the Bond and debt who had Bona utlagatorum where the Bond is and so it was resolved as he said in a Case referred out of the Realm of Ireland but here is a bebt which accrueth by reason of a reall contract of goods in the County Palatine and he who is Debtor is the party outlawed but not in the County Palatine of Durham And Hutton Serjeant said that he dad the Rolle of a Case in this Court in the time of E. 3 that the Bishop of Durham was allowed a debt in a more strong case then this is for there a Creditor was outlawed in London and his Bond was also in London and the Creditor was only an Inhabitant within the County Palatine yet the Bishop was allowed this debt Curia put in your Claime and we will allow that which is reasonable and it was adjourned Isabell Fortescues case VPon a motion it was shewed by Coventry that upon a penalty imposed upon Isabell Fortescue for her Recusancy and Inquisition issued and it was found by the Iury that the said Isabell was seised of no Lands but those mentioned in a Schedule to the Inquisition annexed and then expresseth divers particulars in the Schedule without expresse finding that she was seised of them this is no good Inquisition nor finding of any seisin by the whole Court And so by the Court where an Inquisition or Schedule saith that the said Isabell was seised of the Mannor of D. as by information this is not good cleerely for it may be she is seised without information but where it was shewed that upon this insufficient Inquisition divers summes of money were levied and paid into the Kings Coffers that this may be restored The Court answered it doth not appear but that the King may by a new Inquisition have this money justly therefore it shall not be delivered out of the Kings Coffers but if you mone good matter in equity to be discharged in your English Bill you shall have restitution c. Brockenburies case THe Kings Debtor suffered A. to manure his Land and therefore the Sheriff seised the goods of A. for this debt whereupon A. to the intent to have his goods again paid the Fees to the Sheriff and made a Bond to the King to pay the Summe due And now upon a motion and Affidavit that the Debtor himself had sufficient to satisfie the debt due it was ordered by the Court that the Fees taken by the Sheriff shall be restored to A. and that the Bond remaine in the Office here and if this debt can be levied of the lands or goods of the Debtor the Bond shall be delivered to A. but if it fall out that it cannot be levied of the Debtor then the King shall resort to A. upon this Bond and he shall have the assistance of this Court for his reliefe against the said Brokenbury the Debtor Robert Beckets case touching Recusancy RObert Backet seised of divers Lands in Fee in the County of Cornwall upon an Indictment in 28. Eliz. was convicted of Recusancy for 10. moneths next before and died
Heir except that judgement be given against the Ancestor and for that see 40. E. 3. Executors 74. and 41. Ass pl. 15. and 15. Eliz Dyer 322. And also if a Recusant had been convicted upon the Sat. of 23. Eliz. and dyed before judgement cleerely this forfeiture shall never be charged upon the Heir for the words are that a Recusant shall forfeit 20. l. a moneth and if he doe not pay it then appoints the recovery by Bill Plaint or Information and this ought to be alwaies in the life of the party then the Stat. of 28. Eliz. maketh not a new debt or Forfeiture but gives a penalty for the non-payment of that which was a debt within 23. Eliz. and that the intent of the Stat. of 28. Eli. was but such this is proved by the Title of the Act. viz. for the more speedy and due execution c. 2. It is proved by the first words of the Act for the avoiding of all delaies c. so that it appears that this Act is but as a penalty meerly Also he said that this Stat. of 28. Eliz. dispenceth with the conviction as to the penalty but doth not take away the Conviction also he said that conviction without Iudgement maketh not a Debt Also he who is convicted by proclamation and dieth is discharged Also he said that our Case hath been compared to a Debt upon an Obligation but this is not like for the Stat. stands not indefinite but hath reference to 23. for otherwise a Recusant may be doubly charged that is upon both the Statutes for there is no means to recover the Debt but by this Statute of 23. Eliz. See Sir Edward Walgraves case Dyer 231. Wentworth and others against Stanley WEntworth and his Wife and Rich and his Wife brought an Ejectione firmae against Stanley and shewed in their Declaration how one Edward Stanley was seised in Fee and infeoffed the Earl of Darby others to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the Plantiffs wife for 100. years and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant ejected them c. and this Feofment was made in 40. Eliz. the Defendant saith that long before one Richard Stanley was sesed in Fee and gave it to the said Edward Stanley in tail and that he so seised made a Feefment to the uses as is alledged and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant as issue of the Feoffor re-entred and so by his pretence his is remitted whereupon it was demurred and upon the opening this case the Barons were clear of opinion that the issue in tail is remitted and came paramount the lease and so the lease for years is gone also by the chief Baron and Baron Snig there needs no Traverse to be alledged by the Plantiffe because it was but of a fee gained in an instant by the feofment of a Tenant in tail and a fee-simple gained in an instant needeth not to be Traversed 5. H. 7. and 2. E. 4. wherefore the Court said that judgement ought to be given against the Plantiffs but yet at the desire of the some the Court gave day to the Councel on both parts to argue the case at which day came Heneag Finch for the Plantiffs and he argued to the matter in Law and therein he said that by the feofment of Tenant in tail the use to himself for life the remainder to his daughters for years without limiting the residue of the use that in this case the residue of the use shall be in the feoffes and not in the feoffor for by him there is a difference between a feofment by him who had a fee with limitation of an use as above and a feofment made by him who derives an estate out of a fee for when Tenant for life or Tenant in tail makes a feofment and limits an use for part of the estate as above there the residue of the issue shall be to the feoffee and he vouched Castle and Dods case adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant over his estate without limiting of an use it shall be to the use of the grantee more strong here in a tortious act as our case is but if Tenant in tail will levy a fine with limitation of uses as above there the residue of the use shall be to the use of the Conusor Secondly admit that the residue of the use in this case shall he to the feoffor yet he shall not be remitted to the use as it seemeth the words of the Statute of 27. H. 8. are that cestuy que use shall have like estate in the land as he had in the use and therefore it is clear that the first taker of the use shall not be remitted as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and although the words of the Statute mention not heirs or issues yet by the intent of the Statute they are in equal degree but the Books which are against this opinion are two viz. 33. H. 8. Dyer fo 51. but there it is not expresly said that the issue is remitted but 34. H. 8 Br. remitter 49. is expresly against me but the same year in Dyer fo 54. it is there made a quere and in Bevils case it is only said that the first taker of the use cannot be remitted but of my opinion was Baldwin and Shelley in 28. H. 8. Dyer 23 24. and in Sanages case and 29. H. 8. it is resolved that if a man hath land by Act of Parliament there shall be no remitter and so here wherefore c. and he said if Tenant in tail be the remainder in fee and Tenant in tail makes a feofment to the use of himself in tail the remainder to him in remainder in fee in this case he in the remainder in fee shall not be remitted for then the first taker should be remitted to the pleading it seemeth that the bar is not good and first the general demurrer here doth not confess the matter of fact no more then in Gawins case in 29. H. 8. fo 40. by Brown a demurrer upon account in an appeal is no confession of the fact and in 44. Eliz. in Crisp and Byrons case accordingly see Sir Henry Browns case before a good case to this purpose then as to the Bar it seems it is not sufficient for want of a Traverse of a seisin in fee alledged in the feoffor who was Edward Stanley for it is a rule that two affirmatives cannot be allowed in a Declaration and the Bar without Traverse of that which is mentioned in the Declaration is not good except there be cause of some impossibilitie or inconvenience but yet this is to be understood where the affirmatives are express and not by implication as in Moiles case if the Defendant in his Bar confess a fee determinable he needs not Traverse the fee alledged by the Plantiffe but in our case here is an allegation made by the
words of a fee to be in the feoffor and the Bar confesseth only as of a fee gained in an instant but I agree that if the Bar had been that the Feoffor was Tenant for years and made a Feofment this had been good without Traverse but when Tenant in tail makes a Feofment it shall not be intended that he gained a Fee because it may be he hath purchased the remainder and thereby had lawfully acquitted it as an addition to his estate and here the saying in the Deelaration that Edward Stanley was seised in Fee as a thing material and of necessitie and not superfluous as the pleading in a Declaration for debt upon an Obligation to say that the Obligor was of full age or as a Repetition of the writ which needs not be Traversed and that it appears in 15. Ed. 4. in some case a Surplusâ—ge ought to be Traversed and 7. Ed. 6. Title Formedon the Declaration as in our case ought to be special and 21. H. 7. if a man will maintain debt upon a lease he ought to shew how he was in titled to make the lease also although that in our case the lease for years is the effect of the suit yet I say that the seisin in Fee is the effect of the plea 27. H. 8.50 H. 7.14 in a replevin the Defendant avows as seised in Fee the Plantiffe sayes that he was seised for life and doth Traverse c. and 14. and 15. Eliz. was our very case Dyer 312. and there it is said that the sure way is to take a Traverse as it is also said in 11. Eliz. Dyer also where the Bar saith that one R. was seised in Fee and gave it to the Father of the Feoffor and the heirs of his body he ought to say that the land descended to the Feoffor as son and heir of the body c. also where the Plantiffe declareth of a lease for years made by force of a feofment made the 30. day of August 6. Iac. the Bar saith generally that the 30. day of August 6. Iac. the said Feoffor made a Feofment of the same land to the same persons c. but he doth not say that it is one and the same with the Feofment mentioned in the Declaration so he answereth not our title and for that cause not good and therefore he prayed Iudgement for the Plantiffe Jones of Lincolns Inne to the contrary it seemeth as to the first matter moved that in this case the resioue of the use shall result back to the Feoffor 34. Eliz. Balfores case if Tenant in tail make a Feofment to the use of himself for life without more by Popham the residue of the use shall be to the Feoffee for otherwise the estate for life would be drowned but otherwise it is when a remainder of an use is limited to another in Fee for this saves the drowning or confounding of the estate for life as to the point of remitter it seemeth that it is no other but that Tenant in tail makes a Feofment to the use of himself and his heirs and dies if the issue shall be remitted or not and as to that he said that the Statute of 27. H. 8. cap. 10. hath by express words a saving of all antient rights and therefore the antient right of the estate tail is saved and therefore the issue shall be thereunto remitted and so should the Tenant in tail himself if he had not been within the words of the Statute as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and the authorities of my part are 33. H. 8.54 in Dyer expresly with me and without any quere as to the point of remitter but there it is said that he ought to avoid the lease by entrie as in our ease it is pleaded and as to the pleading it seems there needs no Traverse First because it is matter in Law Secondly we have confessed a Fee in an instant as to the first reason the Declaration is generally of a seisin in Fee and not expresly of a Fee simple and therefore it is matter in Law 5. H. 7. and 11. H. 7.21 the Fee not Traversed 46 Ed. 3.24 in Dower the Defendant pleads a special tail made by one who was seised in Fee the other saith that the Dower had but an estate tail at the time of the gift without Traversing that he was seised in Fee 2. Ed. 4.11 that a seisin in Fee tail is sufficient to maintain an allegation of a seisin in Fee to the second reason it is not alledged expresly that he was seised in Fee but quod cum talis seisitus fuit c. and 34. H. 6.48 he needed not in his Declaration to say that he was seised in Fee Pasch 34. et 35. Eliz. Taylors case if the Plantiffe in a quare impedit alledgeth seisin in Fee and the Defendant confess the seisin by Vsurpation this is a sufficient confession of the seisin in Fee Fitzherbert Title Travers 154. a good case to this purpose and in Moils case cited before on the other side the Plantiffe doth not mention in his Declaration a seisin in Fee absolute and the Defendant saith that A. was seised and gave to the Plantiffe as long as A. had issue of his body he needs not Traverse the absolute Fee Pasch 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas where there was a stronger case to the replication the Defendant said that the Countess of Devon was seised and leased for life the remainder to her self for life the other saith that the Countess was seised in tail and Traverseth that she was not seised in Fee it is there said that the Countesses estate in Fee need not to be Traversed and yet it was there agreed that in regard it was but matter of form it was aided by the Statute of Jeoffales for that was moved in arrest of judgement Tanfield chief Baron in the principal case the issue of the Feoffor is remitted without entrie notwithstanding the lease because it is not in possession but a lease in remainder and therefore the title of the Lessees is distrained before entrie by the Defendant and therefore the Defendant hath not answered the entrie upon the Lessees for you by your plea destroy the title to this Term which you have allowed them before they were ever in possession thereof and the Declaration is that they were possessed of a Term for years and that you ejected them and to this you give no answer upon the matter for clearly if Tenant in tail make a lease to commence at a day to come and dieth before the day this is meerly void by his death ad quod non fuit responsum see Plowden in Smith and Stapletons case for there it is made a quere and notwithstanding that Tanfield chief Baron with the assâ—nt of the whole Court pronounced that judgement should be entred against the Plantiffe immediately and so it was done Bents case IN a suit depending in this Court between
Bent and another for a Close it was ordered and an Injunction accordingly awarded that the Defendant should suffer the Plaintiffe to injoy the said Close with the appurtenances until c. and contrary to this order the Defendant had put his Cattle into the Close and thereupon an Attachment issued to answer this contempt and he said that he put in his Castle for a title of Common and it was ruled that this was no breach of the Injunction because the Common was not in question in the Bill but only the title of the Close wherefore he was discharged of the contempt and with the appurtenants doth not include the Common to be taken in the said Close Henry Clares case UPon a motion made by Serjeant Barker it appeared that one Henry Clare was indebted to the King and was seised of a third part of certain lands in Norfolk and that Mr. Richardson of Lincolns Inne was seised of other two Acres of the same laud as Tenant in Common and the beasts of Mr. Richardson pastured promiscuously upon all the land and Henry Clare put more Cattle in and upon proces to levy this debt for the King the Sheriffe took the Cattle of Mr. Richardson and sold them and it was now ruled that in regard it was lawful for a Tenant in Common to put in his Cattle upon all the land and that if they depasture all the grass the other hath no remedy and for that cause the Sheriffe could not take those Cattle for the debt of another Tenant in Common but otherwise it would be if the Cattle had been levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor and in the principal case the Sheriffe was ordered to restore the monie to Richardson for which they were sold and that if they were worth more yet the Sheriffe should not be charged therewith except it could be made appear some fraud in the sale or that sufficient suerties were to pay and discharge the dutie but if my Cattle are levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor the King may distrain them damage Feasant but he cannot distrain them for the debt by Tanfield chief Baron and Altham clearly to which Baron Bromley consented but Snig said beware of that Smith and Jennings case VPon evidence to a Iury it was said by Tanfield that if a man make Charter of Feofment of lands in two Towns and a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before livery made by the Attorney the Feoffor himself maketh livery of the land in one Town this is a Countermand of the Letter of Atturney and so livery cannot be made by the Attorney in the other Town and quere if the Towns were in several Counties Bacon the Kings Solicitor said that if a man make a Charter of Feofment of two several Acres whereof one is in lease for years and the other in demeasne and the Feoffor makes a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before that be executed the Feoffor himself makes livery now although that one Acre cannot pass by this livery because it is in lease yet this is a Countermand and revocation of the authoritie given by the Letter of Attorney for his intent is manifest so to be to which Tanfield and all the Court agreed Hobert Attorney general said that in this case although that one of the Acres was in lease yet in regard it appeareth not that the Lessee was in actual possession therefore he conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in actual possession at the time of the livery made by the Lessor in the name of all and in respect there was no house upon the Acre in Lease it may be intended that the Lessee should be in actual possession but for that cause he rather conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in possession and so the livery might well operate to pass it Tanfield and all the Court denied that the livery was good to pass it although that the Lessor was in actual possession but where Mr. Atturney alledged further that before the livery made an Infant had a Term for years in this Acre in lease and that the Feoffor at the time of the livery was gardian to the Infant and thereby had a possession therein and therefore the livery made in the other Acre in the name of all should be good to pass all to which the Court agreed and thereupon directed the Iury to finde the livery and seisin to be made of all and in this case the Court inclined that because this Feofment was made but ten dayes before that the Feoffor committed Treason and in asmuch as it was made to the use of the son being an Infant and not upon consideration of marriage that therefore the Feofment should be fraudulent and void as to the King but the Atturney general said that this Feofment was made in performance of a precedent agreement viz. it was agreed that the Feoffor should make such a conveyance to an use c. and that the wife of the Feoffor also being an Inheritrix should make such a conveyance of her land which was done accordingly and upon proofe of this agreement the Court inclined that it was no fraud and in this case it was ruled by the Court if parties have matter of evidence by the Records of this Court they ought to produce the Records themselves for Copies of them are not allowable It was said by Altham and agreed by the Court that if an Information be exhibited for intruding into a Close the 24th day of March and for the asportation of 9. Cart Loads of Wheat betwixt the 24th of March and the first of October the which the Detendant converted c. and upon not guiltie pleaded the Jury found that the Defendant took three Cart Loads of the said Corn upon the 24th day of March and after before the first of October they took also three Cart Loads more and damages were assessed for all that here no judgement shall be given upon this verdict for the Information doth not charge the Defendant with the taking of any part upon the 24th day of c. and then in regard that damages are more judgement can be given for no part of it see Cook lib. 5. Plaisters case but this case being moved at another day Tanfield said that he having inspected the Record he found the verdict insufficient for another cause because the Jury found that as to one Cart Load of Wheat to the value of 20. l. the Defendant was guiltie and doth not mention to what damage viz. to the damage of 100. s. or otherwise and by him ad valentiam is not sufficient without shewing also to what damage and for that cause by him a venire facias de novo ought to be awarded and so it was done by the Court. Edwards case EDwards case was that an erroneous judgement was given in a Coppihold Court where the King was Lord and this
was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
Serjeant moved that this matter might be specially found Tanfield said the Iury knows our opinion and therefore leave it to them and the Verdict was given that the condition was not broken See Term Pasch that proofes by deposition taken here in a former suite shall be allowed in this notwithstanding all the parties be alive and it was adjourned Note that in Staffords case in the Court of Wards this Term Flemming and Cook were of opinion with Tanfield here viz. That notice ought to be given to the Infant in the Case above-said I. S. was Parson of D. as appropriate and A. is Vicar and the King is Patron of the said Vicaridge and debate was between the Parson and the Vicar this Suite ought to be in the Exchequer for these Tithes and by the Court it may be commenced accordingly by English Bill in the Exchequer or by Action to the Office of Pleas for it is apparant that the King is Supreme Ordinary this was Pasch 9. Jacobi Sir Stephen Leazures case IN Sir Stephen Leazures case upon a charge upon Sir Thomas Gresham deceased Process issued to the Sheriffs of London to inquire what Lands the said Sir Thomas had in London at the time of the debt accrewed and to whose hands c. And the Inquisition found that the said Sir Thomas was seised of divers Messuages in London in four severall Parishes viz. in c. And now the Maior and Comminaltie of London came as Tenants of the premisses and demanded Oyer of the Inquisition and then demurred thereupon and by the Court the Inquisition is insufficient for the words of divers c. are so generall that no exception thereupon may be made nor the party can give no answer thereunto so of an Office found in the Court of Wards as it hath been divers times here used see Carters case Pasch 8. Jac. in the Court of Wards Kitchin against Calvert SEe the Case before fo many Arguments therein at the Bar by Bridgeman Ireland Serjeant Hutton and the Atturney Generall in Michaelmas and Hilalry Jac. And now the Barons argued and first Bromley Puisne Baron argued for the first matter which is when a Church being void the Patron contracts with Parkinson for money to be given to present Kitchin the money to be given by Parkinson and Kitchin not knowing of this Symonie is presented instituted and inducted thereunto whether this be void or not The 2d Matter is admitting that this is void that the Queen presented Covell who died before Institution or admission if this presentation be good to Calvert without a Repeal of the Presentation made by the Queen and it seems to be in both points for the Plaintiff To the first point be said That the intent of the Statute was to cradicate all manner of Symonies and therefore the words are not if any man give money to be presented but they are if any present for money and the Iutors here found 20. l. to be given and nothing for what it was given or to whom it was given for if money be the meede a Presentation is void and therefore if I. S. be Patron of the Church of D. which is void and a stranger saith to me procure the Presentation for A. and you shall have 100. l. and he procured A. to be presented here if the Patron had notice of the money given to me this Presentation is void but otherwise not and in our case without notice of the Parson the Admissor and all which ensued thereupon is void by reason of the Symonie in the Patron and it is void as to the Parson also and if in this Case we are not within the words of the Statute yet we are within the intent cleerely as upon 1. Ed. 6. of Chanteries an estate made for years or for life to Superstitious uses shall be within the intent although not within the words of that Statute as it appears in Adams and Lamberts case Cooke lib. 4. So the Statute of 11. H. 7. should be construed to meet with Cases of like mischief as it appears in Sir George Browns case Cooke Lib. 3. and Panormitane saith that Simonia est Studiosa voluntas emendi vel vendendi aliquid Spirituale vel Spirituali annexum cum opere subsequente To the second Point it seems that the Presentation made by the King to Calvert is good without aid of the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 15. for Covell who were the Presentee of the Queeen had nor interest no estate and yet if he had it would be void by the death of the Queen for the presentation is but a commendation and therefore if the Patron present his Villaine this maketh no infranchisement and so if Lessee for years of a Patronage be presented this doth not extinguish his Term. And whereas it hath been said that the Kings Grant cannot be construed to two intents true it is if it be to the Kings prejudice but otherwise it is if it be for his benefit as plainly appears in Englefieldss case Cook lib. 7. See 17. Ed. 3. fo 29. Also it is without question that the King may actually revoke his Presentation as it appears by 28. Ed. 3.47 And this implied Revocation is as good being for the Kings benefit as an actuall or expresse Revocation Dyer 18. Eliz. 348. And it was adjudged in Pasch 3. Jac. in the Common Pleas Rot 1722. one Williams case that an Actuall Revocation or Repeale is not necessary And so it was adjudged Trin. 8. Jac. Rot. 1811. in the Bishop of Chichesters case and therefore the King may make a Presentation to a Church which belongs to him by reason of Wardship under the Seale of the Court of Wards because the presentation is only a Commendation as it was there said and so it was agreed also Trin. 8. Jac. at Serjeants June by Flemming Cook and Tanfield in the Lord Windsors case referred unto them out of the Court of Wards and there it was said by Cook that the King may present by Parol as it appears by 17. Eliz. Dyer and that a Second Administration may be well granted without Repeal of the first and also it seemes that the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 15. doth not extend to a Chaplain for he is not a Servant within that Statute nor a Presentation is not a thing within that Statute and moreover in this Case Covel who was the Queens Presentee is not in life and therefore this Case cleerely is out of the Clause of the Statute of 6 H. 8. and so he concluded on the whole matter that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff Altham the second Baron accordingly The Presentation made to Kitchin is void and the Admission and all subsequent thereupon is void also for the words of the Statute are that if a Presentation be made for monie it shall be void and that the King may present that Turne and therefore the want of privity in the Incumbent is nothing to the
purpose as to the avoiding of the Benefice but his want of privitie availeth to excuse him of being Simoniacus yet because he is Simoniace Promotus the presentation is void and the King shall have it by the expresse words of the Statute and therefore as it seems if in this Statute there had been an expresse saving of the interest of the Incumbent by reason of his innocency yet such a saving of Interest had been void and repugnant in respect that it was expresly given to the King before as it is in Nichols case in Plowden upon the Stat. of 1. H. 7. See 1. Mar. Dyer and 7. Eliz. Dyer 231. such a saving doubted if it be void and in Cook lib. 1. Altonwoods case a saving Repugnant to the expresse words of the Premisses is void and so in our Case the Presentation is given to the King expressely and therefore if there were a saving in the words subsequent this were void much more in our Case where there is no saving And to prove that by the Symonie in the Patron that the Patron shall be prejudiced he vouched 42. E. 3. fo 2. It goods be given to B. by A. this is by fraud in A. to the intent that he may defraud another although B. is not knowing of this friend yet the gift is void as to him 34. E. 1. Title Garranty accordingly and Burrells case Cook lib. 6. upon the Statute of 27 Eliz cap. 4. to the same purpose To the second matter it seems that by the Queens death her Presentation is determined cleerely and so in case of a common person for if an Admission c. should follow after the death of the Presentor this is without any Authority of the instrument of Presentation for although there were no Admission there is no Presentation and he said that the Presentation passeth no interest but is as a Commendation and therefore he compared it to the Case of Say and Fuller in Plowden Com. If a Lease be made for so many years as a stranger shall name there ought to be certainty of years appointed in the life of the parties or otherwise it will be void and in 38. E. 3.3 If a Bishop present and die before c. Now the King shall present anew and also there it appears that the King may present by Paroll well enough and so it is said in 34. E. 3.8 tit Quare impedit 11. That a Presentment made by the Bishop becometh null and void by his death and therefore it appeareth in Fitzh Office of Court 29. that licence to alien granted to the King is void by the Kings death there needeth no actual Repeal or recital of the new presentation yet I agree that the King may make an actual repeal if he will as it appears by divers cases which have been cited before but that is of necessity to be done and as it seems the words of the Statute 6. H. 8. prove that before this Statute a second Grant made the first void without actual repeal in case where the thing passed by the Grant and by 38. E. 3. fo 3.4 it appears that a second Presentation made by the King was good without a repeal of the first and by Gascoigne 7. H. 4.32 if the King make a Presentation to one and then presents another without recitall or repeal of the first yet the Bishop ought to receive the latter Presentee for it is good without actual repeal wherefore judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff Snig Baron said that as the Action is brought judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff but if the Plaintiff had brought a Quare impedit peradventure I should have been of another opinion And as to the point of Symonie by the Civill Law it was punishable by deprivation and the guilt of the Patron should prejudice the Parson as to matter of Commodity in the Parsonage and at the Common Law if the Parson will pleade such Presentment he should be prejudiced as appears by our Books and hereby the incumbency the words of the Statute will not be satisfied for then the Queen should not Present if an usurper present and the Presentee is in by six moneths this gives Title of Presentation to the King against the rightfull Patron also it seemeth That if I. S. hath an Advowson and A. purchase the next avoidance to the intent to present B. and the Church becomes void and A. presents B. this is Symonie by averment as by good pleading the Presentation of B. shall be adjudged void To the second Point in respect that the Plaintiff had the possession by induction it is no question but he may retaine a possessorie Action for the Titles But if it were in a Quare impedit it would be materiall whether a Repeal should be in the case or not according to the Presidents in the Booke of Entries fo 303 304 305. for if a Licence be Granted to purchase in Mortmaine this may well be executed after the death of the Queene as it appeareth by Fitzherberts natura brevium expresly and so in Dyer a license of Transportation doth not cease by the Kings death 7. H. 4. in the Countess of Kents case it appears when the King makes a grant which is void yet there shall be no new grant without an actual repeal but it seems we are out of the intent of the Statute of 6. H. 8. because the words during his pleasure are not in the grant or Patent and so upon the whole matter judgement shall be given for the Plantiffe Tanfield accordingly the case is that the Defendant had prioritie of the possession of the Corn for which the action is brought and yet it seems judgement ought to be given for the Plantiffe and first as this case is here is Simonie by the Civil Law and the partie had his benefice by Simonie although he be not conusant thereof Secondly admit that here was not Simonie by the intendment of the Civil Law yet the Statute hath made an avoidance of the benifice in this case although it be not Simonie for the Statute speaks not one word of Simonie throughout the Act and yet by express words it doth avoid such presentations as this is and as to the Civil Law such benefice is to be made void by sentence declaratorie but it is not void ipso facto as it seems in the case where a common person was consenting to the Simonie but the text of the Civil Law sayes expresly that the Church ought not to be filled Corruptivè or by corruption and the Civil Law expresseth such a person as is in our case by Simoniace promotus and calls him who is particeps criminis Simoniacus and he who is Simoniacus is by the Civil Law deprived not only of the benefice ipso facto but also is deprived to be a Minister and adjudged guiltie in Culpa et poena Petrus Benefieldus a late writer of good authoritie saith that if a friend
last matter it seems that the Statute of 1. Jac. cap. 4 hath discharged this Land admitting that it was not discharged before wherein the words are and if any Recusant shall hereafter die his Heir being no Recusant That in every such Case every such Heire shall be freed and discharged of all and singular the penalties charges and incumbrances happening upon him or her in respect or by reason of his or her Ancestors recusancy and as to Walter de Chirtons Case who being an Accomptant to the Ring purchased Lands of A. with the Kings money by Covin and took the profits neverthelesse upon Inquisition it was adjudged that they should be seised into the Kings hands for his debt I agree that to be good Law because A. when he received the said money of Walter de Chirton that being the Kings monie A. immediately thereby became a Debtor and an Accemptent to the King and then into whose hands soever these Lands do after come they are still chargable for that money and therefore c. Sawyer against East AN Ejectione firme was brought by Sawyer against East for certain Mills in East-Smithfield in the County of Middlesex the Case upon a speciall Verdict was this Queen Eliz. 28. of her raign demised two Mills one Messuage and one Curtilage to Potter for 40. years Potter makes Mary his Wife Executrix and dies Mary marries one Burhill who in 33. Eliz. did demise one Messuage and one Curtilage to Wilkenson for 20. years and dies and Mary intermarries one Hitchmore who by deed inrolled in Chancery 20. Marcii 44. Eliz. reciting the originall Lease and that he had the whole Right State and Interest and term of years which Potter had and that he surrendred the estate and term of years aforesaid to the Queen reciting the matter mentioned in the surrender and that the Interest and Term which Potter had is come to Hitchmore and that Hitchmore had surrendred the whole right aswell for 30. l. as for that that Hitchmore did assume at his proper charges to repaire and new build the said Mills being in great decay and to give security for the same did demise the Mills Messuage and Curtilage for 40 years to the said Hitchmore rendring rent with a Covenant to be void for not payment c. and after the King demised the premisses to Ferrers and Philips two contractors who enter and demise to Sawyer who was possessed untill ejected by East who claimed under the lease to Hitchmore and the Iury found that in the Letters Patents to Hitchmore were contained ordinary Covenants to repaire the Mills and to leave them in good repair and the Iury also found that Hitchmore had not given any security for the building and repairing of the Mills and that the Mills were not new built nor repaired and that Hitchmore had pulled down one of the Mills and that the Term of twenty years is yet in being and if upon the whole matter c. Bromley the Puisne Baron saies that it seemed to him that judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff First the suggestion or surmise in the Patent being false in matter of value and in such a thing which is proper for the information of the Lessee causeth the Lease to be void as in 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. An Abbot makes a Lease for 60. years the Lessee demiseth to I. S. for 80. years the reversion comes to the Queen the 60. years expire the second Lessee surrenders to the Queen his Term and Interest which was nothing in substance to the intention that the Queen should re-grant to him for 20. years this falsitie avoids the Lease and yet it is no such Lease which of necessity ought to be recited and so is 8. H. 7. fo 3. by Vavisor if the King at the suit of I. S. grants the Mannor of D. of the value of 50. marks and this is of the value of 100. marks and this upon the information of the party in this case the grant is void and so is 8. H. 6.28 by Juine if the King be informed by petition that such Land is but of the value of 8. l. a year which in truth is of greater value the patent is void 11. Ed. 4.1 The Patentee suggests that a surrender was made whereas in deed there was no Surrender at all there also the Patent is void and so is 3. H. 7. the Prior of Norwich his case but there it is expressed in the Patent that the party had informed the Queen of a thing which is false and this is not expressed in our case yet it seems to me that there is no diversitie between that case and the case in question for it is plaine that in our case that the surrender and consideration are the information of the party which was the motive to induce the Queen to her grant for the suggestion is grounded upon the surrender the which surrender is fraudulent and deceptive and therefore the Patent is void Altonwoods case Cooke Lib. 1.40 The King grants the Mannor of Riton and Condor where in truth they were two Manners there neither of them passe Fitzh Grants 58. and so here the suggestion is grounded upon the words of the Surrender which are false and deceptive and therefore the Patent is void also it seems that when the Queen grants in consideration that the Grancee did assume to repair and it is found that he had not repaired this not performing of the consideration avoids the Patent and this is proved by Barwicks case Cook lib. 5. if the King will make a Patent for a consideration which is for the Kings benefit be it Executory or executed of Record or not if it be not true or duly performed the Patent is thereby void And here the Covenant or assumption not being performed according to the Queens intention and the consideration of the Grant will also make void the Patent And it may be construed as a Proviso in an Indenture within some Cases doth amount to a Covenant and condition also as it was in the case of Simpson and Titterell and also in the case of the Earl of Pembrook vouched in Cook lib. 2. in the Lord Cromwels case and therefore I conceive that the words super se Assumpsit aedificare is parcell of the consideration aswell as if it had been pro eo quod aedificabit and so avoids the Patent by the not performance thereof Altham Second Baron saies it seems to me that the Iudgement ought to be given for the Planthere are three things considerable in the Case First whether the Lease made to Hitchmore were ever good or not in respect of a false suggestion Secondly whether in that the consideration that he did assume upon himself to repair and the Queen indeed never had any precedent information made of the want thereof do avoid the Patent in the foundation Thirdly admit it be good in the foundation whether the Lease become void afterwards for not repasting And first I
will speak to such things which in my opinion will not avoid the Patent First it seems that this want of not assuring doth not vitiate the Patent for the word Assumpsit supposeth matter of Fact executed and whether it be true or false it cannot be now examined no more then in the Cases put 21. Ed. 4. and 26 H. 8. In consideration of service done although there was no service done yet that shall not avoid the Patent Sir Hugh Cholmlies case Cook lib. 2. Recitall of a matter in Pais and not of Record which is not materiall nor valuable doth not vitiate the Patent 37. H. 6.27 The King in his Privie Seale suggests a matter in Fact this doth not destroy the Patent also although that the consideration is aswell for that he assumed to repair as c. and it is found that he hath not repaired yet this fault shall not avoid the Patent for as it seems here it is not in nature of a conditionall estate or Grant as if it had been in consideration he shall repaire for as the words are here placed it is intended that the Queen will relie upon the Assumpsit and not upon the condition and grant and it seems that the Patent is void only upon the misrecitall and the false suggestion which is the first Point for it appears by the misrecitall that the Queen was deceived in a thing materiall and valuable and therefore the Patent void and yet I agree that every false ricitall or suggestion doth not avoid a Patent as in 9. Ed. 4. Baggots Ass 29. Ed. 3.7 if the King recite in his Patent that he had made a precedent Grant upon a Petition yet this falsity doth not avoid the Patent and in 27. Ed. 4. although that this falsity be in point of consideration yet if it be not for matter of profit and valuable to the King it doth not avoid the Patent but if it appear that the Kings intention was grounded upon a matter of value and substance and that he was therein deceived the Patent is for that cause void as in 9. H. 6. fo 2.8 H. 7. fo 3.21 Ed. 4.9 H. 7. fo 2. and 11. H. 4. fo 1. and this is all one as if it should appear in the Recitall or consideration that the Kings intention was grounded upon a matter of value and the King therein deceived therefore in Altonwoods case Cooke lib. 1. If the King recite that A. is indebted unto him as Executor of B and he release to him all demands generally yet nothing shall be released but that which he owed as Executor and so if the King recite that whereas an Advowson is holden of I. S. and he gives Licence to appropriate if the Advowson be holden of the King this is void 19. E. 3. Fitzh Grants 58. It seems cleerly that if it appear by the Patent expresly that the intent of the King was deceived and abused the Patent shall be void although it be not in matter of recitall or in matter of consideration neither as in 9. Ed. 4. fo 6. and 8. by Neale 21. Ass pla 15.40 Ass pla 36. The King gives Licence to his Tenant to aften in Fee and afterwards it appears that this Tenant was but Tenant in Lail and so in the case of the Market or Fair of Torrington cited in Altonwoods case and in our Case the Queen is deceived and misinformed in two Circumstances materiall and of value First for that she conceived that a greater quantity of the thing demised to Potter is surrendred then in truth there was and therein she is deceived for part of the thing is not come to her hands by the surrender Secondly the Queens intent was to make an intire Lease of all in possession and this cannot be for part of the thing it enures but as a Lease in reversion or future interest and therefore void as it is in Altonwoods case Cook Lib. 1. and the Queen hath a double prejudice hereby First because she cannot distrain for her rent reserved in that part which is not surrendred Secondly she cannot enter therein for the condition broken wherefore c. Tanfield accordingly that judgement should be given for the Plaintiff The Patent recites That all the Term-which Potter had surrendred c. where in truth it was not so and therefore it is cleere that the Queen is deceived therein and the Grant void for it was the very inducement which procured the new Patent and this recital is grounded upon the words of the deed of surrender so yâ— the surren is grounded upon the information of Hitchmore contained the surrender And if in that Clause Hitchmore had been well advised the Lease to him ought to have been A. having of the Mills in possession and A. having the Messuage and Garden after the Term which Wilkinson had should be expired and the reservation of the Rent ought to have been expressed accordingly for as it is shuffled together the condition cannot avoid the surrender nor the rent cannot issue out thereof Therefore it was adjudged in 9. Eliz. in the Common-Bench in the Bishop of Salisburies case B. seised of two Acres one whereof was in Lease to A. for years B. makes a Lease of both to a Stranger to have yâ— one in possession the other in reversion rendring 20. s. rent entirely now this rent shall issue out of that in possession during the Term in A. and after it shall issue out of the whole as one intire rent and so it is in our Case for default of severall reservations for this is one intâ—erent and then the Queen cannot distrain upon all the Land as she intended so in our Case wherefore I adjudge the Patent void not upon the point of recitall that is not for the not recitall of a Subjects Lease viz. the Lease of one Wilkinson but it is for the cause of misinforming the Queen in the matter of value and by consequence as hath been said Nemo tenetur informare qui nescit sed quisquis scire quod informat And where Snig hath said that this Patent is made Ex certa scientià mero motu And for this it cannot be intended that the Queen was gull'd upon the information of the party I say that there are not any words in the Grant to prove that it was Ex mero mortu c. And for that it seems Snig had no true Copy of the Case yet if these words were in the Patent it is not void for a triviall and petry mistaking yet in matter substantiall it will not help it as if the King be misinformed of his estate in such a thing to be granted or of estates which are in Lease for these are matertall things 21. Ed. 4. by Huffey and Briant if the King recite that whereas I have given my Land of 100. l. value to him or whereas I have given to him the Mannor of D. and he grants to me the Mannor of S. if this recitall be
Greyhound and è conversò and this was ruled to be an imployment for it was whereby or wherewith a Priest was maintained although it was not whereof and Mich. 21. Eliz. the Kings head in Breadstreet now Fishstreet was given to finde a Priest and a rent-charge granted in performance of the Will and this was adjudged an imployment of the house and so where the assignment is good a small thing will make an imployment And it seems that the Liverie is good and as to that that no Livery can be made without ousting of the Lessor and by his consent and therefore 9. Eliz. It is ruled that a Feoffement with a Letter of Atturney to the Lessee to make livery is good and no surrender and Eides and Knotsfords case 41. Eliz. Lessee for years remainder for life remainder in fee he in remainder in fee makes a Feoffement to the Lessee for years and makes Livery and it was adjudged a good Feoffement because it was not a surrender in respect of the meane estate for life and no ouster nor consent will serve for then it would be a disseisin which cannot be upon the possession of the Lessee for years for his possession is also of him in the remainder for life and I put these Cases that there ought to be a consent or ouster but I agree that the Queens possession cannot be defeated by entry or ouster as it is 4. Mar. Dyer 139.8 Ass 21.18 H. 8.16 But the Kings Ward may make an estate 1. H. 7. But if the King be not in possession but a remainder only in him and the Lessor makes a Feoffement rendring 12. d. rent this estate in the King doth not priviledge any other in possession and so judgement was given for the Plaintiff against the opinion of Altham Mrs Chamberlains case IN 22. Eliz. York recovered by Indicement in the Kings Bench against Allen upon an Assumpsit York being thus interessed of the debt after that is in May 26. Eliz. was outlawed upon a mean Proces at the suit of I. S. and in the same year and moneth was outlawed after judgement at the suit of the same I. S. and after a generall pardon came 27. Eliz. in which pardon after the pardon of all contempts for outlawrie there are words also purporting a Grant bounty and liberality whereby the Queen granted all montes forfeited or come unto her hands by reason of any such outlawry with other words in the same pardon and Provisoes therein contained necessary to be observed And after in 28. El. York was outlawed again after judgement at the suit of I. S. and then Yorke died but he lived a full year after the pardon 27. Eliz. and did not sue any Scire facias against the party at whose suit he was outlawed after Iudgement and after the death of Yorke another pardon came 29. Eliz. to the same effect with the pardon in 27. And after the Queen grants this debt to Anger for the benefit of Mrs Chamberlain who was the Wife of Yorke and Anger sued in the Queens name to have an extent out of this Court against Allen who was the party against whom Iudgement was given and all this was drawn into a Case and delivered to the Barons of the Exchequer to consider upon viz. If execution may be sued in the Queens name against Allen and this case was argued at the Barre at which I was present And now it was argued at the Bench by Bromley Puisne Baron and concluded that Anger may well sue execution in the Queens name but he had almost made an end of his Argument before I came into the Court and three points seemed to be considered of in the Case The 1. was unanimously resolved and agreed by all the Barons that either of the pardons will advantage Allen who was debtor to the party outlawed for although that the words of the pardon unport a pardon of all debts and sums of money accrued to the Queen by reason of the outlawry yet comparing all the parts of the pardons together it will plainly appear that the intent of the pardon was only for the advantage of him who had committed the forfeiture by the contempt and extends only to him by way of restitution And another construction would be repugnant to all the Causes contained in the Act By Tanfield as a Will ought to receive construction by due consideration of the intention of the Testator collected out of all the parts thereof so the meaning of an Act of Parliament ought to be expounded by an examination of the intention of the makers thereof collected out of all the causes thes therein so that there be no repugnancy but a concordancy in all the parts thereof and therefore if a man by will devise Bacre to A. and his heirs and by another cause in the same Will he devises B acre to B. and his assignes it shall not be void in any part insomuch that if both had been placed together A. and B. should be Ioyntenants and therefore the Law will make such a construction and so if a man devise B. acre to A. and after he devises a Rent out of it to another both shall stand Brett and Rigdens case Plowden Also this Debt was due by Allen 2. It was resolved by Tanfield and Bromley that Yorke should take no advantage by the Pardon in 27. Eliz. to have his goods restored which were forfeited by the outlawry after judgement for by them all the Statute for the pardon of the outlawry after judgement was penued in such a form as it is but conditionall for it is in effect provided that the pardon shall not extend to the party outlawed after judgement untill he shall pay or agree with the party at whose suit he was outlawed and this payment ought to be in the Court or in such manner that the Court may be satisfied by the suing of a Scire facias and an acknowledgement of the party at whose suit c. for a bare payment in the Country is not sufficient But when the party outlawed hath once lawfully satisfied the party at whose suit he was outlawed then the pardon will relate ab initio to avoid all intervenient matters if the satisfaction be made in convenient time and therefore if the King had granted the goods forfeited by outlawry after judgment meane between the pardon and the suing of the Scire facias yet if the party outlawed sue this Scire facias within convenient time the pardon shall have such relation as it shall defeat the grant of the goods and therefore Tanfield compared the words in the pardon of the outlawry after judgement to the words in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of intolments for there it is provided that nothing shall passe by bargaine and Sale except the Deed be inrolled within six moneths after but if it be not inrolled otherwise it is Beckets case R. B. seised of Lands in fee 36. Eliz. levies a fine c. and