Trust as in the Case of Wardship formerly which always went to the Executor of the Grantee and which was of greater consideration in the Law than the feeding or clothing of an Ideot and of that Opinion was the Court that the King had a good Title to dispose of both the Ward and the Ideot one till he was of Age and the other during his Ideocy Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Reeves versus Winnington THE Testator was a Citizen and a Freeman of London A Devise of all his Estate passed a Fee and being seised in Fee of a Mesuage c. and likewise possessed of a considerable personal Estate made his Will in which there was this Clause viz. I hear that John Reeves is enquiring after my Death but I am resolved to give him nothing but what his Father hath given him by Will I give all my Estate to my Wife c. The Question was Whether by these words the Devisee had an Estate for Life or in Fee in the Mesuage It was argued that she had only an Estate for life because the Words All my Estate cannot be construed to pass a Fee for it doth not appear what Estate was intended and Words in a Will which go to disinherit an Heir must be plain and apparent A Devise was in these Words viz. Sid. 191. Bowman versus Milbank I give all to my Mother all to my Mother and it was adjudged that a Fee did not pass which is as strong a Case as this for by the word All it must be intended All that was in his power to give which is as comprehensive as if he had said All my Estate 'T is true Kerman and Johnson Stiles 281. 1 Rol. Abr. 834. Cro. Car. 447. it hath been adjudged that where a Man devised his whole Estate to his Wife paying his Debts and Legacies that the word Estate there passed a Fee because it was for the benefit of the Creditors there being not personal Assets sufficient to pay all the Debts But that is not found in this Case therefore the Word Estate being doubtful and which will admit of a double construction shall not be intended to pass a Fee Mr. E contra Pollexfen contra The first part of this Sentence consists in negative words and those which are subsequent explain the intention of the Testator viz. That John Reeves should take nothing by the Will The Word Estate doth comprehend the whole in which the Owner hath either an Interest or Property like a Release of all Actions which is a good discharge as well of real as personal Actions In common understanding it carries an interest in the Land and then 't is the same as if he had devised all his Fee-simple Estate In the Case of Bowman and Milbank it was adjudged that a Fee-simple did not pass by the Particle All because it was a Relative Word and had no Substantive joined with it and therefore it might have been intended All his Cattle All his Goods or All his personal Estate for which incertainty it was held void yet Iustice Twisden in that Case said that it was adjudged that if a Man promise to give half his Estate to his Daughter in Marriage that the Lands as well as the Goods are included The Testator devised all his Tenant-right Estate held of such a Manor 3 Keb. 245. Mod. Rep. 100. and this being found specially the Question was Whether any more passed than an Estate for Life because he did not mention what Estate he intended but it was held that the Devisee had a Fee-simple because the Words were as comprehensive as if he had devised all his Inheritance and by these Words a Fee-simple would pass Curia It plainly appears that the Testator intended nothing for John Reeves therefore he can take nothing by this Will and that the Devisee hath an Estate in Fee-simple for the Words All my Estate are sufficient to pass the same Rex versus Sir Thomas Armstrong Saturday June 14th THE Defendant was outlawed for High-Treason and being taken at Leyden in Holland was brought into England and being now at the Bar he desired that he might have leave of the Court to reverse the Outlawry and he tried by virtue of the Stature of Ed. 6. which Enacts 5 6 E. 6. cap. 11. That if the Party within one year after the Outlawry or Judgment thereupon shall yield himself to the Chief Justice of England and offer to traverse the Indictment upon which he was outlawed he shall be admitted to such Traverse and being acquitted shall be discharged of the Outlawry He alledged that it was not a year since he was outlawed and therefore desired the benefit of this Law But it was denied because he had not rendered himself according to the Statute but was apprehended and brought before the Chief Iustice Whereupon a Rule was made for his Execution at Tyburn which was done accordingly DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Hebblethwaite versus Palmes Mich. 36 Car. II. in B. R. Rot. 448. AN Action on the Case was brought in the Common-Pleas Possession is a sufficient cause to maintain an Action against a wrong doer for diverting of a Watercourse The Declaration was That the Defendant Primo Augusti c. injuste malitiose did break down an ancient Damm upon the River Darwent by which he did divert magnam partem aquae ab antiquo solitu cursu erga molendinum ipsius quer c. ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded that before the said Breach made he was seised in Fee of an ancient Mill and of six Acres of Land adjoyning upon which the said Damm was erected time out of mind to turn the Water to his said Mill which Damm was always repaired and maintained by the Defendant and the Tenants of the said Land that his Mill was casually burnt and he not intending to Re-build it suffered the Damm to be broken down and converted the Timber to his own use being upon his own Soil prout ei bene licuit c. The Plaintiff replied that by the breaking of the Damm the Water was diverted from his Mill c. The Defendant rejoyned and justified his Plea and Traversed that the Mill of the Plaintiff was an ancient Mill. And upon a Demurrer to this Rejoynder Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error now brought to reverse that Iudgment and for the Defendant in the Action it was argued 1. That the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff had not set forth that his Mill was an ancient Mill. 2. Because he had not entituled himself to the Watercourse 3. That the Plea was good in Bar to this Action because the Defendant had sufficiently justified having a Right to the Land upon which the Damm was erected and always repaired it As to the first Point it
the Court of Arches the Case was Prohibition not granted where a temporal loss may ensue The Plaintiff was presented by the Mayor and Aldermen of Bristol to the Parish Church of Christ-Church in the said City and the Defendant libelled against him because he was not 23 years of Age when made Deacon nor 24 when he entred into the Orders of a Priest 13 Eliz. c. 12. and the Statute requires that none shall be made a Minister or admitted to preach being under that Age. The reason now alledged for a Prohibition was because this Matter was triable at Law and not in the Spiritual Court because if true a Temporal Loss viz Deprivacion might follow But the Court denied the Prohibition and compared this Case to that of a Drunkard or ill Liver who are usually punished in the Ecclesiastical Courts though a temporal loss may ensue and if Prohibitions should be granted in all Cases where Deprivation is the consequence of the Crime it would very much lessen the Practice of those Courts David Burgh 's Case THE Parishioners of St. Leonard Foster Lane gave this Man who had a Wife and five Children 5 l. in Mony to remove into another Parish upon Condition that if he returned in 40 days that he should repay the Mony he removed accordingly and stayed away by the space of 40 days the Parish to which he removed obtained an Order upon an Appeal for his settlement in the last Parish where he was lawfully an Inhabitant which Order being removed into this Court and the Matter appearing thus upon Affidavits they declared their Opinion only upon the Order to remove viz. That the Man had gained a Settlement in the Parish to which he removed for he being an Inhabitant there for so long time as was required by Law to make a Settlement and not disturbed by the Officers they were remiss in their Duty and the Court would not help their negligence DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Dominus Rex versus Dangerfield THE Defendant was convicted of publishing a Libel wherein he had accused the King when Duke of York that he had hired him to kill the late King Charles c. And on Fryday June 20. He was brought to the Barr where he received this Sentence viz. That he should pay the Fine of 500 l. That he should stand twice in the Pillory and go about the Hall with a Paper in his Har signifying his Crime That on Thursday next he should be whipped from Algate to Newgate and on Saturday following from Newgate to Tyburn which Sentence was executed accordingly and as he was returning in a Coach on Saturday from Tyburn one Mr. Robert Frances a Barrister of Greys-Inn asked him in a jeering manner whether he had run his Heat that day who replied again to him in scurrilous words whereupon Mr. Frances run him into the Eye with a small Cane which he had then in his Hand of which wound the said Mr. Dangerfield died on the Monday following Mr. Frances was indicted for this Murder and upon Not-guilty pleaded was tried at the Old-Bayly and found guilty and executed at Tyburn on Fryday July the 24th in the same year Mr. Baxter's Case HE was a Nonconformist Minister against whom an Information was exhibited for writing of a Book which he Entituled A Paraphrase upon the New Testament and the Crime alledged against him in the said Information was That he intending to bring the Protestant Religion into contempt and likewise the Bishops innuendo the Bishops of England did publish the Libel in which was contained such words c. setting forth the words He was convicted And Mr. Williams moved in arrest of Iudgment that the words in the Information and the Bishops therein mentioned were misapplied to the Protestant Religion and the Bishops of England by such Innuendoes which could not support this Charge against the Defendant That the Distringas and Habeas Corpora were inter nos Richardum Baxter which could not be because the Information was exhibited in the name of the Attorney General But the Court over-ruled these Exceptions and said that by the word Bishops in this Information no other could be reasonably intended but the English Bishops thereupon the Court fined him 500 l. and ordered him to give Security for his Good Behavior for seven years Procter versus Burdet AN Action of Covenant was brought by an Apprentice setting forth the Indenture by which the Defendant In Covenant the Breach was generally assigned and held good his Master had covenanted to find and allow the Plaintiff Meat Drink Lodging and all other things necessary during such a time and the Breach was as general as the Covenant viz. That he did not find hind him Meat Drink Lodging alia necessaria The Plaintiff had Iudgment by Nil dicit and upon a Writ of Enquity brought entire Damages were given against the Defendant And in a Writ of Error upon this Iudgment the Error assigned was that the Breach was too general and that entire Damages were given amongst other things for alia necessaria and doth not say for what 2 Cro. 436. Astel versus Mills and a Case was cited in the Point in Trinity-Term 16 Jacobi where the Iudgment was reversed for this very reason The Council contra argued that that which is required in an Action of Covenant is that there may be such a certainty as the Defendant may plead a former Recovery in Barr if he be sued again and therefore one need not be so particular in assigning of the Breach upon a Covenant as upon a Bond for in a Bond for performance of Covenants where there is a Covenant to repiar if it be put in suit 't is not sufficient to say That the House is out of repair but you must shew how but in a Covenant 't is enough to say That it was out of repair If in this Case the Plaintiff had shewed what necessaries were not provided for him Kelway 85. it would have made the Record too long and therefore 't is sufficient for him to say that the Defendant did not find alia necessaria That Case in 2 Cro. 2 Cro. 304 367. 1 Rol. Rep. 173. 3 Bulst 31. 2 Saund. 373. has since been adjudged not to be Law for many contrary Iudgments have weakened the Authority of it viz. That the Breach may be assigned as general as the Covenant as where a Man covenanted that he had a lawful Estate and Right to let c. the Breach assigned was that he had no lawful Estate and Right to let c. and doth not shew that the Lessor had not such Right or that he was evicted yet it was held good Curia In a Quantum meruit they formerly set out the Matter at length but now of late in that Action in general Words and also in Trover and Conversion pro diversis aliis bonis hath been held good which is as
it because the words were an entire Sentence and spoken altogether at the same time and therefore if a Prohibition should not go it would be a double vexation DE Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Earl of Yarmouth versus Darrel THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case Grant of the King of sole Printing not good setting forth Letters Patents of King Charles the II. by which the Sole Printing of Blank Writs Bonds and Indentures were granted to him excepting such Forms which belonged to the Custom-House and which were formerly granted to Sir Roger L'Estrange that this Grant was to continue for the space of 30 Years and that the Defendant had notice thereof and had printed 500 Blank Bonds which he laid to his damage of the sum of 40 l. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict the substance of which was that the Defendant was a Stationer and that the Company of Stationers for the space of 40 years last past before the granting of these Letters Patents had constantly printed Blank Bonds and so made a general conclusion Mr. Trindar argued for the Plaintiff and the only Question was Whether this Patent did vest a sole Interest in the Plaintiff exclusive to all others In his Argument he insisted on these Points 1. That the King hath a Prerogative in Printing and may grant it Exclusive to others 2. That this Prerogative extends to the Case at the Bar. That he hath such a Prerogative 't is confirm'd by constant Vsage for such Grants have been made by the Kings of England ever since Printing was invented But to instance in a few Viz. The Patent for Printing of Law-Books was granted to one More on the 19th day of January in the 15th year of King James the I. And when that Patent was expired another was granted to Atkyns and others on the 15th day of November in the 12th year of King Charles the II. In 23. Eliz. a Patent was granted to the Company of Stationers for the sole Printing of Psalm-Books and Psalters for the space of 30 years And on the 8th of August 31 Eliz. the like Patent was granted to Christopher Barker for Life Another Patent to the Company of Stationers for printing of Corderius c. These and many more of the like nature shew what the constant usage hath been Now the Statute of Monopolies doth not reach to this Case because of the Proviso therein to exempt all such Grants of sole Printing and by the Statute of King Charles the II. for regulating of the Press 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. 't is Enacted That no person shall Print any Copy which any other hath or shall be granted to him by Letters Patents and whereof he hath the sole Right and Priviledge to Print And upon the breaches of these Statutes several Iudgments have been given Between Streater and Roper in this Court Mich. 24 Car. 2. Rot. 237. 't is true the Iudgment was against the Plaintiff but upon a Writ of Error brought in Parliament that Iudgment was reversed The same Term there was a Iudgment given upon a special Verdict in the Common-Pleas for the Plaintiffs Hill 35 Car. 2. B. R. Rot. 99. who were the Company of Stationers against Seymour for Printing of Almanacks And they obtained the like Iudgment against Wright for Printing of Psalters and Psalm-Books Now to apply this to the principal Case 't is to be considered that these Books for which the sole Printing was so claimed were of a publick nature and importance relating to the good and benefit of the Subjects and so likewise are Blank Bonds for there may be false and vitious Impressions to the ruin and destruction of many innocent people And as a farther Argument that the King hath this Prerogative 't is likewise to be considered that where no individual person can claim a Property in a thing there the King hath a Right vested in him by Law and it cannot be pretended that any particular person hath a Right to Print those Bonds therefore the finding that such were printed by the Company for above 40 years is immaterial because there being an inherent Prerogative in the King whenever he exerts it all other persons are bound up who were at liberty before To prove which the Iudgment in the Case of the East-India Company is express in point for before that Patent the subject had liberty to Trade to those places prohibited by that Grant but afterwards they were restrained by that Grant Neither is this in the nature of a Monopoly 11 Co. 84. 't is not like that of the sole Grant of making Cards which hath been adjudged void and with great reason because that Grant reached to prohibit a whole Trade and therefore differs from this Case for the Defendant may print other Instruments or Books and exercise his Trade in some other lawful and profitable Commodities and so might the Merchants in the Case of the East-India Company for they were restrained by the Patent as to particular places but might Trade to any other part of the World Neither will the Subjects in general receive any prejudice by this or such like Grants for if the Patentees make ill use of their Priviledges tho' it cannot be properly called an Office yet 't is a Trust and a Scire Facias will lie to repeal their Grants It was argued by the Councel for the Defendant E contra That the Verdict having found that the Company of Stationers had used to print those Bonds for above 40 years before the making of this Grant the Question will be Whether they are now divested of a Right so long enjoyed And as to that 't is not a new thing to object That notwithstanding such Grants yet other persons have insisted on a Right to Print and have printed accordingly Thus the sole Printing of Law-Books was granted to one Atkyns yet the Reports of Iustice Jones and my Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan were printed without the direction of the Patentees Printing as 't is a manual Occupation makes no alteration in this Case for the King hath as great a Prerogative in Writing any thing that is of a publick Nature as he hath in Printing of it Now considering Printing as an Art exclusive from the thing printed this Patent is not good For if a Man invent a new Art and another should learn it before the Inventor can obtain a Patent if afterwards granted 't is void Then consider it in relation to the thing printed 1 Roll. 4. 11 Co. 53. id which in this Case are Blank-Bonds 't is not a new Invention because the Company of Stationers have printed such above 40 years and for that reason this Patent is void for where the Invention is not New there Trade shall not be restrained No Man can receive any prejudice by the printing of such Bonds for they are of no Vse till filled up 't is only a bare Manufacture
day of Appearance he is to see that he appear at the day either by keeping of him in Custody or letting of him to Bail the end of the Arrest is to have his Body here If he had not been bailed then he had still remained in Custody and the Plaintiff would have his proper remedy but being once let to Bail and not appearing in Court according to the Condition of the Bond that seems to be the fault of the Defendant who had his Body before the day of Appearance Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Serjeant Hampson's Case BY the Statute of Queen Elizabeth 't is Enacted 5 Eliz. c. 23. That if the person excommunicated have not a sufficient Addition or if 't is not contained in the Significavit that the Excommunication proceeds for some cause or contempt or of some original Matter of Heresie refusing to have his Child baptized to receive the Sacrament to come to Divine Service or Errors in Matters of Religion or Doctrine Incontinency Usury Simony Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court or Idolatry he shall not incurr the Penalties in the Act. Serjeant Hampson was excommunicated for Alimony and now Mr. Girdler moved that he might be discharged because none of the aforesaid Causes were contained in the Significavit Curia He may be discharged of the Forfeiture for that reason but not of the Excommunication Anonymus ONE who was outlawed for the Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey now brought a Writ of Error in his Hand to the Bar praying that it might be read and allowed It was read by Mr. Astry Clerk of the Crown The Errors assigned were viz. That it did not appear upon the Return of the Exigent in the first Exact ' that the Court was held pro Comitatu That the Outlawry being against him and two other persons 't is said in the last Exact ' that Non comperuit but doth not say nec eorum aliquis comperuit For these Reasons the Outlawry was reversed and he held up his Hand at the Barr and pleaded Not-guilty to his Indictment and was admitted to Bail and afterwards he was brought to his Trial and no Witness in behalf of the King appearing against him he was acquitted The Mayor and Commonalty of Norwich versus Johnson A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given for the Plaintiff in the Common-Pleas in an Action of Waste Waste lies against an Executor de son tort of a Term. The Declaration was that the Plaintiff demised a Barn to one Took for a certain Term by vertue whereof he was possessed and being so possessed died that the Defendant was his Executor who entred and made Waste by pulling down of the said Barn The Defendant pleaded that Took died intestate and that he did not administer The Plaintiff replyed that he entred as Executor of his own Wrong and to this Plea the Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joined in the Demurrer This Case was argued by Mr. Appleton of Lincolns-Inn for the Plaintiff who said That an Action of Waste would not lie against the Defendant because the Mayor and Commonalty c. had a remedy by an Assise to recover the Land upon which the Barn stood and a Trover to recover the Goods or Materials and that such an Action would not lie against him at the Common Law because he neither was Tenant by the Curtesie nor in Dower against whom Waste only lay So that if the Plaintiff is entituled to this Action it must be by vertue of the Statute of Gloucester 6 Ed. 1. c. 5. but it will not lie against the Defendant even by that Statute because the Action is thereby given against the Tenant by the Curtesie in Dower for Life or Years and treble Damages c. But the Defendant is neither of those and this being a penal Law which not only gives treble damages but likewise the Recovery of the place wasted ought therefore not to be taken strictly but according to Equity Tenants at sufferance or at Will by Elegit or Tenants by Statute Staple 11 H. 6. c. 5. and also Pernors of Profits were never construed to be within this Statute and therefore a particular Act was made to give him in Reversion an Action of Waste where Tenant for life or years had granted over their Estates and yet took the Profits and committed Waste Then the Question will be Co. Lit. 371. what Estate this Executor de sontort hath gained by his Entry And as to that he argued that he had got a Fee-simple by Disseisin and that for this reason the Plaintiff was barred from this Action for if the Son purchase Lands in Fee and is disseised by his Father who maketh a Feoffment in Fee to another with Warranty and dieth the Son is for ever barred for though the Disseisin was not done with any intention to make such a Feoffment 1 Roll. Abr. 662. yet he is bound by this Alienation So where a man made a Lease for life and died and then his Heir suffered a Recovery of the same Land without making an actual Entry this is an absolute Disseisin because the Lessee had an Estate for life but if he had been Tenant at Will it might be otherwise But admitting that the Defendant is not a Disseisor then the Plaintiffs must bring their Case to be within the Statute of Gloucester as that he is either Tenant for life or years If he is Tenant for Life he must be so either by right or by wrong He cannot be so by right because he had no lawful Conveyance made to him of this Estate besides 't is quite contrary to the Pleading which is that he entred wrongfully Neither can he be so by wrong for such particular Estates 6 Co. 25. as for life or years cannot be gained by Disseisin and so is Heliar's Case in 6 Co. Then if this should be construed an Estate for years it must be gained either by the Act of the Party or by the Act of the Law but such an Estate cannot be gained by either of those means First it cannot be gained by the Act of the Party Moor 126. Kendrick versus Burges because an Executor de son tort cannot have any interest in a Term and for this there is an express Authority in this Court which was thus viz. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to a man who died intestate his Wife before she had administred sold this Term to the Defendant and afterwards she obtained Letters of Administration and made a Conveiance of the same Term to the Plaintiff and Iudgment was given for the last Vendee because it was in the case of a Reversion of a Term for years upon which no Entry could be made and of which there could be no Executor de son tort though it was admitted by the Court that such an Executor might make a good sale of
the person who made Oath before them The Commissioners sign the Depositions and they ought to produce them so signed to the Court and prove it for Depositions are often suppressed by Order of the Court. If a true Copy of an Affidavit made before the Chief Iustice of this Court be produced at a Trial 't is not sufficient to convict a Man of Perjury This is not like the Case of Perjury assigned in an Answer in Chancery taken in the Country for that is under the Parties Hand but here is nothing under the Defendant's Hand and therefore the Commissioners ought to be in the Court to prove him to be the Man The Court were equally divided The Chief Iustice and Wythens Iustice were of Opinion that it was not Evidence to convict the Defendant of Perjury it might have been otherwise upon the Return of a Master of Chancery for he is upon his Oath and is therefore presumed to make a good Return but Commissioners are not upon Oath they pen the Depositions according to the best of their skill and a man may call himself by another name before them without any offence The Commissioners cannot be mistaken in the Oath tho' they may not know the person for this Court may be so mistaken in those who make Affidavits here but not in the Oath if the Commissioners or the Clerk to the Commission had been here they would have been good Evidence If an Affidavit be made before a Iustice of the Peace of a Robbery as enjoyned by the Statute if you will convict the person of Perjury you must prove the swearing of the Affidavit The Attorney General perceiving the Opinion of the Court rather than the Plaintiff should be nonsuit because no Evidence could be given offered to enter a Nolle prosequi which the Court said could not be done because the Iury were sworn but he insisted upon it and said he would cause it to be entred Sir John Knight's Case AN Information was exhibited against him by the Attorney General upon the Statute of 2 E. 3. Information upon the Statute for going armed 2 E. 3. c. 3. Which prohibits all persons from coming with Force and Arms before the King's Justices c. and from going or riding armed in affray of Peace on pain to forfeit his Armour and suffer Imprisonment at the King's Pleasure This Statute is confirmed by that of R. 2. 20 R. 2.1 with an Addition of a farther punishment which is to make a Fine to the King The Information sets forth that the Defendant did walk about the Streets armed with Guns and that he went into the Church of St. Michael in Bristol in the time of Divine Service with a Gun to terrifie the King's Subjects contra formam Statuti This Case was tryed at the Bar and the Defendant was acquitted The Chief Iustice said that the meaning of the Statute of Ed. 3. was to punish People who go armed to terrifie the Kings Subjects 'T is likewise a great Offence at the Common Law as if the King was not able or willing to protect his Subjects and therefore this Act is but an affirmance of that Law and it having appointed a Penalty this Court can inflict no other Punishment than what is therein directed DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 2 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686 7. Kingston versus Herbert A Common Recovery was suffered Anno 22 Jacobi primi Where a Scire Facias must go to the Tertenants before Judgment be reversed and a Writ of Error was brought about five years since to reverse it and Iudgment was given for the Reversal and it was now moved to set aside that Reversal because there was no Scire Facias against the Tertenants Mr. Williams who argued for the Reversal said that the want of a Scire Facias must be either in Law or in Fact it cannot be Error in Law for that must appear upon the Record it self which it doth not here It cannot be Error in Fact because there is no necessity of such a Writ 't is only discretionary in the Court and not ex necessitate juris But on the other side it was insisted that the Court cannot proceed to examine Errors before a Scire Facias is awarded to the Tertenants Dyer 320 331. for they may have a Matter to plead in Barr to the Writ as a Release c. and the Party cannot be restored to all which he hath lost by the suffering of the Recovery unless the Defendant be brought in upon the Scire Facias Curia The only Question is whether this Iudgment be well given without a Scire Facias The Secondary hath reported that the Practice is so Then as to the Ojection that such a Scire Facias is not ex necessitate juris but only discretionary 't is quite otherwise for 't is not only a cautionary Writ as all other Scire Facias but 't is a legal caution which in a manner makes it necessary 'T is true if there had been a Iudgment corruptly obtained this Court might have set it aside but if Erronice 't is a doubt whether it may be vacated but according to the Forms and Methods of Law Adjornatur Baldwin versus Flower BAron and Feme brought an Action on the Case for Words spoken of the Wife Words where actionable without special damage The Declaration was that the Defendant having some discourse with another person called the Wife Whore and that she was his Whore and concluded ad dampnum ipsorum c. The Plaintiff had a Verdict and it was now moved in arrest of Iudgment for that the Words were not actionable without alledging special damage But it was answered Rol. Abr. 35. placit 7. that the Action was well brought To say A Man is rotted with the Pox is actionable without alledging special damage because the person by such means will lose the Communication and Society of his Neighbours As to the Conclusion ad dampnum ipsorum 't is good for if she survive the Husband the Damages will go to her and so are all the Presidents Curia The Words are actionable And three Iustices were of Opinion that the Conclusion of the Declaration was as it ought to be which Iustice Wythens denied for if an Innkeepers Wife be called a Cheat and the House loses the Trade the Husband hath an injury by the Words spoken of his Wife but the Declaration must not conclude ad dampnum ipsorum Sir Thomas Grantham's Case HE bought a Monster in the Indies which was a Man of that Country who had the perfect Shape of a Child growing out of his Breast as an Excrescency all but the Head This Man he brought hither and exposed to the sight of the People for Profit The Indian turns Christian and was baptized and was detained from his Master who brought a Homine Repleg ' the Sheriff returned that he had replevied the Body but doth not say the Body in which
Sir Thomas claimed a Property whereupon he was ordered to amend his Return and then the Court of Common-Pleas bailed him Banson versus Offley AN Appeal of Murder was tried in Cambridgshire against three persons An Appeal of a Murder was tried not where the Stroak was given but where the Party died and the Count was that Offley did assault the Husband of the Appellant and wounded him in Huntingtonshire of which Wound he did languish and dye in Cambridgeshire and that Lippon and Martin were assisting The Iury found a special Verdict in which the Fact appeared to be that Lippon gave the Wound and that Martin and Offley were assisting The first Exception to this Verdict was that the Count and the Matter therein alledged must be certain and so likewise must the Verdict otherwise no Iudgment can be given but here the Verdict finding that another person gave the Stroak and not that person against whom the Appellant had declared 't is directly against her own shewing 2. This Fact was tried by a Iury of Cambridgshire when it ought to have been tried by a Iury of both Counties The Court answered to the first Exception that it was of no force and that the same Objection may be made to an Indictment where in an Indictment if one gives the Stroak and another is abetting they are both principally and equally guilty and an Indictment ought to be as certain as a Count in an Appeal As to the second Exception 't is a good Trial by a Iury of Cambridgshire alone and this upon the Statute of 2 3 Ed. 6. 2 3 Ed. 6. cap. 24. the Words of which Statute are viz. Where any person c. shall hereafter be feloniously striken in one County and dye of the same Stroak in another County that then an Indictment thereof found by the Jurors of the County where the death shall happen whether it be found before the Coroner upon the sight of the Body or before the Justices of the Peace or other Justices or Commissioners who shall have Authority to enquire of such Offences shall be as good and effectual in the Law as if the Stroak had been in the same County where the Party shall dye or where such Indictment shall be found 'T is true 4 Inst 49 that at the Common Law if a Man had received a mortal Wound in one County and died in another the Wife or next Heir had their Election to bring an Appeal in either County but the Trial must be by a Iury of both Counties But now that mischief is remedied by this Statute which doth not only provide that an Appeal shall be brought in the County where the Party dyed but that it shall be prosecuted which must be to the end of the Suit Adjornatur Dominus Rex versus Hinton and Brown AN Indictment was brought against the Defendants setting forth Subornation of Perjury that a Conventicle was held at a certain place and that they movebant persuadebant subornaverunt a certain person to swear that several Men were then present who really were at that time at another place They were found guilty and a Writ of Error was brought to reverse the Iudgment the Error assigned was that the Indictment doth not set forth that any Oath was made so it could not be Subornation There is a difference between the persuading of a man to swear falsly and Subornation it self for an Indictment for Subornation always concludes contra formam Statuti Curia 'T is not enough to say a Man suborned another to commit a Perjury but he must shew what Perjury it is which cannot be without an Oath for an Indictment cannot be framed for such an Offence unless it appear that the thing was false which he was perswaded to swear The Question therefore is If the person had sworn what the Defendants had persuaded him to do whether that had been Perjury There is a difference when a Man swears a thing which is true in Fact and yet he doth not know it to be so and to swear a thing to be true which is really false the first is Perjury before God and the other is an Offence of which the Law takes notice But the Indictment was quashed because the Words Per Sacramentum duodecim proborum legalium hominum were left out They held that if the Return had been right upon the File the Record should be amended by it Blaxton versus Stone THE Case was this viz. A Man seised in Fee c. What words make an Estate Tail in a Will had Issue two Sons he devised all his Land to his eldest Son and if he die without Heirs Males then to his other Son in like manner The Question was Whether this was an Estate Tail in the eldest Son Curia 'T is plain the Word Body which properly creates an Estate Tail is left out but the intent of the Testator may be collected out of his Will that he designed an Estate Tail for without this Devise it would have gone to his second Son if the first had died without Issue 'T is therefore an Estate Tail DE Termino Paschae Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687. Herbert Chief Justice Wythens Justices Holloway Justices Powel Justices Dominus Rex versus William Beal MEmorandum A Souldier executed not in the County where he wes condemned That on Saturday April 15. Mr. Attorny moved that this Court would award Execution upon the Defendant who was a Souldier for deserting of his Colours and was condemned for the same at the Affizes at Reading in Berks and reprieved and that he might be executed at Plymouth where the Garrison then was The Chief Iustice in some heat said that the Motion was irregular for the Prisoner was never before the Court. Mr. Attorny then moved for a Habeas Corpus and on Tuesday April the 18th the Souldier was brought to the Barr and Mr. Attorny moved it again But it was affirmed by the Chief Iustice and Iustice Wythens that it could not be done by Law for the Prisoner being condemned in Berks and reprieved by the Iudge to know the Kings Pleasure and now brought hither cannot be sent into another County to be executed it may be done in Middlesex by the Prerogative of this Court which sits in that County but no where else but in the proper County where the Trial and Conviction was so the Prisoner was committed to the Kings Bench and the Record of his Conviction was not filed But it was the King's Will that this Man should be executed at Plymouth where the Garrison was that by this Example other Souldiers might be deterred from running from their Colours SIR Robert Wright who was made Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in the room of Sir Henry Beddingfield who died the last Term as he was receiving of the Sacrament was on Friday following being the 21st of April made Chief Justice of this Court in the place of
my Lord Coke to be an allowance by the King 's Grant to any person for the sole buying or selling of any thing restraining all others of that Liberty which they had before the making of such a Grant 3 Inst 181. and this he tells us is against the ancient and fundamental Rights of this Kingdom This Patent agreeth exactly with that Definition 9 E. 3. cap. 1. 18 E. 3. c. 3. 25 E. 3. c. 2. Roll. Abr. 180. 2 R. 2. c. 1. 11 R. 2. c. 7. and therefore it must be against Law 't is against an Act of Parliament which gives Liberty to Merchants to buy and to sell in this Realm without disturbance and 't is expresly against the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 3. which declares all such Letters Patents to be void That which may give some colour to make such Grants good 2 Inst 540. 11 Rep. is a pretence of Order and Government in Trade but my Lord Coke was of Opinion that it was a hinderance to both and in the end it produced Monopolies There is a great difference between the King's Grant and his Prohibition for the one vests an Interest which is not done by the other and all Prohibitions determine by the King's death but Grants still remain in force Adjornatur Langford versus Webber IN Trespass for the taking of a Horse Justification upon a bare possession good against a wrong doer the Defendant justified for that Joseph Ash was possessed of a Close c. and that the Defendant as his Servant took the Horse in that Close Damage fesant And upon a Demurrer to this Plea for that the Defendant did not shew what Title Ash had to this Close The Councel for the Defendant insisted that it being in Trespass 't is sufficent to say that Ash was possessed because in this Case possession is a good Title against all others But it might have been otherwise in Replevin The Title of the Close is not in question Cro. Car. 138. Yelv. 74. Cro. Car. 571. pl. 10. the possession is only an inducement to the Plea and not the substance thereof which is the taking of the Horse and the Law is plain that where the interest of the Land is not in question a Man may justifie upon his own possession against a wrong-doer Mr. Pollexfen on the other side alledged that damage fesant would bring the Title of the Land in question But the Court gave Iudgment for the Defendant Perkins versus Titus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common-Pleas Fine upon an Admittance where it must be certain in Replevin for taking of the Plaintiff's Sheep The Defendant avowed the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff replied that the Lands where c. were Copy-hold held of the Manor of Bushy in Com. Hertf. the Custom whereof was that every Tenant of the said Manor qui admissus foret to any Copyhold Estate should pay a years Value of the Land for a Fine as the said Land is worth tempore Admissionis And upon a Demurrer the Question was 1. Whether this be a good Plea or not as 't is pleaded 2. If it be good as pleaded then whether such a Custom may be supported by Law 1. It was for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error now and in Michaelmas Term following argued that it was not a good Custom The substance of whose Arguments were that Fines are either certain or incertain those which are incertain are arbitrary and therefore cannot be due of Common Right nor by Custom for there can be no Custom for an incertain Fine and such is this Fine for the value of the Land cannot be known because as this Custom is pleaded it doth not appear whether it shall be a years value past or to come at the time of the admittance of the Tenant A Custom to assess rationabilem denariorum summam for a Fine upon an admittance that is to say 13 Rep. 1. being two years Rent of a Tenant of the yearly value of 53 s. 4 d. is no good Custom A Lease is made for so many years as a third person shall name this is altogether incertain 13 Edw. 3. Fitz. Abr. 273. but when the Term is named then 't is a good Lease but this can be done but once How can this Fine be assessed It cannot be by Iury for then it stands in need of the Common Law and will be therefore void for a Custom must have nothing to support it but usage 1. Neither can this be a good Custom as 't is pleaded because all Customs are made up of repeated Acts and Vsages and therefore in pleading them it must be laid time out of mind which is not done here for admissus foret hath a respect to future admissions and are not to those which are past 2. Here is no time laid when this Fine shall be paid for 't is said Quilibet tenens qui admissus foret c. solvet tantam denariorum summam quantum terra valebat per Annum tempore admissionis c. which last words must be taken to relate to the value of the Land and not to the time when the Fine shall be paid so that if there be such a Custom which is Lex loci and not fully set forth and expressed the Common Law will not help it by any Construction 2. Point Whether such a Custom can be good by Law And they argued that it cannot Where the Fine is certain the Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of it upon the prayer of the person to be admitted 4 Rep. 27. b. but where 't is incertain the Lord is first to admit the Tenant and then to set the Fine the reasonableness whereof is to be determined by Iudges before whom the Case shall depend or upon Demurrer or by a Iury upon proofs of the yearly value of the Land but for non payment of an unreasonable Fine the Lord cannot enter Cro. Eliz. 779. Cro. Car. 196. The Law admits of no Custom to be good but such as is very certain for incertainty in a Custom as well as in a Grant makes both void and therefore 't is held a void Custom for an Infant to make a Feoffment when he can measure an Ell of Cloth Rol. Abr. 565. 6 Rep. 60. Davies Rep. 37. It may be objected that certum est quod certum reddi potest the meaning of which saying must be quod certum reddi potest by something which is certain for if this Rule should be taken to be an answer to incertainties it would destroy all the Books which say a Custom must be certain The Law is very clear Fitz. Bar. 177. 2 Rol. Abr. 264. that a Custom is void for the incertainty therefore this Custom must be void for the value of Land is the most incertain thing in nature and therefore Perjury will not lye for swearing to the value Serjeant Fuller and Mr.
forth that the Plaintiff was amerced and that it was affered at the Court and so he hath confounded the Office of the Iurors and Affearers together which he ought not to do for he should be amerced to a certain Sum Hob. 129. Rol. Abr. 542. and not in general which Sum may be mitigated or affered by others If it had been a Fine 8 Co. 38. 1 Leon. 142. it need not be affered because that is imposed by the Court but this is an Amerciament which is the act of the Jury and therefore it must be affered 3. The chiefest Exception was to the matter of the Warrant viz. the Defendant sets forth that he seised by virtue of a Precept from the Dean and Chapter whereas he ought to shew it was directed to him from the Steward of the Court and then to set forth the Warrant without which he cannot justifie to distrain for an Amerciament And of this Opinion was the whole Court and therefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in Michaelmas Term Primo Will. Mariae If it had been in Replevin where the Defendant made cognizance in the right of the Lord it might be well enough as here pleaded but where 't is to justifie by way of excuse there you must averr the Fact and alledge it to be done and set forth the Warrant it self 3 Cro. 698.748 1 Leon. 242. and the taking virtute Warranti for a Bayliff of a Liberty cannot distrain for an Amerciament by virtue of his Office but he must have a Warrant from the Steward or Lord of the Leét for so doing The other Exception that the Amerciament ought to be to a Sum Rast Ent. 606. Co. Ent. 665. the Presidents are otherwise for an Amerciament per duodecim probos legales homines adtunc ibidem jurat ad 40 s. afferat ' is well enough but the Warrant is always set forth Dominus Rex versus Darby THE Defendant was indicted for speaking of scandalous words of Sir J.K. a Justice of the Peace Viz. Sir J.K. Indictment for Scandalous words is a buffle-headed Fellow and doth not understand Law he is not fit to talk Law with me I have bafled him and he hath not done my Clyent Justice Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant said that an Indictment would not lye for these words because not spoken to the Party in the exceution of his Office but behind his back it will not lye for irreverent words but for Libels and Writings because such are publick but words are private offences But the Court being of Opinion that an Indictment would lye where an Action would not because it respects the publick Peace and that an Action would not lye in this Case unless the party had a particular loss Sid. 65. 2 Cio 5 8. and therefore it hath been held not to be actionable to call a Iustice of Peace Fool Ass Coxcomb He then took Exceptions to the Form of the Indictment 1. There is no place of Abode laid where the Defendant did inhabit which is expresly required by the Statute of H. 5. Viz. 1 H. 5. cap. 5 That in Indictments there shall be addition of the Estate Degree c. and of the Towns Hamlets Places and Counties where the Defendants dwell And by the Statute of H. 6. 8 H. 6. cap. 12 which gives the Iudges power to amend Records in affirmations of Iudgments such defects which are named in the Statute of H. 5. are excepted and therefore where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse an Outlawry upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 2 Cro. 167. the Defendant was Indicted by the Name of Nicholas Leech de Parochia de Aldgate and did not shew in what County Aldgate was and for this cause it was reversed 2. The Caption is coram Justiciariis ad pacem dicti Domini Regis conservand ' and the word nunc is left out It was the Opinion of Iustice Twisden that it ought to be nunc conservand ' Sid. 422. for otherwise it may be the Peace of King Stephen The Councel on the other side said that it was a new Doctrine that the King shall not have the same Remedy by an Indictment which the Subject may have by an Action What is the meaning of the words of all Commissions de propalationibus verborum As to the first Exception they said that the Indictment was certain enough for the Defendant is laid to be de Almondbury in the West-Riding of Yorkshire To the second Exception they said that ad pacem conservand ' without nunc is well enough for it cannot be intended upon this Indictment that they were Iustices to preserve the Peace in any other Kings Reign and what was quoted out of Siderfin is but the Opinion of one single Iudge This is a Scandal upon the Government and 't is as much as to say that the King hath appointed an ignorant Man to be a Iustice of Peace for which an Indictment will lye And of that Opinion was the whole Court and gave Iudgment accordingly Ball versus Cock A Writ of Covenant did bear Teste the first day of Trinity Term Error to reverse a Fine where the Cognisor died after the Caption and before it passed the King's Silver retornable tres Trinitatis and it was taken by Dedimus 30 Julii A Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Fine and the Error assigned was that the Cognizor died after the Caption and before the Enrolment at the King's Silver Office It was argued by the Councel for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that a Fine Sur Cognizance de droit c. is said to be levied when the Writ of Covenant is returned and the Concord and King's Silver which is an antient Revenue of the Crown pro licencia concordandi duly entred for though the Cognisor dieth afterwards Dyer 220. b. 5 Co. 37. Cro. Eliz. 469. the Fine is good and the Land passeth but if the King's Silver be not entred the Fine may be reversed by Writ of Error for it is an Action and Iudgment and the death of either Party abates it If it should be objected that this cannot be assigned for Error because 't is against the Record which is Placita terrae irrotulat de Termino Sanctae Trinitatis anno primo Jacobi c. 'T is true an Error cannot be assigned against the very essence of a Record but in the matter of time it may and so 't is in this Case 'T is like Syer's Case 32 Eliz. 3 Inst 230. 4 Co. Hind's Case 10 H. 7.24 who was indicted for a Burglary supposed to be done primo Augusti and upon the Evidence it appeared to be done primo Septembris and though he was acquitted of the Indictment for that reason viz. because the Iudgment relates to the day of the Indictment yet it was resolved by all the Iudges of England that the very day needs not be set down in
' ac qd ' Record ' ill ' in nullo vitiosum aut defectivum existit Ideo considerat ' est qd ' Judicium praed ' adjudication ' executionis superinde in omnibus affirmetur ac in omni suo robore stet effectu dict' causis materiis superius pro Error ' assign ' in aliquo non obstante Et ulterius per Cur. Judgment affirmed Domini Regis Dominae Reginae nunc hic cons est qd ' praedict ' Abel Ram recuperet versus praefatum Donatum Obrian octodecim libras eidem Abel per Curiam Domini Regis Dominae Reginae nunc hic secundum formam Statuti in hujusmodi casu edit ' provis adjudicat ' pro mis custag ' dampn ' suis quae sustin ' occasione dilationis executionis Judicij praedict ' praetextu prosecutionis praedict ' Brevis de Errore Et qd ' praedictus Abel habeat inde executionem c. Obrian versus Ram. ERror to reverse a Iudgment given in Ireland Whether a Sci. fa. will lie against the Husband alone after the death of the Wife upon a Judgment had against her dum sola upon a Scire Fac. brought against the Plaintiff in the Errors setting forth that Debt was brought upon a Bond against Elizabeth Grey and a Iudgment was thereupon obtained for 800 l. dum sola That the said Elizabeth afterwards intermarried with Mr. Obrian That a Scire Facias was brought upon that Iudgment against Husband and Wife to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have execution That upon this Scire Facias there were two Nichils returned and thereupon Iudgment was had against Husband and Wife It rested for a year and a day and then the Wife died and the Plaintiff brought a new Scire Fac. against the Husband alone to shew cause why he should not have Execution upon the first Iudgmont The Defendant pleaded that there was another Scire Fac. brought against him and his Wife for the same Cause c. And upon a Demurrer to this Plea Iudgment was given in Ireland against him The Question now was whether this Scire Fa. will lye against the Husband alone after the death of his Wife This Case was argued by Mr. Finch and Mr. Pollexfen that the Husband was not chargable It was admitted on all sides that if a Feme sole is indebted and marries that an Action will lye against the Husband and Wife and he is lyable to the payment of her Debts It was agreed also that if a Iudgment be had against a Feme sole and she marries and afterwards dies that the Husband is not chargable because her Debts before Coverture shall not charge him unless recovered in her Life-time In like manner no Debts which are due to her dum sola shall go to the Husband by virtue of the inter-marriage if she dye before those are recovered but her Administrator will be entituled to them which may be the Husband but then he hath a Right only as Administrator 1 Roll Abr. 351. and the reason is because such Debts before they are recoverd are only choses in Action And from hence the Council did inferr that the Iudgment in this Case against the Wife dum sola did not charge the Husband Then the Question will be if the Husband is not chargeable by the Original Iudgment whether the Iudgment on the Scire Fac. had not made an alteration and charged him after the death of his Wife And as to that it was said that this Iudgment upon the Scire Fac. made no new charge for 't is only quod habeat executionem c. and carries the first Iudgment no farther than it was before for 't is introduced by the Sci. Fac. At the Common Law no Execution could be had upon a Iudgment after a year and a day and there was then no remedy but to bring an Action of Debt upon that Iudgment This Inconvenience was remedied by the Statute of Westm W. 2. cap. 45. the 2. which gives a Scire Fac. upon the Iudgment to shew cause why Execution should not be had which can be no more than a liberty to take Execution upon the Original Iudgment which cannot charge the Husband in this case because 't is only a consequence of that Iudgment and creates no new charge for a Release of all Actions will discharge this award of Execution But the Reasons why the original Iudgment shall not be carried farther by the Iudgment in the Scire Fac. are as follow 1. By considering the nature of a Scire Fac. which lay not at the Common Law but is given by the Statute in all persosonal Actions the words whereof are these Viz. 2 Inst 469. Sid. 351. Observandum est de caetero quod ea quae inveniuntur irrotulat c. Vpon which words it is evident that the execution of the first Iudgment on Record is all which is given by this Act after the year and day and it takes off that bar which was incurred by the lapse of time and gives a speedy Execution of the Iudgment recorded 2. The Proceedings upon a Scire Facias shew the same thing for the Writ recites the first Iudgment and then demands the Defendant to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Execution thereon juxta vim formam effectum recuperationis praed but prays no new thing 3. A Scire Facias is not an Original but a Iudicial Writ which depends purely upon the first Iudgment 1 Roll. Abr. 777. pl. 6. 8 Co. 143 Dr. Drurie's Case and a Writ of Error suspends the execution of both so likewise if the Original Iudgment be reversed even a Iudgment obtained upon a Scire Facias will be reversed in like manner 4. The Law doth not charge a Man without an Appearance but here is none and the Statute can never operate upon this Case because that extends only to such Iudgments upon which there has been a Recovery and here is nothing recovered upon this Scire Facias for 't is only to have Execution upon the first Iudgment If the Law should be otherwise this absurdity would follow Viz. There would be a Recovery without a Record for the purport of the Scire Facias is only to have Execution according to the form and effect of the Record and the very Record it self doth not charge the Husband Besides the first Iudgment did charge the Lands of the Wife which are still liable to satisfie the Debt why therefore must the Lands of the Husband be charged Cannot the Administrator of the Wife bring a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgment and if it should be reversed shall the Husband pay the Debt and the Administrator of the Wife be restored The Objections made by the Council on the other side against this Opinion were viz. That if an Action of Debt will lie upon a Iudgment in a Scire Facias the Original Iudgment is by this means carried farther for without
a new Recovery Debt will not lie F.N.B. 122. E. and to prove this there is and Authority in Fitzherbert where a Prior had Iudgment for an Annuity and brought a Scire Fac. upon that Iudgment against the Successor of the parson who was to pay it and obtained a Iudgment upon that Scire Fac. to recover the arrearages and afterwards brought an Action of Debt upon the last Iudgment and the Book says fuit maintein There is another Case in 2 Leon. 2 Leon. 14. 4 Leon. 186. 15 H. 7.16 where 't is held that an Action of Debt will lye upon a Iudgment in a Scire Facias upon a Recognizance Which Objections may receive this Answer First As to the Case in Fitzherbert 't is admitted to be Law but 't is not an Authority to be objected to this purpose because the first Iudgment for the Annuity charges the Successor but the Original Iudgment in this Case doth not charge the Husband so the Cases are not parallel The like answer may be given to the Case in Leonard for a Recognizance is a Iudgment in it self and Debt will lie upon it without a Sci. Fa. upon that Iudgment But on the other side it was argued E contra that the award of execution is absolute against Husband and Wife for 't is a Recovery against both whereas before it was only the Debt of the Wife but now 't is joynt against the one as well as the other The Iudgment upon the Sci. Fa. is a distinct Action It cannot be denied but that if a Woman be indebted and marrieth the Husband is chargable during the Coverture Bro. Ab. tit Baron and Feme pl. 27. 49 E. 3.35 b. which shews that by the Marriage he is become the principal Creditor As to the Sci. Fa. t is true at the Common Law if a Man had recovered in Debt and did not sue forth Execution within a year and a day he must then bring a new Original 1 H. 5. 5. a 43 Ed. 3.2 b. and the Iudgment thereon had been a new Recovery but now a Sci. Fa. is given by the Statute instead of an Original and therefore a Iudgment thereon shall also be a new Iudgment for tho' t is a Iudicial Writ yet 't is in the nature of an Action because the Defendant may plead any matter in Bar of the Execution upon the first Iudgment 1 Inst 290. b. and 't is for this reason that a Release of all Actions is a good bar to it Besides Rast Ent. 193. 4 Leon. 186. Dyer 214. b. an Action of Debt will lie upon a Iudgment on a Sci. Fa. which shews that 't is an Action distinct from the Original and upon such a Iudgment the Defendant may be comitted to Prison several years afterwards without a new Sci. Fa. The Husband may have execution of a Iudgment recovered by him and his Wife after the death of his Wife without a Sci. Fa. 1 Mod. Rep. 179. for the Iudgment hath made it a proper Debt due to him and he alone may bring an Action of Debt upon that Iudgment and it seems to be very reasonable that he should have the benefit of such a Iudgment and yet not be charged after the death of his Wife when there hath been a Recovery against both in her life-time This is like the Case where a Devastavit is returned against Husband and Wife as Executrix Moor 299. 3 Cro. 216. Cro. Car. 603. Sid. 337. and a Iudgment thereon quod querens habeat executionem de bonis propriis the Wife dies yet the Husband shall be charged for the Debt is altered If it should be otherwise this inconvenience would follow that if the Wife should die F.N.B. 121. c. 1 Rol. Abr. 351. 10 H. 6.11 the Husband will possess himself of her Estate and defraud the Creditors so that he takes her but not cum onere But the Law is otherwise for if a Feme being Lessee for years doth marry and the Rent is behind and she dies the Husband shall be charged with the Rent arrear because he is entituled to the Profits of the Land by his marriage To which it was answered that if a Man should marry an Exerecutrix and then he and his Wife are sued and Iudgment obtained against them to recover de bonis testatoris and thereupon a Fi. Fa. is awarded to levie the Debt and Damages and the Sheriff returns a Devastavit and then the Wife dies the Husband is not chargeable because the Iudgment is not properly against him who is joyned only for conformity but if upon the return of the Devastavit there had been an award of execution De bonis propriis that would have been a new Iudgment and the old one De bonis testatoris had been discharged 1 Roll. Abr. 351. and then the Husband must be charged for the new wrong Adjornatur Afterwards in 1 Will. Mar. the Iudgment was affirmed Bowyer versus Lenthal INdebitatus Assumpsit quantum meruit ad insimul computasset Valerent for Valebant good after Verdict The Plaintiff had a Iudgment by default in the Court of Common-Pleas and a Writ of Enquiry was brought and entire Damages given and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was argued that if any of the Promises be ill Iudgment shall be reversed the Error now assigned was in the second Promise Viz. That in consideration that the Plaintiff would let the Defendant have Meat Drink and Lodging he promised to pay so much Quantum rationabiliter valerent it should have been valebant at the time of the Promise made Sed non allocatur So the Iudgment was affirmed DE Termino Paschae Anno 4 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1688. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Powis Attorny General Wm. Williams Sollicitor General NOTA Wednesday May 2. being the first day of this Term Sir Bartholomew Shower Recorder of London was called within the Bar. Heyward versus Suppie IN an Action of Covenant which was to make such an Assignment to the Plaintiff Covenant to make an Assignment as Council should advise according to an Agreement made between him and the Defendant as Council should direct and advise and for non-performance thereof this Action was brought the Defendant pleaded non est factum and Iudgment was obtained against him Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and the common Error assgned It was objected that the Plaintiffs Council should give the advice because he is the person interested This Objection was answered by Mr. Pollexfen who said that the Defendant had likewise an interest in this matter for 't is an advantage to him to make the Assignment that his Covenant might be saved 't is true it had been otherwise if the Covenant had been to make such a Conveyance as Council should advise for then the person to whom the Covenant is made may chuse whether he will have a Feoffment
which he claims he ought to shew the other Will by which it must appear that nothing is contradictory to it or that it doth confirm the first but if Presumptions shall be admitted it must be in favour of the Heir for nothing shall be presumed to disinherit him Afterwards in Trinity-Term 5 Willielmi Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error was brought in the House of Peers to reverse that Iudgment but it was affirmed Anonymus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in the Common Pleas in an Ejectment for Lands in the County of Essex in which a Special Verdict was found viz. That R. F. What Words in a Will make Tenants in Common was seized in Fee of the Lands in question who had Issue two Daughters Frances Jane Frances had Issue Philp Frances Anne R. F. the Father devised unto Philip Frances and Anne the Children of his Daughter Frances and to Jane his other Daughter the Rents and Profits of his Mannor of Spain for thirty years to hold by equal parts viz. the three Grandchildren to have one Moiety and his Daughter Jane the other Moiety And if it happen that either of them should die before the thirty years expired then the said Term should be for the benefit of the Survivor and if they all die then the same was devised over to other Relations Afterwards he made a Codicil in these words viz. I give Power and Authority to my Executors to let my whole Lands for the Term of thirty years for the benefit and behalf of my Children Anne one of the Granchildren died without Issue Frances another of the Grandchildren died but left Issue The first Question was whether the Power given to the Executors by the Codicil will take away that Interest which was vested in the Grandchildren by the Will Mr. Appleton argued that it would not because the Executors had only a bare Authority to let it or improve it for the benefit of the Children there was no Devise of the Land to them If Power be given to Executors to sell Lands 't is only an Authority and not an Interest in them but a bare Authority only to let is of much less importance 2. After the Testator had devised the Profits of these Lands to his Grandchildren and Daughter equally to be divided during the term and had provided that if any dye without Issue that then it should survive and if all dye then to remain over to collateral Relations c. Whether Frances being dead but leaving Issue her Interest shall survive to Philip or go to such her Issue As to that he held that the Testator made them Tenants in Common by equal parts and therefore he devised it by Moieties in which there can be no Survivorship 'T is like a Devise to the Wife for life 2 Cro. 448. 1 Roll. Abr. 833. King versus Rumbal Cro. Car. 185. and after her decease to his three Daughters equally to be divided and if any of them die before the other then the Survivors to be her Heirs equally to be divided and if they all die without Issue then to others c. the Daughters had an Estate Tail and there was no Survivorship So in this Case it shall never go to the third Grandchild as long as any Issue of the second are living On the other side it was argued that they are Ioyntenants and not Tenants in Common E contra for the Testator having devised one Moiety to his three Grandchildren joyntly by equal parts that will make them Ioyntenants But the Court were all of Opinion that the words in the Will shew them to be Tenants in Common for equally to be divided runs to the Moieties So the Iudgment was affirmed Woodward 's Case THE Statute of 23 H. 8. c. 9. Church Ornaments are a personal Charge upon the Inhabitants and not upon those who live else where though they occupy Lands in that Parish Godb. 134. pl. 4. 152. pl. 29. 154. pl. prohibites a Citation out of the Diocess wherein the Party dwelleth except in certain Cases therein mentioned one whereof is viz. Except for any Spiritual Cause neglected to be done within the Diocess whereunto the Party shall be lawfully cited One Woodward and others who lived in the Diocess of Litchfield and Coventry but occupied Lands in the Diocess of Peterborough were taxed by the Parishioners where they used those Lands for the Bells of the Church and they refusing to pay this Tax a Suit was commenced against them in the Bishop of Peterborough's Court who thereupon suggested this Matter and prayed a Prohibition because they were not to be charged with this Tax it being only for Church Ornaments And a Prohibition was granted the reason given was because 't is a personal charge to which the Inhabitants only are liable and not those who only occupy in that Parish and live in another but the repairing of the Church is a real Charge upon the Land let the Owner live where he will DE Term. Sanct. Trin. Anno 4 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1688. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices The Bishop 's Case Friday June 15th THE King having set forth a Declaration for Liberty of Conscience did on the 4th day of May last by Order of Council enjoyn that the same should be read twice in all Churches c. and that the Bishops should distribute it through their respective Diocesses that it might be read accordingly The Archbishop of Canterbury who then was together with six other Bishops petitioned the King setting forth that this Declaration was founded upon a dispensing Power which had been declared illegal in Parliament and therefore they could not in Honour or Conscience make themselves Parties to the Distribution and Publication of this Declaration who thereupon were summoned before the King in Council and refusing there to give Recognizance to appear before the Court of Kings Bench they were committed to the Tower by Warrant of the Council-Board The Attorney General moved for a Habeas Corpus retornable immediate and the same Morning in which that Motion was made Sir Edward Hales Lieutenant of the Tower returned the same and they were all brought into the Court. The Substance of the Return was viz. That they were committed to his Custody by Warrant under the Hands and Seals of the Lord Chanchellor Jefferies and also naming more of the Lords of the Privy-Council Dominos Concilij for contriving making and publishing a Seditious Libel against the King c. Then it was prayed that the Return might be filed and that the Information which was then exhibited against them for this Crime might be read and that they might all plead instanter Serjeant Pemberton Mr. Finch and Mr. Pollexfen oppsed the reading of it and moved that the Bishops might be discharged because they were not legally before the Court for it appears upon the Return that there is no lawful cause of
Revocation or not at all which revocation must depend upon the construction and exposition of the sixth Paragraph in the Statute of Frauds c. the words whereof are Viz. That no Devise of Lands c. or any clause thereof shall be Revoked otherwise than by some Codicil in Writing or other Writing declaring the same or by burning cancelling tearing or obliterating the same by the Testator himself or in his presence and by his direction or consent But all devises of Lands c. shall be good until burnt cancell'd torn c. by the Testator c. or unless the same be altered by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses declaring the same So that the Question will be whether a Will which revokes a former Will ought to be signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses 'T is clear that a Will by which Lands are devised ought to be so signed and why should not a Will which revokes another Will have the same formality The Statute seems to be plain that it should for it saies that a Will shall not be revoked but by some Will or Codicil in writing or other writing of the Devisor signed by him in the presence of three or four Witnesses declaring the same which last Clause is an entire sentence in the disjunctive and appoints that the Writing which revokes a Will must be signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. Before the making of this Act it was sufficient that the Testator gave directions to make his Will tho' he did never see it when made which mischief is now remedied not in writing the Will but that the Party himself should sign it in the presence of three Witnesses and this not being so signed but only published by the Testator in their presence 't is therefore no good Revocation Iustice Street was of a contrary Opinion that this was a good Revocation That the words in the fifth Paragraph of this Statute which altered the Law were Viz. That all Devises of Lands c. shall be in Writing and signed by the Party so devising or by some other person in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the Devisor by three or four credible Witnesses In which Paragraph there are two parts 1. The act of the Devisor which is to sign the Will but not a word that he shall subscribe his Name in the presence of three Witnesses 2. The act of the Witnesses viz. that they shall attest and subscribe the Will in the presence of the Devisor or else the Will to be void But the sixth Paragraph is penn'd after another manner as to the Revocation of a Will which must be by some Codicil in writing or other Writing declaring the same signed in the presence of three Witnesses Now here is a Writing declaring that it shall be revoked not expresly but by implication and though that Clause in the disjunctive which says that the revocation must be by some Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. yet in the same Paragraph 't is said that it may be revoked by a Codicil or Will in Writing and therefore an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Paragraph that the intention of the Law may more fully appear Such a construction hath been made upon a whole Sentence Sid. 328. 1 Sand. 58. where part thereof was in the disjunctive as for instance viz. A Man was possessed of a Lease by disseisin who assigned it to another and covenanted that at the time of the assignment it was a good true and indefeasable Lease and that the Plaintiff should enjoy it without interruption of the Disseisor Or any claiming under him in this Case the Diffeisee re-entred and though the Covenant was in the disjunctive to defend the Assignee from the Disseisor or any claiming under him yet he having undertaken for quiet enjoyment and that it was an indefeasable Lease it was adjudged that an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Sentence and so the Plaintiff had Iudgment The Chief Iustice Herbert was of the same Opinion with Iustice Street Rex versus Grimes and Thompson THE Defendants were indicted for being Common Pawn-Brokers Two are indicted for a Confederacy one is acquitted and that is the acquittal of the other and that Grimes had unlawfully obtained Goods of the Countess of c. and that he together with one Thompson per confoederationem astutiam did detain the said Goods until the Countess had paid him 12 Guineas Thompson was acquitted and Grimes was found Guilty which must be of the first part of the Indictment only for it could not be per confoederationem with Thompsom and therefore it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that to obtain Goods unlawfully was only a private injury for which the party ought not to be indicted To which it was answered that a plain Fraud was laid in this Indictment which was sufficient to maintain it and that tho one was acquitted yet the Iury had found the other guilty of the whole But the Court were of Opinion that the acquittal of one is the acquittal of both upon this Indictment and therefore it was quash'd King versus Dilliston Hill 2 3 Jacobi Rot. 494. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Infant not bound by a Custom for one Messuage and twenty Acres of Land held of the Manor of Swafling There was a special Verdict found the substance of which was viz. That the Land in question was Copy-hold held of the said Manor of Swafling in the County of Suffolk and that Henry Warner and Elizabeth his Wife in right of the said Elizabeth were seized thereof for Life Remainder to John Ballat in Fee That the Custom of the said Manor was that if any Customary Tenant doth surrender his Estate out of Court that such Surrender shall be presented at the next Court of the said Manor and publick Proclamation shall be made three Court days afterwards for the Party to whose use the Surrender was made to come and be admitted Tenant and if he refuseth then after three Proclamations made in each of the said Courts the Steward of the said Manor issueth forth a Precept to the Bailiff thereof to seise the Copyhold as forfeited They find that Henry Warner and his Wife and John Ballat made this Surrender out of Court to the use of Robert Freeman and his Heirs who died before the next Court and that John Freeman an Infant was his Son and Heir That after the said Surrender three Proclamations were made at three several Courts held for the said Manor but that the said John Freeman did not come to be admitted Tenant thereupon the Steward of the said Manor made a Precept to the Bayliff who seized the Lands in
an Inn-keeper or common Carrier 't is usual to declare secundum legem consuetudinem Angliae for 't is not a Custom confined to a particular place but 't is such which is extensive to all the King's People The word Consuetudo might have been added 1 Inst 182. but it imports no more than Lex for Custom it self is Law If the Custom of Merchants had been left out the Defendant had then pursued his Covenant for if a Man agrees to pay Mony to such a person or his Assigns and he appoints the payment to another a tender to that person is a good performance of the Covenant But the Court were of Opinion that this was not a good Plea Panton versus the Earl of Bath A Scire Facias to have Execution of a Iudgment obtained in the Court of Oliver late Protector of England and the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging Where the Pleading is good in substance tho' there is a small variation it will not hurt and in reciting the Iudgment 't is said that it was obtained before Oliver Protector of England and the Dominions thereunto belonging leaving out the word Territories And upon a Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen held this to be a variance Yelv. 212. Orde versus Moreton and like the Case where a Writ of Error was brought to remove a Record in Ejectment directed to the Bishop of Durham setting forth that the Action was between such Parties and brought before the said Bishop and seven other persons naming them and the Record removed was an Ejectment before the Bishop and eight others so that it could not be the same Record which was intended to be removed by the Writ E contra E contra It was said suppose the word Scotland should be left out of the King's Title would that be a variance The Iudicature in this Case is still the same and the Pleading is good in Substance and of that Opinion was the whole Court Hyley versus Hyley HYley had Issue W. Where the Reversion in Fee shall pass in a Will by the words viz. Remaining part of my Estate his eldest Son who had Issue Peter Charles John He by Will devised 1000 l. to his eldest Son and several parcels of Land to other Legatees Then he gave to Peter Lands in Tail Male To John a Mansion House now in question in Tail Male He devised another House to his Grandson Charles in like manner And all the rest and remaining part of his Estate he devised to his three Grandsons equally to be divided amongst them that only excepted which he had given to Peter Charles and John and to the Heirs of their Bodies whom he made Executors Then by another Clause he devised viz. That if either of his Executors die without Issue then the part or parts of him so dying shall go to the Survivor or Survivors equally to be divided John the youngest Grandson dyed without Issue and the question was whether the Reversion of his House shall be divided between his surviving Brothers or descend to his Heir And it was adjudged that the Exception in the Will did comprehend the Reversion in Fee and that it did not pass but without such an Exception it had passed * Allen 28. as where a Man devised his Mannor to another for years and part of other Lands to B. and his Heirs and all the rest of his Lands to his Brother in Tail it was held that by these words the Reversion of the Mannor did pass Anonymus NOTA. An Infant having entred into a Statute brought an Audita Querela to avoid it he was brought into the Court and two Witnesses were sworn to prove his Age and then his Appearance and Inspection were recorded he was bound in this Case with two other persons for 1600 l. and had no more than 200 l. for his share Lydcott versus Willows IN Ejectment A special Verdict was found viz. Devise of an Hereditament carries the Reversion in Fee that the Testator being seized in Fee of certain Houses in Bedfor-Bury and in Parker's Lane did by Will devise his Houses in Parker's Lane to charitable Vses then he gave several specifick Legacies to several persons named in the said Will and then he devised his Houses in Bedford-Bury to Edward Harris and Mary his Wife for their Lives then follow these words viz. The better to enable my Wife to pay my Legacies I give and bequeath to her and her Heirs all my Mesuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in the Kingdom of England not before disposed of c. The Question was whether this Devise would carry the Reversion of the Houses in Bedford-Bury to his Wife Adjudged that it did not but that it ought to go to the Heir of the Testator who was Plaintiff in this Case It being found that Harris and his Wife were dead and that the Wife who was Executrix had sufficient Assets to pay the Legacies without the Reversion But Iustice Powel was of another Opinion for that the word Hereditament imports an Inheritance and if it had devised thus viz. the Inheritance not before disposed of the Reversion had passed Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Iudgment 2 Vent 285. and according to the Opinion of Iustice Powel the Iudgment was reversed Nota. A Rule of Court was made that no Certiorari should go to the Sessions of Ely without Motion in Court or signing of it by a Iudge in his Chamber But Mr. Pollexfen insisted that the Sessions there did not differ from other Courts and Franchises for the inferior Courts in London are of as large a Iurisdiction as any and yet a Certiorari goes to them and so it ought to go to Ely for 't is the Right of the Subject to remove his Cause hither Their course in the Royal Franchise of Ely is to hold the Sessions there twice a year viz. in March and September in which two Months the Iudges are seldom in Town and if this Court should deny a Certiorari the Court of Common Pleas would grant it Attorney General contra This Franchise of Ely is of greater Priviledge and Authority than any inferior Court for it hath many Regalia though 't is not a County Palatine A Certiorari will not lie to the Grand Sessions nor to a County Palatine to remove Civil Causes 't is true it lyeth to remove Indictments for Riots and this Franchise being truly called Royal hath equal priviledge with a County Palatine and therefore a Certiorari will not lie But no Rule was made Osborn versus Steward TRespass Distress for an Heriot where it may be taken The Case upon the Pleadings was this viz. A Lease was made of Land for 99 years if Margery and Dorothy Upton should so long live reserving a yearly Rent and an Heriot or 40 s. in lieu thereof after the death of either of them Provided that no Heriot shall be paid after the death of Margery living
Executors one of them of Age 2 Sand. 212. and the other not one may make an Attorney for the other There is no difference between Executors and Infants in this Case for Executors recover in the right of the Testator and the Bayliffs in the Right of him who hath the Inheritance Besides the Avowants are in the nature of Plaintiffs and whereever a Plaintiff recovers the Defendant shall not assign Infancy for Error Adjornatur Capel versus Saltonstal INdebitatus assumpsit in the Common Pleas Where there are several Plaintiffs in a personal thing and one dyeth before Judgment the Action is abated in which Action there were four Plaintiffs one of them died before Iudgment the others recover and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse that Iudgment and the Question was whether the Action was abated by the death of this person Those who argued for the Plaintiffs in the Action held that the Debt will survive and so will the Action for 't is not altered by the death of the party for where Damages only are to be recovered in an Action well commenced by several Plaintiffs and part of that Action is determined by the Act of God or by the Law and the like Action remaineth for the residue the Writ shall not abate As in Ejectment if the Term should expire pending the Suit 1 Inst 285. the Plaintiff shall go on to recover Damages for though the Action is at end quoad the possession yet it continues for the Damages after the Term ended So if the Lessor bring Waste against Tenant pur auter vie and pending the Writ Cestui que vie dieth the Writ shall not abate because no other person can be sued for Damages but the Survivor So where Trover was brought by two 2 Bulst 262. 1 Inst 198. and after the Verdict one of them died the Iudgment shall not be arrested because the Action survives to the other Mr. Pollexfen contra He admitted the Law to be that where two Iointenants are Defendants the death of one would not abate the Writ because the Action is joint and several against them But in all Cases where two or more are to recover a personal thing there the Death or Release of one shall abate the Action as to the rest though 't is otherwise when they are Defendants and are to discharge themselves of a personalty 6 Co. 25. b. Ruddock's Case 2 Cro. 19. And therefore in an Audita Querela by two the death of one shall not abate the Writ because 't is in discharge Now in this Case Iudgment must be entred for a dead Man which cannot be for 't is not consistent with reason The Case of Wedgewood and Bayly is express in it which was this Trover was brought by six and Iudgment for them one of them died the Iudgment could not be entred 'T is true where so many are Defendants and one dies the Action is not abated but then it must be suggested on the Roll. Curia Actions grounded upon Torts will survive but those upon Contracts will not The Iudgment was reversed Fisher versus Wren In the Common-Pleas THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Trespass on the Case Prescription and Custom alledged together and declared that he was seized of an ancient Mesuage and of a Meadow and an Acre of Land parcel of the Demesnes of the Mannor of Crosthwait and sets forth a Custom to grant the same by Copy of Court Roll and that there are several Freehold Tenements parcel of the said Mannor and likewise several Customary Tenements parcel also thereof grantable ad voluntatem Domini and that all the Freeholders c. time out of Mind c. together with the Copyholders according to the Custom of the said Mannor have enjoyed solam seperalem Pasturam of the Ground called Garths parcel of the said Mannor for their Cattle Levant and Couchant c. and had liberty to cut the Willows growing there for the mending of their Houses and the Defendant put some Cattle into the said Ground called Garths which did eat the Willows by reason whereof the Plaintiff could have no benefit of them c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff And now Serjeant Pemberton moved in arrest of Iudgment and took these Exceptions 1. As to the manner of the Prescription which the Plaintiff had laid to be in the Freeholders and then alledged a Custom for the Copyholders c. and so made a joint Title in both which cannot be done in the same Declaration because a Prescription is always alledged to be in a person and a Custom must be limited to a place and therefore an entire thing cannot be claimed both by a Prescription and Custom Vaughan 215. Carter 200. 1 Sand. 351. because the Grant to the Freeholders and this Vsage amongst the Copiholders could not begin together 2. As to the Custom 't is not good as pleaded to exclude the Lord for it can never have a good Commencement because Copyholders have Common in the Lords Soil only by permission to improve their Estates which Common being spared by the Lord and used by the Tenant becomes a Custom but no Vsage amongst the Tenants or permission of the Lord can wholly divest him of his Soil and vest an Interest in them who in the beginning were only his Tenants at Will 2 Sand. 325. 3. The third Exception and which he chiefly relyed on was viz. That this is a Profit apprender in alieno Solo to which all the Tenants of the Mannor are entituled and that makes them Tenants in Common and therefore in this Action where Damages are to be recovered they ought all to join 'T is true in real Actions Tenants in Common always sever 1 Inst 197 198. Godb. 347. but in Trespasses quare Clasum fregit and in personal Actions they always join and the reason is plain because in those Actions though their Estates are several yet the Damages survive to all and it would be unreasonable to bring several Actions for one single Trespass E contra It was argued that it cannot be denied E contra but that there may be a Custom or Prescription to have solam seperalem pasturam but whether both Prescription and Custom can be joyned together is the doubt now before the Court and as to that he held it was well enough pleaded 1 Sand. 351. for where there is an unusual Right there must be the like remedy to recover that Right it was thus pleaded in North's Case But admitting it not to be well pleaded 't is then but a double Plea to which the Plaintiff ought to have demurred and this may serve for an Answer to the first Exceptions Then as to the last Objection that 't is a Profit apprender in alieno solo for which all the Tenants ought to join 't is true a Common is no more than a Profit apprender
and now he brought a Scire Fac. against the Bail who pleaded that no Declaration was delivered or filed against the Principal within two Terms after the Action commenced and the Bail entred and upon a Demurrer the Plaintiff had Iudgment against them for the Bail are liable so as the Principal in the Action declare soon after the Injunction dissolved and it s no fault in the Plaintiff that he did not declare sooner for if he had he would have been in contempt of the Court of Chancery for a Breach of the Injunction Anonymus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Recovery suffered in the grand Sessions of Wales Error to reverse a Recovery there must be a Scire Fac. against the Heir and Tertenants Dyer 321. The Question now was whether there ought to be a Scire Fac. against the Tertenants and the Heir It was said that t is discretionary in the Court and that the first Case of this nature was in my Lord Dyer where a Writ of Error was brought in B. R. to reverse a Fine levyed in the County Palatine of Chester and a Scire Facias was brought against the Heir but not against the Tertenants But the Heir in this Case is an Infant so that if he be admitted to be a Defendant he ought not to appear during his Minority and there is no remedy till his full Age. Curia 'T is not necessary in point of Law but it seems to be the course of the Court and that must be followed and 't is reasonable it should be so because the Errors upon a Recovery should not be examined before all the Parties are in Court therefore there should be a Scire Facias against the Heir and the Tertenants Sid. 213. Lambert versus Thurston TRespass Quare vi armis clausum fregit c. Trespass Quare vi Armis lies for small Damages which the Plaintiff had laid to his Damage of 20 s. The Defendant demurred to the Declaration and for cause shewed that B. R. hath not cognizance either by the Common Law or by the Statute of Gloucester to hold Plea in such an Action where the Damages are laid to be under 40 s. But the Court were of another Opinion That an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis will lie here let the Damage be what it will So the Plaintiff had Iugment DE Termino Paschae Anno 2 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1690. Whitehal versus Squire TRover for a Horse What shall be a Conversion what not the Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and a special Verdict was found viz. That John Mathers was possessed of this Horse who on the 4th day of December in the first year of King James the II. put him to Grass to the Defendant who kept him till the first day of May following That John Mathers died Intestate and before Administration was granted the Plaintiff desired the Defendant to Bury the said Mathers and that he would see him satisfied for his Expences and accordingly the Defendant did Bury him Then the Plaintiff gave this Horse to the Defendant in part of satisfaction for the Charges of the Funeral and a Note under his Hand to pay him 23 l. more The Plaintiff afterwards took out Administration and brought his Action against the Defendant for this Horse and whether this was a conversion or not was the Question Iustice Dolben and Eyre held that it was not but the Chief Iustice was of another Opinion Cole versus Knight Hill 1 2. Rot. 810. SCire Fac. upon a Iudgment of 6000 l. Release by one Executor of a Legacy is not a good bar to a Sci. Fa. upon a Judgment brought by the Plaintiffs Knight and Donning as surviving Executors of John Knight against the Defendant Cole and his Wife as Executrix of John Lawford setting forth That Sir John Knight Mr. Eyre and John Knight had recover'd a Iudgment of 6000 l. against John Lawford That John Knight survived who made his Will and appointed John Kent Thomas Knight and William Donning to be his Executors that he died the Debt and Damages not being satisfied that they the said Knight and Donning proved the Will that John Kent died and that John Lawford made his Will and appointed his Daughter Mary now the Wife of Thomas Cole to be sole Executrix and soon after departed this Life that Cole proved Lawford's Will and that the Debt was not yet paid The Defendant Cole and his Wife pleaded a Release from Donning one of the Plaintiffs by which he acknowledged to have received of the said Cole and his Wife as Exetutrix of the last Will and Testament of John Lawford the Sum of 5 l. being a Legacy given to him by Lawford and then in general words he released the said Cole and his Wife of the Legacy and of all Actions Suits and Demands whatsoever which he had or might have against the Defendants Cole and his Wife as Executrix of John Lawford or may or can have for any matter or thing whatsoever To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Question was whether the Release is a good Bar or not It was argued to be no Bar for it being given upon the receipt of the Legacy is tied up to that only and shall not be taken to release any other thing If a Man should receive 10 l. and give a Receipt for it and doth thereby acquit and release the person of all Actions Debts 2 Roll. Abr. 409. Duties and Demands nothing is released but the 10 l. because the last words must be limited to those foregoing 'T is no new thing in the Law for general words to be restrained by those which follow as for instance if a Release be of all Errors Actions Suits and Writs of Error whatsoever Het 15. it hath been held that an Action of Debt upon a Bond was not released but only Writs of Error And this seems to be the intent of the Parties here that nothing but the Legacies should be released and therefore those general words which follow must be confined to the true meaning and intention of him who gave the Release So 't is if a Man promise to pay 40 s. Yelv. 156. to another during Life a Release of all Quarrels Controversies and Demands which he had or may have will not discharge this Annuity because the Execution of the Promise was not to be 'till the Rent should be due So likewise a Release of all Demands will not discharge a growing Rent 1 Sid. 141. 2. If this should be a good Release it discharges only such Actions which he hath in his own Right for by the words all Actions which he had are released Cro. Eliz. 6. 1 Leon. 263. now if an Executor grant omnia bona sua the Goods which he hath as Executor do not pass E contra E contra It was argued that this is a good Bar for by
the six Months by this means the Conusee of the Statute is defeated for after the inrollment the Land passeth ab initio and the Bargainee in Iudgment of Law was seised thereof from the delivery of the Deed but not by way of Relation but by immediate Conveyance of the Estate by vertue of the Statute of Vses But the Law will not suffer contingent Remainders to waver about and to be so incertain that no Man knows where to find them which they must be if this Doctrine of Relation should prevail Now suppose the Surrendree had made a Grant of his Estate to another person before he had accepted of the Surrender and the Grantee had entred would this subsequent assent have divested this Estate and made the Grant of no effect if it would then here is a plain way found out for any Man to avoid his own acts and to defeat Purchasors Therefore 't is with great reason that the Law provides that no person shall take a Surrender but he who hath the immediate Reversion and that the Estate shall still remain in the Surrenderor until all acts are done which are to compleat the Conveyance Those who argued against the Iudgment E contra held that the Estate passed immediately without the assent of the Surrenderor and that even in Conveyances at the Common-Law 't is divested out of the person and put in him to whom such Conveyance is made without his actual assent 'T is true in Exchanges the Freehold doth not pass without Entry nor a Grant of a Reversion without an Attornment but that stands upon different Reasons from this Case at the Bar for in Exchanges the Law requires the mutual acts of the Parties exchanging and in the other there must be the consent of a third person But in Surrenders the assent of the Surrendree is not required for the Estate must be in him immediately upon the execution of the Deed if he doth not shew some dissent to it If a Man should plead a Release without saying ad quam quidem relaxationem the Defendant agreavit yet this Plea is good because the Estate passeth to him upon the execution of the Deed. It may be a Question whether the actual assent must be at the very time that the Surrender was made for if it should be afterwards t is well enough and the Estate remaineth in the Surrendree till dis-agreement Presumption stands on this side for it shall never be intended that he did not give his Assent but on the contrary because t is for his benefit not to refuse an Estate Therefore where a Feme Sole had a Lease and married Hob. 203. the Husband and Wife surrendred it to another in consideration of a new Lease to be granted to the Wife and her Sons c. this Estate vests immediately in her tho' a Feme Covert and that without the assent of her Husband for the Law intends it to be her Estate till he dissent 't is true in that Case his assent was held necessary because the first Lease could not be divested out of him without his own consent So a Feoffment to three 2 Leon. 224. and Livery made to one the Freehold is in all 'till disagreement So if a Bond be given to a Stranger for my use and I should die before I had agreed to it my Executors are entituled to an Action of Debt and will recover A Feme Covert and another were Ioint-tenants for Life 1 Rol. Rep. 401 441. she and her Husband made a Lease for years of her moiety reserving a Rent during her Life and the Life of her partner then the Wife died this was held to be a good Lease against the surviving Ioint-tenant till disagreement which shews that the agreement of the Parties is not so much requisite to perfect a Conveyance of this nature as a disagreement is to make it void And this may serve as an answer to the second point which was not much insisted on that Mens Titles would be incertain and precarious if after the assent of the Surrendree the Estate should pass by Relation at the very time that the Deed was executed and that it was not known where the Free-hold was in the mean time for if he had agreed to it immediately it had been altogether as private Then as to the Pleadings 't is true that generally when a Surrender is pleaded 't is said ad quam quidem sursum redditionem the Party adtunc ibidem agreavit which implies that the Surrendree was then present and in such Case he ought to agree or refuse Besides those Actions to which an Agreement is thus pleaded were generally brought in disaffirmance of Surrenders and to support the Leases upon which the Plaintiffs declared and then the proper and most effectual Bar was to shew a Surrender and express Agreement before the Action brought It might have been insufficient pleading not to shew an Acceptance of the Surrendree but 't is not substance for if Issue should be taken whether a Surrender or not Cro. Eliz. 249. and a Verdict for the Plaintiff that defect of setting forth an Acceptance is aided by the Statute of Ieofails In this Case there is not only the Word Surrender but * Grant and Release which may be pleaded without any consent to it and a Grant by operation of Law turns to a Surrender because a Man cannot have two Estates of equal dignity in the Law at the same time Neither can it be said that there remained any Estate in Simon Leach after this Surrender executed for 't is an absurd thing to imagine that when he had done what was in his power to compleat a Conveyance and to divest himself of an Estate yet it should continue in him Therefore the Remainder in Contingency to the Lessor of the Plaintiff was destroyed by this Surrender of the Estate to him in reversion for by that means when it did afterwards happen there was no particular Estate to support it But notwithstanding the Iudgment was affirmed and afterwards Anno quarto Gulielmi Mariae upon a Writ of Error brought in the House of Lords it was reversed Idem versus Eundem THIS Point having received a legal determination the same Plaintiff brought another Action of Trespass and Ejectment against the same Defendant Surrender by a person Non compos is void and at a Trial at the Barr in Easter Term nono Gulielmi Regis another special Verdict was found upon which the Case more at large was viz. That Nicholas Leach being seised in Fee of the Lands in question made his Will in these Words viz. In the Name of God Amen c. I devise my Mannors of Bulkworth Whitebear and Vadacot in Devonshire and Cresby Goat and Cresby Grange in Northallerton in Yorkshire unto the Heirs Males of my Body begotten and for want of such Issue Male I devise the same unto my Brother Simon Leach for Life and after his decease to the
said Feoffees made a Feoffment of the Land in Fee without any consideration afterwards Christopher had Issue two Sons Now the Vses limited by the Feoffment of Sir R. C. being only contingent to the Sons of Christopher and they not being born when the second Feoffment was made to their Father the Question now was whether they shall be destroied by that Feoffment before the Sons had a Being in Nature or whether they shall arise out of the Estate of the Feoffees after their Births And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the last Feoffment had divested all the precedent Estates and likewise the Vses whilst they were contingent and before they had an existence and that if the Estate for Life which Christopher had in those Lands had been determined by his death before the birth of any Son the future Remainder had been void because it did not vest whilst the particular Estate had a being or eo instanti that it determined So in this Case Mr. Leach cannot have any future Right of Entry for he was not born when the Surrender was made so that the contingency is for ever gone Suppose a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife and to the Heirs of the Survivor The Husband afterwards makes another Feoffment of the same Lands Cro. Car. 102. and dies and the Wife enters the Fee shall not vest in her by this Entry for she had no right the Husband has destroyed the contingent use by the last Feoffment so that it could not accrew to her at the time of his death Nay tho' the particular Estate in some Cases may revive yet if the contingency be once destroyed it shall never arise again As where the Testator being seized in Fee of Houses 2 Sand. 380. devised the inheritance thereof to such Son his Wife should have after her Life if she baptized him by his Christian and Sir-Name and if such Son dye before he attain the Age of 21 years then to the right Heirs of the Devisor He died without Issue the Widow married again then the Brother and Heir of the Testator before the birth of any Son conveyed the Houses thus Viz. To the Husband and Wife and to their Heirs and levied a Fine to those uses Afterwards she had a Son baptised by the Testator's Christian and Sir-Name Then the Husband and Wife sold the Houses to one Weston and his Heirs and levied a Fine to those Vses It was adjudged that by the Conveyance of the Reversion by the Brother and Heir of the Testator to the Baron and Feme before the Birth of the Son her Estate for Life was merged and tho' by reason of her Coverture she might waive the Joint-tenancy 2 Roll. Abr. 796. Wigg versus Villiers and reassume the Estate for Life yet that being once merged the contingent Remainders are all destroied Curia Cro. Car. 502. The Grants of Infants and of persons non compos are parallel both in Law and Reason and there are express Authorities that a Surrender made by an Infant is void therefore this Surrender by a person non compos is likewise void If an Infant grants a Rent-charge out of his Estate 't is not voidable but ipso facto void for if the Grantee should distrain for the Rent the Infant may have an Action of Trespass against him In all these Cases which have been cited where 't is held that the Deeds of Infants are not void but voidable the meaning is that non est factum cannot be pleaded because they have the form though not the Operations of Deeds and therefore are not void upon that account without shewing some special matter to make them of no efficacy Therefore if an Infant maketh a Letter of Attorny though 't is void in it self yet it shall not be avoided by pleading non est factum but by shewing his Infancy Some have endeavoured to distinguish between a Deed which giveth only authority to do a thing and such which conveys an interest by the delivery of the Deed it self that the first is void and the other voidable But the reason is the same to make them both void only where a Feoffment is made by an Infant 't is voidable because of the solemnity of the Conveyance Now if Simon Leach had made a Feoffment in Fee there had still remained in him such a Right which would have supported this Remainder in Contingency This Surrender is therefore void and all persons may take advantage of it Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Iudgment in the House of Lords but it was affirmed Cases Adj. 150. Hall versus Wybank THE Statute of Limitations is Statute of Limitations whether it extendeth to the Defendant being beyond Sea six years 21 Jac. cap. 16. that if any person be entituled to an Action and shall be an Infant Feme Covert Imprisoned or beyond Sea that then he shall bring the Action at full Age Discovert of saue Memory at large and returned from beyond Sea The Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit to which the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit infra sex Annos The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant was all that time beyond Sea so that he could not prosecute any Writ against him c. And upon a Demurrer Serjeant Tremaine argued that the Plaintiff was not barred by the Statute which was made to prevent Suits by limiting personal Actions to be brought within a certain time and it cannot be extended in favour of the Defendant who was a Debtor and beyond Sea because 't is incertain whether he will return or not and therefore there is no occasion to begin a Suit till his return 'T is true the Plaintiff may file an Original and Outlaw the Defendant and so seise his Estate but no Man is compelled by Law to do an act which is fruitless when 't is done and such this would be for if the Plaintiff should file an Original 't is probable the Defendant may never return and then if the Debt was 1000 l. or upwards he would be at a great Expence to no purpose or if the Party should return he may reverse it by Error 'T is a new way invented for the payment of Debts for if the Debtors go beyond Sea and stay there six years their Debts would by this means be all paid The words of the Statute do not extend to this Case for the Proviso is That if the Plaintiff be beyond Sea when the cause of Action doth accrew Cro. Car. 246. 333. that then he have shall liberty to continue it at his return yet 't is within the equity of Law for him to bring his Action when the Defendant returns who cannot be sued 'till then That Statutes have been expounded according to Equity is not now a new Position 2 Roll. Rep. 318. for Constructions have been made according to the sense and meaning and not according to the Letter of many Statutes
the Land 211 5. Not granted for Mariners Wages 244 6. Libel for a Tax upon the Parishioners for not repairing of their Church who suggest that they had a Chappel of Ease in the same Parish the Prohibition was denied for of common right they ought to repair the Mother Church 264 7. Proof of Matter of Fact by one Witness denied to be allowed in the Spiritual Court is a good cause for a Prohibition 284 8. Where the Release of a Legacy offered to be proved by one Witness was denied in the Spiritual Court ibid. 9. Proof of Payment or Subtraction of Tythes denied and a Prohibition granted ibid. 10. Whether a Prohibition ought to be allowed after Sentence an Appeal being then the more proper remedy 284 Property See Interest Q. Quorum MUst be one Justice of the Peace of the Quorum otherwise cannot be a Sessions 14 152 Quantum meruit Will lie for Rent reserved upon a real Contract where the Sum is not certain but if a Sum in gross is reserved then Debt must be brought 73 R. Record ERror shall not be assigned against the Essence of a Record 141 Recovery Common Reversed without a Scire Facias to the Tertenants but it seems not to be good 119 2. For there must be a Scire Facias against the Heir and Tertenants when a Writ of Error is brought to reverse it 274 Relation Where an Estate shall pass by Relation where not 299 300 Release Of a Legacy by one Executor and also of all Actions Suits and Demands whatsoever those general words which follow are tied up to the Legacy and release nothing else 277 2. Of a Demand will not discharge a growing Rent 278 3. A Receipt was given for 10 l. in which there was a Release of all Actions Debts Duties and Demands nothing is released but the 10 l. 277 4. Judgment against four Defendants who all joyned in a Writ of Error and the Plaintiff pleaded a Release of Errors by one it shall not discharge the rest of a personal thing but if there had been four Plaintiffs to recover the Release or death of one is a Barr to all 109 135 249 5. A Release of all Actions will discharge an Award of Execution upon a Scieri Facias 185 187 6. Of all Actions and Demands doth not discharge a Legacy it must be by particular words 279 7. One of the Defendants who made Conusance released the Plaintiff after the taking of the Cattle this was held void upon a Demurrer for he had no Demand or Suit against the Plaintiff having distrained in the right of another ibid. Remainder See Entry 3. Fines levied 4. Must take place eo instanti the particular Estate is determined or else it can never arise 309 2. By the Conveyance of the Reversion in Fee to him who had the Estate for Life before the Birth of a Son the particular Estate is merged and all contingent Remainders are thereby destroyed 311 Replevin Where 't is brought by Writ the Sheriff cannot make deliverance without the taking of Pledges de prosequendo retorn ' Habend ' 35 Replication Where the Plaintiff confesseth and avoideth he ought not to traverse for that would make his Replication double 318 Request When a thing is to be done upon Request the time when the person requires it to be done is the time of the performance 295 Reservation Of a Rent upon a Lease for three years payable at Michaelmas and Lady-Day Debt was brought for 2 years without shewing at which of the Feasts it was due 't is good after Verdict but ill upon a Demurrer 70 Resignation See Abeiance To the Ordinary and Patron presented 'ts void if the Ordinary did not accept the Resignation 297 Reversion See Bargain and Sale Surrender 2. Tenant in Tail who had likewise the Reversion in Fee if he acknowledge a Judgment the Reversion may be extended 256 2. But a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets until it comes into possession 257 3. By what words a Reversion in Fee passeth in a Will 228 Revocation A Will shall not be revoked by doubtful words 206 2. It might be revoked by Word without Writing before the Statute of Frauds 207 3. Before that Statute a Will might be revoked by a subsequent Will which was void in it self yet good to revoke the former 207 218 4. A subsequent Will which doth not appear shall not be any Revocation of a written Will which doth appear 204 205 206 5. Whether a subsequent Will which is void in it self may revoke another since the Statute of Frauds 218 6. Such a Will must be good in all circumstances to revoke a former 260 261 Riot See Information Robbery The Hundred was sued and it did not appear that the Parish where the Fact was laid to be done was in the Hundred or that it was done upon the High way or in the day time this was helped after Verdict 258 2. A Servant delivered Mony to a Quaker to carry home for his Master they were both robbed viz. the Servant of 26 s. and the Quaker of 106 l. the Servant made Oath of the Robbery and the Quaker refused the Master brought the Action it doth not lie for him 287 288 S. Scire Facias See Bail 3 4. Baron and Feme 1 4 5. Iudgment 2. Pledges 1. Recovery MUst be to the Tertenants before the Common Recovery shall be reversed by Writ of Error 119 2. Scieri Facias quare Executionem non habet recites the first Judgment but prays no new thing only to have Execution upon that Judgment 187 3. 'T is not an original but a judicial Writ and depends upon the first Judgment 187 4. 'T is suspended by Writ of Error and if the original Judgment is reversed that is so also ibid. 5. Debt will lie upon a Judgment had on a Scire Facias 188 189 6. A Judgment upon a Scire Facias is a distinct Action from the original cause 189 7. Judgment in Dower and a Writ of Enquiry of Damages the Woman marries and dies before the Writ of Enquiry executed the Husband administred and brought a Scire Facias upon the Judgment whether it lieth or not 281 Serjeants at Law See Iudges Surplusage See Inquisition Steward See Court Supersedeas See Parliament Surrender See Assent 1 2. Where it may be pleaded without an acceptance 297 2. No man can take it but he who hath the immediate Reversion 299 3. If pleaded without an Acceptance 't is aided after Verdict which shews 'tis no Substance 301 4. By one Non compos mentis 't is void ab initio 303 T. Tail DEvise to D. for Life the Remainder to her first Son and the Heirs of the Body of such first Son endorsed thus viz. Memorandum that D. shall not alien from the Heirs Males of her Body she had a Son who had Issue a Daughter 't is not an Estate Tail Male for the Memorandum shall not alter the Limitation in the Will
fearing that this Daughter might be stoln from her applies her self to my Lady Gore and entreats her to take this Daughter into her House which she did accordingly My Lady had a Son then in France she sent for him and married him to this Ruth she being then under the Age of sixteen years without the Consent of her Mother who was her Guardian The Question was whether this was a Forfeiture of her Estate during Life It was proved at the Trial that the Mother had made a Bargain with the Lessor of the Plaintiff that in case he recovered she should have 1000 l. and the Chirds of the Estate and therefore she was not admitted to be a Witness The Plaintiff could not prove any thing to make a Forfeiture and therefore was nonsuited The Chief Iustice said that the Statute was made to prevent Children from being seduced from their Parents or Guardians by flattering or enticing Words Promises or Gifts and married in a secret way to their disparagement but that no such thing appeared in this Case for Dr. Hascard proved the Marriage to be at St. Clements Church in a Canonical Hour and that many People were present and that the Church Doors were open whilst he married them Anonymus BY the Statute of 21 Jacobi 't is Enacted 21 Jac. c. 23. That no Writ to remove a Suit out of an Inferior Court shall be obeyed unless it be delivered to the Steward of the same Court before Issue or Demurrer joined so as the Issue or Demurrer be not joined within six Weeks next after the Arrest or Appearance of the Defendant In this Case Issue was joined and the Steward refused to allow the Habeas Corpus and the Cause was tried but not before an Utter Barrister as is directed by the Statute Curia The Steward ought to return the Habeas Corpus and they having proceeded to try the Cause no Utter Barister being Steward let an Attachment go Claxton versus Swift Hill 1 Jac. 2. Rot. 1163. THE Plaintiff being a Merchant brought an Action upon a Bill of Exchange If the Plaintiff recover against the Drawer of a Bill he shall not afterwards recover against any of Endorsers setting forth the Custom of Merchants c. and that London and Worcester were ancient Cities and that there was a Custom amongst Merchants that if any person living in Worcester draw a Bill upon another in London and if this Bill be accepted and endorsed the first Endorser is liable to the payment That one Hughes drew a Bill of 100 l. upon Mr. Pardoe paiable to the Defendant or Order Mr. Swift endorsed this Bill to Allen or Order and Allen endorsed it to Claxton The Mony not being paid Claxton brings his Action against Hughes and recovers but did not take out Execution Afterwards he sued Mr. Swift who was the first Endorser and he pleads the first Recovery against Hughes in barr to this Action and avers that it was for the same Bill and that they were the same Parties To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen argued that it was a good Barr because the Plaintiff had his Election to bring his Action against either of the Endorsers or against the Drawer but not against all and that he had now determined his Election by suing the Drawer and shall not go back again though he never have Execution for this is not in the nature of a joint Action which may be brought against all 'T is true that it may he made joint or several by the Plaintiff but when he has made his choice by suing of one he shall never sue the rest because the Action sounds in Damages which are uncertain before the Iudgment but afterwards are made certain transeunt in rem judicatam and is as effectual in Law as a Release As in Trover the Defendant pleaded that at another time the Plaintiff had recovered against another person for the same Goods so much Damages 2 Cro. 73. Yelv. 65. Brown versus Wootton and had the Defendant in Execution and upon a Demurrer this was held a good Plea for though in that Case it was objected that a Iudgment and Execution was no satisfaction unless the Mony was paid yet it was adjudged that the cause of Action being against several for which Damages were to be recovered and because a Sum certain was recovered against one that is a good discharge against all the other but 't is otherwise in Debt because each is liable to the entire Sum. Chief Iustice If the Plaintiff had accepted of a Bond from the first Drawer in satisfaction of this Mony it had been a good Barr to any Action which might have been brought against the other Indorsers for the same and as this Case is the Drawer is still liable and if he fail in payment the first Endorser is chargeable because if he make Endorsement upon a bad Bill 't is Equity and good Conscience that the Endorsee may resort to him to make it good But the other Iustices being against the Opinion of the Chief Iustice Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pawley versus Ludlow DEBT upon a Bond. The Condition was That if John Fletcher shall appear such a day coram Justitiariis apud Westm c. that then c. The Defendant pleaded that after the 25th day of November and before the day of the appearance he did render himself to the Officer in discharge of this Bond and to this the Plaintiff demurred Darnel for the Defendant admitted that if a Scire Facias be brought against the Bail upon a Writ of Error 3 Bulstr 191. 2 Cro. 402. who plead that after the Recognizance and before the Iudgment against the Principal affirmed he rendred himself to the Marshal in discharge of his Bail that this is not a good Plea but that the Sureties are still liable 3 Jac. cap. 8. because by the Statute they are not only liable to render his Body but to pay the Debt recovered But if a Iudgment be had in this Court 1 Rol. Abr. 334. pl. 11. and a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber and pending that Writ of Error the Principal is rendred the Bail in the Action are thereby discharged It was argued on the other side E contra that this is not the like Case of Bail upon a Writ of Error for the Condition of a Recognizance and that of a Bond for Appearance are different in their nature the one is barely that the Party shall appear on such a day the other is that he shall not only appear and render his Body to Prison but the Bail likewise do undertake to pay the Debt if Iudgment should be against the Principal Now where the Condition is only for an Appearance at a day if the Party render himself either before or after the day 't is not good Chief Iustice If the Party render himself to the Officer before the
' Francisco Wythens Mil ' Justiciariis Richardo Holloway Mil ' Justiciariis Thoma Walcot Mil ' Justiciariis MEmorandum That the First day of this Term Sir Thomas Jones Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas had his Quietus and Sir Henry Beddingfield one of the Justices of the same Court succeeded him in that Office Likewise the Honourable William Mountagu Esq Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer had his Quietus and Sir Edward Atkyns one of the Barons of the same Court succeeded him Sir Job Charleton one of the Justices of the Common-Pleas had his Quietus but was made Chief Justice of Chester and Sir Edward Lutwich the King's Serjeant was made one of the Justices of the Common-Pleas and Serjeant Heath was made one of the Barons of the Exchequer Okel versus Hodgkinson THE Father and Son join in a Fine in order to make a Settlement upon the second Wife of the Father who was only Tenant by the Curtesie the Remainder in Tail to his said Son One of the Cognizors died after the Caption and before the Return of the Writ of Covenant and now a Writ of Error was brought to Reverse it and this was assigned for Error Curia If it had been in the Case of a Purchasor for a valuable Consideration the Court would have shewed him some favour but it being to do a wrong to a young Man they would leave it open to the Law THE first day of this Term being the 22th day of April there was a Call of Serjeants viz. Sir John Holt of Grays-Inn Recorder of London who was made Kings Serjeant Sir Ambrose Phillips made also Kings Serjeant Christopher Milton John Powell John Tate William Rawlinson George Hutchins William Killingworth Hugh Hodges and Thomas Geers They all appeared that day at the Chancery-Bar where having taken the Oaths the Lord Chancellor Jefferies made a short Speech to them after which they delivered a Ring to him praying him to deliver it to the King They went from the Inner-Temple-Hall to Westminster and Counted at the Common-Pleas and gave Rings the Motto whereof was DEUS REX LEX Dominus Rex versus Saloway SAloway drowned himself in a Pond and the Coroners Enquest found him Non Compos Mentis because 't is more generally supposed that a Man in his Senses will not be Felo de se The Kings Councel moved for a Melius Inquirendum and that the Inquisition might be quashed for that it sets forth Quod pred Defend circa horam octavam ante meridiem in quoddam stagnum se projecit per abundantiam aquae ibidem statim suffocat emergit ' erat which is insensible Pemberton Serjeant contra Here is no Exception taken to the substance of the Inquisition and the word suffocat had been sufficient if the word emergit ' had been left out The Court were of Opinion that there being another word in this Inquisition which carries the sense 't is therefore sufficient but if it had stood singly upon this word Emergit ' it had not been good And this Fact happening about the time of the general Pardon the Court was of Opinion that where an Interest is vested in the King a Pardon of all Forfeitures will not divest it but that nothing was vested here before Inquisition found 2. It was objected that this Inquisition ought to set forth that Saloway came by his death by this means Et nullo alio modo quocunque To which it was answered by Pemberton that in matters of Form only the Iudges have sent for the Coroner into Court and ordered him to amend it Rodney versus Strode AN Action on the Case was brought against three Defendants one of them suffered Iudgment to go by default In a joynt Action the Jury may sever the Damages and the other two pleaded Not Guilty The Cause was tryed the last Assises at Exeter and it was for imposing the Crime of Treason upon the Plaintiff and for assaulting and imprisoning of him there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and 1000 l. damages against Mr. Strode and 50 l. against the other Defendant who pleaded The Plaintiff entred a nolle prosequi against him who let the Iudgment go by default and against the other Defendant for the 50 l. damages and took judgment only against Mr. Strode Serjeant Pemberton moved for a new Trial by reason of the excessive Damages which were not proportioned to the quality of the Plaintiff he being a Man of mean Fortune But it was opposed by the Plaintiff for that the Defendant pursued him as a Traytor and when he was apprehended for that Crime he caused him to be arrested for 1000 l. at the Suit of another person to whom he was not indebted so that upon consideration of the Circumstances of the Case the Court refused to grant a new Tryal Then Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendants moved in arrest of Iudgment and for cause shewed that the Iury have found both guilty and assessed several Damages which they cannot do because this is a joynt Action to which the Defendants have pleaded jointly and being found guilty modo forma the Iury cannot assess the damages severally for the damage is the same by the one as the other Cro. Eliz. 860. Austen vers Millard al' and therefore it hath been adjudged that where an Action of Battery was brought against three and one pleaded not guilty and the other two Son Assault demesne and several damages found against them it was held ill for that very reason because it was a joint offence 'T is true where there are divers Defendants and damages assessed severally the Plaintiff hath his election to take execution de melioribus damnis but this is when the Trials are at several times So 't is where they plead several Pleas Cro. Car. 239. Walsh versus Bishop as in an Action of Battery one pleads not guiity and the other justifies and both Issues are found for the Plaintiff in such case he may enter a non pros against one and take Iudgment against the other because their Pleas are several but where they plead jointly the Iury cannot sever the Damages But Mr. 1 Bulst 157. Sampson vers Cramfield al' Rast Entr. 677. b. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff insisted that even in this case damages may be assessed severally for where two Defendants are sued for the same Battery and they plead the same Plea yet damages may be assessed severally So was Trebarefoot and Greenway 's Case in this Court which was an Action for an Assault and Battery and false Imprisonment one of the Defendants pleaded not Guilty and the other justified Issue was joined and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and damages assessed severally the Plaintiff entred a nolle prosequi as to one and took judgment against the other and upon this a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the Iudgment was affirmed So if an Action of Trespass be brought against two for taking of 100 l.
the Common Law for a false Oath made by any Witness and therefore an Action will not lye for a scandalous Affidavit Adjornatur Anonymus NOta An Action of Assault and Battery Release of one Def. shall not discharge the rest of a personal thing and false imprisonment was brought against four Defendants the Plaintiff had Iudgment and they brought a Writ of Error The Plaintiff in the Action pleaded the Release of one of them and to this Plea all four jointly demur The Opinion of the Court was that Iudgment might be given severally for they being compelled by Law to join in a Writ of Error the release of one shall not discharge the rest of a personal thing But where divers are to recover in the personalty 6 Co. Ruddock's Case the Release of one is a Bar to all but it is not so in point of discharge If two Coparceners make a Lease of a House and the Rent is in arrear and one of them brings the Action and recovers the Iudgment shall be arrested because one alone hath recovered in Debt for a moiety when both ought to join But it is agreed that if one Tenant in Common make a Lease rendring Rent which afterwards is in arrear Litt. Sect. 316. they must join in an Action of Debt because it savours of the Personalty But 't is otherwise in case of the Realty DE Term. Sanct. Trin. Anno 2 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686. Herbert Chief Justice Wythens Justices Holloway Justices Wright Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General Aldridge versus Duke ASsault Trespass continued many years and the Statute of Limitations pleaded the Jury gives Damages only for the last six years Battery Wounding and Imprisoning of him from the 10th of August 24 Car. 2. usque exhibitionem Billae The Defendant pleaded not Guilty infra sex infra Annos The Plaintiff replied that the Writ was sued out 2 Octobris 1 Jacobi 2. And that the Defendant was Guilty within six years next before the Writ brought Vpon this Issue was joyned and a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff and entire damages given Mr. Pollexfen moved two Exceptions in Arrest of Iudgment 1. That a Verdict cannot help what appears to be otherwise upon the face of the Record Now here the Plaintiff declared that he was imprisoned the 10th of August 24 Car. 2. which is 13 years since and being one entire Trespass the Issue is found as laid in the Declaration which cannot be for so many years between the cause of Action and bringing of the Writ for if a Trespass be continued several years the Plaintiff must sue only for the last six years for which he hath a compleat cause of Action but when those are expired he is barred by the Statute When the Plaintiff hath any cause of Action Sid. 25. then the Statute of Limitations begins as in an Action on the Case for words if they are actionable in themselves without alledging special damages the Plaintiff will recover Damages from the time of the speaking and not according to what loss may follow So in Trover and Conversion when there is a cause of Action vested and the Goods continue in the same possession for seven years afterwards in such case 't is the first conversion which entitles the Plaintiff to an Action So in the Case at Bar tho' this be a continued imprisonment yet so much as was before the Writ brought is barred by the Statute Thompson contra The Verdict is good for the Iury reject the beginning of the trespass and give Damages only for that which falls within the six years and this may be done because 't is laid usque exhibitionem Billae If the Defendant had pleaded not Guilty generally Cro. Car. 160 381 404. then Damages must be for the 13 years though the Plaintiff of his own shewing had brought his Action for a thing done beyond the time limited by the Statute but having pleaded not Guilty at any time within six years if the Verdict find him guilty within that time 't is against him As to the Objection that the Cause of Action ariseth beyond six years tho' it doth appear so in the Declaration yet that doth not exclude the Plaintiff for there might have been Process out before or he might be disabled by an Outlawry which may be now reversed or he might be in Prison and newly discharged from which time he hath six years to begin his Action for being under either of these circumstances the Statute doth not hurt him Curia If an Action of false Imprisonment be brought for seven years and the Jury find the Defendant guilty but for two days 't is a Trespass within the Declaration This Statute relates to a distinct and not to a continued Act for after six years it will be difficult to prove a Trespass many accidents may happen within that time as the death or removal of Witnesses c. Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dobson versus Thornistone THE Plaintiff was a Husbandman Words spoken of a Farmer actionable who brought an Action against the Defendant for these words He owes more mony than he is worth he is run away and is broke He had a Verdict and it was moved now in Arrest of Iudgment that the Words being spoken of a Farmer are not actionable To say that a Gentleman is a Cozener Hill 28 Eliz. B.R. Godb. 40. a Bankrupt and hath got an Occupation to deceive Men though he used to Buy and Sell yet being no Merchant 't was the better Opinion of the Court that the Words were not actionable So to say of a Farmer Stiles 420. that he is a Whoreson Bankrupt Rogue and it not appearing that he got his living by Buying and Selling or that the Words were spoken of him relating to his Occupation 't is not actionable For it must not only appear that the Plaintiff hath a Trade Sid. 299. Hutt 50. but that he gets his Living by it otherwise the Words spoken of him will not bear an Action But the Court held the Words to be actionable the like Iudgment was given in the Case of a Carpenter Mich. 3 Jac. for Words Viz. He is broke and run away Anonymus NOta Misentry of a Writ of Enquiry amendable without paying Costs Iudgment was given upon a Demurrer and a Writ of Enquiry was awarded and in the Entry thereof upon the Roll the Words per Sacramenum duodecim proborum legalium hominum were left out and now the Question was Whether it shall be amended It was said that a Capiatur for a Misericordia shall be amended upon the new Statute of Jeofails after a Verdict but whether upon a Demurrer it was doubted In a Quo Warranto Iudgment was entred by disclaimer Cro. Car. 184. by the consent of all Parties and the Words virtute praetextu literarum patentium geren dat 17 Jacobi were wrote in the Margin of the
Sir Edward Herbert who was removed into the Common Pleas and made Chief Justice there and Sir Francis Wythens had his Quietus the Night before The same 21st day of April after this Removal the Souldier was brought again to the Barr and upon the Motion of Mr. Attorny was ordered by the new Chief Iustice to be executed at Plymouth which was done accordingly Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Monday May 2d NOTA. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in this Court returnable in Parliament which was Prorogued from the 28th day of April to the 22d day of November following Sir George Treby moved that it might be discharged for it could not be a Supersedeas to this Execution because there was a whole Term which intervened between the Teste and Return of the Writ of Error viz. Trinity-Term On the other side it was said that the Proclamation was no Record it only shews the present Intention of the King which he may recal at any time But the Court made no Rule DE Term. Sanct. Trin. Anno 2 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General The Company of Merchant Adventurers versus Rebow IN a special Action on the Case Whether the King hath a Prerogative to restrain Trade to a particular number of Men. the Plaintiffs declared that in the Reign of H. 4. there was a Society of Merchants Adventurers in England and that afterwards Queen Elizabeth did by her Letters Patents incorporate them by the Name of the Governour and Company of the Merchants Adventurers c. and gave them Priviledge to trade into Holland Zealand Flanders Brabant the Country belonging to the Duke of Lunenburgh and Hamburgh prohibiting all others not free of that Company by virtue whereof they did trade into those parts and had thereby great Priviledges and Advantages that the Defendant not being free of the said Company did trade into those Parts without their authority and imported Goods from thence into this Kingdom ad damnum c. The Defendant pleaded as to Hamburgh Not-guilty 15 E. 3. c. 3. and as to the other places he pleaded the Statute of Ed. 3. That the Seas shall be open to all Merchants to pass with their Merchandize whither they please The Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joined in Demurrer This Case was now argued by Councel on both sides The Councel for the Plaintiff in their Arguments made these Points 1. What Power the King had by his Prerogative to restrain his Subjects from trading to particular places 2. Admitting he had such a Prerogative whether an Action on the Case will lie As to the first Point it was said Magna Charta cap. 30. 2 Inst 57. that all Trades must be under some Regulation and that the Subject hath not an absolute power to trade without the leave of the King for it is said in our Books Omnes Mercatores nisi publice prohibiti fuerint habeant salvum securum conductum which is meant of Merchant Strangers in Amity with us and nisi publice prohibiti must be by the King Now if Merchants Strangers may be prohibited from coming into England by the same reason the Kings Subjects may be restrained to go out of the Kingdom and for that purpose the Writ of Ne exeat Regnum was framed F. N. B. 85. 3 Inst 179. which is grounded upon the Common Law and not given by any particular Statute The Kings Prerogative in this and such like Cases is so much favoured by Law 1 Leon. 9. More 172. that he may by his Privy Seal command any of his Subjects to return out of a Foreign Nation or seize their Lands The first Statute which regulates Trade is 27 E. 3. cap. 1. that which confined the Staple to certain places that persons might not go about in Companies to trade without the King's Licence and from thence came Markets and if such were kept without the King 's Grant a Quo Warranto would lie against them who continued it and the People who frequented those Markets were punishable by Fine The Law is plain F. N. B. 125. 2 Roll. Abr. 140. that the King is sole Iudge of the place where Markets shall be kept for if he grant one to be kept in such a place which may not be convenient for the Country yet the Subjects can go to no other and if they do the Owner of the Soil where they meet is liable to an Action at the Suit of the Grantee of the Market A Custom to restrain a Man from the exercising of his Trade in a particular place hath been adjudged good Sir G. Farmer 's Case cired in 8 Co. 127. as to have a Bake-house in such a Mannor and that no other should use that Trade there And as a Man may be restrained by Custom so he may restrain himself from using of a Trade in a certain place 2 Cro. Brown versus Joliffe as if he promise upon a valuable consideration not to use the Trade of a Mercer in such a place And 't is very necessary that Trade should in some measure be restrained so as to be managed only by Freemen because 't is of more advantage to the King that it should be carried on by a Company especially in London who may manage it with Order and Government that is by some power to restrain particular persons from that Liberty which otherwise they would use and therefore such Companies have always power to make By Laws to regulate Trade which is the cheif End of their Incorporation And if such Corporations have power to judge and determine who are fit persons to exercise Trades within their Iurisdiction the King hath certainly a greater Prerogative to determine which of his Subjects are fit to trade to particular places exclusive from the Rest That the Governors of Corporations have taken upon them such Authority appears in Townsend's Case Sid. 107. who served an Apprentiship to a Taylor in Oxford and was refused by the Mayor to be made a Freeman of that City which shews that if a person be not qualified he may be excluded This is a very ancient Company for Cloth was first brought into this Realm in the Reign of Ed. 3. and was always under some Government My Lord Rolls quoting the Parliament Roll of H. 1 H. 5. no. 41. 2 Abr. Roll. 174. placit 39. 5. wherein the Commons pray that all Merchants might import or export their Goods to any place except such as were of the Staple paying the Customs takes notice that this Prayer was made against the Companies which prohibited such Trading This shews that even in those days Trade was under a Regulation King Ed. 34 E. 3. c. 18. 38 E. 3. c. 11. 3. gave Licence to all Merchants Denizens who were not Artificers to go into Gascoigne for Wines
Finch contra The chief Objection is the incertainty of this Custom now if a Custom as incertain as this hath been held good in this Court 't is a good Authority to support this Custom And as to that it was said that a Custom for a person whom a Copy holder should name to have his Land after his death and that he should pay a Fine for his admitance And if the Lord and Tenant cannot agree about the Fine that then the rest of the Tenants should assess it 1 Rol. Rep. 48. 2 Cro. 368. 4 Leon. 238. Noy 3. 2 Brownl 85. this was adjudged a good Custom by the Court of Common-Pleas and affirmed upon a Writ of Error in this Court It was the Case of Crab and Bevis cited in Warne and Sawyers Case Adjornatur Afterwards the first Iudgment was affirmed and all the Court held the Custom to be a good Custom Hacket versus Herne JVdgment was had in Debt upon a Bond against Father and Son Where the Defendants in the Action must joyn in a Writ of Error and afterwards the Father alone brought a Writ of Error and the Error assingned was that his Son was under Age but because the Son did not join in the Errors the Court ordered the Writ to be abated If a Quare impedit be brought against a Bishop and others and Iudgment be against them all they must likewise all join in a Writ of Error unless it be where the Bishop claims only as Ordinary 'T is true Rol. Abr. 929. pl. 30. this is against the Opinion of my Lord Rolls in his Abridgment who puts the Case that where a Scire Facias was brought against four Executors who pleaded plene administraverunt the Iury find Assets in the Hands of two of them and that the other eant inde sine die two bring a Writ of Error and altho' at the opening of the Case it was held that the Writ should abate for that reason because brought only by two yet he says the Iudgment was afterwards affirmed and the Writ held good But there is a difference where a Writ of Error is brought by the Plaintiffs in the original Action 5 Co. 25. a Ruddock's Case and when by the Defendants for if two Plaintiffs are barred by an erronious Iudgment and afterwards bring a Writ of Error the Release of one shall bar the other because they are both actors in a personal thing to charge another and it shall be presumed a Folly in him to join with another who might release all But where the Defendants bring a Writ of Error 't is otherwise for it being brought to discharge themselves of a Iudgment the Release of one cannot barr the other because they have not a joint Interest but a joint burthen and by Law are compelled to join in Errors Mosse versus Archer COvenant by an Assignee of an Assignee of Lands which were exchanged the Breach assigned was Breach not well assigned that a Stranger habens jus titulum did enter c. There was a Uerdict for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not shewed a sufficient breach for he sets forth the Entry of a Stranger habens jus titulum but doth not shew what Title and it may be he had a Title under the Plaintiff himself 2 Cro. 315. Hob. 35. after the Exchange made and to prove this the Case of Kirby and Hansaker was cited in point and of that Opinion was all the Court. Nota It was said in this Case that an Exchange ought to be executed by either Party in their Life-time or else it is void Taylor versus Brindley THE Original in Trespass was quare Clausum fregit Variance between the Original and Declaration where 't is no Error and the Plaintiff declared quare Clausum Domum fregit and had Iudgment in the Common-Pleas and a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the variance between the Original and Declaration was assigned for Error and that one was not warranted by the other But Serjeant Levinz argued that because the Original was certified three Terms since 2 Cro. 674. 1 Rol. Abr. 790. n. 7. Cro. Car. 272. 18 Eliz. cap. and no Continuances between it and the Declaration therefore that could not be the Original to this Action and that the Court might for that reason intend a Verdict without an Original which is helped by the Statute of Jeofails But he argued that where the Original varies from the Declaration and is not warranted by it 't is not aided by this Statute Iudgment was affrmed DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General Mathews versus Cary Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 320. TRespass for entring of his House and taking of a Silver Tankard Where the Defendant justifies by way of excuse he must set forth the Warrant and that he took the Goods virtute Warranti The Defendant made conusance as Bayliff of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for that the place where c. was within the Iurisdiction of the Leet of the said Dean who was seised of a Court Leet which was held there such a day c. And that the Iury did present the Plaintiff being a Tallow-Chandler for melting of stinking Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours for which he was amerced and that the Amerciament was affered to 5 l. which not being paid the Defendant by a Mandate of the said Dean and Chapter distreined the Tankard c. The Plaintiff replied de injuria sua propria absque hoc that he did melt Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours c. And upon a Demurrer to this Replication it was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant and Tremaine for the Plaintiff and afterwards in Michaelmas Term 1 Will. Mariae by Mr. Bonithan and Serjeant Thompson for the Defendant It was said for the Defendant that a Presentment in a Court Leet which concerns the person as in this Case and not the Free hold 5 H. 7.3 Fitz. Bar. 271. Bro. Abr. tit Travers sans ceo pl. 183. Presentment in Court pl. 15. was not traversable and that the Amerciament was a Duty vested in the Lord for which he may distrain or bring an Action of Debt Co. Entr. 572. But on the other side it was said that if such a Presentment is not traversable the party hath no remedy 't is contrary to the Opinion of Fitzherbert in Dyer Dyer 13. b. who affimed the Law to be that it was traversable and that if upon such a Presentment a Fine should be imposed erroniously 11 Co. 42. 1 Rol. Rep. 79. it may be avoided by Plea and this agrees with the second Resolution in Godfrey 's Case 2. It was objected to the Plea that it was not good for it sets
to Sir Edward Biggs against the Countess as Administratrix of the Earl of Plymouth wherein the Plaintiff sets forth a Writing by which the Earl had given power to Sir Edward to be the Collector and Receiver of his Mony and Rents and that he promised to allow him 100 l. per Annum for his pains and in default of payment thereof that Sir Edward should detein the same which Writing was in these Words following viz. I do direct and appoint Sir Edward Biggs to take and receive to his own use 100 l. of lawful Mony of England out of the first Mony which he shall receive of mine The Action was brought for 75 l. being his Salary for three quarters of a year and Iudgment by Nil dicit It was argued this Term and in Easter Term by Councel on both sides It was agreed on all sides that the Earl left sufficient Assets to satisfie all his Bond Creditors but not enough to pay Debts upon simple Contract First it was said for the Plaintiff in the Errors that no Action of Debt will lie against an Executor upon a Mutuatus 11 Co. Godfreys Case because the Testator might have waged his Law but this was not much insisted on 2. That admitting an Action would lye yet this is an erronious Iudgment because the Suit was for 75 l. for three quarters Salary when by the Writing Sir Edward was to serve the Earl a whole year and this being an entire Contract shall not be seperated Therefore he cannot be well entituled to the Actionn unless his Testator had served a year and he had averred it so in his Declaration As where a Covenant was to pay 2 s. Yelv. 133. 7 Co. 10. Allen 9. for copying every Quire of Paper and the Breach assigned that he copyed 4 Quire and 3 sheets for which 8 s. and 3 d. was due to the Plaintiff 't is true he had Iudgment but it was reversed because it was an entire Covenant of which no apportionment could be made pro rata 3. That which was chiefly insisted on was to make these words amount to an Obligation that so it might be satisfied amongst the Bond Creditors But those who argued for the Plaintiff in the Errors said that it cannot be an Obligation for it was only a bare Letter of Attorney and an Authority and no more for there were no words to oblige the Earl or which can make a Warranty and therefore if the Mony was not received the Party to whom the Note was given could not resort back to him who made it had they been both living neither shall the Plaintiff now to his Administratrix Like the common Cases of the assigning of Iudgment if the Assignee doth not receive the Mony he cannot have an Action against the Assignor who only directs and appoints him so to do But on the other side Ex parte Def. the second Objection was thus answered viz. That this being only an Executory thing the Plaintiff may now bring an Action for so long time as his Testator served and this may be apportioned secundum ratam if the Law should be otherwise the Case of all Servants would be bad for they are generally hired for a year and not usually serve so long In an Assumpsit to pay for a years board Sid. 225. and the Plaintiff had declared only for three quarters of a year but yet had Iudgment because as the Book saith if there be any variance in the Agreement 't is for the advantage of the Defendant The 3d. Vaughan 92 93. Pl. Com. 182. Dyer 21. Objection answered viz. When a Man is indebted to another by simple Contract which is aknowledged by Deed an Action of Debt will lie against his Executor for any thing which is under Hand and Seal will amount to an Obligation especially where the Debt is confessed Now there are words in this Deed to shew that Mony was due and that makes it a Bond. But the Court was of Opinion that this was an entire Agreement and therefore the Action not well brought for three quarters Salary and for this reason the Iudgment was reversed Nisi c. Chapman versus Lamphire AN Action on the Case was brought for scandalous words spoken of the Plaintiff Words spoken of a Carpenter where actionable who declared that he was a Carpenter and a Freeman of the City of London and that he got great Sums of Mony by buying of Timber and Materials and by building of Houses and that the Defendant having discourse of him and of his Trade spoke these words viz. He is broken and run away and will never return again There was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and a Motion was now made in arrest of Iudgment for that a Carpenter was not a Trade within the Statute of Bankrupts and a day being given to speak to it again Mr. Pollexfen argued that before the Statutes made against Bankrupts words spoken reflecting upon a man in his Trade were actionable even at the Common Law because it might be the occasion of the loss of his Livelyhood 1 Rol. Abr. 59. pl. 6. Hutton 60. and therefore it was actionable to say of a Scrivener that he is broken and run away and dares not shew his Face and yet a Scrivener was not within the Statutes of Bankrupcy before the Act of 21 Jac. therefore the Action must lie at the Common Law because words disparage him in his Trade But the Councel for the Defendant said that these words were not actionable for they do not tend to his disparagement he may be broke and yet as good a Carpenter as before The Case of one Hill in 2 Car. Latch 114. in this Court was much stronger than this the words spoken of him were viz. Hill is a base broken Rascal and hath broken twice already and I will make him break the third time the Plaintiff had Iudgment but it was arrested A Carpenter builds upon the Credit of other men and so long as the words do not touch him in the skill and knowledge of his Profession they cannot injure him Chief Iustice The Credit which the Defendant hath in the World may be a means to support his skill for he may not have an opportunity to shew his Workmanship without those Materials for which he is entrusted The Iudges were divided in Opinion two against two and so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment there being no Rule made to stay it so that he had his Iudgment upon his general Rule for Iudgment but if it had been upon a Demurrer or Special Verdict then it would have been adjourned to the Exchequer Chamber Goring versus Deering IN an Appeal for the Murder of Henry Goring Esq Auterfoits convict of Manslaughter no good Plea in an Appeal for Murder brought by his Widow The Defendant pleaded that he was indicted for the said Murder at the Sessions-house in the Old Bayly in Middlesex that he was found guilty of Manslaughter
the said Master c. for the use of the Company and that no Member of the Company should buy rough Horn within four and twenty miles of London but of those two Men so appointed under a Penalty to be imposed by the said Master Warden c. That the Defendant did buy a quantity of rough Horn contrary to the said Law c. There was Iudgment in this Case by default And for the Defendant it was argued that this was not a good By-Law 1. Because it doth restrain Trade 11 Co. 54. Hob. 210. for the Company are to use no Horns but such as those two Men shall buy and if they should have occasion for more than those Men should buy then 't is plain that Trade is thereby restrained 2. The Master c. hath reserved a power which they may use to oppress the Poor because they may make what Agreements they will amongst themselves and set unreasonable prices upon those Commodities and let the younger sort of Tradesmen have what quantity and at what rates they please To which it was answered by Serjeant Thompson First This By-Law is for the encouragement of Trade because the Horns are equally to be distributed when brought to the Hall for the benefit of the whole Company But the material Objection was that this being a Company incorporated within the City of London they have not Iurisdiction elsewhere but are restrained to the City and by consequence cannot make a By-Law which shall bind at the distance of four and twenty miles for if they could make a Law so extensive they might by the same reason enlarge it all over England and so make it as binding as an Act of Parliament and for this reason it was adjudged no good By-Law Sir John Wytham versus Sir Richard Dutton ASsault and False Imprisonment 14 Octob. 36 Car. 2. c. The Defendant as to the Assault before the 6th day of November pleads Not-Guilty and as to the False Imprisonment on the said 6th day of November in the same year he made a special Iustification viz. That 28 Octob. 32 Car. 2. c. the King by his Letters Patents did appoint the Defendant to be Captain general and Chief Governour of Barbadoes and so sets forth the Grant at large by which he appoints twelve Men to be of the King's Council during pleasure of which the Plaintiff Wytham was one that the Defendant had also power by the advice of that Council to appoint and establish Courts Iudges and Iustices and that the Copies of such Establishments must be sent hither for the King's Assent with power also to establish a Deputy-Governour that by vertue of these Letters Patents the Defendant had appointed Sir John Wytham to be Deputy-Governour of the said Island in his absence and that he being so constituted did male arbitrarie execute the said Office That when the Defendant returned to Barbadoes viz. 6 Novemb 35 Car. 2. he called a Council before whom the Plaintiff was charged with male Administration in the absence of the Defendant viz. That he did not take the usual Oath for observing of Trade and Navigation that he assumed the Title of Lieutenant Governour and that Decrees made in Court were altered by him in his Chamber Vpon which it was then ordered that he should be committed to the Provost Marshal until discharged by Law which was done accordingly in whose Custody he remained from the 6th day of November to the 20th of December following which is the same Imprisonment c. To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen argued for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Thompson for the Defendant 1. It was said for the Plaintiff that the Causes of his Commitment if any yet were such which they ought not meddle withal because they relate to his Mis-behaviour in his Government for which he is answerable to the King alone But supposing they might have some cause for the committing of him this ought to be set forth in the Plea that the Plaintiff might answer it for to say he did not take the Oath of Deputy Governour in what concerned Trade and Navigation is no cause of Commitment because there was no Body to administer that Oath to him for he was Governour himself Then to alledge that he did alter in his Chamber some Decrees made in the Court of Chancery that can be no cause of Commitment for the Governour is Chancellor there Besides the Defendant doth not shew that any Body was injured by such alterations neither doth he mention any particular Order but only in general so 't is impossible to give an Answer to it 2. He doth not alledge that the Plaintiff had made or done any of these things but that he was charged to have done it and non constat whether upon Oath or not The Governour hath a large power given by these Letters Patents to make Laws such as he by consent of a general Council shall enact Ex parte Def. The Fact is set forth in the Plea the Plaintiff was committed by vertue of an Order of Council until he was brought to a general Court of Oyer and Terminer by which Court he was again committed That the Court had power to commit him is not denied for the King is not restrained by the Laws of England to govern that Island by any particular Law whatsoever and therefore not by the Common Law but by what Law he pleaseth For those Islands were gotten by Conquest or by some of his Subjects going in search of some prize and planting themselves there Calvin 's Case The Plaintiff being then committed by an Order of Council till he should be discharged by due course of Law this Court will presume that his Commitment was legal The Court were all of Opinion that the Plea was not good so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff but afterwards 5 Willielmi Mariae this Iudgment was reversed by the House of Peers Sir Robert Jefferies versus Watkins THIS was an Action brought for a Duty to be paid for weighing of Goods at the Common Beam of London Verdict cures a defective Declaration setting forth that the Lord Mayor c. time out of mind kept a common Beam and Weights and Servants to attend the weighing of Goods That the Defendant bought Goods c. but did not bring them to the Beam to be weighed per quod proficuum amisit Vpon Not-Guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not brought himself within the Prescription for he doth not say that the Defendant sold the Goods by Weight and this is a fault which is not helped by a Verdict This had been certainly naught upon a Demurrer and being substance is not aided by this Verdict This is Substance for the Duty appears to be wholly in respect of the Weights which are kept now Weighing being the Principal and it
ought to be left out and of that Opinion was the Court and therefore a Rule was made that he might discontinue this Action without Costs Mordant versus Thorold Hill 1 2 Gulielmi Rotulo 340. THE Plaintiff brought a Scire Fac. upon a Iudgment The Case was thus Viz. Ann Thorold recovered in Dower against Sir John Thorold in which Action Damages are given by the Statute of Merton 20 H. 3. c. 1. Sir John Thorold brought a Writ of Error in B. R. and the Iudgment was affirmed Then the Plaintiff in Dower brought a Writ of Enquiry for the Damages and married Mr. Mordant and died before that Writ was executed Mr. Mordant takes out Letters of Administration to his Wife and brought a Sci. Fa. upon the Iudgment and the question was whether it would lie This depended upon the construction of the Statute of King Charles the II. which enacts That in all personal Actions 17 Car. 2. c. 8. and real and mixt the death of either party between the Verdict and the Iudgment shall not hereafter be alledged for Error so as such Iudgment be entred within two Terms after such Verdict Serjeant Pemberton insisted that this was a judicial Writ and that the Administrator had a right to it though the Wife died before the Profits were ascertained by the Writ of Enquiry 't is no more than a plain Sci. Fa. upon a Iudgment which an Executor may have and which was never yet denied though this seems to be a Case of the first Impression The Council on the other side argued that 't is true an Executor may have a Scire Facias upon a Iudgment recovered in the life of the Testator by reason only of such Recovery but this Scire Facias is brought for what never was recovered because the Wife died before any thing was vested in her for the Iudgment will stand so as to effect the Lands but not for the Damages Curia When a Statute which gives a remedy for mean Profits is expounded it ought to be according to the Common Law Now where entire Damages are to be recovered and the Demandant dies before a Writ of Enquiry executed the Executor cannot have any remedy by a Scire Facias upon that Iudgment because Damages are no duty till they are assessed Sed adjornatur DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 2 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1690. Shotter versus Friend Vxor ' Hill 2 Willielmi Rot. 39. THE Plaintiff and his Wife declared upon a Prohibition setting forth Proof by one Witness good in the Spiritual Court that John Friend on the 13th of October 22 Car. 2. made his Will by which he bequeathed to Mary Friend 10 l. to be paid to her within two years after his decease and that he made Jane the Wife of the Plaintiff Shotter Executrix and dyed that the said Executrix whilst sole and unmarried paid the said Legacy to Mary Friend who is since dead that Thomas Friend the Husband of the said Mary did after her death demand this Legacy in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Winton that the Plaintiff pleaded payment and offered to prove it by one single Witness which Proof that Court refused though the Witness was a person without Exception and thereupon Sentence was given there against the Plaintiff which Sentence was now pleaded and upon Demurrer to the Plea The Question was whether upon the whole matter the Defendant should have a Consultation or whether a Prohibition should be granted because the proof by one Witness was denied by that Court. It was argued that the Defendant should not have a Consultation because Matters Testamentary ought to have no more favour than things relating to Tythes in which Cases the Proof by one Witness hath been always held good So 't is in a Release to discharge a Debt which is well proved by a single Testimony and it would be very inconvenient if it should be otherwise for Feoffments and Leases may come in question which must not be rejected because proved by one Witness A Modus decimandi comes up to this Case upon the Suggestion whereof Prohibitions are never denied and the chief reason is because the Spiritual Court will not allow a Modus to be any discharge of Tythes of Kind The Courts of Equity in Westminster-Hall give Relief upon a Proof by one Witness so likewise do the Courts of the Common Law if the Witness is a good and credible person 'T is true a Prohibition shall not go upon a Suggestion that the Ecclesiastical Court will not receive the Testimony of a single Witness If the Question is upon Proof of a Legacy devised or Marriage or not or any other thing which originally doth lie in the Cognizance of that Court but payment or not payment is a matter of Fact triable at the Law and not determinable there if therefore they deny to take the Evidence of a single Witness a Prohibition ought to go 2 Inst 608. 2. The Sentence is no obstacle in this Case because the Plaintiff had no Right to a Prohibition until the Testimony of his Witness was denied and Sentence thereupon given and this is agreeable to what hath been often done in cases of like nature As for instance Cro. Eliz. 88. Moor 907. Prohibitions have been granted where the Proof of a Release of a Legacy by one Witness was denyed So where the Proof of payment of Cythes for Pidgeons was denied upon the like Testimony Cro. Eliz. 666. Moor 413. 2 Rol. Rep. 439. 2 Rol Abr. 300. pl. 9. 299 pl. 14 17. Yelv. 92. Latch 117. 3 Bulst 242. Hutt 22. So where a Suit was for Subtraction of Cythes and the Defendant pleaded that he set them out and offered to prove it by by one Witness but was denied a Prohibition was granted And generally the Books are that if the Spiritual Court refuse such Proof which is allowed at the Common Law they shall be prohibited There is one Case against this Opinion which is that of Roberts in 12 Co. 12 Co. 65. Rep. but it was only a bare Surmise and of little Authority Those who argued on the other side held that a Consultation shall go E contra and that for two Reasons 1. Because a Prohibition is prayed after Sentence 2. Because the Ecclesiastical Court have an original Iurisdiction over all Testamentary things As to the first Point 'T is plain that if that Court proceed contrary to those Rules which are used and practised at the Common Law yet no Prohibition ought to go after Sentence but the proper remedy is an Appeal 2. It cannot be denied but that that Court had Cognizance of the principal matter in this Case which was a Legacy and Payment or not is a thing collateral Now wherever they have a proper Iurisdiction of a Cause both that and all its dependences shall be tried according to their Law which rejects the Proof by a single Witness
afterwards suffered If so then the contingent Remainders to the first and other Sons is destroyed 2. If the Estate was not vested in the Surrendree till his actual assent such assent shall not relate though after the execution of the Deed so as to pass the Estate at the very time it was sealed and delivered Iudgment being given in the Common-Pleas by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Ventris that the contingent Remainder was not destroied by this Surrender because it was not good without the acceptance and till the actual assent of the Surrendree this Writ of Error was now brought upon that Iudgment This Case depended several Terms and those who argued to maintain the Iudgment insisted that here was neither a mutual agreement between the Parties or acceptance or entry of the Surrendree which must be in every Surrender these being solemn acts in such Cases required to the alteration of Possessions and to prevent Frauds That the Law hath a greater regard to the transmutation of Possessions than to the alteration of Personal things and therefore more Ceremonies are made requisite to that than to transfer a Chattel from one to another In all Feoffments there must be Livery and Seisin Quaere For if Tenant for Life surrender to him in Reversion the Surrendree hath a Freehold in Law before Entry Co. Lit. 266. b. 1 Inst 266. b. so in Partitions and in Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until an actual Entry though in the Deed it self such Entry is fully expressed Here the Surrendree is a Purchaser of the Estate and yet did not know any thing of it than which nothing can be more absurd 'T is admitted that every Gift and Grant enures to the benefit of the Donee and Grantee but not where the assent of the Parties is required to compleat the act Assent and Dis-assent are acts of the Mind now 't is impertinent to say that a Man gave his Assent to a thing which he never heard A Lease for years is not good without Entry nor a Surrender without Acceptance Lane 4. 3 Cro. 43. 'T is no new thing to compare a Surrender to a resignation of a Benefice 2 Cro. 198. Dyer 294. Br. Abr. tit Bar 81. Yelv. 61. Sid. 387. now if an Incumbent should resign to the Ordinary and the Patron should afterwards present to that Living such presentation is void if the Ordinary had not accepted the resignation the reason is because a resignation doth not pass the Freehold to the Bishop but puts it only in Abeyance till his acceptance and 't is not an Objection to say that this is grounded upon an Ecclesiastical Right and not at the Common Law or that a Formedon will not lie of a Rectory for tho' 't is of Ecclesiastical Right yet 't is of Temporal Cognizance and shall be tried at Law The president in Rastal may be objected where the surviving Lessee for years brought an Action of Covenant against the Lessor for disturbing of him in his possession Rast Ent. tit Covenant 136. b. Owen 97. Dyer 28. Rast Enttit Debt 183 176. b. 177. a. Br. Sur. 39. Cro. Car. 101. Fitz. Abr. tit Bar 262. Co. Ent. 335. and the Lessor pleaded a Surrender to himself without an acceptance but the Plaintiff in that Case said nothing of a Surrender In the same Book a Surrender was pleaded ad quam quidem sursum redditionem the Plaintiff agreavit so in Fitzherbert 's Abridgment issue was joyned upon the acceptance which shews 't is a material point No inconvenience can be objected that an Assent is made a Legal Ceremony to a Surrender for 't is not inconvenient even in the Case of an Infant who by reason of his non-age is not capable to take such a Conveyance because he cannot give his assent but he may take the Land by way of Feoffment or Grant or any Conveyance of like nature without his Assent By the very definition of a Surrender Co. Lit. 337. b. Bro. tit Surrender pl. 45. Dyer 110. b. Fitz. 39. it plainly appears that there must be an assent to it for 't is nothing else but a yielding up of an Estate to him who hath the immediate Reversion or Remainder wherein the Estate for Life or Years may drown by mutual Agreement between the Parties 'T is true an Agreement is not necessary in Devises nor in any other Conveyances which are directed by particular Statutes or by Custom but 't is absolutely necessary in a Surrender which is a Conveyance at the Common Law 't is such an essential Circumstance that the Deed it self is void without it 't is as necessary as an Attornment to the Grant of a Reversion or an Entry to a Deed of Exchange which are both likewise Conveyances at the Common Law There are various Circumstances in the Books which declare what acts shall amount to an Acceptance or Agreement Cro. Eliz. 488. Owen 97. 31 Ass pl. 26. but it was never yet doubted but that an acceptance was necessary to a Surrender So in the Entries Fitz. tit Debt 149. 9 E 3.7 b. contra Rast Ent. 136. a Surrender is sometimes pleaded without an Acceptance but 't is always that the Surrendree by vertue of the Surrender expulit ejecit the Plaintiff which amounts to an Agreement The Law is so careful in these Conveyances Kelwway 194 195. Dyer 358. pl. 48. that it will not presume an assent without some act done if therefore a Deed cannot operate as a Surrender without an acceptance then in this Case no such shall be presumed because the Iury have found it expresly otherwise then by the birth of Charles Leach the contingent Remainder is vested in him which arising before the Assent of the Surrendree makes such assent afterwards void for there can be no intermediate Estate Besides if an Assent should not be necessary to a Surrender this inconvenience would follow viz. if a Purchaser should take in several Mortgages and Extents and keep them all on foot in a third persons name which is usual to prevent mean incumbrances and the Mortgagor should afterwards Surrender his Estate without the assent of the Purchaser if this should be held a good Conveyance in Law it would be of very mischievous consequence 2. If the Estate is not immediately transferred to the Surrendree at the sealing of the Deed without the assent of the Surrenderor it shall not pass afterwards when he gives his consent and that by way of Relation for if that should be allowed then the Surrenderor might have kept the Deed in his Pocket as well fifty as five years after the execution thereof which would be so prejudicial that no Man could be assured of his Title 'T is true when a Bargain and Sale is made of Land 2 Inst 675. 3 Co. 36. such a day c. and two days afterwards the Bargainor enters into a Recognizance then the Deed is inrolled within
the Neglect in this Case was in the Servant the Action may be brought against all the Owners for it is grounded quasi ex contractu though there was no actual Agreement between the Plaintiff and them And as to this purpose 2 Sand. 345. Hob. 206. Hutt 121. 1 Mod. 198. 't is like the Case where a Sheriff levies Goods upon an Execution which are rescued out of the hands of his Bailiffs this appearing upon the Retorn an Action of Debt will lie against him though there was no actual Contract between the Plaintiff and him for he having taken the Goods in Execution there is quasi a Contract in Law to answer them to the Plaintiff 2. As to the second Point it was ruled that Not-Guilty was a good Plea to any Mis-feazance whatsoever and that a Plea in Abatement viz. that the rest of the Owners super se susceperunt simul cum Defendente absque hoc quod Defendens super se suscepit tantum had been no more than the general Issue 3 Cro. 554. Vering versus More but he hath not pleaded thus Iustice Dolben agreed that the Action ought to be brought against all the Proprietors it being upon a Promise created by Law but he was Opinion that this Matter might have been pleaded in Abatement Gold versus Strode AN Action was brought in Somersetshire and the Plaintiff recovered and had Iudgment and died Intestate Gold the now Plaintiff took out Letters of Administration to the said Intestate in the Court of the Bishop of Bath and Wells and afterwards brought a Scire Facias upon that Iudgment against the Defendant to shew Cause quare Executionem habere non debeat He had Iudgment upon this Scire Facias and the Defendant was taken in Execution and escaped An Action of Debt was brought by the said Gold against this Defendant Strode who was then Sheriff for the Escape and the Plaintiff had a Verdict It was moved in arrest of Iudgment and for Cause shewen that if the Administration was void then all the dependencies upon it are void also and so the Plaintiff can have no Title to this Action Now the Administration is void because the entring upon Record of the first Iudgment recovered by the Intestate in the County of Middlesex where the Records are kept made him have bona notabilia in several Counties and then by the Law Administration ought not to be committed to the Plaintiff in an inferior Diocess but in the Prerogative Court Curia The Sheriff shall not take advantage of this since the Iudgment was given upon the Scire Fac. and the Capias ad satisfaciendum issuing out against the then Defendant directed to the Sheriff made him an Officer of this Court and the Iudgment shall not be questioned by him for admitting it to be a Recovery without a Title yet he shall take no advantage of it till the Iudgment is reversed 'T is not a void but an erronious Iudgment and when a person is in execution upon such a Iudgment and Escapes and then an Action is brought against the Goaler or Sheriff 8 Co. 141. and Iudgment and Execution thereon though the first Iudgment upon which the party was in execution should be afterwards reversed yet the Iudgment against the Goaler being upon a collateral thing executed shall still remain in force The Ca. Sa. 21 E. 4. 23. b. Cro. El. 164. Moor 274. 2 Cro. 3. 1 Rol. Abr. 809 God b. 403. 2 Leon. 84. was a sufficient authority to the Sheriff to take the Body though grounded upon an erronious Iudgment and that Execution shall be good till avoided by Error and no false Imprisonment will lie against the Goaler or Sheriff upon such an Arrest Coghil versus Freelove In the Common-Pleas DEBT for Rent was brought against the Defendant as Administratrix of Thomas Freelove her late Husband deceased Debt for Rent incurred after an assignment by an Administrator for the privity of Contract is not determined by the death of the intestate 2 Vent 209. in which Action the Plaintiff declared That on the 1st of May 21 Car. 2. he did by Indenture demise to the said Thomas Freelove one Messuage and certain Lands in Bushey in Hertfordshire Habendum from Lady day then last past for and during the term of 21 years under a yearly Rent that by virtue thereof he entred and was possessed That on the 7th of March 1685. the said Thomas Freelove died Intestate and that the next day Administration of his Goods and Chattels was granted to the Defendant and that 78 l. was in arrear for Rent due at such a time for which this Action was now brought in the Detinet The Defendant confessed the Lease prout c. and the death of the Intestate and that the Administration was granted to her but saith that before the Rent was due she by Articles made between her of the one part and Samuel Freelove of the other part did assign the said Indenture and all her right title and interest thereunto and which she had in the Premisses unto the said Samuel Freelove who entred and was possessed that the Plaintiff had notice of this Assignment before he brought this Action but nothing was said of his acceptance To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joined in Demurrer And Iudgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court for the Plaintiff against the Authorities following Viz. Cro. Eliz. 555. 'T is true in Overton and Sydal 's Case it was resolved that if an Executor of Lessee for years assign his Interest Debt for Rent will not lye against him after such Assignment the reason there given was because the personal privity of the Contract is determined by the death of the Lessee as to the Debt it self and for the same reason the Executor shall not be lyable to the Rent after the death of the Lessee if such Lessee doth make an assignment of his Term in his life-time My Lord Coke mentioning this Case 3 Co. 24. a. in his third Report affirms that it was resolved by Popham Chief Iustice and the whole Court that if an Executor of a Lessee for years assign his Interest Debt will not lye against him for Rent due after such an Assignment Pop. 120. but my Lord Popham himself in Reporting that very Case tells us he was of another Opinion which was that so long as the Covenant in the Lease hath the nature and essence of a Contract it shall bind the Executor of the Lessee who as well to that as to many other purposes represents the person of the Testator and is privy to his Contracts T is true my Lord Popham held in that Case that the Action did not lye but because it was brought by the Successor of a Prebendary upon a Lease made by him in his life-time who being a single Corporation the personal Contract was determined by his death But the same Case reported by others Moor 251.
Bradburn versus Kennerdale 318 Brason versus Deane 39 Brett versus Whitchott 96 Bridgham versus Frontee 94 Broad versus Piper 268 Burgh's Case 67 C. CAlthrop versus Axtel 168 Capel versus Saltonstal 249 Carter versus Dowrish 226 Chapman versus Lamphire 155 Clarke versus Hoskins 79 Claxton versus Swift 86 Coghil versus Freelove 325 Cole versus Knight 277 Cross versus Garnett 261 D. DAvies Case 246 Dawling versus Venman 108 Dixon versus Robinson 107 Dobson versus Thornigrove 112 Doe versus Dawson 274 Dorrington versus Edwyn 56 E. ECcleston versus Speke 258 Evans versus Crocker 198 F. FItzgerald versus Villiers 236 Fisher versus Wrenn 250 Franshaw versus Bradshaw 235 Friend versus Bouchier 81 G. GRandison Lord versus Countess of Dover 23 Grantham Mil ' his Case 120 Godfrey versus Eversden 264 Gold versus Strode 324 Goring versus Deering 156 H. HAcket versus Herne 134 Hall versus Wybank 311 Hamson Serjeant his Case 89 Hanchet versus Thelwell 104 Harman versus Harman 115 Harrison versus Austin 237 Harrison versus Heyward 295 Hebblethwait versus Palmes 48 Hexam versus Coniers 238 Heyward versus Guppee 191 Hicks versus Gore 84 Hyley versus Hyley 228 Hinton versus Roffey 35 Hitchins versus Bassett 203 Hobbs qui tam versus Young 313 Hoile versus Clerke 218 Holcomb versus Petit 113 Holloway's Case 42 Horner's Company versus Barlow 158 I. JAckson versus Warren 78 Jefferies Mil ' versus Watkyns 161 Jennings versus Hankeys 114 Joyner versus Pritchard 103 K. KEllow versus Rowden 253 King versus Dilliston 221 Knight versus Cole 277 Knight Mil ' Case 117 Kingston versus Herbert 119 The King against Ayloffe 72 The King against Armstrong Mil ' 47 The King against Atkyns Mil ' 3 The King against Barns 42 The King against Baxter 68 The King against Beale 124 The King against Bunny 238 The King against Cony al' 37 The King against Colson al' 72 The King against Dangerfield 68 The King against Darby 139 The King against Fairfax 269 The King against G l. 97 The King against Griffith 201 The King against Grimes al' 220 The King against Hethersel 80 The King against Hinton al' 122 The King against Hockenhal 167 The King against Inhabitants of Malden The King against Johnson 241 The King against Kingsmill 199 The King against Lenthal 143 The King against Marsh al' 66 The King against Plowright al' 94 The King against Rosewell 52 The King against Saloway 100 The King against Sellars 167 The King against Silcox 280 The King against Sparks 78 The King against Warden of the Fleet 335 L. LAngford versus Webber 132 Lambert versus Thurston 275 Lea versus Libb 262 Leigh's Case 332 Letchmere versus Thorowgood 236 Lidcott versus Willows 229 Lock versus Norborne 141 Lutwich versus Piggot 268 M. MAcklesfield Earl 41 Malloon versus Fitzgerald 28 Marsh versus Cutler 41 Mason versus Beldham 73 Mather versus Mills 252 Matthews versus Cary 137 Mayor and Cominalty of Norwich versus Johnson 90 Merchants Adventurers versus Rebow 126 Mordant versus Thorold 281 Moss versus Archer 135 N. NEwton al' versus Stubbs 71 Newton Mil ' versus Creswick 165 Newton versus Trigg 327 Norwich Mayor c. versus Johnson 90 O. OBrian versus Ram 170 Okel versus Hodgkinson 99 Osborn versus Steward 230 P. PAine versus Partrich 289 Palmer versus Allicock 58 Panton versus Earl of Bath 227 Parkinson's Case 265 Pawley versus Ludlow 87 Peak versus Mather 103 Perkins versus Titus 132 Pitt versus Brereton 70 Plimouth Countess versus Throgmorton 153 Pool versus Trumbull 56 Price versus Davies 152 Prince's Case 295 Proctor versus Burdet 69 Prodgers versus Frazier 43 Proud versus Piper 268 Prowse versus Wilcox 163 Putt versus Rawsterne 1 R. REves versus Phelpes 264 Reeves versus Winnington 45 Roberts versus Pain 67 Rodney versus Strode 101 Roe versus Clargis Mil ' 26 Rowsby versus Manning 330 S. SAvier versus Lenthall 273 Shipley versus Chappel 232 Shotter versus Friend 283 Shuttleworth versus Garnat 239 Smith versus Goodier 36 Smith versus Peirce 195 T. TAyler versus Brindley 136 Thirsby versus Helbott 272 Thompson versus Leach 296 Idem versus Eundem 301 Tippet versus Hawkey 263 U. UPton versus Dawkin 97 W. WHitehal versus Squire 276 Wytham Mil ' versus Dutton Mil ' 159 Woodward's Case 211 Y. YArmouth Earl versus Dorrell 75 Young versus Inhabitants of Tottenham 258 DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 34 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1682. Sir Francis Pemberton Chief Justice Sir Thomas Jones Justices Sir William Dolben Justices Sir Thomas Raymond Justices Putt versus Rawstern Mil ' AN Action of Trespass was formerly brought for taking of Goods c. and upon Not-guilty pleaded Trespass is no Barr to Trover for the same Goods Raymond 472 the Defendant had a Verdict The same Plaintiff now brought Trover against the same Defendant for those Goods The Defendant pleads in Barr the Iudgment in the former Action of Trespass and upon a Demurrer the Question was Whether a Iudgment in Trespass vi armis may be pleaded in Bar to an Action of Trover for the same Goods This Case was argued by Mr. Saunders for the Plaintiff and by Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant And to prove that it was no Bar Lacon versus Bernard Cro. Car. 35. Hutt 81. Stiles 202. a Case was cited to be adjudged in the Common Pleas in the 20th year of King James which was an Action of Trover and Conversion of one hundred Sheep The Defendant pleaded a former Iudgment in Trespass brought against him quare cepit abduxit those Sheep and that the Plaintiff in that Action recovered 2 d. damages and that both Actions were for the same thing The Plaintiff replied that the two pence damages were recoverd for the chasing and not for the value of the Cattle and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment For the smalness of the damages implies it was for the chasing and it shall therefore be intended that he had his Cattle again and that the Conversion was afterwards My Lord Coke in Ferrer's Case tells us Ferrer 's Case 6 Co. 7. Cro. Eliz. 676. Co. Ent. 39. Cro. Jac. 15. that a Recovery by Verdict Confession or upon a Demurrer in a personal Action is a good Bar to an Action of the like nature and for the same thing but that must be understood where the same Evidence will maintain both the Actions Iustice Croke reports the same Case to be ended by Arbitration but that it was the Opinion of my Lord Anderson and Iustice Glanvil that Trover and Trespass are Actions of different natures and one may be brought where the other cannot be maintained as upon a demand and denial Trover will lie but not Trespass vi armis because the taking was not tortious And therefore it may be well intended that when the Plaintiff brought Trespass he was
mistaken in that Action and being in the wrong was barred but that will be no Bar where a right Action is brought as if I deliver a Bond to another for advice who refusing to redeliver it I bring an Action of Trespass and am barred either by Verdict or Demurrer yet I may bring Detinue Trespass and Detinue are not the same Actions Pro Def. and therefore a Iudgment in one shall be no bar to the other but where two Actions are brought for one thing to be recovered in such case a Recovery in one shall be a bar to the other There is no substantial difference between Trespass and Trover for the disposing of the Goods in the one case is the same with the Conversion in the other the taking vi armis and likewise the Conversion are both tortious and therefore either Action may be well brought But for the Reasons given by the Plaintiffs Council he had Iudgment by the Opinion of the Chief Iustice and the other two Iudges Jones and Raymond of which Iustice Dolben did very much doubt Dominus Rex versus Sir Robert Atkins Knight of the Bath al' AN Indictment was found at the Quarter Sessions held for the County of the City of Bristol 4 Octob. 33 Car. 2. The County of the City of Bristolâ— against Sir Robert Atkins Knight of the Bath and Recorder and Senior Alderman of the said City Sir John Knight Alderman John Lawford Alderman and Joseph Creswick Alderman setting forth 1. That King Henry the VII th by his Charter dated 17 Decemb 15 Regni sui granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of the Town of Bristol the now City of Bristol being then a Town and to their Successors That if any shall procure abett or maintain any Debate and Discord upon the Election of the Mayor or other Minister he shall be punished instantly by the Mayor and two Aldermen to be chosen and named by the Mayor after the quantity and quality of his offence according to the Laws and Custom of the Realm 2. That according to the Priviledges granted by Queen Elizabeth to the Mayor and Commonalty of the said City and their Successors by Charter dated 28 June 23d of her Reign After which time as the Indictment sets forth the said Town was made a City there have been or ought to have been from the time of the making the said Charter twelve Aldermen whereof the Recorder was to be and now is one 3. That according to the Priviledges so as aforesaid granted by all the time aforesaid which is from the time of the Charter after the death of every Alderman the Mayor and the rest of the surviving Aldermen eorum major pars ad summonitionem of the said Mayor being called together have accustomed to choose another person of the circumspect Citizens to be an Alderman in the place of him so deceased and the Mayor and Aldermen by the same Privileges so granted have been and ought to be Iustices of the Peace for the said City 4. That continually after the time of the said Charter of Queen Elizabeth the Recorder and the rest of the Aldermen were and ought to be of the Privy Council de privato Concilio of the Mayor in particular Cases concerning the Government of the City whensoever the Mayor shall call them together And such Privy Council by all the time aforesaid which still is from the said Charter of Queen Elizabeth have not accustomed nor ought not to be called together to transact any Business belonging to that Council unless by the Summons and in the presence of the Mayor That after the death of one Sir John Lloyd being at his death an Alderman of the said City the said Sir Robert Atkins then being Recorder Sir John Knight John Lawford Esquire and Joseph Creswick being all Aldermen then of the City and free Burgesses of the City to make debate and discord upon the Election of an Alderman in the place of the Alderman so dead 8 March 33 Car. 2. in the Parish and Ward of St. Andrew within the said City did conspire to hold a Privy Council of the Aldermen of the said City and therein to choose an Alderman sine summonitione in absentia contra voluntatem Richardi Hart Militis then being Mayor of the City And in pursuance of their said wicked Conspiracy the day and year aforesaid entred by force and arms into the Tolzey and in the Chamber of the Council of the Mayor and Commonalty of the said City commonly called The Council House and there riotously c. did assemble and the same day and year they the said four Aldermen una cum aliis Aldermannis which must be two more Aldermen at the least which makes six and there were but five more in all then in being taking the Mayor in the said rest of the Aldermen not knowing their purposes held a Privy Council of Aldermen and then and there as much as in them lay chose Thomas Day for an Alderman in the place of Sir John Lloyd sine aliqua summonitione per praedictum Richardum Hart then Mayor to meet and in his absence and against his Will And they farther caused to be entred in the Common Council-Book the said Election as an Order of the Privy Council in which Book the Acts of the Mayor and Aldermen in their Privy Council are commonly written from whence great Discord hath risen c. Which Indictment was tryed at the Assises at Bristol by Nisi Prius and the Defendants found guilty and thereupon Sir Robert Atkins one of the Defendants having then lately before this Case been one of the Judges of the Common Pleas but then discharged of his Place after eight years sitting there secure came into the Court of Kings Bench and in Arrest of Iudgment argued his own Case not as Council nor at the Bar but in the Court in his Cloak having a Chair set for him by the Order of the Lord Chief Iustice and said as followeth 1. The Indictment in the first place mentions the Letters Patents of King H. 7. made to the Mayor and Commonalty of Bristol that the Mayor with two Aldermen such as he should choose should by their discretions according to Law punish such as should make debate and discord at the Elections of Officers They have not pursued this course against us but gone the ordinary way of Indictment and therefore I shall not need to speak to it 2. The Indictment in the next place proceeds to mention Letters Patents of Queen Elizabeth granted to the Mayor and Commonalty in the 23d year of her Reign which provides that there shall be twelve Aldermen and how upon the death or removal of an Alderman a new one should be chosen that is by the Mayor and the surviving Aldermen and the greater number of them being call'd together as the Indictment suggests by the Summons of the Mayor The whole Indictment and the Offence we are charged with being
which she had discontinued by joining in the Fine with her second Husband but yet it was adjudged no Forfeiture because it was not within the intent of the Statute to restrain Women to dispose of their own Estates but only such as came from the Husband So here Vses are in the nature of private Laws and must be governed by the like intention of the Parties now 't is not to be supposed that the Father did intend to disinherit his only Daughter and Heir without notice of this Settlement therefore though he had not appointed any person in particular to give her notice yet it must of necessity be presumed that his intention was that she should have the Estate unless she had refused upon notice to comply with those Conditions imposed upon her Now the Daughter being Heir at Law and so having a good Title by descent if there be any Conveiance made by her Ancestor to defeat that Title and to which she is a Stranger she ought by the Rules of Law and Reason to have notice of it and so is the express Resolution in Frances's Case where the Devise and the Feoffment were both made to the Heir at Law And the reason why in Fry and Porter's Case notice was not held necessary was because the Devise was to a Grandaughter who was not Heir at Law for the Earl of Newport had three Sons then living and therefore the Parties whom it concerned had the same means to inform themselves upon what Conditions they were to have the Estate 3. The notice here given was not sufficient for as the Ordinary himself in Green's Case ought to have given the Patron notice of the Deprivation before a Lapse should incurr so the Trustees here ought to give the Daughter notice of this Proviso before she shall lose her Estate for Non-performance of the Conditions on which she should take it especially since the notice she had of this Proviso was not certain for 't is said she had notice not to marry without the consent of the Trustees but 't is not shewed who they are or how she should apply her self to them Besides there is something in this Proviso which the finding in the Verdict will not supply for it may be literally true that the Daughter married without the consent of the Trustees and yet no breach of the Condition because the Proviso is to restrain her from marrying without the consent of them or their Heirs now it was not found that the Feoffees were then living and if they were dead their Consent cannot be required and she might have the consent of their Heirs Mr. Franklyn who was the Husband of Laetitia the Aunt in Remainder hath likewise forfeited that Estate which he hath or may have in right of his Wife if she had any right by not taking upon him the name of Fitzgerald for if the Father would have disinherited his Daughter for Non-performance of this Proviso a fortiori he shall be intended to disinherit his Sister for making frustrate his desire in the settlement of his Estate In Easter-Term following Iudgment was given That the Estate Tail was not determined for want of notice according to the resolution in Frances's Case Hinton versus Roffey AN Action of Debt was brought against the Defendant In pleading the Statute of Usury the Agreement and the Sum taken must be set out 12 Car. 2. c. 13. who pleaded the Statute of Usury but did not shew any particular Agreement only in general that he was indebted to the Plaintiff in a Sum not exceeding 180 l. neither did he seth forth when the Interest of the Mony did commence and on what day it became due And upon a Demurrer it was objected that this Plea was too general because the Defendant ought to shew in particular what the Sum was in which he was indebted and how much the Plaintiff took above 6 l. per Cent. for if the certainty thereof did not appear there could be no Fact applied to it But on the other side it was alledged that it was not material to shew the certain Sum which the Plaintiff took above 6 l. E contra per Cent. and therefore not necessary to set forth the particular Agreement between them for having pleaded and made a substantial Averment to bring his Case within it 't is well enough without shewing how much he took above six in the hundred And this Case was compared to Debt against an Administrator Moon versus Andrews Hob. 133. who pleaded in Bar a Iudgment c. and that he had fully administred and had not Assets praeterquam bona c. non attingen to 5 l. and upon Demurrer this was held a good Plea for though in strictness of Pleading the Defendant ought to have shewed the certain value of the Goods and not to have said non attingen to 5 l. yet the substance sufficiently appears that he had not more than 5 l. to satisfie a Debt of an 100 l. for which that Action was brought Jefferies Chief Iustice and the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff because the Defendant ought to have set forth the Agreement and to apply it to the Sum in the Declaration Smith versus Goodier IN Ejectment for the Mannor of Heythorpe Attornment must be proved where an Ejectment is brought for a Mannor parcel in Rent and Services c. Vpon Not-guilty pleaded there was a Trial at Bar by an Oxfordshire Iury. The Title of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was That Edmund Goodier Esquire was seized in Fee of the said Mannor part in Demesnes some part in Leases for years with Rent reserved and some part in Services and being so seized made a Feoffment in Fee to Sir John Robinson and Sir William Rider and their Heirs in Trust for Sir Robert Masham This Deed was dated in 1647. and the consideration was 5000 l. paid to Goodier there was a Letter of Attorny of the same date with the Deed and Livery and Seisin endorsed Serjeant Maynard who was of Council for the Defendant put the Plaintiff to prove an Attornment of the Tenants for having declared for a Mannor Lit. Sect. 553. 1 Roll. Abr. 293. parcel in Rents and Services those would not pass without an Attornment and of this Opinion was the whole Court but the Plaintiff would not prove an Attornment The Defendant made a Title under the Marriage Settlement of the said Goodier who in 17 Jacobi married Elizabeth Mees and then he setled the said Mannor upon himself for life and upon his Issue in Tail Male and that the Defendant was the Heir in Tail But on the other side it was insisted that this Settlement was fraudulent against the Purchasor Evidence of a Fraudulent Settlement and that it could not be thought otherwise because both the Original and Counterpart were found in Mr. Goodiers Study after his death and because he had made Oath before a Master in Chancery that there was no incumberance
upon the Estate which Affidavit was produced in Court but not suffered to be read but as a Note or Letter unless the Plaintiff would produce a Witness to swear that he was present when the Oath was taken before the Master And an Objection was made to the Settlement it self which recited That whereas a Marriage was intended to be had between the said Edmund Goodier and Elizabeth Mees now in consideration thereof and of a Portion he conveyed the said Mannor to the Feoffees to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of the said Elizabeth for life but doth not say from and after the Solemnization of the said Marriage so that if she had not married Mr. Goodier yet after his decease she would have enjoyed the Estate for life Vpon the whole matter the Iury found for the Defendant Dominus Rex versus Coney and Obrian THE Defendants were convicted for the Murder of Mr. Murder was pardoned by the name Felonica interfectio and held good 10 E. 3. c. 3. 13 R. 2. c. 1. Tyrrwhite and Mr. Forster in a Duel and now pleaded their Pardon in which there was a Clause Non obstante the Statute of Ed. 3. which appoints him that hath a Pardon of Felony to find Sureties for his Good Behaviour before it shall be allowed and another Non obstante to the Statute of R. 2. which enacts that if the Offence be not specified in the Pardon it shall not be allowed Now the Word Murdrum was not in this Pardon the Offence was expressed by these general Words Felonica interfectione and whether it did extend to pardon Murder was the Question Mr. Astry the Clerk of the Crown informed the Court that one Alexander Montgomery of Eglington pleaded the like Pardon for Murder but it was held insufficient and the Court gave him time to get his Pardon amended which was done likewise in this Case The Defendants came again on another day and Councel being allowed to plead for them insisted that the Pardon was good and that the Murder was sufficiently pardoned by these Words that it is in the power of the King to pardon by general Words and his intent did plainly appear to pardon the Defendants That the murther of a person is rightly expressed by felonious killing though not so properly as by the word Murdrum it self the omission of which word will not make the Pardon void And to prove this he cited the Sheriff of Norfolk's Case 2 R. 3. 7. a. who was indebted to the King during the time he was Sheriff and was pardoned by the Name of J. W. Esquire who was the same person de omnibus debitis computis c. Afterwards he was charged in the Exchequer for 100 l. where he pleaded this Pardon and it was held good though he was not named Sheriff and so not pardoned by the name of his Office yet the Kings intention appearing in his Charter and having pardoned him by his right Name that was sufficient and in that Case the King himself was concerned in point of interest The Books all agree More 752. Lucas's Case 8 Co. 18. 3 Inst 234. that before the Statute of R. 2. the King might pardon Murder by the word Felony now this Prerogative being incident to the Crown and inseparable from the person of the King was not designed to be wholly restrained by that Act for the Parliament only intended that by specifying the Offence in the Pardon the King should be rightly informed of the nature of it and when he understands it to be Murder he would not grant a Pardon But admitting his power to be restrained by that Statute Stamf. 101. yet a Non obstante is a dispensation of it and therefore this Pardon ought to be allowed The Pardon was held good by the whole Court And Jefferies the Chief Justice said that he had proposed this Case to all the Judges of England Sid. 366. and they were all of the same Opinion and that he remembred Dudley's Case where a Pardon in general words was allowed DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 35 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1683 4. Brason versus Dean A Covenant upon a Charter Party for the Freight of a Ship A thing lawful to be done when the party did covenant to do it and afterwards prohibited the Covenant is binding The Defendant pleaded that the Ship was loaded with French Goods prohibited by Law to be imported and upon Demurrer Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Court were all of Opinion That if the thing to be done was lawful at the time when the Defendant did enter into the Covenant though it was afterwards prohibited by Act of Parliament yet the Covenant is binding Barnes versus Edgard TRespass for breaking his Close and impounding of his Cattle Where Damages are under 40 s. the Plaintiff must have ordinary Costs Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict but Damages under 40 s. Whereupon Mr. Livesay the Secondary refused to tar full Costs alledging it to be within the Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. by which 't is Enacted 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 9. That in all Actions of Trespass Assault and Battery and other personal Actions wherein the Judge shall not certifie upon the back of the Record that a Battery was proved or the Freehold or Title of the Land chiefly in question if the Jury find the Damages under 40 s. the Plaintiff shall recover no more Costs than Damages Mr. Pollexfen moved for Costs alledging that this Act doth not extend to all trespasses but only to such where the Freehold of the Land is in question If the Action had been for a Trespass in breaking his Close and Damages given under 40 s. there might not have been full Costs but here is another Count for impounding the Cattle of which the Defendant is found guilty and therefore must have his Costs The like Case was adjudged in this Court in Hillary Term last Smith versus Batterton Raym. 487. Jones 232. which was Trespass for breaking and flinging down Stalls in the Market place The Plaintiff had a Verdict and 2 d. damages and upon a debate whether he should have full Costs the Court were of Opinion that it was not within that Statute because the Title could not come in question upon the destruction of a Chattle In the principal Case the Plaintiff had ordinary Costs DE Termino Paschae Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Marsh versus Cutler THE Plaintiff obtained a Iudgment in an Hundred Court for 58 s. and 4 d. If Debt be brought upon a Specialty for part of the Sum the Plaintiff must shew how the other is discharged 2 Cro. 498 499 529 530. and brought an Action of Debt upon that Iudgment in this Court for 58 s. only and did not shew that the 4 d. was discharged and upon Nultiel Record pleaded and a Demurrer to that Plea the
hath been the constant course for many years in such Actions to set forth the Antiquity of the thing either in express terms or in words which amount to it In 8 Eliz. such an Action was brought Dyer 248. B. Quod defendens divertit multum aquae cursum per levationem constructionem Waerae c. per quod multum aquae quae ad molendinum of the Plaintiff currere consuevit e contra recurrit Which word consuevit doth imply that it was an ancient Mill for otherwise the Water could not be accustomed to run to it Anno 25 Eliz. the like Action was brought 1 Leon. 273. Russel versus Handford wherein the Plaintiff declared Quod cum molendinum quoddam ab antiquo fuit erectum whereof he was seized and the Defendant erected a new Mill per quod cursus aquae pred coarctatus fuit And eighteen years afterwards was Lutterell 's Case in this Court 4 Co. 86. wherein the Plaintiff shewed that he was seized of two old and ruinous Fulling Mills and that time out of Mind magna pars aquae cujusdam rivoli did run from a certain place to the said Mills and that during all that time there had been a certain Bank to keep the current of the said Water within its bounds c. That the Plaintiff did pull down those old Mills and erected two new Mills and the Defendant digged down the Bank c. The like Action happened 14 Car. I. Cro. Car. 499. Palm 290. it was for diverting an ancient Watercourse Qui currere consuevisset debuisset to the Plaintiffs Mill. In all which Cases 1 Roll. Abr. 107. tho' there are various ways of declaring yet they all shew that the constant course was to alledge that the Mills were ancient for 't is that which intitles the Party to his Action 'T is for this reason also that if two Men have contiguous Houses and one stops the other's Lights if they are not ancient an Action will not lye for stopping of them up There may be some seeming difference between a Right to a Watercourse and to Lights in a Window for no Man can prescribe to Light Quatenus such because 't is of common Right to all Men and cannot be claimed but as affixed to a particular thing or purpose A Watercourse may be claimed to several purposes but Water is of as universal use and benefit to Mankind as Light and therefore no particular Man hath a Right to either but as belonging to an antient House or ruunning to an ancient Mill or for some other antient Vse Anno 15 Car. Cro. Car. 575. Sands versus Trefusis I. The Plaintiff Sands declared that he was seised in Fee of a Mill and had a Watercourse running thro' the Defendants Lands to the said Mill and that he stopped it up There was a Demurrer to this Declaration and the same Objection as now was then taken to it viz. that he had not shewed that it was an ancient Mill. And though the Court seemed to over-rule that Objection yet no Iudgment was given The Case of Sly and Mordant was there cited which is Reported by Mr. 1 Leon. 247. id 1 Rol. Abr. 104. Leonard and is this viz. That the Plaintiff was seised in Fee of certain Lands c. and the Defendant had stopped a Watercourse by which his Land was drowned it was adjudged that the Action would lie for this Injury but that is no Authority to support this Declaration 2. The Plaintiff hath not entituled himself to this Water-course either by Prescription or that the Water debuit vel consuevit currere to his Mill for so is the Pleading in Lutterell 's Case and in all the other Cases before cited 3. Therefore the Plea in Bar is good the Defendant having sufficiently justified his Right and the Plaintiff having not Prescribed to it here can be no Trespass done and so concluded that Iudgment ought to be reversed This Case depends upon the Declaration Ex parte Quer. for the Plea in Bar is only argumentative 't is no direct answer to it and the Replication and Rejoynder are not material The Plaintiff hath a good cause of Action for it cannot be denied but where an injury is done to another and Damages ensue 't is sufficient to maintain an Action of Trespass or upon the Case 'T is plain that an Injury was done to the Plaintiff and the Damage is as manifest by diverting of the Watercourse and the loss of his Mill and the Fact is laid to be injuste malitiose The Defendant gives no reason why he injured him but only that he had no use of the Water because his Mill was burnt This is an Action brought by the Plaintiff upon his Possession against a wrong doer Roll. 339 394. Palm 290. in which it is not necessary to be so particular as where one prescribes for a Right A Man may have a Watercourse * Bracton lib. 4. cap. 32. by Grant as well as by Prescription and in such case be need not set forth any particular use of the Water as that it ought to run to his Mill neither is it absolutely necessary to mention the Mill for that is only to inform the Court of the Damages In the Printed Entries there are many Forms of Declarations without any Prescription Rast Ent. 9. B. or setting forth that the Mill was antient as where an Action was brought against the Defendant De placito quare vi armis stagnum molendini ipsius the Plaintiff fregit and this was only upon the Possession Antea The Case in Dyer is a good Authority to support this Action for 't is as general as this viz. for diverting a Watercourse per Constructionem Waerae and doth not shew where it was erected or what Title he had to it So where the Action was for disturbing the Plaintiff 2 Cro. 43. Dent vers Oliver Nota This was after Verdict in collecting of Toll and doth not shew what Title he had to it either by Prescription or Grant but declared only that he was seised in Fee of a Manor and Fair and held good And it was the Opinion of my Lord Hobert That a Declaration for breaking down of a Bank generally includentem aquam Hob. 193. Biccot versus Ward running to the Plaintiffs Mill was good The Authorities cited on the other side do rather maintain this way of Pleading than the contrary for those Cases are wherein the Plaintiff declared that the Water currere consuevit debuisset to the Plaintiffs Mill time out of mind Cro. Car. 499. which words are of the same signification as if he had shewed it to be an antient Mill and that agrees in substance with this Case for the Water cannot be diverted ab antiquo solito cursu if the Mill was not ancient The word solet implies Antiquity Reg. 153. The Writ De secta admolendinum is
for to such the Defendant Preached and to them he declared the power given unto him by God to heal them by Prayer Then he tells them that their King is wicked and having insinuated this Doctrine into their Minds he then bids them stand to their Principles in opposing and subduing wicked Kings 'T is objected that there ought to have been a precedent Discourse of the King but the Presidents are otherwise In 33 H. 8. Rot. 17. There was an Indictment against the Lord Grey for words spoken against the King without setting forth any precedent Discourse of him So was my Lord Cobham 's Case in 12 Jac. for that he proditorie dixit pro palavit haec verba viz. It will never be well for England until the King and his Cubbs are killed without an Avernient that the words were spoken de Rege And in William 's Case 2 Roll Rep. 88. Reported by my Lord Rolls who was Indicted for High Treason for writing two Books in which were many Traiterous Assertions but no Averment of any previous Discourse concerning the King all these Indictments were thus viz. Dixit such words de Domino Rege Therefore the Indictment is good in form if the words therein contained amount to Treason now they do import Treason or not if they do import it then 't is unnecessary to aver that they were spoken de Rege because it cannot be intended to be Treason against any other King If a Man should say that he would go to Whitehal and kill the King 't is not necessary to averr any precedent Discourse de Rege In Actions on the Case for Words there must be an Averment of the person because many men are of the same Name but in Indictments the form will govern the Case Several Traitors have suffered Death in such Cases as this at Bar and many learned Men in all Ages have attended this Court and this Objection was never made till now and therefore the Presidents being without this Averment de Rege where the overt Act is by words Iudgment was prayed against the Prisoner Curia Words may be an overt Act but then they must be so certain and positive as plainly to denote the intention of the speaker If a Man should tell another that he would drive the King out of England there needs no averment that such words were spoken de Rege because they tend immediately to depose the King but if he had said that he would go to Whitehal and destroy his Enemies that is not Treason without an Averment c. Iudgment was arrested DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Pool versus Trumbal THE Defendant was sued in the Spiritual Court for Dilapidations 25 Car. 2. cap. 5. and pleaded the general Pardon by which all Offences Contempts Penalties c. were pardoned and for this reason he prayed a Prohibition but it was denied because the Statute never intended to pardon any satisfaction for Damages but only to take away Temporal Punishments Dorrington versus Edwin Mich. 36 Car. II. Rot. 277. SCire Facias against Pledges in a Replevin brought by Pleint Sci. Fac. will lye against pledges in Replevin by pleint setting forth that John Temple did levy a Pleint in the Sheriffs Court of London for the taking of three Baggs of Mony in which Suit he found Pledges de prosequendo de retorno habendo if it should be awarded That this Pleint was transmitted out of that Court into the Hustings and by * If it had not been a Court of Record it might have been remov'd by Re falo Dalt 425. 9 Hob. 6.58 13 Ed. 1. cap. 2. F. N. B. 74. F. Dalt 273. Certiorari removed into the Kings-Bench where the Plaintiff declared as aforesaid c. Dorrington avowed the taking c. and Temple was Non-suited and thereupon a Retorn ' Habend ' was awarded to the Sheriff who returned elongat ' c. Then a Sci. Fa. was brought against the Pledges upon the Statute of Westm 2. which provides that where Lords upon Replevins cannot obtain Justice in Inferiour Courts against their Tenants when such Lords are attached at their Tenants Suits they may have a Recordari to remove the Plea before the Justices c. and the Sheriff shall not only take Pledges of the Plaintiff to prosecute his Suit but also to return the Cattle if a Return be awarded c. The Defendants appeared and prayed Oyer of the Certiorari which was returned by the Mayor and Sheriffs only without the Aldermen And upon a Demurrer the Question was Whether a Scire Facias will lie against them by virtue of this Statute they being only Pledges in Replevin brought by Pleint without Writ This Case was argued by Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendants And for the Defendants it was said that they could not be charged by this Scire Facias because the Pleint was removed by Certiorari and thereby the Plaintiff Dorrington had lost the benefit he had against the Pledges in the Sheriffs Court This Case was compared to other Actions in inferior Courts which if removed by Habeas Corpus the Bail below are discharged of course By the Common Law there were no Pledges of Retorn ' habend Dyer 246. for before this Statute the Sheriff could not make a Replevin without the King 's Writ Now he hath power to take Pledges but if he will make deliverance of the Goods ad querelam alicujus sine brevi the fault is still in him for he may * Dalt 434. compel the Party to bring a Writ and then the Pledges will be liable because it will appear who they are And therefore it hath been adjudged Cro. Car. 446. that where a Replevin is brought by Writ the Sheriff cannot make deliverance without taking Pledges because if the Plaintiff should recover he hath a remedy against them by Scire Facias but if he recover upon a Replevin brought by Pleint Cro. Car. 594. the Iudgment shall not be avoided by assigning the want of Pledges for Error because in such Case the Sheriff is not by Law obliged to take Pledges 2. This Scire Facias is brought too soon for there ought to go an Alias Pluries Retorn ' habend before the Return of Elongata and then and not before the Scire Facias is properly brought The Pledges are answerable E contra and the Scire Facias is well brought and this grounded upon the Statute of W. 2. which directs Pledges to be taken before the delivery of the Goods It takes notice that Replevins were sued in inferior Courts by the Tenants against their Lords who had distrained for Rents due for Services or Customs and that such Lords could not have Iustice done in those Courts and therefore to remedy this mischief the Statute gives the Writ Recordare c. to remove the Pleint before the Iustices and because such Tenants after they had replevied their Cattle did usually
sell them so that a Retorn could not be made to the Party distraining therefore it directs that the Sheriff shall take Pledges for returning the Beasts if a Return should be awarded which would be to little purpose if such Pledges were not liable upon the Retorn of Elongar Now as to the removing of the Pleint by Certiorari that makes the Case more strong in the Plaintiffs behalf because the Record it self una cum omnibus ea tangen is removed but by an Habeas Corpus the person is only removed and the Court hath thereby a Iurisdiction over his Cause which the inferior Court hath lost because it hath lost his Person 2. This Scire Facias is not brought too soon as hath been objected for 't is in vain to bring an Alias Pluries after the Sheriff had returned Elongat ' 't is like the common Case where a Scire Facias is brought against the Bail and Non est inventus is returned after which there never was an Alias or Pluries Capias And afterwards in Michaelmas-Term following Iudgment was given that the Pledges are liable Palmer versus Allicock BY the Statute of Distribution of Intestates Estates 't is provided 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. That in case there be no Wife then the Estate of the Husband dying intestate shall be distributed equally amongst the Children and if no Child then to the next of Kin of the Intestate in equal degree and to those who legally represent them A Man died intestate having no Wife at the time of his death and but one Child who was an Infant afterwards Administration was granted of the Fathers Estate durante minore aetate of the Child who died before the Age of seventeen Then Administration was granted by a peculiar to the next of Kin of the Infant and an Appeal was brought in the Arches by the next of Kin of the Father to revoke that Administration In a Prohibition the Question was Whether Administration de bonis non c. of the first Intestate shall be granted to the next of Kin of the Father or the Child Mr. Pollexfen argued this Term for the Plaintiff in the Prohibition viz. That the Statute gives a power to the Ordinary to take Bonds of such persons to whom Administration is committed the Forms of which Bonds are expressed in the Act and the Conditions are to make a true and perfect Inventory and to exhibit it into the Registry He hath also a power to distribute what remains after Debts Funeral Charges and Expences Thus the Law stands now Then as to the Case at the Barr three things are to be considered 1. If a Man dies intestate leaving two Sons and no Wife each hath a Moiety of his personal Estate immediately vested in him so that if one Brother should afterwards die intestate the other shall have the whole 2. If an Interest be vested in two then by this Statute the like Interest is vested in one so that if he die Intestate his Administrator shall have the Estate 3. If so then the consequence will be that in this case Administration de bonis non of the first Intestate shall go to the next of Kin of the Infant By Interest is meant a Right to sue for a share after Debts paid which Interest every person hath in a chose in action As if a Man doth covenant with two that they shall have such an Estate after Debts paid an Interest vests in them by this Covenant and if they die it goes to their Executors such also is the Interest of every Residuary Legatee Now if any of them die before the Residue can be distributed the Wife or Children of him so dying shall have it And to make this more clear it will be necessary to consider how the Law stood before the making of this Act. At the Common Law neither the Wife Child or next of Kin had any Right to a Share of the Intestates Estate but the Ordinary was to distribute it according to his Conscience to pious Vses and sometimes the Wife and Children might be amongst the number of those whom he appointed to receive it but the Law entrusted him with the sole disposition of it 2 Inst 399. Afterward by the Statute of Westm 13 E. 1. c. 19. 2. he was bound to pay the Intestate's Debts so far as he had Assets which at the Common Law he was not bound to do and an Action of Debt would then and not before Pl. Com. 277. Greisbrook versus Fox lie against him if he did alien the Goods and not pay the Debts Then the Statute of * 31 E. 1. c. 11. 31 E. 1. was made by which he was impowred to grant Admstration to the next of Kin and most lawful Friend of the Intestate 1 Inst 133. b. 2 Inst 397. 9 Co. Hensloes Case and by this Statute the person to whom Administration was committed might have an Action to recover the Intestate's Estate for at the Common Law he had no remedy But then afterwards the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. Enacts That the Ordinary shall grant Administration to the Widow or next of Kin of the person deceased or to both and this was the first Law which gave any Interest to the Wife to whom Administration being once granted the power of the Ordinary was determined Hob. 83. 1 Cro. 62 202. and he could not repeal it at his pleasure as he might at the Common Law But after the making of this Statute many mischiefs did still remain because the Administration being once committed the person to whom it was granted had the whole Estate and the rest of the Relations of the deceased were undone and therefore if his Children were under Age or beyond the Seas and a Stranger had got Administration it would have been a Bar to them And thus it continued many years the Ordinary still making distribution as he thought fit taking only a Bond from the person to whom he granted Administration for the purposes aforesaid and sometimes to dispose the Surplus after Debts and Legacies as he should direct and no Prohibition was granted to remedy these inconveniences till about the 12th year of King James the First Hob. 83. But now by this Act a good remedy is provided against these mischiefs and 't is such which takes away the Causes thereof which is that the Administrator shall not have the whole Estate but that a Distribution shall be made The Title of the Act shews the meaning thereof to be for the better Settlement of Intestates Estates and the Body of it shews how Distribution shall be made so that such Bonds which were usually given by the Administrator before this Law to make Distribution as the Ordinary should direct are now taken away and other Forms are prescribed and there can be no remedy taken upon such new Bonds till the Ordinary hath appointed the Distribution so that in effect this Act makes the Will
of a person dying intestate and tells what share his Relations shall have and 't is probable that the Custom of London might guide the Parliament in the making of this Law which Custom distributes the Estate of a Freeman amongst his Wife and Children This shews that an Interest is vested in them which goes to the Administrator the consequence whereof is very considerable for if such Children should marry they have a Security by this Act that a Portion shall be paid and if the Wife should take another Husband he will be entituled to her share and this may be a means of giving credit in the World when the certainty of their Portions are so well known and secured 'T is such an Interest which is known in the Law and may be compared to that in Sir Thomas Palmer's Case 5 Co. 24. who sold 1600 Cord of Wood to a Man who assigned it to another and afterwards the Vendor sold 2000 Cord to one Maynard to be taken at his Election the Assignee of the first person cutt 600 Cord and Maynard carried it away thereupon an Action was brought and the Plaintiff had Iudgment because the first Vendee had an Interest vested in him which he might well assign This Case is a plain proof that a Man may have an Interest in a Chattle without a Property and such an Interest which gives the person a remedy to recover and where there is a remedy there must be a Right for they are convertibles 'T is not a new thing in the Law that a contingent Interest in the Ancestor shall survive to the Heir Wood's Case cited in Shelleys Case 1 Co. 99. as if a Man be seized of the Mannor of S. and covenants that when B. shall make a Feoffment to him of the Mannor of D. then he will stand seized of the said Mannor of S. to the use of the Covenantee and his Heirs who dyed leaving Issue an Heir who was then an Infant B. made a Feoffment to the Covenantor accordingly it was held that no Right descended to the Heir of the Covenantee but only a possibility of an Vse which might have vested in the Ancestor and therefore the Heir shall claim it by descent 'T is like a Debt to be paid at a day to come Lit. Sect. 512. which is debitum in praesenti though solvendum in futuro and though the Obligee cannot have an Action before the day is come yet such an Interest is vested in him that he may release it before that day and so bar himself for ever Now if this Act makes a Will it ought to be construed as such and it cannot be denied that if this Case had happened upon a Will the Executor of the Son would have a very good Title 'T is a weak Objection to affirm that this Law was made to establish the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts and that 't is only explanatory of the Statutes of Ed. 3. and H. 8. because 't is plainly introductory of a new Law for Distribution is now made otherwise than it was before 2. An Interest is vested where there is but one Child For the better understanding of this Point the Clause in the Act ought to be considered which is viz. If there be no Wife then to be distributed amongst the Children if no Child then to the next of Kin of the Intestate upon which Clause these Objections have been made Object 1. That 't is insignificant because the Statute of H. 8. gives the right of Administration to the Child 2. That Distribution cannot be made where there is but one 3. That this Clause ought to be construed according to the Law in the Spiritual Courts Answ Now as to the first Objection 't is true that before this Act the Child had a Right of Administration but that Right was only personal so that if he had died before he had administred his Executor or Administrator could not have it Besides many inconveniences did attend this personal Right of Administration which are now prevented by the vesting of an Interest For when the Right was personal and the Administrator gave Bond with Sureties to administer truly and the Ordinary had appointed Distribution to be made the Administrator was bound to perform it though not in equal degree and if he died before the Estate was got in it was lost for ever But now by this Clause Distribution must be made equally viz. one third part of the Surplus to the Wife the rest by equal portions to the Children so that what was very incertain before and almost at the Will of the Ordinary is now reduced to a certainty and therefore an Interest must vest in such persons to whom such equal Distributions of filial Portions are given 2. Object That Distribution cannot be made where there is but one Child Answ This also is true in propriety of Speech and taking the Word distribute in the strict sense But this was never intended by the Statute as may plainly appear upon the construction of the whole for the Word Children doth comprehend a Child and more and the form of the Bond directed by this Statute is that the Administrator shall deliver the Goods to such person and persons c. which shews that one is comprehended and therefore Distribuere in this Case is no more than Tribuere and must be so taken The Parliament never intended that Distribution should not be made where there is but one Child as may be easily collected from the reason of the thing and the inconveniences which would ensue 1st If a Man should die leaving a Wife and one Child the Wife would be entituled to one third and the Child to the other two thirds of the personal Estate now if the Child shall have two thirds being comprehended under the Word Children what reason can be given why he should not have the whole where there is no Wife which he could not have if the Word Children did not comprehend Child in this Case 2dly If a Man hath a personal Estate to the value of 2000 l. and dieth leaving Issue three Sons but hath in his life time made provision for the second Son to the value of 1000 l. the eldest Son dies intestate shall the youngest be totally excluded from the remaining 1000 l. because there is none left to have distribution his second Brother being preferred in the life time of his Father by an equal portion with what remains 3dly If the Father hath a Son married and two Brothers and dies intestate now if his Estate should not be vested in the Son then if he should also die intestate his Wife could have nothing but it would go to the Vncles and this would be a very hard construction of this Law to carry the Estate to the Vncles and their Executors from the Son and his Administrator But there is a Case which proves that a Child is intended by the Word Children 8 Co 96. 't is between Amner
general as this Case There are many instances where Breaches have been generally assigned and held ill that in Croke is so but the later Opinions are otherwise Affirmetur Judicium Pye versus Brereton A Lease was made of Tythes for three years rendring Rent at Michaelmas and Lady-day and an Action of Debt was brought for Rent arrear for two years Vpon Nil debet pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict and it was now moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration was too general for the Rent being reserved at two Feasts 2 Cro. 668. the Plaintiff ought to have shewed at which of those Feasts it was due But the Council for the Plaintiff said That it appears by the Declaration that two years of the three were expired so there is but one to come which makes it certain enough Curia This is helped by the Verdict but it had not been good upon a Demurrer DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. MEmorandum That in Trinity-Vacation last died Sir Francis North Baron of Guilford and Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England at his House in Oxfordshire being a Man of great Learning and Temperance And Sir George Jefferies Baron of Wem and Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench had the Seal delivered to him at Windsor and was thereupon made Lord High Chancellor of England And Sir Edward Herbert one of the Kings Council succeeded him in the Place of Chief Justice There died also this Vacation Sir Thomas Walcott one of the Justices of the Kings-Bench and he was succeeded by Sir Robert Wright one of the Barons of the Exchequer Sir John Newton al' versus Stubbs IN an Action on the Case for Words Words laid to be spoke ad tenorem effectmu sequen ' not good The Plaintiffs declared that they were Iustices of the Peace for the County of Gloucester c. and that the Defendant spake these scandalous Words of them Viz. Sir John Newton and Mr. Meredith make use of the Kings Commission to worrie Men out of their Estates postea eodem die c. they spoke these words Viz. Sir John Newton and Mr. Meredith make use of the Kings Commission to worrie me and Mr. Creswick out of our Estates And afterwards these words were laid in Latin without an Anglice ad tenorem effectum sequen ' c. There was a Verdict for the Plaintiffs and entire damages and now Mr. Trindar moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. That the words in the Declaration are laid in Latin Roll. Abr. 74. pl. 2. without an Anglice and without an Averment that the hearers did understand Latin 2. 'T is not expressly alledged that the Defendant spoke those very words for being laid ad tenorem effectum sequen ' something may be omitted which may alter the sense and meaning of them Cro. Eliz. 857. and for this very reason Iudgment was staied though the Court held the words to be actionable Rex versus Ayloff al' THey were Outlawed for High-Treason Treason and on Tuesday the 27th day of October they were brought to the Bar and a Rule of Court was made for their Execution on Fryday following The Chief Iustice said that there was no hardship in this proceeding to a Sentence upon an Outlawry because those Malefactors who wilfully flie from Iustice and a new Crime to their former Offence and therefore ought to have no benefit of the Law for tho' a Man is Guilty yet if he put himself upon his Tryal he may by his submissive Behaviour and shew of Repentance incline the King to mercy In Felonies which are of a lower nature than the Crimes for which these persons are attainted flight even for an Hour is a forfeiture of the Goods of the Criminal so likewise a Challenge to three Iuries is a defiance to Iustice and if that be so then certainly flying from it is both despising the mercy of the King and contemning the Iustice of the Nation They were both Executed on Frday the 30th of October following Dominus Rex versus Colson al' AN Information was exhibited against the Defendants Information for a Riot not good setting forth that they with others did riotously assemble themselves together to divert a Watercourse and that they set up a Bank in a certain place by which the Water was hindred from running to an antient Mill in so plentifull a manner as formerly c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded it came to a Tryal and the Iury found that Quoad factionem Ripae the Defendants were Guilty and quoad Riotum not Guilty And now Mr. Williams moved in arrest of Iudgment because that by this Verdict the Defendants were acquitted of the charge in the Information which was the Riot and as for the erecting of the Bank an Action on the Case would lie and the Iudgment was accordingly arrested Mason versus Beldham Trin. 1 Jac. Rot. 408. THE Plaintiff brings his Action against the Defendant Quantum meruit will lie for Rent and sets forth That in consideration that he would suffer the Defendant to enjoy a House and three Water-Mills c. he promised to pay so much yearly as they were reasonably worth and avers that they were worth so much And upon a Demurrer the Question was whether this Action would lie for Rent It was argued for the Defendant that it would not lie Cro. Eliz. 242. 786 859. 2 Cro. 668. because it was a real Contract 'T is true there is a Case which seems to be otherwise 't is between Acton and Symonds Cro. Car. 414. which was in consideration that the Plaintiff would demise to the Defendant certain Lands for three years at the Rent of 25 l. by the year he promised to pay it this was held to be a personal Promise grounded upon a real Contract and by the Opinion of three Iudges the Action did lie because there was an express promise alledged which must also be proved But Iustice Croke was of a contrary Opinion Mr. Pollexfen contra If a Lease be made for years reserving a Sum in gross for Rent and which is made certain by the Lease in such case an Action of Debt will lie for the Rent in arrear But if where no Sum certain is reserved as in this Case a Quantum meruit will lie and no reason can be given why a Man may not have such an Action for the Rent of his Land as well as for his Horse or Chamber And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus THere was a Libel in the Spiritual Court for scandalous Words Prohibition for words where some are actionable and others not Viz. She is Bitch a Whore an old Bawd And a Prohibition was now prayed by Mr. Pollexfen because some of the words were actionable at Law and some punishable in the Spiritual Court and therefore prayed that it might go Quoad those words which were actionable at Law The Chief Iustice granted
that is to make them Iudges whether this Duty is payable or not and so the Courts of Westminster who are the proper Iudges of the Revenue of the King who by this means will be without an Appeal will be excluded Curia This Court may take Cognizance of this Matter as well as in Cases of Bastardy 't is frequent to remove those Orders into this Court though the Act says That the two next Justices may take order as well for the punishment of the Mother as also for the relief of the Parish where it was born except he give Security to appear the next Quarter Sessions The Statute doth not mention any Certiorari which shews that the intention of the Law-makers was that a Certiorari might he brought otherwise they would have enacted as they have done by several other Statutes that no Certiorari shall lie Therefore the meaning of the Act must be that the determination of the Iustices of the Peace shall be final in Matters of Fact only as if a Collector should affirm that a person hath four Chimnies when he hath but two or when the Goods distrained are sold under the value and the Overplus not returned but the Right of the Duty arising by virtue of this Act was never intended to be determined by them Then the Order was filed and Mr. Pollexfen moved that it might be quashed for that by the Statute of 14 Car. 2. 14 Car. 2. c. 10. the Occupier was only chargeable and the Land-Lord exempted Now by the Proviso in that Act such a Cottage as is expressed in this Order is likewise exempted because 't is not of greater value than 20 s. by the year and 't is not expressed that the person inhabiting the same hath any Lands of his own of the value of 20 s. per annum nor any Lands or Goods to the value of 10 l. Now there having been several abuses made of this Law to deceive the King of this Duty occasioned the making of this subsequent Act. The abuses were these viz. The taking a great House and dividing it into several Tenements and then letting them to Tenants who by reason of their poverty might pretend to be exempted from this Duty The dividing Lands from Houses so that the King was by these Practices deceived and therefore in such Cases the charge was laid upon the Land-Lord but nothing of this appearing upon the Order it was therefore quashed Brett versus Whitchot IN Replevin Lands not exempted from repairing of the High-ways by grant of the King The Defendant avowed the taking of a Cup as a Fine for a Distress towards the repairing of the High-way The Plaintiff replyed and set forth a Grant from the King by which the Lands which were chargeable to send Men for the repairing c. were exempted from that Duty And upon a Demurrer the Question was Whether the Kings Letters Patents are sufficient to exempt Lands from the Charge of the repairing of the High-ways 2 3 Ph. Mar. c. 8. which by the Statute of Philip and Mary and other subsequent Statutes are chargeable to send Men for that purpose And it was argued that such Letters Patents were not sufficient because they were granted in this Case before the making of the Statute and so by consequence before any cause of Action and to prove this a Case was cited to this purpose In 2 E. 2 Inst 569. 3. an Action was brought against an Hundred for a Robbery upon the Statute of 13 E. 1. The Bishop of Litchfield pleaded a Charter of R. 1. by which that Hundred which was held in Right of his Church was exempted c. But it was held that this Charter could not discharge the Action because no such Action was given when the Letters Patents were made but long afterwards Iudgment was given for the Avowant Upton versus Dawkin TRespass quare vi armis liberam piscariam he did break and enter and one hundred Trouts ipsius Quer. Trespass for taking Fish ipsius querentis in libera piscaria not good in the Fishery aforesaid did take and carry away Vpon Not guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment viz. For that the Plaintiff declared in Trespass for taking so many Fish ipsius Quer. in libera piscaria which cannot be because he hath not such a property in libera piscaria to call the Fish his own Pollexfen contra If there had not been a Verdict such a Construction might have been made of this Declaration upon a Demurrer but now 't is helped and the rather because a Man may call them pisces ipsius in a free Fishery for they may be in a Trunk so a Man may have a property though not in himself as in the Case of Iointenants where 't is not in one but in both yet if one declare against the other unless he plead the Iointenancy in Abatement the Plaintiff shall recover But notwithstanding the Iudgment was reversed Dominus Rex versus ...... THE Defendant was indicted for Barretry Barretry the Evidence against him was that one G. was arrested at the Suit of C. in an Action of 4000 l. and was brought before a Iudge to give Bail to the Action and that the Defendant who was a Barrister at Law was then present and did sollicite this Suit when in truth at the same time C. was indebted to G. in 200 l. and that he did not owe the said C. one farthing The Chief Iustice was first of Opinion that this might be Maintenance but that it was not Barretry unless it appeared that the Defendant did know that C. had no cause of Action after it was brought If a Man should be arrested for a trifling Cause or for no Cause this is no Barretry though 't is a sign of a very ill Christian it being against the express Word of God But a Man may arrest another thinking he hath a just cause so to do when as in truth he hath none for he may be mistaken especially where there hath been great dealings between the Parties But if the design was not to recover his own Right but only to ruine and oppress his Neighbour that is Barretry A Man may lay out mony in behalf of another in Suits at Law to recover a just Right and this may be done in respect of the Poverty of the Party but if he lend mony to promote and stirr up Suits then he is a Barretor Now it appearing upon the Evidence that the Defendant did entertain C. in his House and brought several Actions in his Name where nothing was due that he was therefore guilty of that Crime But if an Action be first brought and then profecuted by another he is no Barretor though there is no cause of Action The Defendant was found guilty DE Termino Paschae Anno 2 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686. Coram Edwardo Herbert Mil ' Capital ' Justic
the one took 70 l. and the other 30 l. damages shall be assessed severally It was admitted that regularly the damages ought to be entire especially where the Action is joint but where the Facts are several damages may likewise be so assessed but in this Case the Iury hath done what the Court would do had it béen in a Criminal Cause Curia This is all but one Fact which the Iury is to try 'T is true when several Persons are found Guilty criminally then the damages may be severed in proportion to their Guilt but here all are equally guilty of the same offence and it seems to be a contradiction to say that the Plaintiff is injured by one to the value of 50 l. and by the other to the value of 1000 l. when both are equally Guilty Every Defendant ought to answer full as much as the Plaintiff is damnified now how is it possible he should be damnified so much by one and so little by the other But notwithstanding this Opinion Iudgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff Peak versus Meker IN an Action on the Case for Words the Plaintiff declared that he was a Merchant and bred up in the Church of England and that when the present King came to the Crown the said Plaintiff made a Bonfire at his Door in the City of London and that the Defendant then spoke of him these words for which he now brought this Action viz. He innuendo the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his Door but he The Plaintiff had a Verdict and 500 l. Damages were given A Writ of Error was brought but it was adjudged without argument that the words were actionable Joyner versus Pritchard AN Action was brought upon the Statute of R. II. Admiralty for prosecuting of a Cause in the Admiralty Court which did arise upon the Land it was tried before the Chief Iustice in London and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mr. Thompson moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Action was brought by Original in which it was set forth that the Defendant prosecut fuit adhuc prosequitur c. in Curia Admiralitat now the prosequitur is subsequent to the Original and so they have recovered Damages for that which was done after the Action brought Curia These words adhuc prosequitur must refer to the time of suing forth this Original like the Case of a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and a breach assigned that the Defendant built a Shed whereby he hindred the Plaintiff that he could not enjoy it hucnsque which word must refer to the time of the Action brought and not afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dominus Rex versus ........ AN Information was brought against the Defendant for Forgery Forgery setting forth that the Defendant being a man of ill fame c. and contriving to cheat one A. did forge quoddam scriptum dated the 16th day of October in the year 1681. continens in se scriptum obligatorium per quod quidem scriptum obligatorium praed A. obligatus fuit praed Defend in quadraginta libris c. He was found Guilty and afterwards this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment Viz. That the Fact alledged in the Information was a contradiction of it self for how could A. be bound when the Bond was forged 2. It is not set forth what that scriptum obligatorium was whether it was scriptum sigillatum or not Curia The Defendant is found Guilty of the forging of a Writing in which was contained quoddam scriptum obligatorium and that may be a true Bond. Iudgment was arrested MEMORANDUM On Tuesday April the 27th Sir Thomas Powes of Lincolns-Inn was made Sollicitor General in the Place of Mr. Finch and was called within the Bar. Hanchet versus Thelwal IN Ejectment a special Verdict was found Devise What words in a Will make an Estate for Life and what in Tail in which the Case did arise upon the construction of the words in a Will Viz. The Testator being seised in Fee had Issue Two Sons and Four Daughters He made his Will and devised his Estate being in Houses by these words Viz. Irem I give and bequeath to my Son Nicholas Price my Houses in Westminster and if itplease God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters naming them share and share alike and if it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give my said Houses to my Sister Anne Warner and her Heirs Nicholas Price entred and died without Issue then the four Sisters entred and Margaret the eldest married Thellwel and died leaving Issue a Son who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff who insisted upon his Title to a fourth part of the Houses The Question was what Estate the Daughters took by this Will whether joint Estates for Life or several Remainders in Tail If only joint Estates for Life then the Plaintiff as Heir to his Mother will not be entituled to a fourth part if several Remainders in Tail then the Father will have it during his Life as Tenant by the Curtesie This Case was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff And in Hillary Term following by Councel for the Defendant The Plaintiffs Council insisted that they took joint Estates for Life and this seemed to be the intent of the Testator by the words in his Will the first Clause whereof was Viz. I give and bequeath my Houses in W. to Nicholas Price Now by these words an Estate for Life only passed to him and not an Inheritance for there was nothing to be done or any thing to be paid out of it 2. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters share and share alike Now these words cannot give the Daughters a Fee-simple by any intendment whatsoever but if any word in this Clause seems to admit of such a Construction it must be the word Estate which sometimes signifies the Land it self and sometimes the Estate in the Land But here the word Estate cannot create a Fee-simple because the Testator gave his Daughters that Estate which he had given to his Son before and that was only for Lise Then follow the words share and share alike and that only makes them Tenants in Common 3. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving These words as they are penned can have no influence upon the Case 4. Then followeth the last Clause Viz. And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give c. These words create no Estate tail in the
Paper Book by the then Attorny General but by reason of a stroak cross them the Clerk omitted them in engrossing the Iudgment But upon a Motion the Court held this amendable at the Common Law Curia The Error is only a Misentry of the Writ of Enquiry and amendable without paying of Costs Mr. Aston the Secondary said that Costs were never paid in this Court upon such Amendments nor in the Common Pleas until my Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan's time but he altered the Practice and made that Rule that if you amend after a Writ of Error brought you must pay Costs Holcomb versus Petit. A Devastavit was brought against an Administrator of a rightful Executor who pleaded an insufficient Plea Administrator of a rightful ful Executor is liable to a Devastavit 30 Car. 2. c. 7. and upon a Demurrer the Question was upon the Statute of 30 Car. 2. The Title whereof is An Act to enable Creditors to recover Debts of Executors and Administrators of Executors in their own wrong which is introductory of a new Law and charges those who were not chargeable before at the Common Law but it enacts That when Executors of persons who are Executors de son tort or Administrators shall convert the Goods of any person deceased that they shall be liable as their Testator or Intestate would have been Gold held that he shall not be charged for where an Act of Parliament charges an Executor in such case an Administrator shall be likewise charged but if an Administrator be charged that shall never extend to an Executor The Rule is A majori ad minus valet Argumentum sed non e contra therefore the rightful Executor shall not be charged by this Act which only makes Executors of Executors de son tort lyable Pollexfen contra There can be no reason given why the Act should make an Administrator of an Administrator lyable to a Devastavit and not an Administrator of an Executor de son tort for the mischief will be the same and therefore a rightful Executor who wasts the Testator's Goods ought to be charged The Recital of this Act is large enough the Preamble is general and the enacting Clause expresseth Executors and Administrators of Executors de son tort but then it also mentions Administrators but not such who are their Administrators de son tort Now the Word Administrator is in it self a general Word and extends to any one who meddles with the personal Estate so that the Preamble being general and the Act remedial 't is within the same mischief Curia The Word Administrator is very comprehensive for when an Executor pleadeth he saith Plene administravit If a rightful Executor waste the Goods he is a kind of an Administrator de son tort for abusing of the Trust There is no Superiority between an Executor or an Administrator for by this Act they are both equal in power as to the Goods of the deceased Iudgment was given that the Administrator of the rightful Executor shall be liable Jenings versus Hankeys 'T IS enacted by the Statute of 13 Car. Where an Informer shall be a Witness though he hath part of the Penalty 13 Car. 2. c. 10. 2. That they who kill course hunt or take away Red or Fallow Deer in any Ground where Deer are kept c. or are aiding therein if such are convicted by Confession or Oath of one Witness before one Justice of the Peace within six Months after the Offence done shall forfeit 20 l. one Moiety to the Informer the other to the Owner of the Deer to be levied by Distress by Warrant under the Justice's Hand The Defendant was convicted by the Oath of the Informer and Mr. Shower moved that it might be quashed because the Informer is not to be admitted as a Witness he being to have a Moiety of the Forfeiture The Party to an usurious Contract shall not be admitted as an Evidence to prove the Vsury 12 Co. 68. 2 Rol. Abr. 685 because he is Testis in propria causa and by their Oath may avoid their own Bonds Mr. Pollexfen contra The Statute gives power to convict by the Oath of a credible Witness and such is the Informer 'T is not a material Objection to say That the Informer shall not be a Witness because he hath a Moiety of the Forfeiture for in Cases of the like nature the Informer is always a good Witness As upon the Statute for suppressing of Conventicles the Informer is a good Witness and yet he hath part of the Penalty for otherwise that Act would be of little force for if who sees the People met together be not a good Witness no Body else can Curia In the Statute of Robberies a Man swears for himself because there can be no other Witness he is a good Witness Harman versus Harman DEBT upon a Bond against an Administrator Notice of a Debt must be given to an Administrator who pleaded Fully administred and that he had not notice of this Bond before such a day In this Case a special Verdict was found upon which the Question was Whether Notice was necessary to be given of Debts of an inferior nature The Court gave no Opinion but they agreed that a Iudgment upon a simple Contract may be pleaded in Barr to an Action of Debt upon a Bond and that 't is no Devastavit in an Executor to pay a Debt upon such a Contract before a Bond Debt Vaughan 94. of which he had no Notice So where an Obligor did afterwards enter into a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute 2 Anders 159. 1 Mod. 157. and Iudgment was against him upon the Bond and then he dyed his Executrix paid the Creditor upon the Statute and the Obligee brought a Scire Facias upon the Judgment on the Bond Debt and she pleaded payment of the Recognizance this was held a good Plea for she is not bound to take Notice of the Iudgments against the Testator without being acquainted therewith by his Creditors for she is in no wise privy to his Acts. DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 2 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686. Anonymus AN Information was exhibited against the Defendant for Perjury Perjury in a Deposition taken before Commissioners in Chancery setting forth that a Bill in Chancery was exhibited by one A. B. and the Proceedings thereon The Perjury was assigned in a Deposition made by the Defendant 30 Julii 1683. and taken in that Cause before Commissioners in the Country It was tried this day at the Barr and the Question was Whether the Return of the Commissioners that the Defendant made Oath before them shall be a sufficient Evidence to convict him of Perjury without their being present in Court to prove him the very same person Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendant admitted an Information will lie in this Case against him but the Commissioners must be here or some other person to prove that he was
Release or Confirmation and then his Council should advise what sort of Conveyance is proper But here it is to make an Assignment and such as the Parties had agreed on If a Man should be bound to give another such a Release as the Iudge of the Prerogative Court shall think fit 5 Co. 23. Lambs Case 1 Rol. Abr. 424. pl. 8. the person who is so bound must procure the Iudge to direct what Release shall be given because the Condition is for his benefit and he hath taken upon him to perform it at his Peril 'T is usual for Men to have Council on both sides to put their Agreements into method but in this Case it being left generally as Council shall direct what reason can be given why the Defendants Council shall not be intended especially when it seems by the penning of the Covenant he shall For an Assignment is to be made as Council shall direct and here being a Verdict for the Plaintiff it must now be presumed that the Defendants Council was first to give the advice and then he was to make the Assignment E contra E contra It was argued that first as to the Verdict 't is not materially objected in this Case because the Plea is non est factum so that nothing of the special matter could come in Evidence Now admitting this Covenant to be general yet one of the Parties must make his choice of Council before he can entitle himself to an Action All Deeds are taken according to the general intendment and therefore by this Covenant his Council is to advise to whom the Assignment is to be made 3 Bulstr 168. for if the Council of the Defendant should advise an insufficient Deed that would not have saved his Covenant Befides the Plaintiff hath not averred that Council did not advise and therefore the Defendant could not plead any thing but non est factum Adjornatur Anonymus A Pleint was removed out of the Lord Mayors Court by Habeas Corpus the Return whereof was Exceptions to a By-Law that the City of London was an ancient City Incorporate and that time out of mind there was a Custom that the Portage and unlading of all Coals and Grain coming thither should belong to the Mayor and Aldermen c. That there was a Custom for them to regulate any Custom within the City c. Then they set forth an Act of Common-Council by which the Porters of Billingsgate were made a Fellowship and that the Meeters of Corn should from time to time give notice to the Porters to unlade such Corn as should arrive there and that no Bargeman not being Free of the said Fellowship shall unlade any Corn upon the Forfeiture of 20 s. to be recovered in an Action brought in the Name of the Chamberlain and that the Party offending shall have no Essoign or Wager of Law Then they set forth the Iudgment in the Quo Warranto and the re-grant and that the Defendant not being of the said Fellowship did unlade one hundred Quarters of Malt c. Serjeant Thompson took many Exceptions to this By Law but the most material were 1. It appears upon the Return that the City of London hath assumed an Authority to create a Fellowship by Act of Common Council which they cannot for 't is a Prerogative of the Crown so to do and they have not averred or shewed any special Custom to warrant such an Authority 2. They have made this By-Law too general for if a Man should carry and unlade his own Goods there he is lyable to the Forfeiture in which Case he ought to be excepted 3. This Act of Common Council prohibits Bargemen not being Free of the Fellowship of Porters to unlade any Coals or Grain arriving there and they have not averred that the Malt unladed did arrive c. so they have not pursued the words of the By-Law 4. They say in this Law Godb. 107. that the person offending shall have no Essoign or Wager of Law which is a Parliamentary Power and such as an inferiour Iurisdiction ought not to assume Adjornatur Beak versus Thyrwhit THere was a Sentence in the Court of Admiralty Whether Trover will lie for a Ship after Sentence in Admiralty for the same Ship concerning the Taking of a Ship and afterwards an Executrix brought an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same The Defendant after an Imparlance pleads that at the time of the Conversion he was a Servant to King Charles the Second and a Captain of a Man of War called the Phoenix and that he did seize the said Ship for the Governour of the East-India Company she going in a trading Voiage to the Indies contrary to the King's Prohibition c. And upon a Demurrer these Exceptions were taken to this Plea 1. The Defendant sets forth that he was a Servant to the King but hath not shewed his Commission to be a Captain of a Man of War 2. That he seized the Ship going to the Indies contrary to the King's Prohibition and hath not set forth the Prohibition it self It was Argued by the Council contra That it may be a Question whether this was the Conversion for which this Action is brought for it was upon the Sea and the Defendant might plead to the Iuisdiction of this Court the Matter being then under the Cognizance of the Admiralty But as to the Substance of this Plea 't is not material for the Defendant either to set forth his Commission or the King's Prohibition he hath shewed enough to entitle the Court of Admiralty to a Iurisdiction of this Cause and therefore this Court cannot meddle with it for he expresly affirmeth that he was a Captain of a Man of War and did seize this Ship c. which must be intended upon the Sea so that the Conversion might afterwards be upon the Land Cro. Eliz. 685. yet the original cause arising upon the Sea shall and must be tried in the Admiralty and it having already received a determination there shall not again be controverted in an Action of Trover The Case of Mr. 3 Keb. 785. Hutchinson was cited to this purpose who killed Mr. Colson in Portugal and was acquitted there of the Murder the Exemplification of which Acquittal he woduced under the great Seal of that Kingdom being brought from Newgate by an Habeas Corpus to this Court notwithstanding the King was very willing to have him tried here for that Fact the consideration whereof he referred to the Iudges who all agreed that he being already acquitted by their Law could not be tryed again here Adjornatur Smith versus Pierce A Special Verdict was found in Ejectment A Term for years was devised for payment of Debts the Remainder over in Tail he in Remainder enters and levies a Fine and settles the Land upon his Wife for life and dies the Wife surviving and the Debts not paid whether this Term is barred by
Defendant Elizabeth The Question in which Case was whether by the Entry of the Son who was Tenant at Will and his making of this Lease the Father was disseised of the Freehold And it was held not for it was found in that Verdict that he occupying at Will and entring by his Fathers Assent the Lease was also intended to be made by his Assent But on the other side it was said that this Fine was a Barr by the express Words of the Statute of H. 7. E contra which excludes in all Cases but where there is Fraud or the person is incapable 4 H. 7. c. 24. or where the Right to be barred is not divested In this Case John Basket had an Interest and present Right and though it be closed with a Trust yet that will not make any difference 1. Cro. Car. 550. 10 Co. 56. Here is no Fraud for the Fine was levyed by Tenant in Tail in possession but if there had been Fraud it ought to be found otherwise it shall not be presumed This is not like Blunden's Case for there the Son was Tenant at Will but 't is not found by this Verdict that John occupied at Will There is no difference between this Term and a Trust of a Term to attend the Inheritance whose Interest shall be barred by such a Fine and Nonclaim because the Trust is included in the Fine and therefore the Trustees not making of their Claim within the five years are for ever excluded It cannot be denied but a Term for years is such an Interest which may be barred by Fine 5 Co. 123. 't is Saffin's Case expresly which was a Lease for years to commence in futuro after a Lease then in being should be determined the first Lease ended the second Lessee did not enter but the Reversioner did and made a Feoffment and levyed a Fine and five years passed without Entry or Claim by the second Lessee it was adjudged that this Fine was a Barr to him for when his future Interest commenced then and not before he had such a present Interest in the Land which might be divested and turned to a Right To which it was answered that this differs from Saffin's Case which was an interesse Termini and the Case of Alport which was an Executory Devise If John Basket had still continued in Possession it might have altred the Case but he died and his Wife entred and then the five years passed without any Claim Adjournatur Evans versus Crocker A Special Verdict in Ejectment was found in Ireland In Ejectment where the Entry seems to be before the Title yet the Declaration is good and Iudgment given there for the Plaintiff and now a Writ of Errour was brought in this Court and the Common Error assigned The Objection was to the Declaration which was That the Plaintiff declared upon a Demise made 12 Junii c. Habendum a praedicto duodecimo die Junij which must be the 13th day of the same Month usque c. virtute cujus quidem dimissionis he entred c. and that the Defendant postea scilicet eodem duodecimo die Junij did eject him c. So that it appears upon the Face of the Declaration that the Defendant entred before the Plaintiff had a Title for the Lease commenced on the 23th of June and the Entry was on the 12th of that Month. And it was said that this agrees with a former Resolution in this Court where the Lease was made the 24th of June for five years Habendum a die datus Siderfin 8. 2 Cro. 96. which must be the 25th by vertue whereof the Plaintiff entred and that the Defendant postea scilicet 24th Junij did eject him which must be before the commencement of the Lease Curia The Plaintiff entred as a Disseisor by his own shewing and thereupon Iudgment was reversed Rex versus Kingsmill QUO Warranto against the Defendant to shew cause why he executed the Office of a Bayliff of the Hundred of Barnstaple Grant of an Hundred where good c. The Defendant pleaded that the said Hundred was an ancient Hundred and that the Office of Bayliff was an ancient Office and that the Hundred Court was an ancient Court held from three Weeks to three Weeks before the Steward thereof that the Return of Writs was an ancient Liberty and Franchise which did belong to the said Bayliff that King Charles I. was seized of the said Franchise jure Coronae in Fee who by Letters Patents dated c. did grant the same to one North Habendum the said Hundred to him and his Heirs and that by several mesne Assignments it came to and was vested in the Defendant and so he justified to have Retorna Brevium To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred And for the King it was argued that this Claim was not good First as to the manner of the Grant as 't is here pleaded viz. that the King was seized in Fee c. and that he granted the Franchise Habendum the said Hundred That such a Grant can never include the Hundred for nothing can pass in the Habendum but what was mentioned in the Premisses 2. The Defendant hath derived a Title from the Crown to this Office of a Bayliff which must be either by Grant or Prescription It cannot be by Grant for 't is a Question whether the Hundred Court can now be separated from the County Court it hath been derivative from it in former times when the Sheriffs did let those Hundreds to farm to several persons who put in Bayliffs errant to the great oppression of the People which was the occasion of the making of the Statute of Ed. 14 E. 3. c. 9. 3. by which such Hundreds were united and rejoyned to the Counties as to the Bailiwicks thereof 4 Inst 267. except such as were then granted in Fee by the King or his Ancestors Now these Hundreds were usually granted to Abbots and other religious persons 31 H. 8. c. 13. and their Possessions coming afterwards to the King by the dissolution of their Abbies and Monasteries are now merged in the Crown and cannot be regranted after the making of that Statute And as the Defendnat cannot have a Title by Grant so he hath not prescribed to have this Office 't is true the Plea sets forth that 't is an ancient Office but that is not a Prescription but a bare Averment of its Antiquity But admitting he had alledged it by way of Prescription 14 H. 4.89 he could not do it by a Que Estate to have Retorna Brevium A man cannot preserive to have Cognizance of Pleas in an Hundred Court he may in a County Palatine because 't is of a mixed Iurisdiction Neither can he prescribe to have Return of the King's Writs Abbot de Strata Marcella because they are matter of Record Here is a good Title pleaded E contra It was never yet denied but that
Commitment and that for two reasons 1. Because the persons committing had not any Authority so to do for upon the Return it appears that they were committed by several Lords of the Council whereas it should have been by so many Lords in Council or by Order of Council 2. They ought not to be committed for this Fact which is only a Misdemeanour The Bishops are Peers and therefore the Process ought to be a Summons by way of Subpoena out of the Crown Office and not to commit them the first time If a Man comes in voluntarily he cannot be charged with an Information neither can a person who is found in Court by any Process be so charged if it be illegal as if a Peer be committed by Capias Iustice Allybon replyed that when a Commitment was made by the Lord Chief Iustice of this Court his Name is to the Warrant but not his Office 't is not said Committitur per Capitalem Justiciarium Angliae c. for he is known to be so and why should not a Commitment by such persons Dominos Concilij be as good as a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Capitalem Justiciarium That it was enough for the Officer to return his Warrant and when that is done the Court will presume that the Commitment was by the Power which the Lords in Council had and not by that Power which they had not To which it was answered by Mr. Finch that the Lord Chief Iustice always carries an Authority with him to commit where-ever he goes in England but the Lords of the Privy Council have not so large a Power for though they be Lords of the Council always yet they do not always act in Council Then the Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 10. was read in which there is mention made of a Commitment by the Lords of the Privy Concil c. But it was answered that that Statute was to relieve against illegal Commitments and those enumerated in that Act were such only and none else And it was strongly insisted that Peers of the Realm cannot be committed at the first instance for a Misdemeanour before Iudgment and that no President can be shewed where a Peer hath been brought in by Capias which is the first Process for a bare Misdemeanour The constant Proceedings in the Starr-Chamber upon such Informations were Crompt Jurisdiction 33. Dyer 315. 4 Inst 25. Regist 287. viz. First the Lord Chancellor sent a Letter to the person then if he did not appear an Attachment went forth The Kings Council answered Sir Baptist Hick's Case Hob. that a Peer may be committed for the Breach of the Peace for which Sureties are to be given and can there be any greater Breach of the Peace than a Libel against the King and Government 'T is certainly such a Breach of the Peace for which Sureties ought to be demanded for where there is any seditious Act there must be a Breach of the Peace and if Sureties are not given then the person must be committed The Objections were over-ruled by three Iudges Then the Information was read which in Substance was viz. That the King by vertue of his Prerogative did on the 4th day of April in the third year of his Reign publish his gracious Declaration for Liberty of Conscience which was set forth in haec verba That afterwards viz. 27 Aprilis in the fourth year of his Reign the King did publish another Declaration reciting the former in which he expressed his care that the Indulgence by him granted might be preserved c. that he caused this last Declaration to be printed and to manifest his favour more signally towards his Subjects on the 4th day of May 1688. it was Ordered in Council that his Declaration dated the 27th day of April last be read on two several days in all Churches and Chappels in the Kingdom and that the Bishops cause the same to be distributed through their several Diocesses c. That after the making of the said Order c. the Bishops naming them did consult and conspire amongst themselves to lessen the Authority and Prerogative of the King and to elude the said Order and in further prosecution of their said Conspiracy they with Force and Arms did on the 18th day of May c. unlawfully maliciously c. frame compose and write a Libel of the King subscribed by them which they caused to be published under the pretence of a Petition Then the Petition was set forth in haec verba In contemptum dicti Domini Regis c. The King's Council moved that the Defendants might plead instanter for so they said is the course of the Court when a Man is brought thither in Custody or appears upon Recognizance But the Council on the other side prayed an Imparlance and a Copy of the Information and argued that the Defendants ought not to plead instanter because their Plea ought to be put in Writing and that they ought to have time to consider what to plead that it was impossible to make any Defence when they did not know the Accusation and that the Practice of the Court anciently was with them 'T is true when a Subpoena is taken out and the Party doth not appear but is brought in by Capias he shall plead instanter and the reason is because he hath given delay to the Cause So 't is likewise in Cases of Felony or Treason but not to an Information for a Misdemeanour Then the Clerk of the Crown informed the Court that it was the Course to plead instanter in these following Cases viz. when the person appears upon a Recognizance or in propria persona or is a Prisoner in Custody upon any Information for a Misdemeanour where no Process issued out to call him in As to the Objection that the Defendants cannot make any Defence without a Copy of the Information the Vsage is otherwise even in Cases where a Man's Life is concerned and what greater difficulty can there be to defend an Accusation for a Misdemeanour than a Charge for High-Treason certainiy the Defendants all know whether they are innocent or not These Points being over-ruled by the Court the Archbishop offered a Plea in writing the Substance of which was that they naming all the Defendants were Peers of Parliament and ought not to be compelled to answer this Misdemeanour immediately but they ought to appear upon due Process of Law and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the Information and afterwards to imparle and because they were not brought in by Process they pray the Iudgment of the Court. This Plea was offered to the end that what was denied before upon a Motion might be settled by the Opinion of the Court but it was over ruled Then they pleaded severally Not-Guilty and were tried at the Barr a Fortnight afterwards by a Middlesex Iury and acquitted Anonymus In the Common-Pleas AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond against the Defendant
who makes a Lease of his Land shall forfeit it but this doth not conclude an Infant 4. There is not any necessity to construe an Infant to be within this Custom for 't is not found that the Lord was to have a Fine upon admittance and 't is no consequence to say that the Lord shall have a Fine because usually Fines are taken upon admittances 1 Leon. 100. 3 Leon. 221. for an Infant may be admitted to a Copyhold but not be bound to tender his Fine at any time during his Non-age Justice Gregory was of the same Opinion which he chiefly grounded upon Sir Richard Letchford's Case between which and the Case at the Barr he said there was no material difference only in that Case the Heir was beyond Sea and in this at the Barr 2 Cro. 226. Latch 199. Godb. 364. Jones 391. Dyer 104. he was an Infant 'T is very true that the Books mention a Seisure quousque 't is so said by Iustice Williams in Croke but he gives no reason for it 't is only an Opinion obiter but it is clear by many Authorities that Infants may be bound by Acts of necessity and so they may by a Custom Iustice Dolben of the same Opinion which he said was agreeable to the reason of the Law in parallel Cases An Infant is priviledged in a Fine for he is excepted by the Statute because he knows not how to make his Claim He said this was likewise agreeable to the Custom of 26 Mannors of which he was formerly Steward for in such Cases he always marked the Court Roll Nulla Proclamatio quia Infans It cannot be a Forfeiture quousque because an Infant is wholly exempted by the Custom and therefore 't is no Forfeiture at all 'T is an Objection of no moment to say that the Lord by this means will lose his Fine and that he hath no remedy to make the Infant when of Age to be admitted for no Fine is due to him before admittance But this Objection will be of less weight if the loss of the Infant be compared to that of the Lord who looseth only the Interest of a Fine before Admittance and shall this Infant who is now but three years of Age loose the Profits of his Estate for 18 years But there may be a way found out that neither may loose for if it should be that when the Infant comes of Age his Estate should be then forfeited if he doth not tender himself to be admitted after three Proclamations Now upon his admittance the Lord may set a reasonable Fine having respect to the length of time in which it was deteined from him Stowel's Case was no more but this viz. Pl. Com. 356. A Disseisor levied a Fine with Proclamations and lived three years his Heir being under Age and the five years incurred after the said Heir came of Age and then he entred within a year and his Entry was adjudged unlawful But that will not concern this Case because it was a Iudgment upon the Statute of H. 7. 4 H. 7. c. 24. for the five years being once attached and begun in the life of his Ancestor shall incurr and go on and bind the Infant if he do not pursue his Claim within that time after he comes of Age but 't is to be observed that my Lord Dyer in the Argument of that Case said nothing of a Seisure quousque The Chief Iustice was of a contrary Opinion from the other three Iustices and that the Iudgment ought to be reversed Because until the Infant is admitted the Estate remains in the Surrenderor and without an Admittance he cannot enter but by a special Custom to warrant it and for this reason 't is that the Surrenderor shall have an Action of Trespass against any person who enters because he shall be intended still in possession till the Admittance of another If so 2 Cro. 368. Yelv. 16. then Infancy cannot protect an Estate to which the Infant hath no Title till Admittance for till then he hath neither Jus in re nor Jus ad rem This is a Condition annexed to the Estate to be performed by the Infant by which he is bound notwithstanding his Non-age otherwise his Estate is forfeited The Custom which obligeth him to be admitted is to entitle the Lord of the Mannor to a Fine to which he hath a right Now Infancy was never yet extended to endanger that remedy which Men have to recover their Rights it has been often so far extended as to delay such a remedy but never to destroy it for if the Infant should die the Lord looseth the Fine and then another person is to be admitted but he cannot encrease the Fine upon him who is a Stranger for the neglect of the Infant 'T is true Bridg. 83. Yelv. 144. Poph. 127. where an Infant hath a Right it shall be preserved though a Fine be levied and the five years pass but in this Case he hath no Right before Admittance If a Feme Covert be an Heir to a Copyhold Estate where the like Custom is and she marrieth and the Husband after three Proclamations will not come and be admitted 't is a Forfeiture during the Coverture Now the reason in the Cases of Coverture and Infancy is the same for if there shall be a Seisure during the time the woman is Covert why not during the Infancy As to Sir Richard Letchford's Case the Heir was beyond Sea but when he came into England he desired to be admitted but this Infant never yet desired to be admitted he stands upon his Priviledge of Infancy But upon the Opinion of the other three Iustices the Iudgment was affirmed that the Custom doth not bind the Infant Carter versus Dowrich A Covenant to pay so much Mony to the Plaintiff or his Assigns as should be drawn upon the now Defendant by a Bill of Exchange Custom of Merchants where it must be particularly set forth c. The Breach was assigned in Non-payment The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff secundum legem Mercatorum did assign the Mony to be paid to A. who assigned it to B. to whom he paid 100 l. and tendred the rest drawn upon by Bill of Exchange c. And upon a Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen insisted that this was not a good Plea because the Defendant had not set forth the Custom of Merchants without which all these Assignments are void of which Custom the Court cannot take any judicial notice but it must be pleaded and 't is not sufficient to say that the Assignment was made secundum legem Mercatoriam but it must be secundum consuetudinem Mercatoriam otherwise 't is not good E contra E contra Litt. 182. It was argued that the Custom of Merchants is not a particular Custom and local but 't is of an universal extent and is a general Law of the Land The pleading it as 't is here is good for if an Action is brought against
Indebitatus Ass will lye for a Fine upon an Admission c. That a Fine was due to him for an admission That upon the death of the said Lord the Manor descended to W. as his Son and Heir who died and the Plaintiff as Executor to the Heir brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit for this Fine He declared also that the Defendant was indebted to him in 25 l. for a reasonable Fine c. The Plaintiff had a Verdict and entire Damages and it was now moved in arrest of Iudgment that an Indebitatus will not lie for a Customary Fine because it doth not arise upon any Contract of the Parties but upon the Tenure of the Land for upon the death of the Lord there is a Relief paid for there must be some personal Contract to maintain an Action of Debt or an Indebitatus Assumpsit 2 Cro. 599. Jones 339. and therefore it was held that where the Plaintiff locasset a Ware-house to the Defendant he promised to pay 8 s. per Week An Assumpsit was brought for this Rent and a Verdict for the Plaintiff And a Motion was made in Arrest of Iudgment that this was a Lease at Will and the weekly payment was in the nature of a Rent and it was agreed that an Assumpsit would not lie for a Rent reserved because it sounds in the Realty but because it was only a Promise in consideration of the occupying of the Warehouse the Action was held to be well brought 2. Where the Cause of an Action is not grounded upon a Contract but upon some special Matter there an Indebitatus Assumpsit will not lie and therefore it will not lie upon a Bill of Exchange or upon an Award or for Rent though there is a Privity both of Contract and Estate without a special Assumpsit E contra E contra It was argued that the Action lies for though a Fine savours of the Realty yet 't is a certain Duty In all Cases where Debt will lie upon a simple Contract there an Assumpsit will lie likewise 't is true this doth concern the Inheritance but yet 't is a Contract that the Tenant shall be admitted paying the Fine It hath been also maintained for Mony had and received out of the Office of Register for the Plaintiffs use and for Scavage Mony due to the Mayor and Commonalty of London 3 Keb. 677. which is also an Inheritance 'T is a Contract implyed by Law and therefore the Action is well brought Afterwards in Michaelmas Term 1 Willielmi Mariae by the Opinion of Iustice Dolben 2 Leon. 79. Eyre and Gregory Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But the Chief Iustice was of another Opinion for he held that if the Defendant had died indebted to another by Bond and had not Assets besides what would fatisfie this Fine if the Executor had paid it to the Plaintiff it would have been a Devastavit in him Suppose the Defendant promiseth that in consideration that the Plaintiff would demise to him certain Lands that then he would pay the Rent If the Defendant pleads Non Assumpsit Cro. Car. Acton versus Symonds the Plaintiff must prove an express Promise or be Non suit Also here is no Tenure or Custom set out Yet by the Opinion of the other three Iustices the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Rex versus Johnson INformation upon the Statute of 29 30 Car. 2. cap. 1. Pardon after a Verdict for the King excuseth the Forfeiture prohibiting the Importation of several French Commodities and amongst the rest Lace under the Penalty of 100 l. to be paid by the Importer and 50 l. by the Vendor and the Goods to be forfeited The Information sets forth that a Packet containing so many yards of Lace was imported by the Defendant from France and that he did conceal it to hinder the Seisure and that he did privately sell it contra formam Statuti Vpon Not-Guilty pleaded the King had a Verdict and on the 2d of October there came forth a general Pardon in which were these Words viz. That the Subjects shall not be sued or vexed c. in their Bodies Goods or Chattels Lands or Tenements for any Matter Cause or Contempt Misdemeanour Forfeiture Offence or any other thing heretofore done committed or omitted against us Except all Concealments Frauds Corruptions Misdemanours and Offences whereby we or our late Brother have been deceived in the Collection payment or answering of our Revenues or any part thereof or any other Mony due or to be due to us or received for us or him and all Forfeitures Penalties and Nomine Poena's thereupon arising and all Indictments and Informations or other Process and Proceedings now depending or to be depending thereupon The Question now was whether this Forfeiture was excused by this Pardon The Attorney General argued that it was not because an Interest is vested in the King by the Iudgment and that no particular or general Pardon shall divest it without words of Restitution So was Tooms's Case who had Iudgment against another 1 Sand. 361. and then became Felo de se his Administrator brought a Scire Facias quare Executionem non haberet The Debtor pleaded that after the Iudgment the Intestate hanged himself which was found by the Coroners Enquest returned into this Court. The Plaintiff replied the Act of Pardon But it was adjudged for the Defendant for when the Inquisition was returned then the Debt was vested in the King which could not be divested without particular words of Restitution and which were wanting in that Act of Pardon The most proper word in the Body of this Pardon which seems to excuse the Defendant is the word Offence but the same word is likewise in the Exception viz. Except all Offences c. in collecting or paying of Mony due to us and all Forfeitures c. Now the concealing of forfeited Goods from Seisure is an Offence excepted for 't is a remedy for the King's Duty of which he was hindred by the Concealment 'T is true the first part of the Pardon excuseth all Misdemeanours comitted against the King in his standing Revenue but this Exception takes in all Concealments and Frauds in answering of the Revenue and this Information is principally grounded upon Fraud 5 Co. 56. so that the Exception ought to be taken as largely for the King as the Pardon it self to discharge the Subject No Fraud tending to the diminution of the Revenue is pardoned for it excepts not only all Concealments in collecting the Revenue but other Mony due or to be due to the King If therefore when the King is entituled by Inquisition Office or Record there must be express and not general words to pardon it and since this Fact was committed before the Pardon came out and so found by the Iury whose Verdict is of more value than an Enquest of Office so that the King by this means is entituled to the Goods by Record
so his Son is justly and rightly sued as Son and Heir In some Cases the persons are to be named not by way of a Title but as a Pedigree as if there be Tenant for Life the Reversion in Fee to an Ideot and an Vncle who is right Heir to the Ideot levied a Fine and died living the Ideot leaving Issue a Son named John who had Issue William who entred the Question was whether the Issue of the Vncle shall be barred by this Fine It was the Opinion of two Iudges that they were not barred because the Vncle died in the life-time of the Ideot and nothing attached in him March 94. Cro. Car. 524. and because the Issue claim in a collateral Line and do not name the Father by way of Title but by way of Pedigree But Iustice Jones who hath truly Reported the Case Jones 456. was of Opinion that the Issue of the Vncle were barred because the Son must make his Conveyance from the Father by way of Title The Iury have found that the Reversion did descend to the Defendant as Heir to the last John 't is true it descends as a Reversion but that shall not charge him as Heir to the Father Jenk's Case 1 Cro. for the other was seised of the Estate Tail which is now spent and the last who was seised of the Fee was the Father and so the Defendant must be charged as his Heir 'T is likewise true that where there is an actual Seisin you must charge all but in this Case there was nothing but a Reversion Tremaine Serjeant for the Defendant In this Case the Plaintiff should have made a special Declaration for the Estate-Tail and the Reversion in Fee are distinct and seperate Estates John the Nephew might have sold the Reversion and kept the Estate Tail if he had acknowledged a Statute or Iudgment it might have been extended and if so then he had such a Seisin that he ought to have been named A Man becomes bound in a Bond and died Debt is brought against the Heir it is not common to say that he had nothing by descent but only a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tayl. In the Case of Chappel and Lee Covenant was brought in the Common-Pleas against Judith Daughter and Heir of Robert Rudge She pleaded Riens per descent Issue was joyned before Sir Francis North then Chief Iustice and it appearing upon Evidence that Robert had a Son named Robert who died without Issue a Case was made of it and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Plaintiff took out a new Original and then the Land was sold so the Plaintiff lost his Debt Adjornatur Afterwards in Hillary Term a Gulielmi Mariae Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Eyre who argued that the Defendant cannot be charged as immediate Heir to his Father 't is true the Lands are Assets in his Hands and he may be charged by a special Declaration Dyer 368. pl. 460. In this Case the intermediate Heirs had a Reversion in Fee which they might have charged either by Statute Iudgment or Recognizance they were so seised that if a Writ of Right had been brought against them they might have joyned the Mise upon the Mere right which proves they had a Fee and though it was expectant on an Estate Tail 3 Co. 42. Ratcliff's Case yet the Defendant claiming the Reversion as Heir ought to make himself so to him who made the Gift The person who brings a Formeden in Descender must name every one to whom any Right did descend 8 Co. 88. F.N.B. 220. c. Rast Ent. 375. otherwise the Writ will abate A Man who is sued as Heir or who entitles himself as such must shew how Heir The Case of Duke and Spring is much stronger than this 2 Rol. Abr. 709. 2 Cro. 161. for there Debt was brought against the Daughter as Heir of B. She pleaded Riens per descent and the Iury found that B. died seised in Fee leaving Issue the Defendant and his Wife then with Child who was afterwards delivered of a Son who died within an hour and it was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he declared against the Defendant as Daughter and Heir of the Father when she was Sister and Heir of the Brother who was last seised But the other three Iudges were of a contrary Opinion The Question is not whether the Defendant is lyable to this Debt but whether he is properly charged as Heir to his Father or whether he should have been charged as Heir to his Nephew who was last seised It must be admitted that if the Lands had descended to the Brother and Nephew of the Defendant in Fee that then they ought to have been named but they had only a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate Tail which was incertain and therefore of little value now though John the Father and Son had this Reversion in them yet the Estate Tail was known only to those who were Parties to the Settlement 'T is not the Reversion in Fee Bro. Fit Descent pl. 30.37 Ass pl. 4. but the Possession which makes the party inheritable and therefore if Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband then they have a Son and the Wife dies and the Husband hath a Son by a second Venter and dies the eldest Son enters and dies without Issue and his Vncle claimed the Land against the second Son but was barred because he had not the Remainder in Fee in possession and yet he might have sold or forfeited it But here the Reversion in Fee is now come into possession and the Defendant hath the Land as Heir to his Father t is Assets only in him and was not so either in his Brother or Nephew who were neither of them chargeable because a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Young versus Inhabitants de Totnam AN Action was brought against the Hundred for a Robbery in which the Plaintiff declared that he was Robbed apud quendam locum prope Faire Mile Gate in such a Parish He had a Verdict And now Serjeant Tremaine moved in arrest of Iudgment and the Exceptions taken were these viz. 1. That it doth not appear that the Parish mentioned in the Declaration was in the Hundred 2. Neither doth it appear that the Robbery was committed in the High-way 3. The Plaintiff hath not alledged that it was done in the day time for if it was not the Hundred is not lyable by Law But these Exceptions were all disallowed because it being after a Verdict the Court will suppose that there was Evidence given of these Matters at the Trial so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Eggleston al' versus Speke alias Petit.
Cattle to be his own sciens the same to be the Goods of another or that he sold them to the Plaintiff fraudulenter deceptive or that there was any Warranty for this Action will not lie upon a bare Communication But notwithstanding these Exceptions the Plaintiff had his Iudgment it might have been good upon Demurrer but after Verdict 't is well enough Lea versus Libb IN Ejectione firmae for Lands in Hampshire Two Witnesses to a Will and two to a Codicil one whereof was a Witness to the Will these are not three Witnesses to the Will it self the Iury found a special Verdict the substance of which was this viz. That the Lessor of the Plaintiff was Heir at Law to one John Denham his Ancestor who being seised in Fee of the Lands in question did by Will bearing date the 28th day of January in the year 1678. devise the same to the Defendant which he subscribed and published in the presence of two Witnesses and they likewise attested it in his presence They find that on the 29th day of December 1679. he made another Will or Codicil in Writing reciting that he had made a former Will and confirming the same except what was excepted in the Codicil and declared his Will to be that the Codicil should be taken and adjudged as part of his Will They find that he published this Codicil in the presence likewise of two Winesses one of which was Witness to the first Will bue the other was a new Man They find that these were distinct Writings c. The Question was whether this was a good Will attested by three Witnesses since one of the Witnesses to the Codicil was likewise a Witness to the Will so that the new Man if any must make the third Witness Serjeant Thompson argued that it was not a good Will The Clause of the Statute is That all Devises of Lands shall be in Writing and signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses and they to attest it in his presence But here are not three subscribing Witnesses in the presence of the Testator so that the first Will must be void for one of the Witnesses to the Codicil did never see that Will Besides the Codicil is not the same thing with the Will 't is a confirmation of it and this being in a Case wherein an Heir is to be disinherited ought not to have a favourable Construction Attorney General contra A Will may be contained in several Writings and yet but one entire Will 'T is true if it be attested only by two Witnesses 't is not good but if the Testator call in a third person and he attests that individual Witing in his presence this is a good Will though the Witnesses were not all present together and at the same time for there is the Credit of three persons to such a Will which is according to the intent of the Statute And therefore it cannot be objected that these are distinct Wills or that the Papers are not annexed for no such thing is required by Law for a Man may make his Will in several Sheets of Paper and if the Witnesses subscribe the last Sheet 't is well enough or if he doth put up all the Sheets in a blank piece of Paper and the Witnesses attest that Sheet 't is a good Will In these Cases the intent of the Law-makers must and ought to be chiefly regarded and for what reasons and purposes such Laws were made and what Iudgments have been given in parallel Cases If a Man grants a Rent-Charge to his youngest Son for Life 2 Cro. 144. Noy 117. and afterwards devises that he shall have the Rent as expressed in the Grant Now though the Writing was no part of the Will but of another nature yet the Will referring to the Deed is a good Devise of the Rent-charge within the Statute of Wills But in this Case the Codicil is part of the Will 't is of the same nature and being made animo restandi the end of the Statute is performed for both Will and Codicil joined together make a good Devise the first was a Will to all purposes it only wanted that circumstance of a third Witness to attest it which the Testator compleated after by calling in of a third person for that purpose Curia If a Man makes a Will in several pieces of Paper and there are three Witnesses to the last Paper and none of them did ever see the first this is not a good Will Afterwards in Hillary-Term Iudgment was given that this was not a good Will Tippet versus Hawkey TIppet the Elder and his Son covenant with John Hawkey to sell and convey Land to him free from all Incumbrances and that they will levy a Fine c. and deliver up Writings Where two covenant the Action may be brought in the name of one Item 'T is agreed between the Parties that the said Hawkey shall pay to Tippet the younger so much Mony c. The Action is brought in the name of both and upon a Demurrer to the Declaration it was held ill for the Duty is vested in Tipper the younger and he only ought to have brought this Action Iudgment for the Defendant Rees versus Phelps DEBT upon a Bond conditioned for performance of an Award Award where good Vpon nullum fecerunt arbitrium pleaded the Plaintiff replied and shewed an Award that the Defendant should pay 5 l. to the Plaintiff presently and give Bond for the payment of 10 l. more on the 29th day of November following and that this should be for and towards the Charges and Expences in and about certain differences then depending between the Parties and that they should now sign general Releases And upon a Demurrer it was argued to be a void Award because mutual Releases were then to be given which would discharge the Bond payable in November following 1 Roll. Abr. 259 260. But the Court held it to be good for the Releases shall discharge such Matters only which were depending at the time of the Submission Godfrey al' versus Eversden THere was a Parish Church and a Chappel of Ease in the Parish of Hitchen Prohibition denied upon Suggestion that there was a Chappel of Ease and so ought not to repair the Parish Church the Defendant was taxed towards the Repairs of the Church and a Livel was brought against him for the refusing of the payment of that Tax He now suggests that there was a Chappel of Ease in the same Parish to which the Inhabitants do go and that they have always repaired that Chappel and so prayed a Prohibition But Serjeant Tremain moved for a Consultation because the Parishioners of common right ought to repair the Church and though there is a Chappel of Ease in the same Parish yet that ought not to excuse them from repairing of the Mother Church He produced an Affidavit that there had been no Divine Service there for
forty years past Hob. 66. nor Burials or Baptism whereupon a Prohibition was denied Anonymus A Gentleman was convicted upon his own Confession for High Treason in the Rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth and executed Attainder for Treason reversed and it was moved that his Attainder might be reversed The Iudges were attended with Books and the Exceptions taken were viz. 1. There was no Arraignment or demanding of Iudgment Co. Ent. 358. 2. There was Process of Ven. Fac. which ought not to be in Treason but a Capias 3. Because after the Confession the Judgment followed and it doth not appear that the Party was asked what he could say why Sentence of Death should not pass upon him for possibly he might have pleaded a Pardon For these Reasons the Attainder was reversed Mr. Parkinson's Case IT was moved for a Mandamus to reffore him to a Fellowship of Lincoln Colledge in Oxford being a Member of a Lay Corporation and having a Freehold in it Mandamus denied for restoring of a person to a Fellowship 1 Mod. 82. 1 Sid. 71. Sid. 29. The like Mandamus had been granted to restore Dr. Goddard to the place of one of the Fellows of the Colledge of Physitians in London which is a Lay Corporation But it was denied by the Court for the Visitor is the proper Iudge and when a Man takes a Fellowship he submits to the Rules of the Colledge and to the private Laws of the Founder It was denyed by my Lord Hales in Dr. Robert'ss Case because in all Lay Corporations the Founder and his Heirs are Visitors and in all Ecclesiastical Corporations the Bishop of the Diocess is the proper Visitor who is Fidei Commissarius and from whose Sentence there is no Appeal to this Court especially in the case of a Fellowship of a Colledge which is a thing of private design and not at all concerning the publick Anonymus Hill 3 4 Jacobi Rot. 1018. A.B. nuper de Parochia Sancti Jacobi Westm ' in Comitatu Midd. Generosus attachiatus fuit per corpus suum ad respondend ' C. D. Viduae quae fuit uxor J. D. Generosi de morte praed J. quondam viri sui unde eum appellat Et sunt pleg ' de pros ' J. B. nuper de Parochia Sancti Jacobi Westm in Comitatu Midd. Gen ' Johannes Doe de eadem Gen ' unde eadem Elizabetha per E. F. Attornatum suum juxta formam Statut. in hujusmodi casu edit provis instanter appellat praed A. B. de eo quod ubi praed J. D. fuit in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis nunc apud Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm in Comitatu Middlesex decimo die J. Anno Regni Domini Jacobi nuper Regis Angliae tertio hora prima post meridiem ejusdem diei ibidem scilicet apud Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm in Com. Midd. venit praed A. B. felonice ac ut felo dicti Domini Regis nunc volutarie ex malicia sua praecogitat insidiis praemeditatis contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc hora nona post meridiem ejusdem diei in super praefat J.D. adtunc vi armis c. apud Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm praedict in Comitatu praedicto insultum fecit praedict A.B. adtunc ibidem cum quodam gladio Anglice a Rapier ad valenciam quinque solidorum quod ipse idem A. B. in manu sua dextra adtunc ibidem scilicet praedicto decimo die J. Anno tertio supradicto apud Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm praedict in Com. Midd. praed habuit tenuit ipse praedict J. D. in super sinistram partem ventris ipsius J. D. prope umbilicum Anglice the Navel ipsius J. D. adtunc ibidem felonice voluntarie ex malitia sua praecogitata percussit pupugit dedit eidem J. D. adtunc ibidem in super praedictam sinistram partem ventris ipsius J. D. prope dictum umbilicum ipsius J. D. cum gladio praedicto unam plagam mortalem longitud dimid unius pollicis profunditat sex pollicium de qua quidem plaga mortali idem J. D. a praedicto decimo die J. Anno tertio supradicto apud praedictam Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm in Comitatu Midd. praedict languebat languidus vixit adtunc scilicet decimo sexto die Junii Anno tertio supradicto apud Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm in Comitatu Midd. praedict ipse idem J. D. de plaga mortali praedicta obiit sic praefat A. B. praedictum J. D. apud Parochiam Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm praedict in Comitatu Midd. praedict modo forma praedict voluntarie ex malitia sua praecogitata interfecit murdravit contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coron ' Digitates suas quam cito idem A. B. Feloniam Murdrum praedict fecisset ipse idem A. B. fugit dictaque C. D. ipsum recenter insecut fuit de Villa in Villam usque ad quatuor Villas propinquior ' ulterius quousque c. Et si praedictus A. B. Feloniam Murdrum praedict ei in forma praed imposit velit dedicere praefat C. D. hoc parata est versus eum probare prout Curia c. The Defendant having prayed Iudgment de Brevi originali pleaded Quod ipse A. B. per Breve illud appellat ' existit per nomen A. B. nuper de Parochia Sancti Jacobi Westm in Comitatu Midd. Generosi ubi revera in facto infra Comitatum Midd. praedict est quaedam Parochia vocat cognit per nomen Parochiae Sancti Jacobi infra Libertatem Westm sed in eodem Comitatu Midd. non habetur nec die impetrationis Brevis originalis appelli praedict seu unquam habebatur aliqua Parochia sive locus cognit ' nuncupat ' per nomen Parochiae Sancti Jacobi Westm tanrum prout praed C. D. per breve suum superius supponit Et hoc ipse idem A. B. parat ' est verificare unde petit Judicium de Brevi illo Et quod praed Breve cassetur The Plaintiff demurred and the Appellee joyned in Demurrer An Appeal of Murder was brought against A. B. The Defendant pleaded in Abatement to an Appeal of Murder and did not plead over to the Felony of the Parish of St. James Westminster in the County of Middlesex Gent. for that he on the 10th day of June in the third year of King James did run the deceased into the left part of his Belly with a Rapier and that he died of that wound three days afterwards The Defendant demands Oyer of the Return and pleads that there is a Parish known by the name of the Parish of St. James within the Liberty of Westminster but no such
quarter for by such means Diseases may be brought into a Family and a Man hath no security either for his Goods or Mony This was the Opinion of Iustice Twisden in Coutrell's Case Sid. 29. and it seems to be very natural and therefore the chief reason why power was given by the Statute to the Overseers to raise mony was that they might place poor Children to such who were willing to take them for Mony for otherwise they might compel a Man to receive his Enemy into his Service He relied on the Case of the King and Price Hillary 29 and 30th of Car. II. which was an Order of the like nature moved to be quashed And Iustice Twisden said in that Case that all the Iudges of England were of Opinion that the Iustices had not such a Power and therefore that Order was quashed 'T is plain that by the Statute of the 43 Eliz. E contra the Iustices may place out poor Children where they see it convenient and so the constant practice hath been so is the Resolution of the Iudges in Dalton which was brought in by the Lord Chief Iustice Hyde but denied so to be by Iustice Twisden for no other reason but because Iustice Jones did not concur with them In Price 's Case this matter was stirred again but there hath been nothing done pursuant to that Opinion Since then the Iustices have a power to place out poor Children 'T is no Objection to say that there may be an inconvenience in the exercise of that power by placing out Children to improper persons for if such things are done the Party hath a proper remedy by way of Appeal to the Sessions Three Iustices were of Opinion that the Iustices of Peace had such a Power and therefore they were for confirming the Order and Iustice Dolbin said it was so resolved in the Case of the King and Gilliflower in the Reign of King James the first Foster being then Chief Iustice tho' the Iudges in Price 's Case were of another Opinion The Chief Iustice was now likewise of a different Opinion for the Statute means something when it says that a Stock shall be raised by the Taxation of every Inhabitant c. for putting out of Children Apprentice There are no compulsory words in the Statute for that purpose nor any which oblige a Master to take an Apprentice and if not the Iustices have not power to compel a Man to take a poor Boy for possibly such may be a Thief or Spy in the Family But this Order was quashed for an apparent fault which was that the Statute has entrusted the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor by and with the Approbation of two Iustices to bind Apprentices c. And the Churchwardens are not mentioned in this Order DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Thirsby versus Helbot DEBT upon a Bond for performance of an Award Award void where a person who is a Stranger to the Submission is ordered to be a Surety Vpon Nullum Arbitrium pleaded the Plaintiff replyed and shewed an Award made which amongst other things was that the Defendant should be bound with Sureties such as the Plaintiff should approve in the Sum of 150 l. to be paid to him at such a time and that they should seal mutual Releases and assigned a Breach in not giving of this Bond. There was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and now Serjeant Pemberton moved in arrest of Iudgment that this was a void Award because 't is that the Defendant shall be bound with Sureties c. and then Releases to be given now the Sureties are Strangers to the Submission and therefore the Defendant is not bound to procure them He relied upon the Case of Barns and Fairchild 1 Roll. Abr. 259. which was an Award that all Controversies c. should cease and that one of the Parties should pay to the other 8 l. and that thereupon he should procure his Wife and Son to make such an Assurance c. this was held to be void because it was to bind such persons who were not Parties to the Submission Tremain Serjeant contra E contra That Cause doth not come up to this at the Barr because by this Award the Party was to sign a general Release whether the Defendant paid the Mony or not But the Court was of Opinion that the Award was void because it appointed the Party to enter into a Bond with such Sureties as the Plaintiff shall like and Releases then to be mutually given Now if the Plaintiff doth not like the Security given then he is not to seal a Release and so 't is but an Award of one side Savier versus Lenthal ASsisa ven ' recogn ' si Willielmus Lenthal Armiger Henricus Glover Armiger Johannes Philpot Generosus Thomas Cook Generosus Samuel Ellis Generosus injuste c. Assize disseisiverunt Thomam Savier de libero tenemento suo in Westm infra triginta annos c. Et unde idem Thomas Savier per Jacobum Holton Attornatum suum queritur quod disseisiverunt eum de officio Marr ' Maresc ' Domini Regis Dominae Reginae coram ipso Rege Regina cum pertin ' c. The Cryer made Proclamation and then called the Recognitors between Thomas Savier Demandant and William Lenthal Tenant who were all at the Bar and severally answered as they were called Then Mr. Goodwin of Greys-Inn arraigned the Assize in French but the Count being not in Parchment upon Record the Recognitors were for this time discharged and ordered to appear again the next day But the Council for the Tenant relied on the authority in Calvert's Case that the Title ought to be set forth in the Count Plo. Com. 403. 4 E. 4.6 which was not done now and therefore the Demandant ought to be nonsuited But the Writ being returnable that day was ex gratia Curiae adjourned to the Morrow afterward and if the Demandant did not then make a Title he must be nonsuited The next day the Iury appeared Then the Cryer called Thomas Savier the Demandant and then the Tenants and afterwards the Recognitors and the Assize being arraigned again the Demandant set forth his Title Then Sir Francis Winnington of Council for Mr. Lenthal one of the Tenants appeared after this manner Vouz avez icy le dit Williem Lenthal jeo prye oyer del Brief del Count. Then the other Tenants were called again three times and they not appearing Process was prayed against them Doe versus Dawson BAil was put in to an Action brought by the Plaintiff Bail liable if the Principal had two Terms after an Injunction dissolved and before he declared the Defendant obtained an Injunction to stay Proceedings at Law which was not dissolved for several Terms afterwards Then the Injunction was dissolved and the Plaintiff delivered his Declaration and had Iudgment by default
be in his possession and not of the Servant the Master being then present which is all the difference between that Case and this at the Barr so that the Master is the person robbed within the meaning of the Statute of Winton although the Mony be in the hands of the Servant Suppose the Servant had received 1000 l. and not being able to carry it himself had employed ten Men each to carry 100 l. and they had been all robbed the Owner may have an Action against the Hundred upon the Affidavit of one of the persons robbed the reason is because the possession shall follow the property and the possession of the whole will follow every part There are Authorities to prove that if the Servant is robbed the Master may give Evidence what Mony was delivered to him 2 Roll. Abr. 685. though that might be as well proved by another Witness Now though all this be admitted yet an Action will not lie against the Hundred by the Master in the Case at the Barr for the Statute of Queen Elizabeth being made so much in favour of the Hundred ought to be pursued The Reasons why an Oath is injoyned by that Statute are 1. That the person robbed should enter into a Recognizance to prosecute the Robbers if he knew them or any of them 2. That the Hundred might be excused upon the Conviction of such person or persons 3. To prevent a Robbery by Fraud Now suppose the Servant is entrusted with Mony and robbed by Confederacy shall the Hundred be answerable because the Servant hath broke his Trust Cro. Eliz. 142. 1 Leon. 323. No the Servant ought to be sworn for the purposes mentioned in that Act which if he refuse the Master hath lost his Action But if the Servant is robbed in the Company or presence of his Master the Mony is still in Iudgment of the Law in the possession of the Master Stiles 156 319 and that was the reason of the Iudgment in Jones's Case This is not like the Case of a common Carrier who though he may be said to be a Servant yet he is entrusted by this Law Curia This Action might have been well brought for the whole by Coxhead alone but 't is now too late the year being expired for where a Servant is robbed of part of his Master's Goods and part of his own he may have an Action Brownl 155. and recover Iudgment for the whole and therefore at another day the Plaintiff had Iudgment for 26 s. only Pain versus Patrick and others Pasch 2 Gulielmi Rot. 43. THIS was a Special Action on the Case brought by Isaac Pain against Edward Patrick and William Boulter for hindring the Plaintiff to go over a Ferry Action on the Case will not lie for disturbing or hindring a passage in a Common High-way but it must be by Indictment The Declaration sets forth that the Vill of Littleport in the Isle of Ely is an ancient Vill within which there is a River called Wilner River over which there was an ancient passage in a Ferry-Boat from the North East part of the said Vill to the end of Ferry-Lane and from thence to another place called Adventurers Bank that this passage was for all People at a certain price c. excepting the Inhabitants of Littleport living in ancient Houses there who by reason of an ancient Custom in the said Vill were to pass ad libitum suum with paying Coll c. That the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant in an ancient Mesuage in the said Vill and that there was an ancient Ferry-Boat kept there by the Owners thereof till the first day of May in such a year after which day the Defendants did not keep the same per quod the Plaintiff lost his Passage c. The Defendants protestando that the Passage was not in a Ferry-Boat protestando etiam that there was no such Custom c. and that the Plaintiff was not an Inhabitant in an ancient Mesuage in Littleport Pro Placito dicunt that before the exhibiting of the Bill they did erect a Bridge over the said River where the Passage was anciently and this was done and maintained at their own Costs and that the Plaintiff melius celerius could pass over the said Bridge c. This was pleaded in Barr. The Plaintiff replied that he per aliquem Pontem libertatem passagii trans ultra Rivum praedict ' secundum consuetudinem praed in narratione mentionat ' habere non permissus fuit contra consuetudinem praed Et hoc paratus est verificare c. The Defendants demurred and the Plaintiff joined in Demurrer The Questions were 1. Whether this was a good Custom as laid in the Declaration for the Inhabitants of a Vill to claim to be discharged of Coll ratione comorantiae 2. If the Custom is good then whether the Defendants Plea in Barr is also good to discharge themselves from keeping of the Boat 3. Whether the Plaintiff can maintain this Action This Case was argued now and in Easter-Term following by Council for the Defendants and in the same Term by Council for the Plaintiff Those who argued for the Defendants said that as to the first Point though this is set forth by way of Custom yet 't is in the nature of a Prescription which is always alledged in the person but here 't is for the Inhabitants of a Vill c. Now this cannot be good by way of Prescription because in such Case there must be a certain and permanent Interest abiding in some person which cannot be here for a meer Habitation or dwelling in an House will not give a Man such an Interest That which makes a Prescription good is Vsage and reasonableness 1 Leon. 142. 3 Leon. 41. but it cannot be ex rationabili causa to prescribe ad libitum suum for the Ferry-Man hath neither any consideration or recompence for the keeping of his Boat when the Inhabitants may pass over at their pleasure without paying Toll 'T is true a Man may prescribe to have Common sans nombre which in strictness is to put in as many Cattle as he will but if he lays his prescription ad libitum suum 't is not good If therefore this is not good by way of Prescription it cannot be supported by Custom because that also must extend to what hath some certainty and which must likewise have a reasonable beginning Now there can be no certainty in this Custom Hob. 86. 6 Co. 60. because the Plaintiff claimeth it only during his Comorancy in a Mesuage in which he had neither a certain time or Estate and this is such a transitory interest which is not allowed in the Law And therefore it hath been adjudged that a Custom for an Infant to sell his Lands when he can measure an Ell of Cloth is void 1 Rol. Rep. 32. because 't is incertain of what Age he may then be and 't is equally as incertain how
and Title set forth but no Iudgment was then given Boson versus Sandford THE Plaintiff declared that the Defendant and seven other persons were Proprietors of a Vessel Where there are several Proprietors of a Vessel and Goods are dampnified by carriage the Action must be brought against them all in which they used to carry Goods for a reasonable hire from Port to Port. That he had loaded the said Vessel with Boards which were agreed to be safely transported from London to Topsam and that the Defendant by neglect suffered them to be dampnified c. Vpon Not-Guilty pleaded a special Verdict was found the substance whereof was viz. That the Plaintiff did load the Ship with Boards of which Ship the Defendant and seven other persons were Proprietors that the said Ship did usually carry Goods for hire that the Plaintiff delivered the Goods to Daniel Hull who was Master of the Vessel and that they were loaded therein but that none of the Proprietors were present That there was no actual Contract between the Plaintiff and the Proprietors or any Negligence in them but the Boards were dampnified by the neglect of the said Master c. The Questions upon this special Verdict were two 1. Whether this Action would lie against the Defendant alone as one of the Proprietors or whether it must be brought against them all 2. If the Action ought to be brought against them all then Not-Guilty was not a proper Plea because the Defendant ought to have pleaded in Abatement that the rest of the Owners super se susceperunt simul cum the Defendant absque hoc quod he super se suscepit tantum It was argued for the Plaintiff that the Action may be well brought against any single person of the Proprietors because 't is grounded upon a Tort as well as upon a Contract which in this Case is only an Inducement to the Action and therefore the Plaintiff hath liberty to bring it either the one way or the other for 't is both joint and several So it is in Trover where a Man declares that he was possessed of such Goods that the Defendant found them and promised to deliver them but converted them to his own use the Contract is but Iuducement for the cause of Action arises upon the Conversion This is a remedy given by the construction of the Law and if so it must be certain and effectual to all intents and therefore it hath been ruled in an Action brought against a common Carrier upon the Assumpsit in Law Sid. 244. and likewise upon the Tort that the Declaration was ill and though the Plaintiff had a Verdict yet the Iudgment was arrested because he had declared both ways Agreeable to this was that Iudgment which was given upon the Statute of 2 Ed. Hutt 121 122. 3. for not setting out of Tythes in an Action of Debt brought against two Tenants in Common it happened that one of them set out the Tythes and the other carried them away and because the Action was brought against both it was held to be ill for it lies only against him which did the wrong 2. If the Action ought to be brought against all then the Defendant should have taken advantage of it by pleading and to have shewed who were the Proprietors with himself for 't is impossible for the Plaintiff to know who they are and for this reason the Plea is not good E contra E contra The Plaintiff ought to have brought his Action either against the Master alone or all the Proprietors 't is true if this had been only an Action of a simple Trespass he might have brought it against all or one but this sounds not only in a Wrong but 't is in Breach of a Covenant or Duty and so ought to be commenced against all of them as common Carriers Now the great reason why all are liable to an Action is because they all have a reward for the Hire of the Vessel and it seems very unreasonable that one should bear the burthen and the rest run away with the profit The principal Case in Hutton is an Authority directly to this purpose though it was otherwise quoted by the Plaintiffs Council it was Debt upon the Statute of Ed. 6. brought against one Lessee for not setting out of Tythes and it appeared upon the Evidence that two were jointly possessed of the Term and for that reason it was held that the Action would not lie against one alone 2. The Defendant ought not to have pleaded in Abatement that the rest of the Proprietors super se susceperunt simul cum the Defendant c. because such a Plea would not have been good here for he shall never be compelled to plead in Abatement either in Debt or Contract but in one single Case and that is where two are bound jointly and one is sued he may plead in Abatement 5 Co. 119. but cannot say Non est factum for the Bond is his Deed since each of them have sealed it Afterwards in Hillary-Term the Defendant had Iudgment Judicium that the Action ought to be brought against all the Partowners because they have all an equal benefit and the ground of the Action is upon a Trust reposed in all and every Trust supposeth a Contract 2 Cro. 202. Palm 523. and in all Cases grounded upon Contracts the Parties who are Privies must be joyned in the Action The Master of the Ship is no more than a Servant to the Owners he hath no Property either general or special but the Power he hath is given by the Civil Law There are many Cases where the act of the Servant shall charge the Master as for instance viz. King Ed. 6. sold a quantity of Lead to Renagre Dyer 161. and appointed the Lord North who was then Chancellor of his Court of Augmentations to take Bond for payment of the Mony The Lord North appointed one Benger who was his Clerk to take the Bond which was done who delivered it to the Lord and he delivered it back again to his Clerk in order to send it to the Clerk of the Court of Augmentations Benger suppressed this Bond and it was the Opinion of all the Iudges of England that the Lord North was chargeable to the King because the possession of the Bond by his Servant and by his Order was his own possession So where an Officer of the Customs made a Deputy Dyer 238. b. who concealed the Duties and the Master being ignorant of the Concealment certified the Customs of that part of the Revenue into the Exchequer upon Oath he was adjudged to be answerable for this Concealment of his Servant So where the Lessor was bound that the Lessee should quietly enjoy and it was found that his Servant by his command 4 Leon. 123. and he being present entred this was held to be a Breach of the Condition for the Master was the principal Trespasser Therefore though
Demise and the Word Assignes is in the Deed yet they are not bound if they have no Estate so that 't is not the naming of them but by reason of the Estate in the Land they are made chargeable No Iudgment is entred upon the Roll. FINIS ERRATA FOlio 88. Line 13. for Defendant read Plaintiff f. 106. l. 26. for no r. an f. 119. l. 7. after must be r. Error f. 147. l. 13 18 38. for coram r. quorum f. 189. l. 23. for reasonable r. unreasonable f. 196. l. 28. for devises r. demises f. 199. l. 1. for 23. r. 13. f. 201. l. 14. before merged r. not f. 218. l. 17. for 1672. r. 1679. f. 203. l. 31. after Berkley r. and Mr. Killigrew f. 222. l. 31. leave out and marrieth f. 226. l. 21. leave out she marrieth f. 237. l. 29. for devise r. demise f. 255. l. 31. for Father r. Nephew f. 256. l. 12. for joyned r. tryed f. 287. l. 6. after delivered r. tied f. 303. l. 16. for Grantee r. Guarantee f. 307. l. 36. for voidable r. void A TABLE to the Third Part of Modern Reports A. Abatement See Ioint Action 8. 1. DEBT was brought by four Plaintiffs one of them died before Judgment the Action is abated as to the rest 249 2. Waste is brought against Tenant pur auter vie and pending the Writ Cestui que vie dieth the Writ shall not abate because no other person can be sued for the Damages ibid. 3. Two Jointenants are Defendants the death of one shall not abate the Writ for the Action is joint and several ibid. 4. Where two or more are to recover in a personal thing the death of one shall abate the Action as to the rest ibid. 5. But in Audita Querela the death of one shall not abate the Writ because it is in discharge ibid. Abeiance See Acceptance 1. Resignation of a Benefice passes nothing to the Ordinary but putteth the Freehold in Abeiance till his acceptance 297 See Acceptance Resignation Surrender Acts of Parliament See Iustice of Peace 2 Pardon 2 Ought to be construed according to the intention of the Law-makers and ought to be expounded according to the Rules of the Common Law 63 2. Where a particular punishment is directed by a Statute Law it must be pursued and no other can be inflicted upon the Offender 78 118 3. When an Act is penal it ought to be construed according to Equity 90 157 312 4. Preamble is the best Expositor of the Law 129 169 Action upon the Ease Assumpsit A Feoffment was made upon Trust that the Feoffee should convey the Estate to another the Cestuy que Trust may have an Action if the Feoffee refuseth to convey 149 2. In consideration that the Plaintiff would let the Defendant have Meat Drink c. he promised to pay as much as it was reasonably worth the word valerent was in the Declaration it should have been quantum valebant at the time of the Promise but held good after Verdict 190 3. Where a personal promise is grounded upon a real Contract the Action will lie 73 4. It will not lie for Rent reserved upon a Demise but where a Promise is made to pay Rent in consideration of occupying a House it will lie 240 Action on the Case See Bankrupts 2 Indictment 2 Slander where it lieth 1. He is a Papist spoken of a Deputy Lieutenant 26 2. Where the words injure a person in his Profession or bring him in danger of punishment 27 3. He stole the Colonel's Cupboard Cloth there being no precedent Discourse either of the Colonel or his Cloth 280 4. He is broken and run away and never will return again spoken of a Carpenter 155 5. He is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his door but he spoken of a Merchant who made a Bonefire at the Coronation of King James 103 6. He owes more Mony than he is worth he is run away and is broak spoken of an Husbandman 112 7. The Wife was called Whore and that she was the Defendant's Whore the Husband and she brought the Action and concluded ad dampnum ipsorum it lies without allegding special Damages 120 8. Sir J. K. is a buffle headed Fellow and doth not understand Law he is not fit to talk Law with me I have baffled him and he hath not done my Client Justice spoken of a Justice of Peace 139 9. J. P. is a Knave and a busie Knave for searching after me and other honest men of my sort and I will make him give satisfaction for plundering me spoken of a Justice of Peace no Colloquium was laid the Court was divided 163 Where it doth not lie Words were laid to be spoken ad tenorem effectum sequen ' which is not an express allegation that they were spoken 71 72 Action on the Case against a Common Carrier Where it was brought against him upon an Assumpsit in Law and likewise upon a Tort the Declaration is not good 322 Action on the Case for a wrong See Pleading For diverting of a Water-course the Antiquity of the Mill must be set forth 49 2. It lies against a wrong doer upon the bare possession only and the Plaintiff need not set forth whether he hath a Title by Grant or Prescription for that goes to the right 51 52 132 3. If the Declaratien is for the diverting of the Water ab antiquo solito cursu this amounts to a Prescription which must be proved at the Trial or the Plaintiff will be non-suited 52 4. Whether it lieth for the making of a scandalous Affidavit in Chancery 108 5. For selling of Oxen affirming them to be his own ubi revera they were not but doth not say sciens the same to be the Goods of another or that he sold them fraudulenter or deceptive 't is naught upon a Demurrer but good after Verdict 261 6. Where several are guilty of a wrong the Action may be brought against either 321 7. Debt upon the Statute of Ed. 6. for not setting out Tithes brought against two Tenants in Common one of them did set out the Tithes and the other carried them away it ought to be brought only against the wrong doer 322 8. For disturbing of a Man in a Common Passage or Common High-way no Action on the Case lieth without a particular damage done to himself for the proper remedy is a Presentment in the Leet 294 Administrator Vide Infant 18 Ordinary Interest 2 Pleading 2 Administrator durante minore aetate hath no power over the Estate 24 2. Administration could not be granted by the Spiritual Court before the Statute of Ed. 3. 24 3. Where 't is once granted whether it ought to be repealed 25 4. Administrator had the whole Estate in him before the Statute of Distributions 60 5. He then gave Bond to distribute as the Ordinary should direct ibid. 6. The Father died
intestate leaving one Son an Infant Administration was granted durante minore aetate he died before 17. whether Administration de bonis non of the Father shall be granted to the next of Kin of him or his Son 61 62 7. Whether an Interest is vested in an Infant where Administration is granted durante minore aetate so that if he die before 17. it goes to his Executor 61 8. Before the Statute of Distribution if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal and if he died before it was granted to him by the Court it would not go to his Executor 62 9. Husband hath a right of Administration to the Goods of the Wife because the Marriage is quasi a Gift in Law 64 10. If Administration had been granted to a Stranger before the Statute of Distributions and no Appeal within fourteen days he who had right though beyond Sea was barred 64 11. Husband and Wife Administratrix to her first Husband recover in Debt the Wife died and the Husband brought a Scire Facias to have Execution it will not lie by him alone because it was a Demand by the Wife as Administratrix in auter droit ibid. 12. Judgment was had in Somersetshire the Plaintiff died intestate Administration is committed by an inferior Diocess 't is void because the Entry of the Judgment in Middlesex where the Records are kept made him have bona notabilia in several Diocesses and so Administration ought to be granted in the Prerogative 324 13. If the Intestate hath two Sons and no Wife each have a Moiety of the personal Estate if but one an interest is vested in him 59 14. At Common Law none had a Right to an Intestate's Estate but the Ordinary was to distribute it to Pious Uses ibid. Admiral and Admiralty There was a Sentence in the Admiralty for taking of a Ship and afterwards Trover was brought for taking of the same Ship whether it lies or not 194 2. Pawning of a Ship for Necessaries at Land and a Libel was exhibited in the Admiralty whether good or not 244 3. Where things arising upon Lands may be sued for in the Admiralty 245 Addition See Indictment Where it makes a thing certain as an Ejectment de Tenemento is incertain but with the addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is made certain 238 Admittance See Baron and Feme 9. A Custom cannot warrant an incertain Fine upon an Admittance to a Copyhold 133 2. The Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of the Fine where 't is certain ibid. 3. Where 't is incertain the Lord is to admit first and then to set the Fine ibid. 4. Custom that upon every Admission the Tenant should pay a years value of the Land as it was worth tempore admissionis t is good 132 5. For a Fine upon an Admission an Action of Debt will lye for though it favours of the realty yet 't is a certain duty 230 6. Before Admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderor and he shall have an Action of Trespass against any person who enters before another is admitted 226 7. Before an Admittance the Surrendree cannot enter but by special Custom to warrant it 225 Affidavit See Action on the Case for a Wrong 4. See Baron and Feme 11. Infant 21. Agreement and Disagreement Whether assent is necessary to a Surrender it being a Conveyance at the Common Law 't is not necessary in Devises or in any Conveyances directed by particular Statutes or by Custom 298 2. Whether the Estate shall be in the Surrendree immediately upon the execution of the Deed if he doth not shew some disassent to it 300 3. Agreement is not so much necessary to perfect a Conveyance as a Disagreement is to make it void ibid. 4. A Feoffment to three and Livery is made to one the Estate is in all till disagreement 301 Alien Leases made to Alien Artificers are void by the Statute of 32 H. 8. This Statute was pleaded by an Alien who was a Vintner and held to be no Artificer 94 Amendment See Mistrial Costs 2. 1. Of the Distringas by the Roll after a Verdict the Day and Place of Assizes being left out 78 2. In matters of Form the Court have sent for a Coroner to amend his Inquisition 101 3. Of a Mis-entry of a Writ of Enquiry without paying of Costs 113 4. Return to an Homine Replegiando amended by Rule of Court 120 5. A Riot was laid to be committed after the Indictment it was amended being only a Misprision of the Clerk 167 6. Where matter of Form is cured by a Verdict but 't is not amendable upon a Demurrer 235 7. Scire Facias upon a Recognizance to have Execution for 1000 l. juxta formam Recuperationis it should have been recognitionis amended after a Demurrer 251 Amerciament See Court 3. 1. Differs from a Fine for that is the act of the Court but an Amerciament is the act of the Jury 138 2. It need not be to a Sum certain for that may be affered 138 3. A Bailiff of a Liberty cannot distrein for an Amerciament Virtute officii but he ought to set forth the taking Virtute Warranti ibid. Appeal Against three for a Murder the Count was that O. gave the wound of which the person died the Jury found that L. gave the wound and that O. and M. were assisting this varies from the Count and yet held good 121 2. The Wound was given in one County and the Death ensued in another and the Party was Tryed where the Wound was given and held good ibid. 3. At Common Law it was at the Election of the Appellant to bring the Appeal in either County and the Tryal to be by a Jury of both but now it may be brought in the County where the Party died 122 4. Whether Auter foitz Convict of Man-Slaughter is a good Plea to an Appeal of Murder 156 157 5. If a Woman be slain her next of Kin shall maintain an Appeal 157 6. How many things are required by the Statute of Gloucester to be alledged in an Appeal of Murder 158 7. The Appellee pleaded in Abatement but did not plead over to the Felony whether good or not 267 8. Where the Appellee must plead in propria persona and where per Attornatum 268 Apportionment Where a Contract under Hand and Seal for a Sum certain shall not be apportioned in an Action pro Rata as if it be for a Years Service the Plaintiff must serve a Year and aver it tho' the Contract is executory 153 2. But if a Promise is for a Years Board an Action may be brought for three Quarters of a Year for if there is a Variance between the Agreement and the Declaration 't is for the benefit of the Defendant 154 Apprentice Whether Justices of Peace have any power to compel men to take poor Children Apprentices since the Statute gives power to Church-wardens to raise
Mony for putting them out which must be to such who are willing to to take them for Mony 270 Arbitrament To pay 5 l. presently and give Bond to pay 10 l. more on a day following and now to sign general Releases it shall only discharge such matters which were then depending at the time of the submission and not the Bond 264 2. A person who was a Stranger to the Submission was awarded to be a Surety 't is void 272 3. Submission was so as the Award be made c. ready to be delivered to the Parties or to such of them who shall desire it the Defendant must desire the Award and plead the matter specially and the Plaintiff need not aver that it was ready to be delivered 330 Assent See Agreement Assets Reversion in Fee Expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets but when it comes into possession then and not before 't is Assets 257 Assignment See Privity of Contract 2. Executor of a Lessee for years shall be liable to an Action of Debt for Rent incurr'd after an assignment of the Term for the privity of Contract of the Testator is not determined by his Death but his Executor shall be charged with his Contracts so long as he hath Assets 326 Assizes The Method of arraigning an Assize the Title must be set forth in it 273 Attornment See Bargain and Sale Ejectment of a Manor parcel in Rents and parcel in Services the Attornment of the Tenants must be proved 36 Averment See Devise 4 The consideration of a Duty ought to be precisely alledged as in an Action on the Case for a Duty to be paid for weighing Goods it must be averred that the Goods were such which are usually sold by weight 162 2. The nature of an Averment is to reduce a thing to a certainty which was incertain before 216 3. Where it may be made against the express words of a Condition 217 4. Not allowed to be made against a Record 305 B. Bail IT was demised in a Scandalum Magnatum 4 2. Writ of Error pending in the Exchequer-Chamber the principal in the Action rendred himself the Bail are discharged 87 3. Scire Facias against Bail upon a Writ of Error who plead that the Principal rendred himself before Judgment 't is not good for the Bail are liable not only to render the Body but to pay the Debt ibid. 4. Proceedings were staied by Injunction above two Terms after the Bail was put in and before the Declaration delivered which was pleaded to a Scire Facias brought against them but held not good 274 Bankrupts An Inn-keeper is not within the Statutes of Bankrupcy 327 2. 'T is not actionable to call a Man Bankrupt unless it be laid that he was a Trader at the time of the words spoken 329 3. Inn-keeper buys and sells under a Restraint of Justices and Stewards of Leets which though for a Livelihood yet cannot be a Bankrupt 329 4. Whether a Farmer or Master of a Boarding-School be within the Statutes 330 Baretry Difference between Baretry and Maintenance 97 2. 'T is not Baretry to arrest a Man without a cause ibid. 4. If one design to oppress and to recover his own right 't is Baretry 98 5. Mony may be laid out to recover the just right of a poor man and no Baretry ibid. 6. But mony may not be expended to promote and stir up Suits ibid. Barbadoes It was gotten by Conquest and therefore to be governed by what Law the King willeth 161 Bargain and Sale What words by construction of Law shall amount to a Bargain and Sale to make the Reversion pass with the Rent without Attornment 237 Baron and Feme See Slander 7 Administrator 9 11 Sci. Fa. 7 1. Whether Sci. Fa. will lie against the Husband alone after the death of the Wife upon a Judgment had against her Dum sola 186 2. If a Judgment is recovered against her while sole then she marries and dies the Husband is not chargeable unless had likewise against him during the Coverture ibid. 3. A Debt is due to her whilst sole she marries and dies before 't is recovered it shall not go to the Husband by virtue of the marriage but he may have it as Administrator to his Wife ibid. 4. Judgment is obtained against her whilst sole she marries and a Sci. Fa. is brought against Husband and Wife and Judgment quod habeat executionem the Wife dies a Scire Fa. may be brought against the Husband alone 189 5. The Recovery upon a Sci. fa. is against both and is therefore joynt against both 188 6. Husband may have Execution of a Judgment recovered by him and his Wife after the Death of his Wife without a Sci. fa. 189 7. Devastavit against both the Wife being an Executrix and Judgment that the Plaintiff have Execution de bonis propriis the Wife dies the Goods of the Husband are liable ibid. 8. A Woman who had a Term for years married the Rent is arrear she died the Husband shall be liable because by the Marriage he is entituled to the Profits of the Land ibid. 9. Feme Covert Copy-holder her Husband made a Lease for years without Licence of the Lord 't is a Forfeiture during the Coverture 222 9. Feme Covert Heir to a Copyhold Estate her Husband after three Proclamations will not be admitted 't is a Forfeiture during Coverture 226 10. The Husband hath a Lease in Right of his Wife who was an Executrix and he grnats all his Right and title therein the Right which he had by his Wife passeth 278 12. A. Feme Sole had a Lease and Married then Husband and Wife Surrender in consideration of a new Lease to be granted to the Wife and to her Sons the Estate vests immediately in her without the assent of her Husband for the Law intends it her Estate till he dissassent 300 13. Feme Covert and another joint-Tenant for Life she and the Husband Lease their Moiety reserving a Rent during Life and the Life of her Partner the Wife died 't is a good Lease against the Surviving joint-Tenant till disagreement 300 14. The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and Wife and to the Heirs of the Survivor he afterwards made another Feoffment of the same Lands and died the Wife entred but the Fee was not vested in her by the first Conveyance because the contingent right was destroyed by the last 310 Barr. Recovery in a personal Action is a Barr to an Action of the like nature where the same Evidence supporteth both Actions 2 Judgment in Trespass is no Barr to an Action of Detinue 2 Bill of Exchange The Drawer and Endorsers are all liable to payment but if Recovery be against one 't is a good Bar to an Action which may be brought against the rest 86 By-Law See Corporation 12. Trade 8. Where 't is too general and where not 193 C. Carrier See Pleading 11. Certainty See Custom Grants Certiorari
certain or 't is not good 134 4. Must be taken strictly when it goes to the destruction of an Estate 224 5. A Custom that every Copyholder who leases his Land shall forfeit it doth not bind an Infant 229 6. Amongst Merchants where it must be particularly set forth 226 7. It must be certain and therefore where it was laid for an Infant to sell his Land when he can measure an Ell of Cloth 't is void for the incertainty 290 8. To have solam separalem pasturam hath been held good 291 9. Prescription must have a lawful commencement but 't is sufficient for a Custom to be certain and reasonable 292 10. Whether a Custom likewise ought to have a lawful commencement 293 D. Damages See Ejectment 3. Ioint Action 2. Trespass 2. Baron and Feme brought an Action for words spoken of the Wife and concluded ad damnum ipsorum 't is good for if she survive the Damages will go to her 120 Det See Admittance 5. Assignment 1. Iudgment 1. Quantum meruit Where 't is brought upon a Specialty for less than the whole Sum it must be shewed how the other was discharged 41 2. Whether it lies for a Fine upon an admission to a Copyhold Estate for it doth not arise upon any Contract 240 3. There must be a personal Contract or a Contract implyed by Law to maintain an Action of Debt ibid. Deceit See Action on the Case Deputy See Office 6 7 9. Devise See Tail Where it shall not be extended by implication 82 2. Where the word Estate passeth a Fee where not 45 105. 3. I give All to my Mother passeth only an Estate for Life for the Particle All is a Relative without a Substantive 32 4. To A. and the Testator's Name is omitted in the Will yet 't is good by averring his Name and proving his Intention to devise it 217 5. The Testator after several Specifick Legacies and Devises of Lands gave all the rest and remaining part of his Estate c. by those Words the Reversion in Fee passed 228 6. By the Devise of an Hereditament the Reversion in Fee passeth 229 Disseisin See Election 1. Interest 2. The Son Purchased in Fee and was disseised by his Father who made a Feoffment with Warranty the Son is bound for ever 91 2. Lessor made a Lease for Life and died his Son suffered a Common Recovery this is a Disseisin ibid. 3. Where an Estate for Life or years cannot be gained by a Disseisin ibid. 4. A wrongful Entry is never satisfied with any particular Estate nor can gain any thing but a Fee-simple 92 Distribution Before the Statute if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal so that if he died before Administration his Executor could not have it 62 E. Ejectment THE Demise was laid to be the 12th of Junii habendum a praed duodecimo die Junii which must be the 13th day by vertue whereof he entred and that the Defendant Postea eod 12 die Junii did Eject him which must be before the Plaintiff had any Title for his Lease commenced on the 13th day not good 199 2. De uno Messuagio sive Tenemento not good because the word Tenementum is of an incertain signification but with this addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is good 238 3. If the Term should expire pending the Suit the Plaintiff may proceed for his Damages for though the Action is expired quoad the possession yet it continues for the Damages 249 Election Where the Cause of Action ariseth in two places the Plaintiff may choose to try it where he pleases 165 2. Tenant at Will made a Lease for years the Lessee entreth this is no disseisin but at the Election of him who had the Interest in it 197 Entry In Feoffments Partitions and Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until actual Entry 297 2. Lease for years not good without Entry 297 3. Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail Male levied a Fine and made a Feoffment having but one Son then born and afterwards had another Son the eldest died without Issue the Contingent Remainder to the second was not destroy'd by this Feoffment for it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time of the Feoffment made 305 Escape Debt upon an Escape would not lie at the Common Law against the Goaler it was given by the Statute of W. 2. 145 2. The superior Officer is liable to the voluntary Escapes suffered by his Deputy unless the Deputation is for life 146 3. If an Escape is by negligence it must be particularly found 151 4. A person was in Execution upon an erroneous Judgment and escaped and Judgment and Execution was had against the Gaoler and then the first Judgment was reversed yet that against the Gaoler shall stand 325 Evidence See Witness An Affidavit made in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence but only as a Letter unless Oath is made by a Witness that he was present when it was taken before the Master 36 2. What shall be Evidence of a fraudulent Settlement ibid. 3. An Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence to conclude an Infant 259 4. Whether the return of the Commissioners in a Chancery Cause that the person made Oath before them is sufficient Evidence to convict of Perjury 116 5. Whether a true Copy of an Affidavit made before the Chief Justice is sufficient to convict the person for the like Offence 117 6. A Verdict may be given in Evidence between the same Parties but not where there are different persons unless they are all united in the same interest 142 7. Conviction for having two Wives shall not be given in Evidence to prove the unlawfulness of a Marriage but the Writ must go to the Bishop because at Law one Jury may find it no Marriage and another otherwise 164 Exchange Ought to be executed by each Party in their Life time otherwise 't is void 135 Excommunication Stat. 5 Eliz. For not coming to the Parish Church the Penalties shall not incurr if the person hears Divine Service in any other Church 42 2. The Causes are enumerated in the Statute which must be contained in the Significavit otherwise the Penalties are not to incurr 89 Executor See Grants Notice 5. Whether an Executor de son tort can have any interest in a Term for years 91 93 2. An Executor may sell the Goods before Probate 92 3. May pay Debt upon a simple Contract before a Bond of which he had no notice 115 4. Whether an Action of Debt will lie against an Executor upon a Mutuatus 5. By what words he hath an Authority only without an Interest in the thing devised 209 210 6. He had both Goods of his Testator and of his own and granted omnia bona sua that which he hath as Executor will not pass for
before a Coroner the person having drowned himself it was suffocat ' emergit fuit if it had stood singly upon the word emergit it had been insensible but the word suffocat ' expressing the sense it was held good 100 4. Where nothing is vested in the King before Office found ibid. 5. It must always be found that there is an Estate in the person offending and a cause of Forfeiture of that Estate to vest it in the King 336 Interest in a thing See Pardon 4. Where a Man may have an interest in a Chattel without a Property 61 2. Devise to a Wife and Children after Debts and Legacies paid an interest vests in the Devisees but 't is otherwise in case of Administration for there no Interest vests till actual distribution 65 3. A Man may have a Property tho' not in himself as in the Case of Joyntenancy 97 Intestate See Administration Innuendo The proper office of it is to make the subject matter certain 53 2. It will not help insensible words 54 Joyntenancy and Tenancy in Common See Abatement 3. Baron and Feme 12. Interest 3. If one Joyntenant bring an Action against the other unless he pleads the Jointenancy in abatement the Plaintiff will recover 97 2. If two Coparceners lease a House and the Rent is arrear and one brings an Action and recovers Judgment shall be arrested because both ought to joyn 109 3. Tenants in Common must join in the personalty but 't is otherwise in real Actions for though their Estates are several yet the Damages to be recovered survive to all 109 251 4. Where one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow 251 Joint Action See Action for a wrong 6. Ioyntenancy 2 3. Where an Action may be joint or several at the Election of the Plaintiff 86 2. Where 't is brought against three Defendants who plead jointly the Jury may sever the Damages and the Plaintiff may take Execution de melioribus damnis as well as where their Pleas are several and Tryals at several times 101 102 3. Judgment against two and one brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Infancy of the other for Error the Writ was abated because both did not joyn 134 4. The Defendants in the original Action must joyn in a Writ of Error but it seems otherwise where the Plaintiffs bring Error 135 5. Two covenant to sell Lands and the Purchasor agreed to pay the Mony to one of them he alone ought to bring the Action 263 6 Where there are several Proprietors of a Vessel for carriage of Goods which are damaged by carrying the Action must be brought against all or against the Master alone 321 322 7 Where two Tenants in Common were sued for not setting out of Tythes the Action ought to be brought not against him who set them out but against the other who carried them away 322 8. Two are bound joyntly one is sued he may plead in Abatement that he was bound with another but cannot plead Non est factum 323 9 In all Cases which are grounded upon Contracts the Parties who are Privies must be joyned in the Action ibid. 10 Action must be brought against all where a promise is created by Law 324 Issue Must be joyned upon an affirmative and a negative by concluding to the Country 80 Iudges The making altering and displacing of several Judges Serjeants at Law and King's Council 71 99 100 104 125 143 191 239 Iustices of Peace Offences against the Statute of 23 Eliz c. 1. for not coming to Church may be enquired of by them in their Sessions 79 2. Where a Statute appoints a thing finally to be done by them yet the Court of King's Bench may take Cognizance of it 95 3. Conviction for keeping of a Gun before a Justice of Peace the time when he had not 100 l. per Annum must be precisely alledged 280 Iustification See Pleading 4 5. Where 't is pleaded by way of Excuse to an Action of Trespass for the taking of any thing the Defendant must averr the Fact to be done and set forth the Warrant to him directed and the taking virtute Warranti and not generally that he took it by a Mandate c. 138 2. In Replevin where the Defendant made Conusance in right of the Lord he may Justifie the taking generally ibid. Iudgment 1. At the Common Law no Execution could be of a Judgment after a year and a day but the remedy was to bring an Action of Debt upon Judgment 187 189 2. Now a Scire Fac. is given upon a Judgment after the year by the Statue of W. 2. 189 3. When a Judgment is once execucuted the Goods are in custodia legis and shall not be taken away by an Exchequer Process or by the Commissioners of Bankrupts 236 L. Lapse See Notice Lease A Covenant in a Lease for years that the Lessee should pay the Rent without obliging his Executors or Administrators 't is determined by his Death 231 2. For 99 yeas if three persons or any of them so long live reserving a Rent and an Herriot upon the death of either the Beast of the Assignee shall not be taken for a Herriot for the Lessee is to pay his best Beast and that shall not be carried further than to the person named 231 Libel Where a Fine and Corporal punishment was imposed upon the Offender after Conviction 68 Limitation An Estate was setled upon Trustees to the use of A. and her Heirs provided she marry with the consent of Trustees remainder over to B. This is a Limitation and not a Condition 32 Limitation of Action See 21 Jac. 16. Where a Trespass is laid with a continuando for more than six years and the Statute pleaded and entire Damages it must be intended only for that which falls within the six years and that the Jury rejected the beginning of the Trespass 111 2. This Statute relates to a distinct and not to a continued Account 112 3. It provides a Remedy when the Plaintiff is beyond Sea at the time when his Right accrews and saves it till he returns whether it may be extended in a Case where the Defendant is beyond Sea longer than six years from the time the Plaintiff was entituled to the Action 311 312 Local Actions Whether Covenant will lie by an Assignee of a Reversion against an Assignee of a Lessee in any other place than where the Land lieth 337 2. Debitum contractus sunt nullius loci ibid. 3. Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years brought upon the Contract and Covenant between the same Parties are transitory ibid. 4. If Privity of Contract is gone by making an Assignment and only a privity in Law remains the Action must be brought in the County where the Land lieth ibid. M. Mayor See Corporation Marriage See Condition 3. Evidence 7. Limitation Notice A Maid above 12 and under 16 taken from Parents or Guardian and Married forfeits her Estate to the next in
An Administrator pleaded a Judgment in Bar to an Action of Debt for 100 l. brought against him and that he had not Assets praeterquam bona non attingen to 5 l. but did not shew the certain value of the Goods and yet held good ibid. 3. A Judgment upon a simple Contract may be pleaded in Barr to an Action of Debt upon a Bond 115 4. A Possession where 't is only an Inducement to a Plea and not Substance the Defendant may justifie upon such a possession against a Wrong-doer 132 5. Where a special Justification is to an Action of Assault and false Imprisonment the cause of Commitment must be set forth in the Plea 160 6. Where the defence consists in matter of Law the Defendant may plead specially but when 't is Fact he must plead the geneal Issue 166 7. Where special matter which might be given in Evidence at the Trial and which amounts to no more than the general Issue may be pleaded ibid. 8. When a Man is brought into Court by Capias he ought to plead instanter because he hath given delay to the Court 215 9. So where he appears upon Recognizance or in propria persona or is in Custody for any Misdemeanour he ought to plead instanter ibid. 10. In Covenant to pay so much Mony to the Plaintiff or his Assigns as should be drawn upon the Defendant by Bill of Exchange he pleaded that the Plaintiff secundum legem mercatoriam did assign the Mony to be paid c. it ought to have been secundum consuetudinem mercatoriam 226 227 11. If an Action is brought against an Inn-keeper or Common Carrier the Declaration must be secundum legem consuetudinem Angliae 227 12. In Trespass the Plaintiff prescribed as to the Freehold and alledged a Custom in the Copyholders to have solam separalem pasturam c. whether he could make a joynt Title in the same Declaration by virtue of a prescription and Custom 250 13. If the Plea is double the Plaintiff ought to demurr 251 14. The Condition of a Bond was to acquit discharge and save harmless Non damnificatus generally is not a good Plea without shewing how acquitted and discharged 252 15. Mutuatus for 400 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attainder of Treason in Abatement the Plaintiff replied that after the Attainder and before the Action he was pardoned c. and concludes unde petit Judicium dampna sua for this cause Replication was held ill 281 Pledges See Replevin Replevin in an inferior Court by Pleint removed in B. R. the Plaintiff was nonsuited and a Sci. Fac. brought against his Pledges and held good 58 2. There are no Pledges of Returno Habend ' at the Common Law the Sheriff was not obliged to take Pledges in a Replevin by Plaint 75 Poor A Man had 5 l. to remove out of one Parish into another who gave Bond to repay it if he returned within forty days he stayed there so long and it was held a good Settlement 67 2. A Note in writing must now be left pursuant to the Statute to make a Settlement 247 Possession 'T is sufficient to maintain an Action against a Wrong-doer 48 Prerogative Whether a Lease was made pursuant to a Power in a Proviso to make Leases for three Lives or 21 years or for any Term upon three Lives the Lease made was for 99 years determinable upon three Lives 268 269 Power In granting of Letters Patents of the sole printing exclusive of all others 76 129 2. Where no individual person can claim a Right or Property it must be vested in the King by Law 76 3. Whether the King hath a Prerogative to restrain Trade to a particular number of Men in particular places 127 4. He may command his Subjects to return out of a Foreign Nation ibid. 5. He may regulate Trade by Letters Patents Prescription See Common 2. Pleading 12. For a way he may set forth his Estate without shewing how he came by it 52 2. Where it cannot be by a Que Estate to have Retorna Brevium 200 3. Where it may be to hold Pleas Leets and Hundreds without matter of Record 201 4. For all the Tenants of a Mannor to fowl in a Free Warren this Prescription is not too large it might not be good upon a Demurrer but 't is otherwise after a Verdict 246 5. For a Profit apprender in alieno solo the Tenants of a Mannor may prescribe by a Que estate exclusive of the Lord ibid. 6. There must be a certain and permanent Interest abiding in some person to maintain a Prescription and therefore it will not lie ratione commorantiae 290 7. To have Common sans numbre is good but ad libitum suum which is almost the same thing is void ibid. 8. It may be joyned with a Custom in the same Declaration 251 9. Where 't is laid in a discharge as to be exempted from Toll or for an easment as for a Way to a Church not only a particular person but the Inhabitants of a whole Vill may prescribe but where it relates to the Profit or Interest in the Land it self 't is not so 292 Presentment In a Court Leet which concerns the person and not the Freehold whether traversable 137 138 Privity of Contract See Local Action 4. Action against an Administratrix of a Term for Rent incurred after the Assignment of the Lease the Privity of Contract of the Intestate was not determined by his death but Administratrix shall be charged with his Contracts as long as she hath Assets 326 'T is not gone either by an Assignment of the Term or death of the Lessor neither is it transferred to the Assignee by the Statute of H. 8. for that Statute only annexeth such Covenants which concern the Land with the Reversion 337 338 Proof See Prohibition Prohibition Not to be granted because a Temporal Loss may ensue 67 2. Where some words are actionable at Law and some punishable in the Spiritual Court a Prohibition shall be granted for otherwise it would be a double vexation 74 3. Libel causa jactationis maritagii the Suggestion for a Prohibition was that he was indicted at the Old Bayly for marrying two Wives that he was convicted in a Court of that Offence which had a proper Jurisdiction c. and a Prohibition was granted 164 4. A person lived in one Diocess and occupied Lands in another where he was taxed towards the finding of Bells for that Church for which a Suit was commenced in the Bishop's Court where the Lands were and he suggested the Statute of H. 8. that no Man shall be cited out of his Diocess except for some Spiritual Cause neglected to be done there and a Prohibition was granted for this was not a Spiritual Cause neglected to be done because Church Ornaments are a personal Charge upon the Inhabitants and not upon the Land Owners who dwell else where but the repairing of the Church is a real Charge upon
it self 81 83 2. The Testator had two Sons and four Daughters he devised a House to his eldest Son and if he die then he devised his Estate to his four Daughters and if all his Sons and Daughters died without Issue then to A. and her Heirs this is not an Estate Tail in the Daughters by Implication 105 3. Where a Devise is to several persons by express Limitation and a Proviso if all die without Issue of their Bodies the Remainder over this is no cross Remainder or an Estate by Implication because 't is a Devise to them severally by express Limitations 106 4. Devise to his eldest Son and if he die without Heirs Males but doth not say of his Body then to his other Son c. 't is an Estate Tail in the eldest 123 Tenant in Common A Devise to hold by equal parts makes a Tenancy in Common so that there can be no Survivorship in such case 210 Tenant at Will Cestuy que Trust by Deed is Tenant at Will to the Trustees 149 2. Where a Grant by Tenant at Will though void amounts to a determination of his Will 150 3. Whether Tenant at Will can grant over his Estate ibid. 4. What Act shall amount to the determination of his Will ibid. 5. Any thing is sufficient to make an Estate at Will 196 6. Tenant in Fee made a Lease for 100 years in Trust to attend the Inheritance and continued still in Possession he is Tenant at Will to the Lessee for 100 years and if he make any Lease and levy a Fine Sur Cognizance c. the first Lease is displaced and turned to a Right and the Fine barrs it 196 Trade See Grants 2. Prerogative 3 5. Indictment 12. Information 7. Confinement of Staple to certain places was the first regulation of Trade and from thence came Markets 127 2. The King is sole Judge where Fairs or Markets ought to be kept ibid. 3. Custom to restrain a Man from using of a Trade in a particular place is good 128 4. A Man may restrain himself by Promise or Obligation not to use a Trade in a particular place ibid. 5. Regulation of Trade is the chief end of Incorporations ibid. 6. Such incorporate Bodies have an inherent power to judge what persons are fit to use Trades within their Jurisdictions ibid. 7. Whether Grants of the King prohibiting Trade are void 131 8. Cannot be restrained by any By-Law 159 9. At the Common Law any Man might exercise any Trade he please 312 10. Petty-Chapmen are not within the Statute of 5 Eliz. 315 11. Journymen who work for hire are not within the Statute but the Master who sets them to work and pays their Wages is punishable 316 317 12. Subject hath not power absolutely to trade without the King's Licence 127 Travers See Ieofails 3. Presentment Replication Cannot be to a Return of a Writ of Restitution 6 2. He who traverseth the King's Title must shew a Title in himself 146 3. After a Travers 't is not good pleading to conclude to the Country 203 4. Not concluding with a Travers is but matter of form 't is aided by the Statute of Ieofails upon a Demurrer 319 5. Want of a Travers seldom makes a Plea ill in substance but an ill Travers often makes it so 320 6. It must be taken where the thing traversed is issuable 320 Treason See Outlawry Attainder of Treason reversed because on arraignment or demanding Judgment and because there was Process of Ve. fa. instead of a Capias and likewise for that it did not appear that the Party was asked what he had to say why Sentence c. 265 Trespass For breaking and entring a Free Fishery and taking the Fish ipsius querentis not good for he had not such a Property as to call the Fish his own 97 2. In Trespass Quare vi armis clausum fregit to his Damage of 20 s. an Action lyeth let the Damage be never so little 275 Trial See Appeal 2 3. Election 1. Where the Trial and conviction of a Criminal is had he must be executed in that County and not elsewhere unless in Middlesex by prerogative of B. R. which sits in that County 124 2. Where the Court refused to grant a new Tryal in a Case where excessive Damages are given 101 Trover and Conversion Judgment in Trespass is no Bar to an Action of Trover for the same Goods 1 2. They are different Actions in their very nature 2 3. It lies upon a demand and denial but Trespass doth not ibid. 4. Trover pro diversis aliis bonis hath been held good 70 5. 'T is a good Plea in Trover to say that Damages were recovered against another Person for the same Goods and the Defendant in execution though the mony is not paid 86 6. Whether it lies for taking a Ship after a Sentence in the Admiraly for taking the said Ship 194 7. Brought by two and after Verdict one died whether Judgment shall be arrested 249 V. Variance See Appeal 1. Apportionment 2. BEtween the Original in Trespass and the Declaration that being certified three Terms past and no Continuances for that reason not good 136 2. Between Original and the Declaration not aided by the Statutes of Jeofailes ibid. 3. Sci. fa. to have execution of a Judgment obtained in the Court of Oliver late Protector of England and the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging and in reciting the Judgment it was said to be obtained before Oliver late Protector of England and the Dominions c. but left out Territories this was held to be good in substance for the Judicature is still the same 227 Venire Facias The Court would not order the Plaintiff to file a Ve. fa. 246 Verdict See Assumpsit 2. Action for a Tort 5. Amendment 1.6 Common 3. Evidence 6. Prescription 4. Reservation 1. Robbery 1. Surrender 3. The true reason why it helps a defective Declaration 162 2. A Promise to pay quantum rationabiliter valerent instead of valebant at the time of the promise good after Verdict 190 3. It cannot be diminished neither can any thing be added to it 205 4. An Hundred was sued for a Robbery and tho' it did not appear that the Fact in the Declaration mentioned was done in the Hundred or that the Robbery was in the High-way or done in the day-time yet good after a Verdict 258 5. The Defendant sold Cattle affirming 'em to be his own ubi revera they were not but 't is not said that he affirmed them to be his own sciens the same to be the Goods of another or that he sold them fraudulenter vel deceptive yet good after Verdict 261 Vicaridge 'T is not sufficient to alledge Seisin in Fee of a Rectory and that he ought to present to the Vicaridge but he must say that he is Impropriator or that he was seised in Fee of a Rectory impropriate 295 Visitor No Appeal lies from his Sentence for he is Fidei