an inquiry of damages between the Plaintiffs and Dawby according to the Award upon the Roll which is the warrant for the Venire facias and it was shewed that the Jury knew nothing of the matter for which they were warned for they ought to have onely given their Verdict against Scullard and not against Dawby and it was likened where two matters are in Issue and they give a Verdict for one and nothing for the other it is naught for all And this was the opinion of the whole Court except Justice Williams who relyed upon 9. Eliz. Dyer Sir Anthony Cook and Wottons Case in partition against two one confessed the Action and the other pleaded to Issue and the Venire facias was to try the Issue between the Plaintifs and the two Defendants and it was amended by the opinion of the Court But marke the difference for no damages are to be recovered in partition but it is otherwise in Trespass and therefore in Cooks Case it was found by the Court that it was as if a meer stranger to the Record had been named in the Venire facias WInckworth against Man Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff declares for a Trespass in one Acre of Land in D. and abuts that East West North and South and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found the Defendant guilty in halfe an Acre within written and moved in Arrest of Judgment because upon the matter no Trespass had been found for there is no such moity bounded as the Plaintiff had declared for the whole Acre is onely bounded by the Plaintiff containing his Trespass within those bounds and the Defendant ought to be found a Trespassor within those bounds for otherwise it is not good and it is impossible for the moity of one Acre to be within those bounds But the whole Court except Fenner were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have his Judgement for if the Plaintiff layeth his Action for a Trespass committed in one Acre and the Jury find that onely to be in one foot of it it is good and here they have found the Trespass in the moity of the Acre bounded which is sufficient in this Action where damages onely are to be recovered but if it had been in Ejectment the Verdict had been naught for it is incertaine in what part he should have his Writ of Habere facias possessionem BVckwood against Beale Mich. 5. Jacobi In an action of Trespass it was sayd by the Court That if a Sheriff execute a Capias and there is no Originall to warrant it he is excused it for he is not to examine whether the Originall be sued out or no and for this Trewyrmards Case 38 H. 8. And so if a Bailiff execute a Process made to him by the Steward for damages recovered in the Mannor in a thing in which they had no authority to hold Plea The Bailiff is excused and shall not be punished because he is not to examine the jurisdiction of the Court 7 H. 4. 27. 22 Ed. 3. 22. Ass But if Process come to the Sheriff to arrest J. S. and he arrest J. N. or to make execution of the Goods of J. S. and he make execution of the Goods of I. N. he is a Trespassor for in this Case he must take notice at his perill of the Person and the Goods for when he arrests I. N. or does execution upon his Goods he doth it without warrant And so if I. S. sue a Replevin to the Sheriff to replevin his Cattell and I. S. comes to the Sheriff and shews him the Cattell of I. N. and saith they are his Cattell and he makes replevin of the Cattell he is a Trespassor to I. N. and the Sherif may have an Action of Trespass against I. S. for his false information for the Sherif must at his owne perill take notice whose Cattell they be 3 H. 7. 14 H. 4. but if there be any fraud in the matter he may averr that MOnrey versus Johnson An Action of Trespass brought for entring into a mans House The Defendant pleads that he was a Constable c. And it was held by the whole Court that a Constable may justifie his entry into the House of any man for Felony or Treason STrickland against Thorpe Pasch 6. Jacobi Thorpe brought an Action of Trespass against Strickland wherefore he broke his close the 20. of June 3 Jacobi with a continuance thereof untill the sixth of November after and upon a not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment entred but it was entred nothing of the Fine because it is pardoned And upon a Writ of Errour brought he assigned for Errour that the Judgment should have been entred with a Capiatur because the King and Parliament pardoned all offences before the 25. of September and therefore the Trespass being alleadged to have been continued untill the sixth of November following onely part of the Trespass was pardoned and therefore as to that it should have been a Capiatur but the whole Court were of opinion that the Judgment was well entred for the first Trespass which was by force and Armes being pardoned all that depends on that was pardoned and the continuance of the Trespass being onely as to the entring and consuming the Grasse is for increase of damages onely but not for the Kings Fine for the first entry being only with force and Arms makes the Trespass REpps against Bonham Trin. 6. Jacobi The Case in Trespass was that a Feofment was made of three Acres to R. Repps and Mary his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the first second and third Son of the body of the sayd Mary and after to the heirs of the body of the said Mary by the said Richard to be begotten and they had no Son but one Daughter Richard levies a Fine of the Land and Mary dyes the Plaintif enters and the Defendant pleads Richards Fine and adjudged that the Plaintif is not barred by the Fine for Richard had onely an Estate for life and the Estate tayle was in the woman only by the opinion of the five Justices for they said that the Husband is only named to declare what heir of the body of the woman should inherit and not any Heir but such an Heir as Richard her present Husband should beget And if the limitation had been to the Heirs of the body of the woman by her Husband and by I. S. to be begotten the Inheritance had been only in the woman but by the last words for if shee had no Heirs by her Husband and afterwards marries I. S. the Heirs that shee should have by I. S. should inherit And they were all of opinion that the Inheritance was only in the woman because the word Heir which makes the estate of inheritance is annexed only to the body of the woman but if it had been to the Heirs which the Husband should have got of the body of the woman there the
his house which he could not do for the entring is one act done and ended at the going out again And therefore if he re-enter it is a new Trespass and the continuando is only alledged for the aggravation of damages 2 R. 3. 15. 10. E. 3. 10. 16. E. 3. 24. That a continuando cannot be for breaking the House but Doddridge and Haughton Justices the rest being silent were of opinion that it might be alledged that a continuando for although it might be that if hee went forth and re-entred it should be a new Trespass but if upon his first Entry he continued divers dayes it might be alledged with a continuando And see for that Mich. 38. El. in the Common Pleas fol. 118. If a Disseisee re-enter he shall have an Action of Trespass against the Disseisor with a continuando And so is Fitzherberts Nabrevium 91. L. that a continuando may be laid as well for breaking a House as eating the Grass and so is 10. E. 3. 10. and 20. H. 7. 30. by the opinion of Gapley GEush against Mynne Pach. 11. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Plaintiff did break c. The Defendant justified by reason there was a report that a Vermine called a Badger was found there to the great damage of the Inhabitants by reason whereof he uncoupled his Beagles in the place where c. and hunted there and found the Badger and pursued him untill he Earthed in the place where c. by reason whereof he digged the ground and took the Badger and killed him and afterwards hee stopped up the Earth again which is the same Trespass and demands Judgment whereupon the Plaintiff demurs And upon reading the Record Scamber of the Inner Temple was for the Demurrer and that the Defendant could not justifie as this case was And first he was of opinion that the Common Law warrants hunting such noysome Beasts although it be in the Lands of another because it is good and profitable to the Common-wealth that such hurtfull Beasts should be extirpated according to the 8. E. 4. 15. And Fishermen may justifie their Nets upon anothers Land 13. H. 8. 16. 22. H. 6. 49. A man may justifie entring into a house to serve a Subpaena 3. H. 6. 336. A man may justifie the entring into anothers Land with the Sheriff to help him to distrain but otherwise it is for things of pleasure as 38. E. 3. 10. B. You cannot justifie the Entry when your Hawk hath killed a Pheasant in anothers Land and so for hunting of Hares or Conies in the Free-hold of another but although the Law allows and permits such Entries as aforesaid yet the Law requires that such things shall be done in an ordinary and usuall manner as 12. H. 8. 2. A Commoner cannot digge the Land to make Trenches although it be for the benefit of another and this is confirmed and explained by the Statute of 8. Eliz. cap. 15. For although that Statute gives reward for the killing of Vermins yet the Statute further saies that it must be with consent and with reasonable Engines and Devices 2. R. 2. Barr. 237. Grant of Fish in the Pond one cannot dig the Land and make a Sluce but must take with them Nets And so if a man grant to me all his Trees in such a place I I cannot grub up the roots out of the earth if there be any other way to take them but if there be no other way then it is otherwise as 9 Ed. 4. 35. a. A grant to put a Pipe in my Land and afterward it is stopped I may dig to mend it by the opinion of the Court and therefore there being an Ordinary course to wit hunting to kill the Badger the digging for that is unlawfull and the Action will well ly Mich. 36. and 37 Eliz. 60. Nicholas Case expressely for a Fox and Fenner held it was not lawfull to break a Hedge in the pursuit MIles against Jones Pasch 11 Jac. Miles brought an Action of Trespasse against Jones wherefore by force and Arms his goods c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff 5 Jacobi acknowledged a Recognisance of 100. l. at Mich. at which day he did not pay it and that two years after the Recognisance was extended upon his goods because the monies were not satisfied at the day nor at any time after the Plaintiff replies that they were paid in the sixth year of James and desires this that it may be inquired onely by the Countrey and the Defendant likewise and upon the Triall it was found for the Plaintiff and it was new moved in arrest of Judgement by Goldsmith that there was no Issue joyned for an Issue ought to be joyned upon a thing alledged by the party DOyly against White and Webb Trin. 11 Jacobi Doyly brought an Action of Assault Battery and imprisonment of his wife against White and Webb The Defendant pleads a speciall Justification to wit that in November 2 Jacobi an Action of Trespass was brought in the Common pleas by one A. against Julian Goddard and upon the generall Issue it was found for J. G. and Judgement given for her and afterwards and before Execution J. G. takes to Husband the now plaintiff and afterwards brings a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and upon a Scire Facias against the said Julian the Judgement in the Common pleas was reversed and costs given to A. the plaintif in the Writ of Error and aftewards a Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the now Defendants to take the said I. G. by Force of which the said Defendants took the woman of the now plaintif with an averment that the said I. G. and the Wife of the now Plaintif were one and the same person and the plaintif demurres upon this plea and Yelverton moved that this justification was not good for divers causes first when the Sherif is to execute a process he is to do it duly and upon the right person at his perill and for that see 11 H. 4. 90. b. If the Sherif take the goods of another in Execution he is a trespassor 5 E. 4. 50. a. If a Capias be to take I. S. and there be two of the same name he ought to look to take the right man at his perill and as he ought to take notice so he must pursue his authority and for this see 10. E. 4. 12. b. if a Capias issue out against I. S. the Son of A. and he take I. S. the Son of B. false imprisonment lies against him and in a Case when his Warrant is against I. G. there is no such J. G. for by her marriage with the Plaintiff she had another name and he is therefore a Trespassor for the taking of J. Doyly and his averment cannot help him because it agrees not with his Warrant and so cannot be intended to be the same person but if the variance was
and fees c. And further granted the Herbage and Paunage and have not found that this was granted by the same Letters Patents and then if this be not granted by the same Letters Patents then there is not any grant of this to the Earle of Rutland because there is no receitall of the Patent by which the Herbage and Paunage was granted to Markham The fourth errour was that they have erred in point of Law and to that the point is but this the King grants the Herbage and Paunage of a Park to one for life and after reciting that grant and that the Patentee is alive grants that to another and doth not say when that shall begin and it seems to them that the Argument for the Plaintiffes in the Writ of errour that this was a voyd grant and so the Judgment erronious but I have not the Report of the Arguments of the Conncellors at the Barr but only of the Judges which moved two other errours in the case not moved by the councell at the Barr and Crooke Justice rehearsed the case as before And to the first errour he conceived that this is no errour and that for two reasons First He tooke a difference betweene a thing which abates the Writ by Plea as if a man brings an Assise against another and mesne between verdict and Judgment the Plaintiff dies this matter shall abate the Writ without Plea and for that if Judgment be given upon such verdict the Judgment is erronious but in our case an entry doth not abate the Writ without pleading that and now as this case is this cannot be pleaded being between Verdict and Judgment and for that it shall not be assigned for Errour see 19 Assise 8 Where this difference is taken and agreed Secondly Admit that this entry might have abated the Writ in Facto without Plea yet there is no such entry alledged which might abate the Writ in Facto without Plea for the entry is alledged that the Earl of Rutland entred to hunt and kild a Buck and took a shoulder of that for his fee and it seems that this is no such entry that shall abate the writ for he hath now entred to another purpose to hunt the which he could not do but the entry ought to have been alledged that he entred to keep for in every entry the intent of the Entry is to be regarded and to this purpose he cited the case of Assise of Freshforce Com. 92. and 93. Where entring into the Seller hanging the Assise of that to see the Antiquity of the House there was no Entry to abate the Writ and the case of 26 Assise 42. where the Disseisee hanging the Assise comes and sets his foot upon the Land but takes no profits and adjudged that he should recover notwithstanding so in this case the intent is not shewed that is that he entred to keep possession but to hunt nor was it such entry which should abate the writ and to that which is sayd that he kild a Buck and took the shoulder of that for his fee this doth not help for if that had been a Buck which he might to have kild by vertue of his Office he ought to have shewed his warrant for otherwise a Parker cannot kill a Buck if not that it be for his fee and then he shall have the Buck and not a shoulder only also it is alledged that he took a shoulder and doth not say the best shoulder or the right shoulder and this ought to be shewed in certain And so for he first Errour he couceived that this is no cause to reverse the Judgment and to the challenge he sayd that he would speake to that at the last and for that he now spake to the errours supposed in the grant And first to Markhams Grant where the Jury found the Queen Eliz. granted to him the keeping of the Park and by the same Letters Patents grant the fees and Wages and further granted by her Letters Patents and doth not say Easdem the Herbage and Paunage it seems to him that this is very well for two reasons First insomuch that there is a copulative which is this word Et and also a Relative which is this word Vlterius and this word conjoynes the matter precedent with the subsequent and the word Vlterius hath necessary relation to the same Letters Patents and so Ex precedentibus subsequentibus the Iury hath well found the matter Secondly these words are supplied in the second Patent for there the Jury have found that the Queene hath granted that to Marham by the same Letters Patents and so for these two reasons he concluded that this is no Error to reverse the Judgement And to the Patent made to the Earle of Rutland it seemes to him also that this is very good and all that he said in effect was that in construction of the Patents of the King such exposition is to be made that if any reasonable meaning may be conceived they shall not be defeated but shall stand good And so he said in our case that it is necessarily intended that this was also to begin after the Estate of Markham determined and for that good And he said that a man ought not to make a curious and captious interpretation of the Kings Patents for Talis Interpretatio injure Reprobatur And to the challenge that seemed unto him a principall challenge and this not being allowed where it ought to be allowed this is an error as it is said 8. of Assises 23. and for this error it seemes to him that the Judgement shall be reversed and to that he said he relied much upon the book of 11 H. 4. 25. which takes a difference between Debt and Trespasse for battery for the booke saith that a man may demand his Debt without giving occasion of any malice But Battery is an evill Action and there the book is resolved that it shall be a principall challenge and so he saith in Trespasse this being with force and Armes that c. And in 8. H. 5. in a Assise the Tenant challenges the array because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff And there the array was affirmed because it appeares that the Defendant had brought this Action by Covin against the Sheriff which case proves as he said that if there be not any Covin this is a principall challenge and 38 H. 6. 7. accordingly and the case 28. Assise 11. where the Defendant in Assise challenged a Juror because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against him and was outed by award and in 21. Ed. 4. 12. it is said where there is an apparent favour or apparent displeasure there shall be principall challenge and certainly though the Law may intend that a man may lawfully demand his right and without malice yet it appeares that the nature of men is perverse and froward and few Actions are begun without apparent displeasure especially
which was Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum adjudged to be joint and severall at the Plaintiffs Election Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award and the breach assigned for exhibiting a chancery Bill and adiudged no Breach Action of Debt for Tithes the Defendants time ended before the Coâ—n carried yet held good for the Plaintiff An Action will lie against a stranger that shall carry away the Corn before the Severance Dower may be brought against the Heir or Committee of the Ward Nota. He in Reversion received after Default made by Tenant for Life Return of the Sheriff adjudged insufficient being too general No Writ of Error lies untill the value be inquired upon Implication not good in a Surrender though it be in a Will Challenge because the Sheriff married the Daughter of the Lessors Wife and held no cause Nota. How to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many mens hands Originall against four and count against 3. without a Simulcum and held naught The intent of a will must be certain and agreeable to Law Nota. How to execute a Lease by Letter of Atturney A Venire facias of the Parish adjudged good A mistake of the Cursitor in the Originall amended after Triall Nota. Though the Defendants Plea be naught yet the Plaintiff shall not recover because he shewed not any Title by his replication The question is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8 upon Feoffements made by Husbands during the coverture A verbal averment shall not overthrow a will The mistaking of the Town not hurtfull in a Will Property of Goods cannot be in obayance Difference between Prescription and Custome Copihold Land cannot be demised for three years without license or custome Record of Nisi prius amended by the Roll. Concord with satisfaction a good Plea in Eiectment Misconveyance of process what it is and helped by the Statute A feme covert cannot make a Letter of Atturney to deliver a Lease upon the Land When a demand shall be made to the person and when upon the Land A Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remaine to the survivor of them for ninety yeares a good interest in the survivor A precise Verdict makes the Declaration good which otherwise is naught A demand of Rent to avoid a Lease upon a condition ought to be in the most open place After an Imparlance cannot plead in abatement 22 H. 6. 6. Foxlies Case 5 Rep. 111. The day of a Copihold of Court roll traversed and adjudged naught Houses in London passe by the delivery of a bargain and sale without inrolment An Ejectment will not lye de aquae cursu A Servant is a sufficient Ejector if he dwell with the pretended owner He that is a Purchaser of Copihold hath nothing in it nor can he surrender to another before admittance How an Abatement shall be traversed 1 E. 4. acr 1 E. 4. 9. acr The Bill amended after a Writ of Error brought and before the Record was removed Where the Prenomen destroyesthe quantity inthe declation Where words in a Declaration shall be voyd rather then the Declaration shal be voyd Nonage shall be tryed where it is alleadged and not where the Landlyes Essoin lies in a writ brought by Journes account although he was essoined upon the first Writ By Deed an implicationbe intended Nota. By the Name of a Mannour the Land in all the Villiages will pass Nota. Action brought by the Servant in his own name part of the Goods being his Masters Nota. Nota. The Record of Nisi prius amended upon motion The Process in Partition Error in Partition upon the first Judgement Defendant pleads he had brought a Writ for the same land and adjudged no plea. Process in a Quare Impedit Exception taken to the Venire and over-ruled Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall men Admittance of a Resignation by fraud takes not away the Kings Title The state is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail A presentment by words good Nota. A subsequent debt to the Qu. related to award an assurance made upon good consideration The King hath lost his presentation by the Clerks death Defendant pleads another writ depending against the said Bishop good The Bishopsplea shall not prejudice the Incumbent Nota. Liberty to make Leases A devise for years in confidence the condition must goe to the estate and not to the use The scisin of rent reserved upon a Feosment within the time of limitation not to be traversed Nota. The beast of a stranger shall not be distreined for rent except they have been upon the land some time Demand not necessary in a Replevin for rent Nota. Exctâ—tion to the advowry too late after judgment entred Replevin not within the statute of 3. Iac. Iudgment arrested for that the plea was naught Nota. Nota. The Plea naught for want of amendment Amends made to the Bailiff not good If one inclose part it is an Extinguishment of Common for cause of vicinage Avowry amended after Entry by consent One of the Juroâ—s names mistaken in the Pannell of the Return and amended upon the Sheriffes Oath that he was the same man If two men distrain one Mare and both have Judgement no Return Court Baron in order to the Mannor Nota. Nota. A lease for life to three to hold successively naught The pannell of the Habeas Corpus amended upon Oath Nota. Atturnment not necessary for a Copy-holder Demand necessary for a Nomine pene Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but not if Appendant Nota. Nota. Demand of Rent service upon the Land sufficient Nota. A Commoner may take the cattell of the Lord damage fesant Judgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lye to which the Common did belong Common when the field and acres unsown the sowing of parcell shal not debar him of his common in the residue When a Deed is perfected and delivered as a Deed one agreement after pleaded in defeasance thereof and when the agreement is parcell of the Original contract it may be pleaded The Defendant in his Demurrer â—nswers not the whole Declaration and Judgement reversed The mistake of the day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudiciall A confession after an issue joyned refused A Constable cannot detaine one but for Felony Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea in debt except both are of the Houshold Judgment before a wrong Officer erroneous The Court could not mitigate damages in trespass which was locall The Defendant justifies the imprisonment by the command of the Maior of London and naught Just of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest in his absence without warrant in writing If a servant be beaten dye the Mr. shall not have an action for the losse of his service Declaration shall not abate for false Latin A man cannot prescribe to be a Justice of the Peace If
omit to take them every other year I cannot take them in the third year But for Rent and such other things that are in the Render I ought to have it when ever I demand it as it best pleases me And note that in such case one prescribed for eight Loads of Wood to be cut and taken as appertaining to a Messuage which was held naught by the whole Court for the Prescription should be laid for Estovers to be imployed upon Repairs of the said Messuage or to be spent in it for a man cannot prescribe to have a Prescription to come and cut down my Wood which is as much as I that have the Free-hold can do For the claim to take and sell my Wood cannot be good And the Court held it a good Prescription to prescribe to have Common every other year although you shew not the Commencement as to shew what time of the year when it begins If a man hath Common of Pasture in divers Closes and parcels of Ground where he hath some Land of his own there and in all other cases where one is to prescribe he need not to make his Title to every peice but to say he hath Common in loco in quo c. in t alia and need not to speak of the rest of the Land in the residue of the Feild because he hath Land of his own Common appendant belongeth to arrable Land not to Pasture Land If two Issues be joyned and in the awarding the Venire facias these words Videlicet Quoad triandum tam exit istum quam praedictum alium exit superius junct were omitted and after a Verdict such Default was moved in Arrest of Judgement and the Exception over-ruled and held good notwithstanding that omission The whole Court were of opinion that local things shall not be made transitory by laying the Action in a forrain Shire as for Corn growing in one Shire and an Action of Trover brought in another COmes Cumbr. versus Comitem Dorset It was moved by the Defendant that whereas the Plaintiff had prosecuted a Distring Jur. and onely eleven of the Jury appeared and the Inquest remained to be taken for want of Jurors and that at such time neither Plaintiff nor Defendant desired a Tales and afterwards the Defendant in another Terme prayed a Tales of that Writ which the Plaintiff had prosecuted and the Court denied to grant it because he prayed not a Tales when the Distress was retorned and if he would have a Tales he must purchase anew a Plur. distring and if then the Jury fill not the Defendant may pray a Tales and the Court ought to grant it And note upon the first Habeas Corpus the Defendant shall not have a Tales but in Default of the Plaintiff IF the Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester make an insufficient Return to the Court of Common Pleas upon a Writ issued out of that Court the Sheriff shall be amerced because the Sheriff is the Officer responsible to the Court. The King hath power to make and create a Leet anew where none was before A Distress is incident of Right but in a Court Baron a Prescription must be laid to distrain J. Rogers versus Powell My Lord Cook held that the Surrender of a Copy-hold in Tail is not any Discontinuance and Justice Foster of the same opinion In Doctor Husseys case in a Ravishment de gard wherein the Judgement is penal the Habeas Corpus was denied by the Court to be amended being a blank Writ after a Verdict but was adjudged Error For the Proviso in the Statute of Jeofailes 18 Eliz. excepts Actions upon penal Statutes One Jury was impannelled of the Town of Southampton and called to the Bar and made Default and the men of that Town shewed to the Court a Grant made to the Inhabitants of that Town that no Return should be made of the men of that Town to be of any Jury and prayed the Allowance of their Charter and the Court appointed them to plead their Charter and it was done accordingly TRier versus Littleton A special Verdict was found whether Fraud or not Fraud and the Jury did not finde the Fraud expresly but they found Circumstances that the Deed might seem thereby to be fraudulent but the Court will not adjudge it Fraud where the Jury do not expresly finde the Fraud for the Judges have nothing to do with matter of Fact and so by the whole Court no Fraud Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee the first Tenant for Life suffereth a Recovery the Remainder in Tail is barred although the second Estate for Life be no party Baron Feme seised of the Wives Land for Life of the Wife Remainder to the Husband and Wife in Tail and afterwards the Husband doth bargain and sell the Land by Deed inrolled and a Precipe is brought against the Bargainee and he voucheth them in Remainder this is a good Recovery to barr the Estate Tail If an Information be brought against three upon the Statute of Maintenance and two of them appear and the third doth not appear the Plaintiff may declare against the two that do appear before the other appears for it is but a Trespass and Contempt as in Trespass and Conspiracy but it is otherwise in Debt upon a joynt Contract for there the Plaintiff cannot declare against one untill the Process be determined against the other by the opinion of the whole Court If Judgement be entred in Trespass of Oct. Hillarii the Writ to inquire of Damages may bear teste of any other Return of that Terme besides of Octab. Hillarii for the Terme is as one Day and so hath been adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the upper Bench but it is otherwise held in the Common Pleas. If a Bargain and Sale be void in part it is void in all If an Officer or priviledged person of the Court of Common Pleas sue another priviledged man of any other Court whatsoever yet he of the Common Pleas that first sued shall force the other priviledged person to answer in the Common Pleas but if a priviledged man be sued with another as Executor no Priviledge lies Summons and Severance lies between Executors Plaintiffs and if one of the Executors be outlawed or excommunicated he may be demanded and if he comes not shall be severed by an award without Process after he hath appeared and the other shall proceed without him but if he had not appeared then Summons and Severance shall issue out against him FLetcher versus Robson An Extent upon a Statute Merchant issued out against Robson the Cognisor and the Sheriff returned that the Cognisor was possessed of divers Goods and seised of Lands which he delivered to the Cognisee and that the Cognisee accepted of the Land and because the Sheriff did not return that he had not any other Lands Goods or Chattels it was
lie by the Heir for pulling down the Coat-Armor c. of his Ancestors set up in the Church A Pew cannot belong to a House Fraud shall never be intended except it be apparent and found and that conveyance which at the time of the making was good shall never by matter ex post facto be adjudged to be fraudulently made for before primo Eliz. at the Common Law A conveyance made for natural affection without valuable consideration is not to be avoided none shall avoid it but such as come in upon valuable considerations Lands devised to one in Tail upon condition that he shall not alien and for Default of such the Remainder to R. in Tail this is a Condition and no Limitation by the whole Court and the Heir at the Common Law may enter for the Alienation Matters of instance which are between party and party as for Tithes and Matrimony are not to be dealt withall by the high Commissioners if they proceed inverso ordine that cannot be holpen in the Common Pleas but by superior Magistrate if they be Judges of the cause If one in Norfolk come within another Dioces and commit Adultery in another Dioces during the time of his residence he may be cited in the Dioces where he committed the Offence although he dwell out of the Dioces by Cook Warburton and Winch. If the King grant Lands to A. and his Heirs Males and doth not say of his Body he is but Tenant at will Tamen quaere A Deputy of an Office for Bribery cannot make his Master be punished corporally but pecuniarily equity shall not barr me of the benefit of Law Note the Probate of Wils and Administrations did not belong to the Ordinary originally but to the Common Law If two Aliens be at Issue the Inquest shall be all English but if between an Alien and Denizen that Inquest shall be de medietate Linguae 21 H. 6. 4. A Judgement given against a dead person is not void but Error 28. Ass 17. A Juror was committed to the Fleet For making his Companions stay a whole Day and a Night having no reason for it and without the Assent of any of the rest of his Fellows and after was bailed but not untill the Court was advised 8 E. 3. 75. In a Writ of Estate Probanda every Juror ought to be of the Age of 42. years If I grant Land to one and his Heirs in the Premises of the Deed Habendum to him and the Heirs of his Body he shall have the Land in Tail and the Fee-simple after the State in Tail when the Estate is certain in the Premises the Habendum shall not controll it If one make two Executors one of seventeen years of Age and the other under Administration during the minority is void because he of seventeen years old may execute the Will of Administration during the minority in such case be granted and the Administrator brings his Action the Executor may well release the Debt Pigot and Gascoins case If a Record go once to Triall and warning given if the first Attorney be alive the Plaintiff is not tied to give warning again but if the Attorney be dead he is If no place of Payment be in a Will which appointeth Money to be paid there must be a Request to pay the Money for he is not bound to seek all England over for him otherwise it is if it were by Bond. In every case where the Plaintiff might have Judgement against the Defendant there if the Plaintiff be non-suit the Defendant shall have his Costs if the Plaintiff be non-suit TRin. 11. Jac. In cases of remitting causes from the inferior Judge the Arch-deacon cannot remit the cause to the Arch-bishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Arch-bishop It was held by the Court that one might distrain for a Legacy In a special Verdict the Plaintiff must begin to argue first OLive versus Hanmer A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement by Nil dicit for want of a Warrant of Attorney and the Record certified and a Certior are to the Clerk of the Warrants and Error assigned for want of a Warrant And the Court was moved that a Warrant might be filed and it was granted and a Warrant filed accordingly Pasch 12. Jac. An Action was brought against Baron feme and an Attorney appeared for the Husband alone and the Court held it was the Appearance of Baron feme in Law PAsch 12. Jacobi Sheriff versus Whitsander One Judgement was confessed in Trin. 42. Eliz. rotulo 504. And afterwards in Trinity Terme 43. Eliz. the Defendant brought a Writ of Error bearing Date the 12. of May Anno 43. and upon that Writ the Record was certified 25. May and afterwards Error was assigned in the upper Bench for want of a Warrant of Attorney by the Defendant And Mich. 43. 44. Eliz. the Warrant of Attorney was received and entred upon Record by Order of Court of Common Pleas. And the like was Pasch 2. Jac. rotulo 1956. Int. Bathgrone and Smith and the like Mich. 1. Jac. rotulo 1306. Inter Smith Kent CRane versus Colpit Question was whether the Attornement of an Infant be good or not and by the whole Court it was held good by three Reasons First he gives no Interest Secondly it is to perfect a thing Thirdly he is a Free-holder IT was held in the case of Gage an Attorney who as an Administrator brought an Action of Priviledge that his Priviledge ought not to be allowed And after a Bill was filed against Drury an Attorney as Executor and held that the Bill would not lie but in both cases the Suit should be by Original BEarbrook versus Read The name of Confirmation must stand for Sir Francis Gawdy was christened Thomas and confirmed Francis by that name he must be called SIr Henry Compton was sued for Cloathes of his Wife bought without his command or privity and the whole Court were of opinion that if the Wife should buy Merchandises and thereof make Cloathes and wear those Cloathes although the Husband know nothing of them yet he shall pay for them PAsch 10. Jac. The Court was moved to know whether the Wife of a Bankrupt can be examined by the Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupt and they were of opinion she could not be examined For the Wife is not bound in case of high Treason to discover her Husbands Treason although the Son be bound to reveal it therefore by the Common Law she shall not be examined An Infant shall not be examined If an Administration be granted to one during the minority of two Infants and one of them dieth the Administration continueth still Actions of Debt LOvelace versus Cocket Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1001. Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for the Paiment of Money at a
Fawden an Attorney of the Common Pleas and he pleads in Barr an Outlary against the Administrator and adjudged no Plea MIch 4. Ed. 4. rotulo 144. An Action of Debt was brought against J. R. de W. in Com. L. Chapman the Defendant appeared by his Attorney and offered to wage his Law and essoyned and at that Day the Plaintiff appeared and the Defendant being solemnly required one J. R. came to answer the Plaintiff as Defendant in that Action in his proper person and offered to wage his Law the Plaintiff said that J. R. now appearing to wage his Law ought not to be admitted because the said J. R. is not that person which the Plaintiff prosecutes because this I. R. appearing is I. R. de W. in Com. L. Jun. Chapman and he who the Plaintiff prosecutes is I. R. de W. in Com. L. Sen. Chapman both of them at the purchasing the Plaintiffs Writ living at W. and that he agreed with the Defendant so to do therefore because I. R. de c. hath not appeared to wage his Law prayes Judgement the Defendant confesses such matter and sayes that he beleiving that the Writ was prosecuted against him appeared by his Attorney and offered to wage his Law and prayes to be discharged of the Debt and the other I. R. being exacted appeared not and the Court would advise but no Judgement for the Plaintiff HIll 26. Eliz. rotulo 420. The Lessor makes a Lease by Indenture for years and the Lessee grants over his whole Terme and the Lessor grants over the Reversion and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the Reversion should have an Action of Debt for the Arrears of Rent against the Assignee of the terme and not against the first Lessee HIll 43. Eliz. Pasch 41. Eliz. rotulo 425. An Action of Debt brought against an Executor in the Debet detinet for Rent due in the time of the Executor upon a Lease made to the Testator upon a Judgement given in the upper Bench and that Judgement was reversed in the Exchequer because it was not in the Detinet alone but afterwards in the upper Bench. Int. dominum Rich. Frank Administrator for Arrears due after the Death of the Intestate it was adjudged good in the Debet detinet and also in the Common Pleas Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 2013. MIch 30. 31. Eliz. rotulo 907. An Action of Debt brought to which the Defendant pleads an Outlary against the Plaintiff in its force the Plaintiff replies the general Pardon granted by Parliament the Defendant demurrs and Judgement that he should answer over MIch 40. 41. Eliz. Ralph Rogers brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of 400. l. and Judgement was entred by the Clerk upon a Nichil dic that the said Roger should recover c. and for that Default the Defendant brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgement given for Ralph and when the Record was certified the Judges of the then Kings Bench would not proceed And afterwards the Judges of the Common Pleas upon a motion and before another Writ of Error brought amended the Mistake of the Clerk And Justice Walmsley would have committed Keale the Clerk to the Fleet for his carelesness but afterwards the Amendment was withdrawn by the Court and upon further advice the Roll made as it was before An Action of Debt was brought upon a single Bill for Payment of Money upon Demand and the Plaintiff declares generally that he often had requested c. and Serjeant Harris demurres to the Declaration and the opinion of the Court was that he ought to plead yet if the Defendant had demanded Oyer of the Bill and upon that have demurred it had been a good Demurrer because one special Demand was in the Bill and no special Demand alleadged in the Count. MIch 3. Iac. Burnell versus Bowes Action of Debt brought upon a Bond and the Plaintiff in the Imparlance Roll had counted upon a Bond made the tenth of March and an Imparlance thereupon untill the next Terme and in the next Terme he declared as of a Bond made the tenth of May and the Defendant pleaded per Dures and it was entred of Record and the next Terme after Entry thereof the Plaintiff moved that that Mistake might be amended and at first it was denied to be amended because the Defendant had pleaded to it and by that Amendment his Plea should be altered as if he had pleaded that it was not his Deed and the cause of his pleading that Plea was the the Mistake and if that Mistake should be amended he would be trised and overthrown and upon the first motion it was denied to be amended but afterwards granted to be amended by the whole Court for the Imparlance was entred Hillar first of James and the Issue was Pasch second of James but the Defendant was admitted to plead a new at his pleasure MIch 3. Jac. rotulo 2575. Fitch versus Bissie An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to pay Money yearly according to the forme and effect of the Indenture made between the Plaintiff and Defendant the Defendant pleads that there was not any such Indenture made between the Plaintiff and Defendant as is in the Condition supposed and the Plaintiff demurrs upon that Plea for that the Defendant is estopped to plead that Plea KIng and his Wife Executrix of J. Wright Plaintiffs brought a Scire facias after the said Executrix came to full Age against Death and his Wife Administratrix of W. D. to have Execution of a Judgement had by J. D. and H. E. Administrators during the minority of the Executrix upon a Bond entred into to the Testator and whether a Scire facias lay by the Executrix or no was the Question and by the better opinion of the Court it did not lie MAyor and Burgesses of Linn Regis in Norfolk Mich. 10. Jac. rotulo 2413. brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against one Pain and it was Ad respondendum Majori Burgensibus de Linn Regis in Comitatu Norfolciae Pain pleads that it was not his Deed and a special Verdict was found that the Mayor and Burgesses were incorporated by the name of Majores Burgenses Burgi de Linn non per aliud And whether the omission of this word Burgi should barr the Plaintiffs was the Question and Judgement was given by Cook Warburton and Nichols for the Plaintiff for Cook said that if the essential part of the Corporation was named it was sufficient and in this case the Mayor and Burgesses was one essential part and Linn Regis is another essential part and those two were duly expressed and sufficient to maintain the Action and Cook said that those words Et non per aliud shall be intended to be Non per aliud sensum non literae and of the same opinion were the other Judges there NIchols versus Grimwin Mich.
12. Jacobi rotulo 1609. or Hill in the same year rotulo 3027. The Plaintiff brought his Action upon a Bond the Condition whereof was performance of an Award for and concerning all matters Causes Suits and Demands whatsoever had moved or depending c. so as the said Award be made c. The Defendant pleads no such Award made the Plaintiff by Reply sets forth the Award it was made De praemissis to wit that the said I. should clearly depart with and avoid out of her House in which she then lived and that the said I. should carry away all the Hay c. The Defendant re-joynes and sayes no such Award and a Verdict for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Award was made but of one part and so void but Judgement was given for the Plaintiff for though the Award be made but of one part yet if the Defendant may plead it in Barr of the other Action brought against him for the same cause in all such cases the Award is good But my Lord Hubbart and Nichols took this Difference upon these words so that for then the Arbitrators must make their Award of all such things which are in Controversie and in such manner as the Condition prescribes but if the Parties put themselves by Parroll if the Arbitrement be made of one part it is good And Hubbart said that in all Arbitrements whether by Bond or Parroll they ought to be reciprocal and to be made in such manner that it may make an end of all Controversies between the Parties For if a man be bound in a single Bill and put it to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators order that the Obligor pay to the Obligee a summ and do not award that the Obligee shall seal a Release or that the Money paid shall be in Discharge of the said Bill the Award is void But in Barpools case the Submission was by Parroll for Money due before the Submission and the Award was that he should pay such a summ for the same Debt and good for the Award shall inure to a Dischage See Paschals case 8. Rep. STutfield Plaintiff Grony Defendant in Trinity Terme 13 Jacobi rotulo 859. The Defendant pleads to a Bond taken by the Sheriff for his Appearance in the Kings Bench Die Sabbati proximum post Oct. Martini that he appeared at the Day and the Court of Common Pleas gave him a Day to bring in the Record of his Appearance by Mittimus issuing out of the Chancery the Record was certified Videlicet that he appeared Lunae post xv am Martini which was after the Day yet it was adjudged good for if the Appearance was the same Terme it is good though it be not the same Day SErle against Harris Trinity Terme 9. Jacobi rotulo 1321. Judgement is there entred by Non sum inform against Harris Harris brings a Writ of Error upon that Judgement and assignes for Error that the Record was Fr. Harris de Brownton and the Original filed to warrant that Judgement was Fr. Harris de Browton and there reversed for that Variance HAmond versus Jethrell Mich. 8. Iacobi rotulo 2354. Hamond brought his Action of Debt upon a Bill obligatory for the Payment of Money and no Day limited in the Bill for the Payment thereof but after the words In witness whereof c. these words were written Nevertheless it is agreed that the said Jethrell shall not be hereby compelled or required to pay the said 30. l. untill the said Jethrell have recovered against B. Hudson the summ of 30. l. or more upon a Bond of 40. l. wherein the said Hamond c. The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bill and hath it Memorandum that J. W. J. c. and demurrs in Law and shews that the Plaintiff had not alleadged any Day of Payment nor when it was requested and the Declaration adjudged good notwithstanding and my Lord Cook held that whatsoever comes after these words In witness c. is no part of the Bill but words after In witness c. may be a Condition and must be pleaded and not demurred upon and 21 Henry the sixth direct in this point and so the third Report An Action of Covenant brought upon words of Covenant in Indenture after In witness c. and above the Seal and held good and maintainable SAaint-John versus Cracknell Mich. 12. Jacobi rotulo 1153. An Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of the 24. of Henry the sixth for 40. l. for Election of Burgesses in Parliament and it was tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiff And Serjeant Moor moved the matter insuing in Arrest of Judgement First the Statute directs the Sheriff to issue out his Warrant to the Mayor if there be one and if no Mayor then to the Bailiff and it appeared by the Court that the Sheriff made his Warrant to the Bailiff and do not shew that there was no Mayor there and the Exception disallowed for if there was a Mayor the Defendant ought to shew it by Plea Secondly that the Plaintiff doth not alleadge that the Warrant made to the Bailiff was under the Sheriffs Seal as the Statute directs and the Court held the Count good notwithstanding because the Declaration was that the Sheriff by vertue of a Writ to him directed made his Warrant to the Bailiff and if it was by vertue of the Writ it shall be intended to be under his Seal HOpe versus Holman Mich. 10. Jacobi rotulo 3612. Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleads a forreign Attachment in London and the Plaintiff demurrs and the Exceptions were first that the Defendant had attached the Moneys in his own hands by way of Retainer and so the Custome unwarrantable Secondly it appeared that Judgement was given in the Mayors Court by the Default of him in whose hands the Money was attached and it appeared that the Defendant which brought the Action in London and he in whose hands the Attachment was made and that made Default was the same person and it is a contrariety that the same person should appear and not appear and a Prescription for that is naught and the Custome is in London that the Recoveror in London ought to finde Sureties that if the Debt be discharged within a Year and a Day then to pay the Money and did not appear by the Record that he found Sureties which was an incurable Fault and so adjudged by the Court. POtter versus Tompson Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 3449. To one Obligation with Condition to make Assurance of Lands to such Uses therein expressed the Defendant pleads that he made a Feofment of the same Lands to other Uses which the Plaintiff accepted the Plaintiff demurrs and it was adjudged a naughty Plea for he ought not to vary from the Condition HIggenbotham versus Armot Hill 8. Jac. rotulo 906. Action of Debt brought upon a Retainer in the Office of an Husbandman for one year and so from
year to year the Defendant wages his Law and at the Day to wage his Law the Court refused to accept it for that he ought not to wage his Law for Wages yet if the Retainer were not for a year at least the Court seemed to be of opinion that he might wage his Law VErnon versus Onslow Pasch 12. Jac. rotulo 1047. Upon an Action brought upon a Bill for 80. l. the Defendant demands Oyer of the Bill was Pro octogesimis libris and to that the Defendant demurrs and Judgement for the Plaintiff Hutton cited the Case in Cooks 10. Rep. Rowlands Case And another in Mich. 44. 45. Eliz. rotulo 131. Proseptingentis libris and the Bond was Proseptungentis libris And another Mich. 11. Jac. upon a Bill for seventeen pounds and adjudged a good Bill YOung versus Melton Trin. 10. Jacobi rotulo 3434. An Action brought upon a Bond for performance of Covenants the Defendant pleads Conditions performed The Assignes the Breach for non-payment of Rent and pleads in this manner that in December he demised to the Defendant one Wine-Cellar c. for one year and if the Defendant would hold the Wine-Cellar for three years paying 40. l. yearly during the said terme and alleadges non-payment of the Rent of on Quarter in the first Year and the Defendant demurrs and the Court were of opinion that the reservation had reference as well to the first year as to the two years following and in that case Cook said that if a man demise c. reserving Rent to himself the Heir shall not have the Rent but if the Rent be reserved generally the Heir shall have it WHickstead versus Bradshaw Pasch 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. There was Judgement entred against the said B. and after the Bail of Bradshaw brought a Habeas Corpus to the Marshalsey Bradshaw being a Prisoner there to have his Body before the Judges of the Common Pleas to be committed in Execution in Discharge of the Bail but before the Returne of the Habeas Corpus the said Bradshaw had brought a Writ of Error returnable the Day following and when he came to be committed the Court doubted that their hands were tied by a Writ of Error by reason he could not be committed upon the Judgement and yet they would have discharged the Bail if they knew which way therefore Quaere GErrard al. versus Dannet Hill 9. Jac. rotulo 2015. Judgement was had upon a Bond by Non sum inform and a Writ of Error brought for that the Christian name of the Defendant Attorney was left out in the Imparlance Roll but it was in the Roll whereupon the Judgement was entred and a Warrant of Attorney entred accordingly and the Court was moved that it might be put into the Imparlance Roll which was granted upon sight of the Judgement Roll and Warrant of Attorney entred If a man be bound by Award to pay one 20. s. And I at the Day offer it and he refuseth it or comes not to receive it I must plead that I was ready to pay and shall not plead an Vncore prist because it is upon a collateral matter An Obligation was made to pay 10. l. 8. s. and eight not saying Pence or any thing else An Action of Debt lieth for the 10. l. 8. s. WIlde versus Vinor Trin. 7. Jac. rotulo 1629 or 2629. Debt upon an Obligation to perform an Award The Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant by Writing did revoke and null the Authority of the Arbitrators Foster held the Bond was forfeited although he might revoke the Plea was that he did discharge the Arbitrators against the form of the Condition My Lord Cook held that the Power was countermandable if the Submission be by Writing the Countermand must be by Writing if by word I may countermand by word If two binde themselves one cannot countermand alone If Obligor or Obligee disable by their own Act to make the Condition void the Bond is single 14 H. 7. If I am bound to infeoff A. and I marry her before the Day the Bond is forfeited 18 E. 4. 18. 20. the great doubt was because no express notice but notice was implied And the Bond forfeited because he did not stand to it Judgement for the Plaintiff PArker versus Rennaday Trin. 6. Jac. Action brought upon a Bond for 60. l. the Bond was in Italian in these words In cessanta libris and held a good Bond for 60. l. O. K. ux ejus Admin versus Needham who was bound to the Intestate in a Bond and pleads that Administration of the Intestates Goods was committed to him by the Archbishop the Intestate having Bona not Abilia before it was committed to the Plaintiffs Wife The Plaintiff replies that the Administration committed to the Defendant was revoked and made void to which the Defendant demurrs pretending his Administration to be a Release in Law but it was otherwise adjudged But if the Debtor were made Executor then the Debt is released like unto an Administrator during the minority he may do all for the good of the Infants but nothing to their prejudice if an Executor marry the Debtor it is no Release in Law Judgement for the Plaintiff by the whole Court LAwrance and Althams case if I have no means to gain my Right but by Action if I release my Action I release the thing it selfe because I release my means to come to my Right If I release all Actions I may have Jus prosequendi A Release made by the Testator shall be no Barr to the Executor to bring a Writ of Detinue because it continues a wrong still to the Executor A Bond to pay Money at Michaelmas may be released because it is a Debt otherwise it is of a Rent reserved by Lease the like it is of a single Bill to pay Money at four Dayes if the first Day be broken no Action untill all the Dayes be past but in case of a Lease after the first Day Debt doth lie in the first it is a Debt but not in the other Quarrels Controversies and Debates are all one that is all Causes of Quarrels Controversies and Debates are more large then Actions and Suits are more then q. c. d. and by Release of Suits Executions are gone Release of Duties Executions are gone neither Fraud nor Might can take a Title without Right Demand is most large and by it Rents are gone Executions gone Incidents gone as Releif Warranties gone all Causes of Demand gone Actions and a mans Right gone When a condition is to arbitrate of all matters between c. there if the matters be not made known to the Arbitrators they are not bound to arbitrate more then they know for if it appear to the Court that all matters committed to the arbitrators be not arbitrated the Award is void but if the submission be of all matters between c. so that now all must be
16. Jac. rotulo 1200. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for performance of an Award which was void in part and good in part and the Breach alleadged for that part which was good and the Award was to pay Money but no time of Payment alleadged in the Award and afterwards it was demanded and such Demand was held good KIng versus Law Trin. 16. Jac. rotulo 507. An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of Perjury in which the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Defendant moved to have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. upon these words or upon any Statute for any Offence or Wrong personally immediatly supposed to be done to the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff after Appearance c. be non-suited c. but the whole Court held that he should not recover Costs upon that Statute because the Statute of 5 Eliz. was made long after the Statute of 23 H. 8. and upon the Statute of 7 Jacobi the Defendant shall not recover Costs for if the Plaintiff had recovered he should have recovered no Costs and so no Cost was given to the Defendant in that Action PAnnell versus Metcalfe Trin. 17. Eliz. rotulo 2722. Action of Debt brought against the Defendant as Administrator and he pleads a Recovery had against him in the City of Norwich and alleadges a special Custome that time out of minde that they had Cognisance of Pleas and in pleading the Custome he omitted this word Cur and held naught FEtherston versus Tapsall Mich. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3409. The Imparlance was entred and Hill 13. Jacobi rotulo 715. The Issue was entred An Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond and in the Imparlance the Bond was alleadged to be made at Newcastle and in the Issue Roll it was alleadged to be made at York and tried and afterwards a Writ of Error was brought and the Record was certified and upon a Scire facias that Error was assigned and the Court of Common Pleas was moved that the Imparlance Roll might be amended but the Court would not grant it GAtes versus Smith Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 945. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Award the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award the Plaintiff by way of Replication sets forth the Award and that the Arbitrators had awarded the Defendant to pay such a summ and that he should be bound with another in such a summ and shews that the Defendant did not become bound with the other and the Defendant demurred for because it was out of the Submission and it was not in the Defendants power to perform it JAckson versus Comin Trin. 16. Jac. rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Award so that the Award be signed sealed and delivered and in pleading of an Award upon the Defendants saying there was no Award made the Plaintiff omitted in his Plea to set forth that the Award was signed and it was tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and this was moved in Arrest of Judgement and stayed by the Court. CLempson versus Bate Trin. 17. Iacobi rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon a Recovery in a Court-Baron and declares that every Court was held before the Steward onely and not before the Suitors and a Declaration there for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years behinde and the Court held the Declaration void and that these words according to the Custome of the Mannour time out of minde would not help the Declaration and the Defendant was admitted to wage his Law presently if he would COventry versus Windall Hill 13. Iac. rotulo 2588. An Action of Debt brought upon a Writing thereby shewing that whereas one T. before the sealing of that Writing had become bound to the Defendant to stay with him and serve him as his Apprentice for the terme of eight years and Woodall covenants with the Plaintiff that he before such a Day would receive and take the said Apprentice for the residue of the said terme of eight years then to come and would teach keep and imploy the said Apprentice in his House and Service in the Art and Mystery of Surgery which the said Woodall then used and professed if the said I. should so long live and bindes himself in 20. l. the Plaintiff alleadges that the Defendant did receive the said Apprentice in his Service at London c. and further sayes that the Defendant within the time to wit such a Day and Year sent the said Apprentice in a certain Voyage in a Ship called the Dragon from the House of the Defendant unto the East Indies there to stay and that the Apprentice did there arrive and doth yet there remain for which he brings his Action The Defendant pleads that he for the better instruction of the Apprentice sent the Apprentice to the Indies to use and exercise his Art and to this the Plaintiff demurrs and Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Defendant could not send the Apprentice out of England except himself went with him although it be in his own House and own proper Service but clearly he might send the Apprentice to Chester or any other part of England GArrard al. versus Dennet Hill 9. Iacobi rotulo 516. The Defendant after a Judgement entred brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that the Christian name of the Attorney for the Defendant was left out in the Imparlance Roll but it was in the Judgment Roll and also in the Roll with the Clerk of the Warrants was perfect to wit Henry Snag and therefore the Imparlance was made perfect and Henry put into the Imparlance Roll after assignement of Error by the Court. COwchman versus Hawtry Hill 14. Iac. rotulo 2167. Action of Debt brought against a Bailiff of a Liberty upon a Recovery in a Court of Record The Defendant pleads no such Record The Plaintiff brings the Record into the Court and there were divers Variances between the Record upon which the Plaintiff declares and the Record certified Videlicet in the name of the Bailiff and Continuances for in the Record certified there were divers Continuances which were not in the Record in Court and divers other Differences but the Judgement and Recovery of the Debt and Damages agreed and the other Variances were not material and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding DOminus Rex Iacobus versus Castle An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation taken in the Kings name in the Court of Request with a Condition to appear before the Master c. and the Declaration is generall that the Defendant such a Day and Year by his Obligation did acknowledge himself to be bound to the King in the said 60. l. to be paid c. and it was adjudged naught for it did not appear to be taken in a Court of Record CHilde versus Peisley Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2184.
Habeas Corpora returned by the Sheriff and these words omitted Videlicet Quilibet Iur. per se seperatim Attach est per Pleg I. D. R. R. exitus eor cujuslibet x. s. R. W. M. L. Vic. and it was amended by the Court. ANdrews versus Delahay an Attorney of the Common Pleas Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 3057. A Bill filed against the Defendant as an Attorney upon two Bills obligatory for payment of Money and one of the Bills was not payable and due at the time of exhibiting the Bill and the Defendant pleads to Issue and the Cause received a Triall and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Defendant in Arrest of Judgement moved that one of the Bills were not payable at the time of exhibiting the Bill against him and thereupon the Plaintiff remitted his Damages and had Judgement for the Bill that was due HArris versus Cotton As long as the Vicar occupies his Gleab-land in his own hands he shall pay no Tithes but if he demise it to another the Lessee shall pay Tithes to the Parson that is impropriate If the Vicar sow the Land and die and his Executor takes away the Corn and doth not set forth his Tithe and the Parson brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. and the Court seemed to incline that it would lie DArrell versus Andrew Mich. 14. Iaeobi rotulo 2327. An Action of Debt was brought in London for Rent reserved upon a Demise of Lands in Cawson in the Parish of D. in the County of War and of one capital Messuage The Defendant pleads Extinguishment of Rent because the Plaintiff had entred into one House called the Wooll-house and into one Buttry at the upper end of the Hall of the said House and in one House called the C. parcell of the Premises before demised upon the Defendants motion and had expelled the Defendant out of the Possession thereof and the Venire facias was of Cawson within the Parish of Dale and Exception taken because it was Infra Parocham but my Lord Hubbard said that where Land is laid in Dale in the Parish of Dale that the Venire facias may be made of Dale or within the Parish or of the Parish and both good HAll versus Winkfield An Action of Debt brought in London for a 100. l. and the Plaintiff declared upon a Recognisance taken at Serjeants Inn in Fleetstreet London before the Cheif Justice of the Common Pleas and afterwards inrolled in the Common Pleas at Westminster in Middlesex And the Defendant demurred to the Declaration and the Question was whether the Action should be brought in London or Mid. And note the Recognisance as soon as it is acknowledged is a Record and shal relate to the time of the taking to binde Serjeant Hutton said that a Scire facias may issue upon a Recognisance taken out of Court into any County and none is bound to sue Scire facias where the Recognisance is taken but after it is inrolled in the Court an Action of Debt shall be brought in the County of Middlesex At the Common Law the Execution was by Levari facias and after the Year an Action of Debt it is not a Recognisance consummate untill it be inrolled in the Court yet it taketh its life by the first acknowledgement for if you have an Action of Debt or Trespass in a forrain Shire when you have recovered Debt or Trespass your Debt or Trespass is now altered and made new My Lord Hubbard held that if I bring Debt in Norfolk and I have Judgement and bring an Action of Debt upon that Judgement it must be brought in Middlesex and so in Trespass The Inrolment of the Recognisance is but a fortification of the Recognisance MOrtimer versus Freeman Hill 9. Iacobi rotulo 2001. An Action of Debt brought for not setting out of Tithes to which the Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and to prove that the Plaintiff was not Parson he shewed a Deprivation of the Plaintiff for Drunkenness by the high Commissioners and the Court held for such a common Fault after Admonition the high Commissioners might deprive a Minister but because this Crime of Drunkenness was committed before the general Pardon and that the Sentence was given after the Pardon the Sentence was void For Wooll or Lamb no Action lieth upon the Statute for they are not predial Tithes nor for small Tithes If an Action of Debt be brought upon two Contracts and both found for the Plaintiff in that Case the Jury may tax Damages intire but the safer and better way is to sever the Damages for it may come to pass that an Action will not lie for one of the two and if it will not lie then your labour and charge is lost An Action of Debt brought for 300. l. upon an Obligation The Defendant after a general Imparlance demands Oyer of the Bond and pleads specially that it was but for 30. l. and it was not allowed after a general Imparlance And the Defendant pleaded that it was not his Deed which was the proper Plea in that Case PReston versus Dawson Pasch 11. Jacobi rotulo 2310. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond for performance of Covenants in an Indenture in which Indenture was this Covenant following that the Vendor should make further Assurance at the cost and charges in the Law of the Purchasor and for Breach it was alleadged that a Note of a Fine was devised and ingrossed in Parchment and delivered to the Vendee to acknowledge the Fine at the Assises which he refused to do and the Plaintiffs Breach was demurred upon because he did not offer Costs to the Vendee and the Court held it to be idle GLyver versus Lease Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 734. An Action of Debt brought upon a single Bill The Defendant pleads that he did infeoff the Plaintiff of Lands in satisfaction of that Debt and the Plaintiff demurred upon it and upon reading the Record ruled to be a naughty Plea to a single Bill otherwise it had been upon a Bond with a Condition to pay Money WIlliamson versus Barnsley Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 1291. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform Articles that he before Easter Terme next following at the Request of the Plaintiff should surrender and yeild up to the Plaintiff his Letters Patents of the Stewardship of Bromsgrove to the intent that he might renew the said Letters Patents in his own name and it was objected at Barr that the Office of a Steward of a Court Leet or Court Baron was within the Statute of 5 E. 6. made against buying of Offices that were for Ministration and so Winch held the Stewardship of a Leet to be within the Statute and so was adjudged in Grays Case but the Question was whether the agreement to surrender be within the Statute or no the words
Indenture the Covenant was for quiet injoying without let trouble interruption c. The Plaintiff assigned his Breach that he forbad his Tenant to pay his Rent this was held by the Court to be no Breach unlesse there were some other Act and the Defendant pleaded that after the time the Plaintiff said that he forbad the Tenant to pay the Rent the Tenant did pay the Rent to the Plaintiff LEvel versus Hall Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 805. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff brought another Action upon the same Bond in London to which the Defendant there had pleaded Non est factum and it was there found that it was not the Defendants Deed and in London the Entry is upon such a Verdict that the Defendant shall recover Damages against the Plaintiff and that the Defendant should be without day c. but no Judgement that the Plaintiffe should take nothing by his Writ and therefore no Judgement to be barred in another Suit but barr the Plaintiffe for it is onely a triall and no Judgement and the Plea was adjudged naught by the whole Court MIch 15. Jac. Rotulo 2215. One made another his Executor and that Executor died and made another his Executor and the last Executor refused to own his first Will as to his goods and this matter was pleaded in his Action of Debt brought by an Administrator of the Goods of the first Executor pretending the Administration was void although the Executor refused to be Executor as to the Goods and the Court held the Administration void for the Executor cannot be Executor for part at his own Election and not for part and the Defendant pleaded that the Executor should not bring his Action as Administrator but as Executor WHerwood versus Shaw Mich. 44. and 45 Eliz. Shaw Executor of A. brought an Action of Debt against Wherwood Administrator of Feild upon a Bill made by Field to A. by which Feild doth acknowledge himself to have received of one P. forty l. to be equally divided between the said A. and B. to their use and upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas Wherwood brings a Writ of Error and the Judgement was affirmed the matters moved were i. because the forty pounds was given to be equally divided between A and B. therefore they were Tenants in common of it and Shaw should have joyned B. in the Action with himself as Tenants in common are to joyn in personall action but over-ruled that in this case there were severall Debts to wit twenty pound to one and twenty pounds to the other as in case of ten pounds rent reserved upon a Lease to wit five pounds at the Feast of Michaelmas and five pounds at the Feast of the Annunciation yet it is but one Rent and this case is not to be resembled to the Cases of Interest as in the 20 Eliz. where Land or Lease be giuen to two equally to be divided for there they are Tenants in common The second thing moved was whether Debt or account did ly and adjudged that although no contract was between the parties yet when either money or goods are delivered upon consideration to the use of A. A. may have an Action of Debt and of that opinion was Mountain 28 H. 8. in Core and Woods Case and also there is a President of such Actions of Debt in the Book of Entries BRoad versus Owen Mich. 44 and 45 Eliz. The Plaintiffe brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 5 Eliz for Perjury against the Defendant the case was thus one Low was Plaintiffe against Brode in the high Court of Chancery and upon Bill and Answer such matter appeared to the Lord Keeper that he ordered that one Labourer should become party to the Bill against Brode and afterwards one Commission issued out of Chancery between Labourer and Brode to examine Witnesses by which Commission Owen the now Defendant was examined on the behalf of Labourer and did depose directly for Labourer against Brode by reason whereof one Order and Decree was made in the Chancery against Brode and for that cause Brode brought his Action of Debt against Owen upon the Statute of Perjury 5 Eliz. for one party grieved by the Oath and Deposition of another and Owen demurrs in Law and by the opinion of Gaudy and Yelverton Justices the Action would not lie for the words of the Statute are where a man is grieved and damnified by a Deposition in one Suit between party and party and in this Case it appeared that Labourer was no party to the Suit but came in by an Order and no Bill depending either against him or brought by him and so out of the Statute for it is penall and to be taken strictly and quaere if he in the Reversion joyn in aid and is grieved and prejudiced by an Oath and Deposition may maintain an Action of Debt upon this Statute for he may undoubtedly by the Common Law have an Attaint GReen versus Gascoin Pasch 1. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for an hundred pounds to which the Defendant pleads in Barr to the Action an Outlary against the Plaintiff and shews it incertain the Plaintiff replies Nul tiel record and the Defendant had Day till the next Term to bring in the Record and in the mean time the Plaintiff reverses the Outlary by which it is become in Law no Record according to the 4 H. 7. 12. And Yelverton moved the Court for the Defendant that although in Law there was a Failer of the Record yet the Defendant ought not to be condemned but shall answer over according to the 6. of Eliz. Dier fol. 228. where it is adjudged that Failer of the Record is not peremptory and so adjudged for it was no Default in the Defendant his Plea being true at such time as it was pleaded with mark WEaver versus Clifford Action of Debt brought for an Escape the Case was thus upon the Nichils returned against a Conusor in Chancery a Capias was awarded out of the Chancery against him by vertue of which he was taken by the Sheriff and suffered to escape and adjudged that no Action would lie against the Sheriff in this Case for a Capias lies not upon a Recognisance but onely a Scire facias and therefore when a man is taken upon the Capias he is not a Prisoner by the course of Law for the Law hath not ordained any means to arrest him and is therefore in Custody without Warrant and no Escape and it is an illegal Commitment and so is the â—ratuâ—e of Westminster the 2. to bâ— constâ—ued which gâ—… Action against the the Gaolor to wit where the party is in Execution by course of Law and although the Chancery doth award a Capias upon a Recognisance and that there are divers Preâ—â—lents of it et it is bâ—t the use of that
the Plaintiff shews that the Rector of M. had 2. parts of the Tithes in 3. parts to be divided that the Vicar of the same place had the third part of the Tithes and layeth this by Prescription as to the manner of the taking the Tithes shews further how the Parson Vicar by several Leases had demised the Tithes to him so he being Proprietor of the Tithes the Defend sowed 10. Acres within the Parish to wit Wheat Rie c. carried it away without setting forth the Tithe to his Damage c. And upon a Nil debet per patriam pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff had in that Action comprised severall Actions upon the Statute and that it appeared by his own shewing for the Plaintiff claimed not the Tithes under one Title but under the severall Tithes of Parson and Vicar and Fennor Justice held they could not joyn and no more could the Plaintiff who claimed severally under them and it seemed to him that the Parson could not have this Action against severall Tenants for not setting forth their severall Tithes because he could not comprehend two Actions in one but the whole Court besides held the contrary for although the Parson and Vicar could not joyn in this Case because they claim their Tithes severally by divided Rights yet when both their Tithes are conjoyned in one person as it is in the Plaintiffe then the the Interest of their Title is conjoyned also in one and it suffices generally to shew the Plaintiffe is a Farmer or proprietor of the Tithes without saying of what Title for it is but a personall action grounded meerly upon a contempt against the Statute for not setting forth Tithes and also Tithes are not demanded by this Action although the Title may come in debate yet it was agreed by all the Judges that the Plaintiffe should recover his Tithes in dammages and shall not demand them again by any suit after a recovery in this Action which Mark. BErket versus Manning Pasch 3 Jacobi Action of Debt brought against the Defendant as Administrator of J. S. The Defendant pleads fully administred the Plaintiffe replies that himself had assets and it should have been that the Defendant had assets and this was moved in arrest of Judgement but amended by the Court being the Clerks misprision onely as where it is entred predict Defend similiter and it should have been predict quer similiter and this hath been often amended by the Court. PAler versus Hardman Pasch Jacobi Hardman and his wife Executrix J. H. brought an Action of Debt in the common Pleas against Paler and as that they should restore a tun of Iron to the value of twelve l. and declare upon a Bill for the delivery of the said tun of Iron within such a time and that the Defendant had not delivered it to the Plaintiffes dammage of c. and upon non est fact pleaded it was found for the Plaintiffe and Judgement was given that the Plaintiffe should recover the Tun of Iron or the value of the same and if he should render the tun then by the oath c. should inquire what the tun of Iron was worth and before any return of the writ to inquire of the dammages the Plaintiffe in the common Pleas takes out a Capias upon the Judgement and on Exigent upon that and the Defendant brings a writ of Error and it was adjudged erroneous for two causes first because the Judgement was in the disjunctive that the Plaintiffe should recover the tun of Iron and if not the value thereof so in detinue as it appears by the Judgement in this Case that the Plaintiffe may choose whether he will have the Iron or the value thereof which he cannot do for if the iron be to be delivered he shall recover that onely but if it be not to be delivered then the value and not as before Secondly for that the Judgement is not perfect untill the writ to inquire be returned with issues to the Sheriffe to distrain the Defendant to render the Iron and also to inquire of the value and before the return thereof nothing in certain appears One which to ground any writ of Execution for the Judgement comprehends no certainty but is to be made certain by the return of the writ to inquire with the whole Court granted CArpenter versus Collins Mich. 3 Jacobi An Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiffe for rent arere and declares upon a Lease made to the Defendant at Will to be held from Mich. as long as both parties should agree yeelding and paying three pounds yearly and shews that Collins entred and occupied from the Feast c. unto the Feast of Mich. and upon nil debet plenius the Jury foundthat J. Norrington had issue a Son and a daughter and Devises that his Son shall have his Land at the age of twenty four years and gives forty pounds to his Daughter to be paid her at the age of two and twenty years an further wills that the Plaintiffe should be his Executor and should repair to his houses and have the oversight and doing of all his Lands and moveable Goods untill the severall ages aforesaid and after dies and Carpenter the Executor makes the Lease before mentioned and the Jury further find that the Son died but find not at what age he was at his death but that the Daughter at the Sons death was nineteen and no more and find the Lease made by the Plaintiffe and that the Lessee by force thereof entred and continued possession from Michaelmas for one year and more and find that within that year the Daughter entred and that the Defendant atturned to the Daughter and refused to continue Tenant to the Plaintiffe and by Fennor Yelverton and W. Judgement was given against the Plaintiffe for the Plaintif took no interest in the Land by the Will for the oversight and doing of his Lands shall be intended but in Right of the Heire and to his use because the Testator though not his Son of discretion and government untill the age of twenty four years and in the mean time appointed his Executor to oversee and order the Land to the profits of the Heâ—â—e that wanted discretion 28 H. 8. D. 26. where it is declared that J. S. shall have as well the governing of c. as the disposing setting letting and ordering of his Lands and by the Court held that J. S. had them onely to husband for the profit of his children and no otherwise but he was of opinion that the Plaintif had an estate in the Land upon a limitation determinable at the Sons age of four and twenty years and it appears not at what age he died being not found by the verdict therefore it is incertain and the Entry of the Daughter lawfull for the limitation looks but to the age of the Sonne and
not to the age of the Daughter for the age of the Daughter shall be intended to be set down for the receit of her legacy of forty pounds and for no other purpose and the Defendant within the time in which the Rent demanded is supposed to be due had not determined his Will as appears by the Verdict but Fennor and W. said that by the Verdict that the Defendant entred by force of the lease and occupied the land at the time comprised in the Declaration and more and that the Tenant at will cannot determine his will within a little time before the year end for that would prove very mischeivous to the lessor that his Tenant at will should determine his will within the year and refuse to occupy the land twenty dayes before the year end and in 21 H. 7. Crooks Reports it appears that a Lessee at will cannot determine his will within the year to the prejudice of the Lessor but that he shall answer the whole Rent to the Lessor but note it appeared that the Lessee at will was expulsed by the Plaintif that was Lessor and no other thing although done by his agreement can determine the Lease against the Lessor for it is Covin if the Lessee be not privy and acquainted with it which was granted by the whole Court and all of them agreed in the Title against the Plaintif but as the Reporter affirmed Popham was absent and hearing the Case was of opinion that the Plaintif had an interest by the words of the will JEffry versus Guy Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with Condition that if Jeffry the Defendant perform all Covenants in such an Indenture that then c. and one Covenant was that he should permit Guy the Plaintiffe from time to time to come and see if the House Leased by Guy and K. his Wife were in repair the Case was thus J. Bill and K. his Wife were Tenants in Tail of a house and had Issue J. B. dies K. marries Guy the Plaintiffe and they two make a Lease by Indenture to Jeffry for twenty years yeelding and paying to them and their Heirs three pounds Rent by the year with the Covenant as aforesaid Jeffry pleads in Barr the former intail and the death of R. and that VV. the Issue in Tail such a day entred before which Entry the Condition was not broken Guy replies that William came with him upon the Land to see if reparations c. and traverses the Entry of William in manner and form prout c. and Issue joyned upon the traverse and found for the Plaintiffe and Judgement given in the common Pleas upon which Judgement Jeffry brought Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and Judgement affirmed there but it was assigned for Error the Jury had not assigned any breach of Covenant in Jeffry and so had showed no cause of action but the Court held he need not in this Case for by the speciall Issue tendred by Jeffry the Plaintiffe was inforced one speciall replication to that point tendred and the Plaintiffe could not proceed error and it is not like the Case of an arbitrement wherein Debt upon an Obligation to perform the award the Defendant pleads nullum fecer arbitrium then the Defenâ—… in his replication ought to set forth the award and assign his breach because the Defendants Plea is generall but if in such Case the Defendant should plead a release of all demands after the Arbi-Arbitrement by which he offers a special point in Issue there it suffices if the Plaintiff answers to the Release or other special matter alleadged by the Defendant without assigning any Breach so in this Case the special Plea of the Defendant had disabled the Plaintiff that he could not assign any Breach of Covenants but of necessity ought to answer to the special matter alleadged RAstell versus Draper Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought for nine and thirty pounds the Plaintiff declares that the first of May primo Iacobi sold to the Defendant twenty Northern Clothes for sixty pounds Flemish Money to be paid upon Request which sixty pounds Flemish Money amount to nine and thirty pounds English Money and that the Defendant though often requested had not paid the nine and thirty pounds to his Damages of c. The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff should have demanded the summ according to the Contract which was for sixty pounds Flemish and to have shewed that it amounts to nine and thirty pounds English but the whole Court against it for the Debt ought to be demanded by a name known and the Judges are not skilled in Flemish Money and also when the Plaintiff hath his Judgement he could not have his Execution by that name for the Sheriff cannot tell how to levy the Money in Flemish and also it is made good by the Verdict for the Jury have found the Debt demanded to wit nine and thirty pounds But if the Contract had been for so many Ounces of Flemish Money or a Barr of Silver and Gold now it cannot be demanded by the name of twenty pounds or such a summ which is not Coin nor used in Trade or Merchandise but in such Case must have a Writ of Detinue and in that recover the thing or the value and so in the Book of Entries fol. 157. is the President where Debt was brought upon two severall Obligations and demands eight and twenty pounds and declares severally that by one Obligation he owed eight and twenty pounds of Flemish Money and 34 H. 6. 12. 9 E. 4. 46. But note in that Case the Plaintiff if he would might have declared in the Detinet and it had been good ROlles versus Osborn Mich. 3. Jac. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond of a thousand pounds and Serjeant Nichols moved the Court for the Defendant and shewed that the Plaintiff and Defendant were obliged each to other in a thousand pounds a peice that they should intermarry before such a Day and both their Obligations were forfeited and each of them sued the other and the Defendant prayed that common Bail might be accepted of her and she would accept of common Bail of the Plaintiff and the Court held it reasonable but said if they would marry both their Bonds might be saved BArneshurst versus Yelverton Hill 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Administrator of I. S. brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond and obtained a Judgement and afterwards the Administration is revoked yet notwithstanding the Plaintiff proceeded and took the Defendant in Execution and upon a Motion in the Court the Court held the Execution void and that the Defendant ought to be discharged because it issued out erroneously for the Letters of Administration being revoked the power of the Plaintiff is gone
whole Court for they said that the Demand must be made at the place of payment although it be of the Land FIeld versus Hunt Mich. 5. Jacobi Hunt in VVorcester Court obtained a Judgement after a Verdict in Debt upon a Contract for twenty Sheep and after it was removed by a Writ of Error into the Kings Bench and generall Errors assigned but upon opening the Errors it was shewed the Court that there was no Declaration in VVorcester Court for the Declaration was thus Raphael Hunt complains against H. Field of a Plea that he render to him twenty pounds which he owes unto him and unjustly detains and whereof the same Plaintift by M. his Attorney whereas the said Defendant c. and by Fennor VVillams and Cook it is no Declaration for Default of this word Dicit and the sense is imperfect and although Yelverton objected that a Declaration is sufficient if it be good to a common intent and Quer. being writ short it may be Queritur and then it is and whereof the same complaines but the Court held that would not help for it is not certain to whom the word Idem should refer whether to the Plaintiff or Defendant and of the two it should rather refer to the Defendant which is the next Antecedent and the Court held it matter of substance which is wanting and therefore naught but if it had been 4. and whereof the same Raphael quer being writ short it had been good for because the party Plaintiff is certainly named and then Quer. could have no other sense then Queritur and Judgement reversed which mark HArrison versus Fulstow Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Action of Debt for fourscore and six pounds in the Common Pleas against T. Harrison and the Capias was continued accordingly against T. Harrison but the Plur. capias was against William Harrison which was the very name of the Defendant and that was but for fourscore and five pounds which varied from the first Entry and William Harrison appeared upon the Exigent and the Plaintiff declares against William and he pleads and they are at Issue by the name of William and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Judgement accordingly against William and upon a Writ of Error it was assigned for Error that the Original did not maintain the Proceedings for the Original is against Tho. and the Proceedings against William and the Plaintiffs Counsel would have excused it because the Judgement being against William and the Original against Tho. as it is certified it cannot be the Original against William and so the Judgement against William being without Original it is aided by the Statute after a Verdict but the Court held it to be Error for there is great Difference between no Original and a naughty Original for the want of an Original is helped but not a vitious Original and Judgement was reversed for upon Diminution alleadged that this Original was certified as the Original in that Suit or else there was no Obtulit at all LOthbury versus Humfrey Mich. 5. Jacobi Lothbury and his Wife Administratrix of VV. R. brought an Action of Debt as Administrator upon an Obligation of forty Marks dated 4. April 38 Eliz. made by the Defendant to the Intestate 1. the Defendant pleades that Ridge the Intestate October the first Jacobi made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and devised the Obligation and the Money therein contained to one H. Son of the Defendant and died after whose Death the Defendant takes upon him the burthen of the Executorship and administers divers Goods of Ridges and that he is ready to aver this to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs generally and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Defendants Plea is not good without a Traverse that Ridge died intestate For the Action is brought as Administrator and they count upon a dying intestate and that being the ground of the Action ought to be traversed as it is 9 H. 6. 7. Debt brought against one as Administrator of J. and counts that J. died intestate the Defendant pleads that J. made his Will and made him Executor and held no Plea without a Traverse and the same Law 7 H. 6. 13. Debt brought against one R. Executor of R the Defendant pleads that R. died intestate at such a place and held no Plea for if the Plaintiff maintain that R. made the Defendant Executor and the other say that R. died intestate at such a place this makes no Issue and therefore the Defendant ought to traverse that R. died intestate without that that he made him Executor and 4 H. 7. 13. the very Case in question is adjudged that such a Plea in Barr is not good without a Traverse to wit to say without that that R. died intestate according to the 3 H 7. 14. and this was agreed by the whole Court without Argument CHeyney versus Sell Mich. 5. Jac. Cheyney as Executor of Cheyny brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Sell the case was that the Testator had put himself as an Apprentice to Sell for seven years and Sell bound himself to pay to his Apprentice his Executors or Assignes 10 l. at the time of the end or determination of his Apprentiship the Apprentice serves six years and then dies and it was moved by Towse that the Money was due at the time of his Death because then his Apprentiship ended for he said if a man make a Lease for one and twenty years to another and oblige himself to pay to the Lessee ten pounds at the end and expiration of his Term and within those years the Lessor infeoffes the Lessee so the term expires and the ten pounds should be paid instantly but Cook denied that Case because the Lessee hastened the end of his terme but he said that if a man lease Land to another for seven years if the Lessee should so long live and the Lessor oblige himself to pay ten pounds at the end of his terme and he die within seven years there he was of opinion the Money was presently due upon his Death but in the principal case the whole Court held the chief Justice being absent that the Obligation was discharged and that the Money should notbe paid WIllot versus Spencer Mich. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Tithes of Wood upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. and Forster argued that Judgement ought not to be given for the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Plaint that he was Parson for he ought to bring his Action according to that name that he claimed the Tithes by and this ought to be expressed in the Queritur and therefore if a man bring his Action to recover any thing as Heir Executor or Sheriff he ought to name himself so in the Queritur 30 H. 6. 9 H. 4. but Towse said the same Exception was taken between Merrick and Peters and disallowed Fleming Justice said
that if it had been by Writ he must have shewed it but need not it being by Plaint if the truth appear in that and if a man bring his Action as Assignee he need not shew it in his Plaint if the truth appear in the Declaration but it is otherwise in an Original and a Plaintiffe in Kings Bench as an originall but not in all things and if the Plaint be incertain the Defendant in that Court shall plead in Abatement of the Plaint as to an Original in the Common Pleas and at last two Presidents were shewen one between Champion and Hill and the other between Merrick and Wright that were allowed without naming of the Plaintiff Rector in the Queritur and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff by the whole Court Note it was agreed by all the Court of Kings Bench Mich. 5. Jac. and hath many times been ruled that if a man sell his Tithes for years by word it is good but if the Parson agree that one shall have his Tithes for seven years by word it is not good by the opinion of Fleming Cheif Justice because it amounts to a Lease and he held strongly that Tithes cannot be leased for years without a Deed. COb versus Hunt Hill 5. Jac. Cob sued a Prohibition in the Common Pleas against Hunt Parson of D. in Kent and suggests a Modus demandi as to part of the Tithes demanded against him in the Spiritual Court and as to the residue suggests a Contract executed and performed between him and the Parson in satisfaction of the residue and because he proved not his Suggestion within six Moneths Hunt the Parson had a Consultation and Costs assessed by the Court to fifty shillings and Damages fifty shillings by the Statute of the 2 E. 6. they shall be doubled but in truth no Judgement was given to recover them because these words Videlicet Ideo considerat fuit qd recuperet was omitted yet Hunt thinking that all was certain and perfect brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas for the Costs c. and declared of all the matter above and that the Damages were assessed upon which it was adjudged that he should recover c. and that the Costs were not paid Per quod Actio c. And had a Judgement against Cob by Non sum informat and thereupon Cob brought his Writ of Error as well in the Record and Processe c. of the Prohibition as of the Record and Processe in the Action of Debt for the Costs and assigne the general Error but Yelverton assignes two Errors in special first that there was no Judgement in the Prohibition for Recovery of the Costs but onely an Assessement of Costs without any more which is not sufficient for the Assessement of Costs onely is but matter of Office in Court but no Judgement of Court to binde which was confessed by the whole Court The second Error was that no Costs ought to be assessed or adjudged in the Cause above because the Prohibition is grounded solely upon the Modus decimandi which needs proof and upon the Contract between the parties which requires no proof and the Suggestion being intire and part of it needing no proof they could not give any Costs for that is onely where the whole matter in the Suggestion needs proof and therefore the mixing the Contract with the manner of Tithing priviledges the whole as to the matter of Costs but they might grant a Consultation as to that part of the Suggestion which concerned the manner of Tithing but not for the rest which was granted by the whole Court and so both the Judgements were reversed which mark MArkham versus Mollineux Hill 1. Jac. Mollineux sued out an Original in the Common Pleas in an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Markham by the name of John Markham Alderman de D. and all the mean Processe are continued against him by the name of Alderman Markham he appeared and the Plaintiff declared against him by the name of Markham of D. Esquire and afterwards the parties were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement entred and it was reversed by Writ of Error because it did not appear that that Markham was the same Markham against whom the Original was prosecuted and the Processe continued but it seemed rather that he was another person by reason of his severall Additions of Alderman and Esquire which mark OLiver versus Collins Pasch 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute for not setting forth of Tithes and shews that he is Parson of the Parish Church of Little Lavar in Com. Essex and that the Defendant had so many Acres within the Parish of Little Lavor sowed with Wheat whereof the tenth severed from the ninth part came to eight and twenty pounds and shews that the Defendant at Little Lavor aforesaid took and carried away the Wheat without setting forth the Tithes contrary to the Statute by reason whereof he forfeited threescore Pounds and upon Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement first that the Statute was mis-recited for whereas the the Plaintiff declared that the 4. Novemb. 2 E. 6. it was inacted it was said that there was no such Statute for the Parliament commenced 1 E. 6. and continued by prorogation untill the 4. Novemb. 2 E. 6. and therefore the Plaintiff was mistaken in that but that Exception was not allowed for there were an hundred Presidents against it and in respect of the continual use in that form as the Plaintiff had declared the Court said that they would not alter it for that was to disturb all the Judgements that were ever given in that Court. And secondly it was objected that the matter was mis-tried and there ought to be a new Triall because the Venire facias was of Parva Lavar whereas by their pretence it ought to have been of the Parish of Little Lavar to which Yelverton made Answer that the Triall was well enough for by that Action no Tithe is demanded nor recovered but the Defendant is onely punished for his Contempt against the Statute in not setting forth his Tithe and the wrong done to the Plaintiff complained of is laid onely in the Village of Little Lavor and not in the Parish for all the places in the Declaration where the Parish is named are onely matter of Conveyance and inducement to the Action and not of the substance for the substance is onely that where the wrong and grievance is done to the Plaintiff and that arises onely in Parua Lavor which was granted by the whole Court upon a grand Debate at severall Dayes and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and the like Judgement was given between Barnard and Costerdam in an Action upon the same Statute upon the last point for the Venn and this hath been twice adjudged but in Costerdams Case which concerned the Earl
Arbitrators are made Judges by the assent and election of the Parties and it appears that the parties put their trust not in the four joyntly but joyntly and severally and the Ita quod c. is an explanation of all the Condition that they four or any two of them might arbitrate all matters between them and so much appears 2 R. 3. 18. where two of one part and one of another part put themselves to the Award of I. S. now by this Submission I. S. may arbitrate as well any matters between the two parties of one part as between them and the third because in the intent of the parties the end of their Submission was to have peace and quietnesse and 4 H. 4. 40. the Condition of a Recognisance was that if A. A. shall stand and abide the Award of four named three or two of them of all matters c. which is a division of their power and observe in the principal Case that untill the Ita quod comes the Condition is not perfect for all the Condiâ—… is but one Sentence BRisco versus King Trin. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond for three hundred pounds with a Condition that the Defendant should perform all Covenants Clauses Payments and Agreements contained in one Deed poll of the same Date made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff the Defendant by way of Plea sets forth the Deed poll in haec verba in which Deed was contained one Grant and Bargain and sale of certain Lands made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for one hundred pounds paid and two hundred pounds to be paid in which Deed there was one Proviso that if the Defendant should not pay for the Plaintiff to one J. S. forty pounds to J. D. forty pounds c. at such a Day that then the Bargain and Sale should be void and the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants c. comprised in the Deed the Plaintiff assigned a Breach for the not paying of forty pounds at the Day according to the Proviso and the Defendant demurrs and adjudged for the Defendant by the whole Court for the Condition bindes the Defendant to perform other Payments then such as the Defendant is bound by the Deed to perform for the Obligation was made but for the strengthning of the Deed and the Deed requires not any compulsory Payments to be made but leaves it to the will of the Defendant or to make the payments specified in the Proviso or in Default thereof to forfeit the Land to the Plaintiff and therefore it appears that it was not the intent and meaning of the parties to make an Obligation with a Condition repugnant to it and contrary to the Deed poll of Bargain of Sale and by this means the Payment of forty pounds to J. S. which is made voluntary by the Deed poll shall be made compulsory by the Obligation but the word Payments in the Condition of the Obligation shall have relation onely to such payments contained in the Deed poll which are compulsory to the Defendant and not otherwise and because the neglect of the payment of forty pounds to J. S. assigned for the Breach is denied to be voluntary for the Defendant to pay or not to which the Condition of the Obligation cannot in any reasonable construction extend therefore it was adjudged against the Plaintiff WOolby versus Perlby Mich. 9. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff derives his Title by the grant of the Reversion by way of bargain and Sale in Fee from the first Lessor and declares that by an Indenture of such a Date one grants bargains and sells for money the Reversion to him in Fee which Indenture was inrolled such a day according to the form of the Statute and because he shewed not in his Declaration in what Court it was inrolled and the Statute of 27 H. 8. Parles of many severall Courts and that it is no reason to put the Lessee to such an infinite labour to search in all Courts as well at Westminster as in the Countrey with the Clerk of the Peace and for this cause after a verdict a nil capiat per Billam entred by the whole Court SIR George Savill versus Candish Hill 9 Jac. The old Countesse of Shrewsbury had a Verdict against Savel and upon a challenge of the Sheriff on the Plaintiffs part of the County of Derby the Tenure was directed to the Coroners who returned all the Writs and at the Assises a Tales was awarded and the name of one of them of the Tales was Gregory Grigson c. and by postea returned by the Clerks of the Assise in the Common Pleas the Tales was returned to be by the Sheriff but in the entring up the Judgement it was made by the Coroners and the name of the man of the Tales by the Clerk of the Assise was restored according to his right name Gregory but entred in the Roll by the name of George and upon that Judgement Savill brought a Writ of Error which depended ten years and more and the first Plaintiff who was the Countesse of Shrewsbury died this matter being indiscussed and Candish as Executor to the Countesse revived all by Scire facias why he should not have Execution and after many debates the Judgement was reversed for three causes first because upon the Pannell of the Jurors names after the twenty four Jurors were named at the foot of the Pannell two names were added to the Jurors which in truth were the men of the Tales but no mention was made that they were the names of the Jurors impannelled de novo according to the form of the Statute which ought to be for at the Common Law the Justices of assise cannot grant any Tales to supply the default of the first Jurors but it is given only by the Statute of the 35. H. 8. which ordains that their names shall be added to the first Pannell and this cannot be discerned to be done accordingly if such a stile and Title be not made over their names viz. nomina Jurator de noto apposit secundum formam Statuti to distinguish what is done by the Common-Law and what by the aid of the Statute and also the Coroners names ought to be added to the Tales at the bottom of the Pannell and in this Case their names were onely indorsed which was upon the Return of the first Pannell and although divers Presidents were shown to the Court wherein the names of the Jurors de novo appoposit c. were united upon the Pannell yet the Court did not regard them because it seemed that they passed in silence without debate had upon them the second cause was because it appeared by the Return of the postea that the Tales were returned by the Sheriff which is error in the first Processe to the Coroners and although in the Entry in the Common Pleas of
the Judgement it is made to be by the Coroners yet it is not helped in this Case for the warrant of the Roll is the Clerk of the Assises Certificate and thus is that the Tales was returned by the Sheriff and the Court cannot intend it to be otherwise then is certified and thirdly the name of the Juror in the Tales which is Gregory is made in the Entry of the Judgement to be George and although the will shall be amended in this point according to the Certificate of the postea then in the other point of the Return of the Tales by the Sheriff it is not amendable and so it is error every way and the Judgement was reversed by the whole Court BRidges versus Enion Hillar 9 Jac. The Plaintiff declares how that he and the Defendant February tenth Anno 7. submitted themselves to the Award of S. R. Bodenham who awarded they should be friends and that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff ten pounds at Miasummer following at such a place and the ten pounds being unpaid the Plaintiff brought his Action the Defendant pleads in Barr a release made by the Plaintiff to him of all demands which was made the tenth of April before Midsummer when the Debt was to be paid and the release was of all demands from the beginning of the world untill the tenth of April and shows the Release to the Court to which the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged against the Plaintiff for although the sum of Money awarded is not grounded upon any precedent Debt or contract between the parties yet by the opinion of the Court it lies in demand presently and the Plaintiff might assign it by his will and the Executor should have it and by the spirituall Law Administration may be granted of it before the day of payment if the Plaintif dye before yet it is not recoverable before Midsummer nor will any Action ly for it but it is a duty presently by the Award and as the award is perfect presently as soon as it is pronounced so are all the things contained in the Award if they be not made payable upon a condition precedent on the part of one of the Parties as if an award be made that if the Plaintif shall give to the Defendant at Midsummer one load of Hay that then upon the Delivery of the Hay the Defendant should pay the Plaintif ten pounds in this case the ten pounds cannot be released before the Day for it rests meerly in a possibility and contingency for it becomes a Duty upon the Delivery of the Hay onely and not before and therefore it is like the Case 5 E. 4. 42. of a Nomine pene waiting upon the Rent which cannot be released untill the Rent be behinde for the not paying the Rent makes the Nomine pene a Duty and the Case in question is like the Case Littleton 117. where a man is bound to pay Money at a Day to come for a Release of Actions before the Day cuts off the Duty because by 7 H. 7. 6. it is a Duty presently and the Case is stronger here because the Release is of all Demands which observe MOrgan versus Sock Pasch 10. Jacobi Sock brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of fourteen pounds entred into by Ar. Morgan Anno 1. Jac. against Tho. Morgan his Administrator the Defendant pleads that after the Death of Arth. and after Administration was to him committed to wit the 16 of September Ann. 6. the Plaintiff brought his Original against him of which he had no notice nntill the 24. of February Ann. 6. before which Day the Defendant was upon the Exig for not appearing which Exig was returnable Tres Pasch after and that the 17. of Febr. which was before the notice his Letters of Administration were revoked by the Archbishop and granted to Rich. M. the Brother of Arth. which Rich. is now Administrator and that he at the time of revoking the Administration had divers Goods of the Intestates in his hands and shews them what they were to the value of two hundred pounds and that he after the Administration revoked and before notice of the Suit had delivered them over to Rich. to wit the 22. of February 6. Jacobi and that he at the time of the Administration revoked had fully administred all the Goods of the Intestates besides the Goods delivered to Rich. c. The Plaintiff replied that the Administration was revoked by Covin between the Defendant and Rich. and upon that they are at Issue and the Jury found it to be Covin by reason whereof the Plaintiff had a Judgement to recover the Debt and Damages of the Goods and Chattels of the said Arth. at the time of his Death being in his hands to be levied and upon that Judgement he brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that the Judgement ought to be conditional to wit to recover the Debt of the Goods of the Intestate if so much remain in his hands and not absolutely But the Judgement was affirmed by the whole Court for where the Judgement may be final and certain there it shall never be conditional And because it appears by the Defendants Plea that he had two hundred pounds in his hands of the Intestates Goods it would be in vain to give Judgement against him if he had so much in his hands seeing he himself hath confessed by his Plea that 〈◊〉 more in his hands then would satisfie that Debt and if 〈…〉 could not levy the Debt in the Defendants hands he may upon the Defendants 〈…〉 Damage return a Devastavit and this by the opinion of the whole Court and then there was shewed to the Court a President in the Common Pleas to that purpose DOnghty versus Fawn Mich. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff declares upon an Obligation of an hundred and twenty pounds dated 2. Novemb. 43. Eliz. And the Condition was that one Edw. Astle by his last Will in writing of such a Date had disposed the Wardship of the Defendant whereof the Defendant was possessed c. if therefore the Defendant do save and keep harmlesse the Plaintiff c. from all Charges and Troubles c. which may happen to the Plaintiff c. for or by reason of the last Will of the said Ed. A. or from any thing mentioned in that touching or concerning one M. Fawn or any Legacy or Bequest to her given or bequeathed or otherwise from Ed. A. to her due then the Obligation c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was not damnified The Plaintiff replies that after the Obligation made one M. Smith in the behalf of Jo. and Ed. A. Sons of the said Ed. A. named in the Condition did exhibite a Bill against the Plaintiff as Administrator of A. in the Chancery for the payment of the Portions of the said Sons to which Bill the Plaintiff by way of Answer pleaded fully administred and for the making good thereof sets
Arbitrator for else the Bond remaines as single and so in this Case the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrator made an Award and that it was delivered by the Arbitrator but whether it was delivered in writing or under his hand according to the Submission is not pleaded and therefore it is no Answer to the Plaintiff for he hath not pleaded an Award made according to the Condition and therefore the Bond is single Yea Cook argued for the Defendant and said that the Plaintiff by the Demurrer had confessed that the Arbitrator had made no Award as the Defendant had pleaded and then he shal never have Judgement for if it may judicially appear to the Court that the Plaintiff had no Cause of Action he shall never have Judgement and that the Plaintiff ought to have averred and joyned with a Traverse of that the Defendant pleaded to wit that the Arbitrator had made an Award and delivered it in writing under his hand and seal without that c. and as to the other matter of the Trespasse the same Day and so he might have demanded Judgement for his Plea doth but amount to the general Issue that the Arbitrators made no Award but Yelverton answered that it could not be pleaded in any other manner then he had pleaded it because he could not traverse it because the Defendant himself had pleaded that he made an Award and although the Demurrer confesse all matters in Deed yet they are such onely as are well pleaded as Burtons Case 5. Rep. 69. And also although the Award pleaded cannot be intended the same Award specified in the Condition yet the Plaintiff had good cause of Action and all the Court Fleming being absent were of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to recover for the Reasons before alleadged but as for that point whether the Controversie that grew in the morning should be arbitrated because there cannot be a fraction of Dayes it was not argued nor any opinion of the Court delivered onely Cook cited 5 E. 4. 208. that the Arbitrator ought to arbitrate of that because the Condition was of all matters untill the making the Obligation WHeeler versus Hayden Trin. 11. Jacobi W. Parson of the Church of A. brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant for Arrerages of Rent and declared upon a Lease made to the Defendant for four years if the Plaintiff did so long live and continue Parson c. and upon a Non demisit pleaded the Jury found an especial Verdict to wit that the Plaintiff had leased it to the Defendant for four years if the Plaintiff shall so long live onely and whether this Verdict was found for the Plaintiff or Defendant was the Question and Cook Serj. seemed that it was found for the Plaintiff for the main matter was that he should lease it if he so long lived and the subsequent words are of no effect because they contained no more then by the Law was before spoke of for the Law sayes that if he be non-resident or if he resign or be deprived that the Lease shall be determined like to the 30. Ass 8. A Lease to two and the longest Liver of them and the 17 E. 3. 7. A. A Lease to one of Land and a House for years and that the Lessee may make good profit of it this last Clause in both is idle and Dallidge was of the same opinion but Yelverton against them for the Plaintiff had intituled himself to the Action by such a Cause and if he fail in that it is his folly and shall not recover for the Lease upon which he declared had two Determinations the first by Death the second by removing and the Jury had found the Lease onely upon the first Determination and therefore various in substance and therefore the Jury have found against the Plaintiff as if a Lease be made by Baron and Feme if they shall so long live continue married both of them ought to be found Haughton to the same purpose for when a Parson makes a Lease if he shall so long live he doth take upon himself that he will do no Act by which the Lease shall be determined but onely by his Death for otherwise an Action of Covenant will lie against him but if the other Clause be added to wit and shall so long continue Parson then he may resign or be non-resident without danger and so there is great difference between the Verdict and Declaration and it was adjourned the Court being divided in opinion Dower MIch 6. Jacobi Dower may be brought as well against the Heir himself as against the Committee of the Ward but if an Infant be in Ward to a Lord in Chivalry the Dower shall be brought against the Guardian in Chivalry If Dower be brought against one who is not Tenant of the Free-hold the Tenant before Judgement shall be received and upon Default of the Tenant and after Judgement he may falsifie MIch 9. Jac. Dower demanded of the third part of Tithes of Wooll and Lamb in three several Townes and it was demanded of the Court how the Sheriff should deliver Seisin and the Court held it the best way for the Sheriff to deliver the third part of the tenth part and the third tenth Lamb Videlicet the thirtieth Lamb. In Dower against the Lord Morley the Tenant at the Day of taking of the Inquest after the Jury had appeared and before the Jury were sworn made Default and a Pety Cape was awarded and the Tenant at the Day in Banck informed the Court that the Tenant is but Tenant for Tenant for Life and that the Reversion is in one P. who at the Return in Banck ought to be received to save his Title and the Court appointed him at the Return of the Pety Cape to plead his Plea HIH. 13. Jacobi Allen and his Wife Demandants versus Walter in Dower of a Free-hold in Munden Magna Munden Parva B. the Sheriff returned Pleg de prosequend J. D. R. R. And the Names of the Summoners J. D. R. F. And after the Summons made and by the space of fourteen Dayes and more before the Return of the said Writ at the most usual Church Door of Munden Magna where part of the Tenements lay upon the 27. of October being the Lords Day immediately after Sermon ended in that Church he publikely proclaimed all and singular things contained in that Writ to be proclaimed according to the Form of the Statute in that behalf made and provided L. P. Ar. Vic. And Exception was taken to the Return because Proclamation was not made at the Doors of the Churches where the Lands lay and the Court held it not necessary but it was sufficient to make Proclamation at any of the Churches but the Return was insufficient because he said that he had caused to be proclaimed all and singular in that Writ contained and sayes not what and the Demandant released his Default upon the grand Cape CLefold versus
Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
the use of her eldest Son in tayl c. With power to her self at any time to make Leases for one and twenty years and before the Lease in being expired she made another Lease to B. for one and twenty years to commence after the determination of the first Lease And as to the third part of the Land she made a Lease of that for one and twenty years after the death of one Carn who in truth never had any estate in the Land and afterwards she dyes the first Lease expires And I the Son enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiffe And the Defendant claims under B. the Lessee And adjudged for the Plaintiffe for by such a power she could not make a Lease to comence at a day to come but it ought to be a Lease in possession and not in interest to comence in future nor in reversion after another estate ended but the Law will judge upon the generall power to make Leases without saying such ought to be Leases in Possession for if upon such power she might make Lease upon Lease she might by infinite Leases detain those in Reversion or Remainder out of the Possession for ever which is against the intent of the parties and against reason and adjudged accordingly Trin. 30 Eliz. Earle of Sussex case 6 Rep. 33. And Justice VVilliams said that when he was a Serjeant it was so adjudged in the Common Pleas in the Earle of Essex Case and Judgement by the the whole Court BRasier versus Beal Trin. 10 Jacobi Upon an especial Verdict in Ejectment the Case was that a Copy-holder in Fee of the Mannour of B. in the County of Oxford by license of the Lord lease the Land in question for sixty years to M. if he should live so long rendring Rent with a Condition of re-entry the Copy holder surrenders to the Lessor of the Plaintiff in Fee who demands the Rent upon the Land which being not paid he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintif without any Argument the Court seemed to be of opinion that the Entry of the Lessor was not congeable for Copy-hold land is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions nor the Lessor such an Assignee that the Statute intends for at the Common Law a Copy-holders Estate is but an Estate at will custome hath onely fixed his Estate to continue which Custome goes not to such collateral things as Entries upon Condition for such an Assignee of a Copy-holder being onely in by Custome is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor onely by him but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord by the opinion of the whole Court ODingsall versus Jackson Mich. 10. Jac. In Ejectment the Declaration was that the Defendants intraverunt and that he did eject expulse and amove in the singular number and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant shewed this matter to the Court in Arrest of Judgement for the Declaration is incertain in that point because it cannot be known which of the Defendants did eject the Plaintiff for by his own shewing it appears that the Ejectment was but against one and upon that Declaration the Jury could not finde all the Defendants guilty for by the Plaintiffs supposal one onely did eject him but the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Declaration should be amended in that point for it was but the Clerks fault and so it was and upon an Evidence in an Ejectment by the Lessees of Cresset and Smith Yelverton said that if a man comes into a Copy-hold tertiously and is admitted by the Lord and afterwards he makes a Lease for three Lives which is a Forfeiture of his Estate yet if he that hath the pure Right to the Copy-hold release to the wrong-doer that it is good for untill the Lord enter he is Tenant in fait and if the rever as Copy-holder 4 Rep. 15. But Walter seemed of another opinion and therefore quaere what benefit he shall have by the Release In an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment of decem acris pisar and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff had declared de decem acris pisar which is not good for Pease are not known by the Acre and therefore he should have declared de decem acris tene pisis seminaris as if a man will demand Land covered with water he must say decem acras terrae aqua co opertas but the whole Court held it good for in a common acceptance ten Acres of Pease or ten Acres sowed with Pease is all one and so is the opinion of Catesby 11 E. 4. 1. And the man the Secondary said that so it had been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error MEerton versus Orib Trin. 11. Jacobi Orib brought an Ejectment against Meerton in the Common Pleas 6 Jacobi of a Cole-mine in Durham in the County Palatine there the Defendant pleaded not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff before the Justices Itinerantes there upon which Judgement the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Errour that the Plaintif appeared by an Attourney whereas it ought to have been by Guardian being under age And upon an Issue that he was of full age was tryed at Durham and found that he was within age but the Plaintif had license to discontinue his Writ of Errour and brought a new Writ of Errour Quod coram nobis residat And declared that M. was inhabiting at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and being within age appeared by an Attorney the Defendant in the Writ of Errour confessed that he was inhabiting at Westminster but that he was at full age at the time And upon the tryall in Middlesex it was found that M. was under age And it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement and it depended a long time that it was a mistryall and the doubt and question was onely whether the tryall at Westminster in this Case was good And Davenport and Yelverton were of opinion that it was not good for the Errour assigned was done at Durham and because they there have the best notice of it it ought to have been there tryed As if Errour be in a Record it shall be tryed where the Record is 19 H. 6. 79. Secondly This is a reall Action in which the Land shall be recovered and therefore though the Issue be upon a collaterall matter yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes because it concernes the realty but if it had concerned the person onely it had been otherwise and this difference is taken by Montham 19 H. 6. 10. And therefore if a Feoffment be made upon payment c. If upon an Assise brought the Defendant plead payment in another place yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes And so likewise if the Issue should be which
is the eldest Son although they alleadge their births in severall Counties yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so in that Case a Release of all his right was pleaded against him and he pleaded that he was within age and borne in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. and 17 E. 3. 36. b. 19 H. 6. 15. Nay though the Espousals be alleadged to be in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. And Davenport inferrs from 36 H. 6. 9. A grand Cape against one he comes and pleads that he was within age at the time of the first Cape which shall be tryed where the Land lyes And another exception was taken because the Venire facias was not well awarded for it was directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex that he should cause to come twelve Coram nobis apud westmonasterium which is not good for that Court follows the King and may be removed to any place and therefore it ought to have been Vbicunque fuerimus in Anglia but all the Judges Fleming being absent after mature deliberation held the tryall at Middlesex good for they took this difference in their answer to the rule layd downe that what concernes the realty it shall be tryed where the Land lyes for when nonage or the birth are alleadged to intitle one to the Land demanded as if in an Assise the Tenant pleads a discontinuance the Demandant sayes he was within age at the time or to debarr another of Land that he was borne before marriage in these Cases because the Inheritance of the Land depends upon it although they be alleadged in another place yet they shall be tryed where the Land lyes 19 H. 6. And so it is 39 H. 6. 49. b. to be intended but if nonage or birth be pleaded as matter dehors and not to the disabling of the title to the Land but to another purpose as here it is to the person because he could not appeare by Attorney in this Case it shall be tryed where the Infancy is alleadged As if in a Formedon in the Remainder the Tenant pleads nonage in the Plaintiff and prayes that the Plea may stay untill his full age if Issue be taken upon it it shall be tryed in the place where it is alleadged And as to the Exception to the Venire facias the Roll is right which warrants the Writ and therefore they held it was but the Writers fault and should be amended and Doddridge and Cook held the Triall good if Infancy be alledged the Triall shall be by inspection during his Nonage as it is 17 E. 3. Account 121. and 11 H. 4. 115. 25. Ass 2. and 48 E. 3. 11. and the 11. Rep. f. 30. but if his Age upon inspection remains doubtfull then the Judges may swear the party and examine Witnesses And 25 E. 3. 44. and 50 E. 3. 5. but if the Infant come to full Age it shall be tried by the Countrey 33 H. 8. and they took this Difference in what place it should be tried for if the Action be reall it shall be tried where the Land lies as it is 21 E. 3. 28. 28 E. 3. 17. 44 Assis 10. 46 E. 3. 7. 13 H. 4. 3. and if both places be in one County then the venire facias shall be of both 22 E. 3. 11. H. 4. 75. but if nonage be alledged in a personall Action the Triall shall be where the writ is brought 43. H. 6. 40. in Debt the Defendant pleaded infancy and that he was born in such a place yet the Venire facias was awarded of that place where the Action was brought and 43 H. 6. 40. Prisot was of the same opinion and the Law is the same when it concerns the person as in misnomer or that he is not the same person and so in the Case in question although the Action be brought in one place and the nonage pleaded in another County yet it shall be tried where the Action was brought and therefore the Action being brought in Midd. the triall of Midd. is good for a writ of Error is of the nature of an Originall which is personall and they held the Venire facias should be amended being but a matter of Form and that it was no mistriall it being awarded at a right place and likewise the will is right which warrants it and therefore it is but a misprision and no mistriall and the Venire facias shall be amended according to the will and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in the writ of Error Formedon BRigham versus Godwin The Formedon did abate by the death of one of the Demandants and upon a new writ brought by Journes accounts the Tenant was Essoined and it was moved by the demanded that the Essoin should be quashed because the Tenant was Essoined upon the first writ but the Essoin was allowed by the Court but it was held by the Court that if the Tenant had the view upon the first Writ he should never have the view again at the Common Law we might have had a new Essoin upon view as often as he brings a new writ and Husband held that if by the Common Law it is to be granted the Statute doth not abridge it two views do not ly upon one writ at the common Law and if this shall be accounted but one Writ the view lieth not but in this case the Tenant did relinquish the view because he had day to plead NEvill versus Nevil Mich. 15 Jac. rotulo 77. Formedon in le Discender the writ was generall and the Count was upon a Feofment made after the Statute of uses and a speciall verdict whether the Deed warrant the Count the verdict is whether upon the whole matter the said A. N. gave the moity of the third part of the Mannor c. for default of Issue of the Bodies of either the said G. and D. to the use of either of them surviving and of the Heires males of his Body to be begotten or no the Jury are wholly ignorant the writ was to the use of G. and D. and of the Heirs males of the Bodies of the said G. and D. lawfully to be begotten and for default of such issue male of the Body of either of them then to the use of either of them having issue male of his Body lawfully begotten and for default of such issue male of both the Bodies of the said G. D. or either of them lawfully to be begotten then to the use c. By Deed an implication cannot be intended if there be not apt words otherwise it is in a Will for this is but a gift to a man and his Issue for this gift is but to both of them for life and severall inheritances Bishop al. versus Cossen Trin. 16 Jac. rotulo 62. In Formedon the Tenant pleaded a warranty and pretends
were his Masters and part his own proper Goods and found guilty as to his own Goods and a special Verdict as to the Goods of his Master and Judgement for the Plaintiff COnstable versus Inhabitant in dimid Hundred de VValsham in Comitat. Essex Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2244. The Action wabrought for a Robbery the Defendant is found guilty and it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie because it was not brought against the whole Hundred and it was answered on the Plaintiffs behalf that the half Hundred is a Hundred by it self and the Court held the Writ should have been brought against them in this manner Inhabitantes in Hundredo de W. called the half Hundred of Waltham but the Writ was held good for the Writis so shall be intended to be brought against the men inhabiting in the half hundred of W. Judgement for the Plaintif in a special verdict the Jury found that the robbery was done upon the Sunday and it was held in the Kings Bench that the Hundred was liable NOrris versus Inhabitantes in Hundredo de G. Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 431. And the Plaintiff declares upon a Robbery done the ninth day of October An. 13 Jacobi And the Originall bears Teste the ninth of October 14 Jacobi and after a Verdict Serjeant Harvey moved to stay the Judgement because the Writ was not brought within one year after the Robbery done according to the forme of the Statute of 27 Eliz. And the Court held it a good Exception CAmblyn versus Hundredum de Tendring Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 1952. The Plaintiff in his Declaration had mistaken to alleadge the very Day of the Robbery for he shewed the Robbery to be committed in October where in truth it was committed in September and the Court was moved that the Record which was taken out for Triall but never put in might be amended for the notice given to the Hundred as the Record is would appear to be before the Robbery and they granted that it should be amended Actions in Partition THe Process in Partition are Summons Attachment and Distress and the Process are returnable from fifteen Dayes to fifteen Dayes and if the Writ be brought against two or more several Essoines will lie but no View and the Sheriff upon the Distress is compellable to return the value of the Land from the teste of the Original untill the Return thereof and if the Writ be against two or more Deâ—eâ—â—iants and onely one appears the Plaintiff cannot declare against him untill the residue of the Defendants appear and Partition lies by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 32. between Joint-tenants Tenants in Common Tenants for Life or for years but at the Common Law Partition was onely between Coparceners his Petit. is no Plea in Partition and in this Action there are two Judgements the first is that Partition shall be made and if the Plaintiff die after the first Jugement and before the second Judgement the Writ shall not abate but his Heir shall have a Scire facias against the Defendants to shew cause why Partition should be made and a Writ of Partition will not lie of the View of Frank Pledges and the Death of one of the Defendants abates the Writ And note the Plaintiff may have a general Writ but a special Count and if the Defendant confess part and plead Quod non tenet insimul pro indiviso for the residue the Plaintiff may have Judgement upon the Confession and a Writ to make Partition upon the Confession before the Triall and afterwards try the Issue for the residue or else he may respit his Judgement upon the Confession untill the Issue be tried but this is dangerous for if the Plaintiff be non-suit at the Assise then the whole Writ will abate and if the Sheriff return the Tenant summoned when in truth he was not an Action of Deceit lies not but an Action upon the Case because the Plaintiff shall not recover the Land by default and you shall never have a Writ of Partition against one where he cannot have one against the other thirteen men joyn in a purchase of a Mannour the Conveyance was of the moity to one of them in Fee and the other moity to the other twelve men in Fee the twelve make a Feoffment to one of twelve several Tenements and Land and that Feoffee makes twelve several Feoffments to those twelve men now the thirteenth man which had the other moity bringeth one Writt of Partition against them all pretending that they held insimul pro indiviso and by the opinion of the whole Court it would not lie but he ought to have brought several Writs and Mich. 6. Jacobi in Partition because both of them are in Possession he that is not prohibited may cut down all the Trees and no Estrepment will lie COcks versus Combstoks The Plaintiff declares that one A. was seised in Fee and demised for years to J. and L. and to the Plaintiff for term of Life and one of them demised to one of the Defendants for years the Defendant as to part pleads that he did not demise and the other pleads Non est informat and a Demurrer to the Plea of Non demisit because it is but argumentative Quod non tenet insimul and it was adjudged a naughty Plea a Writ of Error lies in Partition upon the first Judgement before the Writ be returned MIll versus Glemham The Defendant pleads that he before the purchasing of this Writ had brought a Writ of partition for the same Land against the Plaintiff which yet depends and demands Judgment if the Plaintiffs Writ were brought And the Court held that the Writ last brought is well brought for if the first Plaintiff will not proceed upon his Writ and the Defendant shall confess the Action yet the Defendant cannot sue a Writ to make partition upon that Plaintiffs Writ and therefore it is reasonable that the Defendant in the first Action may sue out a Writ to make partition and that the Defendants plea is naught and the last Writ is well prosecuted Actions upon Quare Impedit THe Process in this Action are Summons Attachment and Distress peremptory by the Statute of Marlborough cap. 13. the Sheriff must summon the Defendant by good summoners and return their names upon the original Writ and not return common summoners as John Doo and Richard Roo for a Writ of deceit lyeth in this Writ if the summons were not made indeed The Writs hereupon are returned from 15. days to 15. days The summons upon the first Writ may either be made at the Church door to the person of the Defendant And although a nihil be returned upon the first summons Attachment and Distress yet if the Defendant make default upon the Distress a Writ shall goe to the Bishop upon the title made by the Plaintiff but at the common Law
Writ of Error against Matthew upon a Judgement given in a Quare impedit against the King in the Common Pleas of the Church of A. and the Question was whether a double usurpation upon the King doth so put him out of Possession that he shall be forced to his Writ of Right and it was adjudged in the Common Pleas against the opinion of Anderson that he was put to his Writ of Right but a Writ of Error being brought upon that Judgement in the Common Pleas the Judgement was reversed by the opinion of Popham Yelverton Williams and Tamfeild Fennor being of a contrary opinion and they alleadged two Reasons first because the Right of Patronage and the Advowson it self being an Inheritance in the Crown upon Record the Law will so protect it that no force or wrong done by a Subject it shall be devested out of the King for there is a Record to intitle him but there is no matter of Record against him for a Presentationby a Subject is but matter in fait the which Act although it be mixed with the judicial Act of the Bishop to wit Institution yet it shall not prejudice the King being onely grounded upon the wrong of a Subject and the second Reason was because no man can shew when the Usurpation upon the King should commence and begin for it is not to be doubted but that the King after six Moneths passed if the Incumbent cy might have presented for plenarty is no plea against him and Nullnm tempus occurrit Regi and after that Usurpation upon the King the Court doubted not but that the Patronage was still in the King and Popham said that a Confirmation being made by the King to such a Presentee is good to establish his Possession against a Recovery in a Quare impedit by the King afterwards but that it should not inure to any purpose to amend the Estate of the Usurper for he gaines no Posaession by the Presentation against the King but the Release to him made by the King is void as to so much as is in posaession and during the life of the first Presentee the whole Court did not doubt but that the King might present and then the Death of the Incumbent could not make that to be an Usurpation which was not an Usurpation in his life for his Death is a Determination of the first wrong which will rather help then injure the King and Tanfeild said that so it had been resolved in the Common Pleas 23 24 Eliz. in one Yardleys Case for in that Case there was not any Induction for which reason Judgement was not entred but they were all of the same opinion as the Court then was and onely 43 E. 3. 14. 14 E. 3. and 18 E. 3. are against it and Popham said that a Quare impedit was by the Common Law but it was onely upon a Presentment to wit Induction but if the Incumbent was to be inducted then at the Common Law a Writ of Right of Advowson onely lies DIgby versus Fitzch Trin. 14. Jacobi rotulo It was said in this Case by Justice VVarburton that the Presentment is the Posaession in a Quare impedit as in Rent the receiving and in common the taking of the profits and in a Quare impedit one ought to shew in his Title a Presentation either by himself or one of those under whom the Plaintiff claimes as in a Writ of Right of an Advowson one must shew a Presentation in himself or in his Ancestors whose Heir he is plenarty in a Quare impedit shall be tried by the Bishop for the Church is full by Institution onely in common persons Cases but in the Kings Case the Church is not full untill the Clerk be inducted but whether a Church be void or not shall be tried by the Countrey for of Voidency the Countrey may take notice Actions upon Replevins IF the Cattel be distrained the party that owes them may have a Replevin either by Plaint or Writ at his pleasure and if it be by plaint in the countrey and the Bailiff return to the Sheriff that he cannot have the view of the Beasts to make deliverance then the Sheriff ought to inquire of that by Inquest of office and if it be found that the Beast be not to be had then he ought to award a Withernam and if the Sheriff will not do it then an Attachment shall issue against the Sheriff to the Coroners and after that a Distresse and if a Withernam be granted and a nihil returned upon the Withernam he shall have an alias plures and so infinitely and a second deliverance lies after a Withernam and note that sometimes a Withernam lies after a Withernam as when the Plaintiff is non-suit and after a Return habend and that the Beasts are not to be found that the Beasts of the Plaintiff are taken in Withernam and the Plaintiff appears and alleadges that the Defendant had the cattel first taken and prayes Delivery And if the Defendant when the Sheriffe comes to make replevin of the cattel claims property then at the return of that writ another writ de proprietate probanda shall issue to the Sheriff by which writ the Sheriffe is commanded that taking with him custodibus placitorum c. he shall enquire of the property And if it be found that the property was to the Plaintiff then a redeliverance shall be made the Plaintiff and an Attachment against the Defendant to answer for the contempt in taking and unjustly deteyning the cattell of the Defendant appear upon the plures withernam he shall gage deliverance presently And if the Defendant in Court claims the property and it be found against him the Plaintiff shall recover the value of the cattell and his dammages And if the Defendant plead in abatement of the writ that the property is in the Plaintiff and one other c. and the Plaintif confesse it by which the writ shall abate by an award upon the Role and a return habend be awarded to the Defendant yet the Plaintif shall have a new replevin and the return shall not be irreplegiable for the Statute of Westm the second doth not help a false writ or abatement of a writ but the Plaintif may have a new writ from time to time but it helps non-suits in replevin for if he be non-suit he shall not have a new replevin but a writ of second deliverance And if the Defendant upon the return habend adjudged for him cannot have the return of the Beasts and the Sheriff returns upon the return habend that the cattel first taken are dead he may have a Scire facias against the pledges and upon a nihil return upon that he may have a Scire facias against the Sheriff for insufficient pledges are no pledges and the party may relinquish his withernam and fall upon the pledges or the Sheriffe And if cattell be put into a Castle or Fortress the Sheriffe
by the whole Court held to be a condition but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for doublenesse in the plea. BRown versus Dunri Hill 15. Iac. rotulo 1819. The Defendant made cognizance c. as Bailiff M. Walker Widow Administrator c. R. W. for one rent charge of 6 l. granted by one Warner to the said R. and M. his wife for life of the VVife And the said R. by the said writing granted c. That if it should happen the said yearly Rent to be behind and not paid in part or in all by the space of ten dayes next after any Feast c. being lawfully demanded that then c. the said Warner c. ten shillings nomine paene for every default and that then it should be lawfull to the said W. and M. and their Assigns to enter into the premises and distrain as well for the rent as for the nomine paene and shews that the rent was behind in the life of the Husband and that he dyed intestate and that administration was committed to the woman and made cognisance for the rent due at such a Feast in the life of the Husband and being then behind and the issue was that the Grantor was not seised and after a tryall diverse exceptions were taken one was for that a demand was not alledged another was that the cognisance was made as Bailifle to the Administrator when as the woman by the survivorship should have the rent Another was that it is not alledged that the rent was behind by ten dayes next after the Feast and the exceptions upon debate at diverse dayes were over-ruled First the demand is not necessary for the Distress is a sufficient demand as it was adjudged in Iaces case The second was because the cognisance as Administrator are void idle and superfluous and for the ten dayes it was good because that predicto tempore quo c. It was behind and adjudged by the whole Court for the Advowant SLoper versus Alen Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3002. Replevin upon the taking of 40. Sheep the issue was that the Sheep were not levant and couchant and found by a speciall verdit that twenty Sheep were levant and couchant and that twenty Sheep were not levant and couchant and it was held upon the reading of the Record that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment BVrton versus Cony Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 2044. The Defendant avows for a rent charge granted to him for life by his Father issuing out of all his Lands in such a Town to have and to hold to levy and yearly to take the said annuity or annuall rent of c. during the naturall life of the said P. at two Feasts in the year to wit c. by equall portions the first payment to be made at the first and next Feast of the said Feasts which should next happen after the term of 8. years ended and determined specified and declared in the said will And if it should happen c. And averres in the avowry that there is not any term of years specified and declared in the said Testament before recited And note that in the premises of the Deed it is recited thus in fulfilling the Will or Testament of me the said T. bearing date such a date I have given c. And the Court held that the grant was present if no term was contained in the will and Judgment was given for the Advowant But after Judgment was entred upon Record an exception was taken because it was not averred that the Grantor was dead and it was allowed for a good exception but it came to late judgment being entred HEyden versus Godsulm Judgment for the Defendant who avowed for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and it was moved that the Plaintiff who brought the writ of Errour upon that Judgment ought to find bayle upon the writ of Errour by the Statute of 3. Iacobi and it was held by the greater number of the Judges that the Plaintiffe should not find bayle for Replevins are not within the Statute TVrny versus Darnes Trin. 17. Iac. rotulo 2887. Demurrer in a replevin upon a traverse of Lands when as the parties have not agreed of the quantity of Land The Avowry was that C. was seised of one Messuage two Barns one Mill c. and 100. acres of Land with the appurtenances in W. and held them of c. by fealty rent c. and suit of Court c. And the Plaintiff prayed in aide and he joyned and alledges that he was seised of 70. acres of Land with the appurtenances in his demesne as of Fee and held them of G. by fealty and rent c. and suit of Court and traverses that he held the Tenements of the said G. as if his Mannor of W. in manner and form as c. and a speciall demurrer and one cause was because he denies not the seisin of the said services but only denies and traverses the tenure and therefore they pretended that the plea contained double matter and was a negative pregnant and secondly whether the Seisin or Tenure be traversable and the Plea was held good by Hubberd and Warburton RIchards versus Young Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 104. vel 1700. A Replevin brought for taking of Cattel at Aller in a certain place called Land Mead the Defendant avows as Bailiff of Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant containing four Acres for damage fesant the Plaintiff pleads in Barr that Henry Tearl of Hunt was seised of the Mannor of Aller whereof one Messuage c. was parcell and customary Land and devisable by Copy of Court Roll and that within the said Mannor there was a Custome that every customary Tenant of the said Messuage hath been used to have Common of Pasture in the said place called Land Mead rhe Issue was without that that within the said Mannour with the appurtenances whereof c. is and time out of mind was a custome that every customary Tenant of the laid Messuage c. had Common of pasture in manner and form c. and Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no custome alledged because it did not appear in the pleading that the place where the taking was supposed to be was within the said Mannor and no custome of the Mannor could extend forth of the Mannor but he ought to prescribe in the Mannor and note he ought to have pleaded that the place in which c. was parcell of the Mannor and then the Plea had been good In a Replevin upon an Avowry for Rent the Plaintiff for part pleadeth payment for the other part an Accord the one Issue is found for the Paintiff and the other for the Defendant the Plaintiff shallrecover his costs and damages and the Defend shall have Judgement of Return habend and no costs and damages I think otherwise it is if the Avowries be severall then on both
to have distrayned the Cattell of the Lord damage fesant and observe his BRaxall versus Thorold Trin. 8. Jac. In Replevin for the taking of 4 Oxen at Coringham in the County of Lincoln in a place called Dowgate leys Sept. 6. Jac. The Defendant says the place contained four acres in Coringham magna which was his Free-hold and justifies the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff in his bar to the Avowry that the place where c. lies in a place called Harrerart quarter parcell of a great Common Field called E. in Coringham aforesaid and that the Plaintiff the said time and long before was seized of one Messuage and of 14. acres of Land Medow and Pasture with the appurtenances to the said Messuage belonging and that the Plaintiff and all they whose estate the Plaintiff had in the Tenements ought to have common and so prescribed to have common for him his Farmers Tenants c. for all comunable cattell levant couchant upon the Tenements c. And upon issue taken upon the Common it was found for the Plaintif and alledged in arrest of Judgment that it did not appear by the Barre to the Avowry in what place the Messuage and Land to which the Common did appertain did lie to wit whether it did lie in Coringham or in any other place or County and thisof necessity ought to have been shewed in certain because the tenure ought to be both of the place where the House and Land did lye and of the place where the Land did lye in which the Common was claimed and therefore of necessity ought to have been shewed incertain and shall not of necessity be intended to be in Coringham where the Common is For a Common may be appendant or appurtenant to Land in another County And the trvall shall be of both Counties and Judgement was arrested by the whole Court TRuelock versus Riggsby Mich. 8. Jacobi In Replevin for the taking of six Kine in a place called Brisley hill in Radley in the County of Berks the Defendant as Bailiff of one Read makes Conisance that the place where c. contains fifty acres and is parcell of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where c. is parcell and showes that E. 6. was seised of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where is parcell and granted it by Letters Patents to R. Leigh and divers other Lands by the name of the Coxleyes c. and amongst other particulars in the Patent the King granted Brisley hill in Barton and deduces the Free-hold of the Mannor of which the place In which c. is parcell to Read and he as Bailiff to him took the Kine damage Fesant the Plaintiff replies and shows that one Hide was seised of a Messuage and divers Acres of Land in Radley and that he and those whose estate he hath for himself his Farmers and Tenants used to have Common in the said place called Brisley hill in Radley when the said Feild called Brisley hill in Radley was fresh and not sowed all that yeare with their Cattell Levant and Couchant and when the Field was sowne with Corne and when the Corne was carried away untill it was referred and so justifie the putting in of six Kine using his Common because the Feild was not sown with Corne at the time to which the Defendant pleads and saies that part of the Feild called Brisley Hill in the Avowry named was at that time sown with Corn c. and the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two reasons The first was because the Defendant in his Avowry referres the taking of the Cattell to another place then that set forth in the Avowry which is not in question and in which the Plaintiff claims no Common for the Plaintiff may claim Common in Brisley hill in Radley and the place named in the Defendants Avowry to which he referres his Plea is Brisley hill in Barton for Brisley hill in Radley is not named in the Avowry by any speciall name but onely by implication by this name the place in which c. and for that reason the rejoinder doth not answer the matter in the replication The second cause was because the Plaintiff claims Common when Brisley hill in Radley was unsown with Corn and the Defendant to that although his Plea should referre to the same Brisley yet hath he given no full answer for he saith that parcell of the said Feild was sowed with Corn and the Court held that sowing of parcell of the Feild shall not hinder the Plaintif from using his Common in the residue for that may be done by covin to deceive the Plaintiff of his Common for the Plaintif claiming his Common when the Field that is the whole Feild is sown shall be barred of his common by sowing of parcell of it notwithstanding that parcell be sowed the Plaintif shall have his common by the opinion of the whole court GOdfrey versus Bullein Mich. 8 Jacobi Bullein brought a Reple vin against Godfrey for the taking of six Beasts in such a place in Bale in the County of Norfolk the Defendant as Bailif of R. Godfrey makes conisance because before the time and at the time in which c. the said R. Geffrey was seised of a Court Leet in Baile of all the inhabitants and râ—â—dent within the Precinct of the Mannor of Baile to be holden within the Precinct of the Mannor as appertaining to his Mannor and shews how that he had used to have a Fine of ten shillings called a Leet Fine of all the cheif pledges of his Leet and if they failed to pay the Steward had used to amerce them that made default in payment shewed how that at a Court holden within the Mannor such a day it was presented that the Plaintif in the Replevin being an inhabitant in B. and resident within the Precinct of the Mannor made default in payment of the said Fine of ten shillings being then one of the cheif pledges of the Court by reason whereof he was amerced at five pounds which being not paid the Defendant took the Beasts and the Issue was whether Bullein at that court was a chief Pledge or no and the Venire to try his Issue was onely of the Mannor and found for the Plaintif and damages and costs to thirty pounds given against Geffrey upon which he brought a Writ of Error in the late Kings Bench and adjudged Error and the Judgement reversed for the Venire facias should have been both of Bail which was the Village as of the Mannor for although the Court be held within the Mannor yet the Leet it self is within the village of Baile and the Plaintiff was an inhabitant and resident within the village which village is within the Precinct of the Mannor and though Fleming cheif Justice held that nothing was in question but whether the Plaintiff was cheif pledge at the Court held within the Mannor or no and so nothing within the
City the Plaintiff surmising that the Sheriff and Coroners are Citizens of that City may pray a Venire facias to the next County of the body of the County or of the next Villiages in the next County And if the challenge of Kindred be not rightly alleadged in the challenge it matters not if it be Kindred and if a Venire facias be quashed because it was returned by the Under Sheriff who was Kin to him or other good cause it shall be quashed and the Venire facias shall be returned by the high Sheriff with words in it that the Under Sheriff shall not intermeddle with it And if the Array be challenged and affirmed the Defendant may after challenge the Poll and must shew his cause of challenge presently And if the Land in question lye in foure Hundreds if foure of any Hundred appeare it is good and note That the challenge of the Array shall be drawne in Paper and delivered presently after the Jury appeares and the Defendant is not bound to make good his challenge with these words Et hoc parat est ver iscare c. And those that try the principall challenge may also try the challenge upon the Tales if the King had been party alone no challenge was to be allowed but if the suit had been in the name of another who sued as well for the late King as for himselfe in a Writ to inquire of waste after a distress no challenge to the Poll lyes It is good cause to challenge a Juror because he was attainted in a conspiracy or attaint or if any Juror was put into the Pannell at the desire of the party it is good cause of challenge to the Array And if a Jury of two Counties and both Arrayes are challenged two of one County shall try the Array of that County and two of the other County shall try the Array of the other County and they shall not joyne untill they be sworne of the Principall and two of one Hundred and two of the other Hundred doe suffice if in Trespass the Defendant justifie as a Servant to the Lord and by his commandement It is good cause of challenge to the Juror that he is a Tenant to the Lord although the Lord be no party to the Record and if Process by challenge is awarded to the Coroners the Process afterwards shall not goe to the Sheriff although there be another Sheriff but after Judgement execution shall issue to the new Sheriff And where a man challenges the Polls of the principall Pannell he afterwards shall not challenge the Array of the Tales and if the Array be quashed it is entred upon Record but if it be affirmed then it is not entred If Trespass be done in diverse Townes in one Shire they may all be joyned in one Writ to wit why by force and armes the Closes and Houses of the Plaintiff at A. B. and C. have broken and c. WOlsey versus Sheppard Constable The Constable being Defendant justifies the Imprisonment by reason that the Plaintiff kept one Alehouse against the forme of a Statute of Queen Elizabeth and therefore by the warrant of two Justices he was committed to Prison and Issue was that he did not keep an Alehouse against the forme of the Statute aforesaid and indeed the Statute was made in Edw. 6. time and the Jury found that he did keep an Alehouse against the Statute in Edw. 6. time And the Court held the mistaking of the day of the Act is not prejudiciall by way of barr but by way of count it must be layd truly GLasbrook versus Einsey Pasch 16. Jacobi in Assault and Battery the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the next terme after the Writ of Venire facias was awarded the Defendants Attorney would have confessed the Action by Relicta verificatione which the Plaintiff did deny to receive having took out his Venire and that those Errors which had escaped in the proceedings by that confession were not holpen as they are after tryall and it was much controverted by the Court whether the Defendant without the consent of the Plaintiff might confesse the Action and the Court was in severall opinions but because the Plaintiff always prays for the confession it seemed he might refuse the confession and afterwards it was adjudged the confession should not be received because it appeared to the Court to be but a practice to lessen the Plaintiffs Damages COok versus Jenman Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 329. An Action of Trespass and Battery was brought the last day of October 10 Jacobi The Defendant as to the force and armes sayes nothing but pleads generally that he and one in the sayd last day of October did joyntly enter into the Plaintiffs at S. and did then and there assault the Plaintiff and that afterwards to wit such a day and yeare the said Plaintiff did by his Writing c. release c. the said R. of all Actions c. And avers it to be the same Trespass whereof the Plaintiff complained and the Plaintiff traverses without this that the Trespass c. was joyntly done and demurrer upon this Plea pretending the Trespass is severall and not joynt and so no satisfaction but it was held a good Plea for the Battery was joynt or severall at the Plaintiffs election to have his Action against one or other And a satisfaction by one is a satisfaction for all and the Plaintiff cannot have severall dammages but one dammage against them all and he hath his choice as in Heydens Case to have the best dammages COok versus Darston Mich. 15. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought by the Committee of a Lunatique being a Copy-holder to whom the Lord had committed the Lunatique and a stranger sowed the Land and the question was whether the Committee or the Lunatique should have the Action and the Court held the Action should be brought in the name of the Lunatique YOunge versus Bartram Battery brought by the Plaintiff against Husband and Wife and two others the Woman and one of the others without the Husband plead not guilty and the Husband and and the other plead Son assault demesne and tryed and alleadged in arrest of Judgement because the Wife pleaded without her Husband and Judgement stayed and a Repleader by the whole Court CRogate versus Morris If a stranger come over a Common the Lord may have an action but not the Commoner for the petty Trespas multiplicity of actions wil not take away my action except it be a damage whereby I lose my Common I can have no action If a stranger come and eat up my Common a Free-holder may bring an Assize of common for it is a Disseisin for a Disseisin of Common is the taking away the profits of the Common And an action of case will lye against the Lord for cutting down the body of the tree when the Tenant should have the loppings if the Commoner may have his Common
l. as it appears by Fleta and Brian the authority of the Marshall was absolute in civill and criminall causes at the Common Law and that Statute restrains them for Debts but not for Trespasse of what nature soever and therefore see the Statute of 30 l. 1. 5 E. 3. ch 2. and 10 E. 3. ch 2. Swaffe versus Solley Trin. 14 Jacobi rotulo 689. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore he took his Close the Defendant justifies for a way the Plaintiff replies that he did the Trespass of his own wrong without any cause alledged and so an Issue joyned and after a Verdict for it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the Issue was not well reined and prayed a new Triall because the Issue ought to be speciall but that exception was disallowed and adjudged that it was helped by the Statute of Jeofails by the opinion of the whole Court PLaint versus Thirley Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 161. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Arms the Goods and chattells of the plaintif did take and impound the Defendant pleaded the common Barr and the plaintif assigns the place and are at issue upon that and after a verdict it was moved in arrest of Judgement that there was no Issue joyned because the Lands are not in question and so no assignment necessary and Judgement was stayed but afterwards upon a motion Judgement was given for the plaintif because the Issue was holpen by the Statute of Jeofails and there was the like case upon a Demurrer in the court of common pleas Trin. 4 Jacobi rotulo 1131. CHild versus Heely 13 Jacobi rotulo 3381. vel 381. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Arms the Close Hedges and Gates of the Plaintiff at W. did break and his grass with walking over it did destroy and other his Grass with Cattell did eat and consume the plaintiff assigned one Close of pasture called Drew and another close called Sutton one other close called L. and the Defendant as to the Trespass except the breaking of the close called G. and P. and the treading c. with his feet and eating with his cattell in the said close called P. and E. not guilty and as to the breaking of the close c. saith the plaintif ought not to have his Action because he saith that E. 6. was seised of the Mannour of W. of which one Messuage c. was copy-hold and shews the custome for a way and another custome for a Common and conveys the Copy-hold to himself and justifies as to the pedibus ambulandi and as to the Trespasse with the Cattell justifies for Common the Plaintif replies as to the Trespass pedibus ambulandi that it was of his own wrong without any cause alledged and traverses the way and as to Trespass with the Cattell demurres and the cause of the Demurrer was as it appeared by motion because in the justification of the Cattell the Defendant had not alledged any custome for Common and so the Plaintif could not take any Issue of that custome but had alledged a custome for the way as for the common and the court were of opinion that it was well pleaded and Judgement upon the Demurrer for the Defendant FAirchild versus Gair Pasch 3 Jac. An Action of Trespasse brought for the tiths of the Church of B. and therein a speciall verdict was as followeth the Defendant was collated to this Church of B. being a Donative by A. and B. the Patrons and that the Church was exempt from the Jurisdiction of any Ordinary the Defendant resigned to A. and C. who was a stranger and to other persons who had no Interest his Church of B. with all Rights c. and afterwards the persons passe their Rights to D. who collates and interests the Plaintiff in the Church by reason whereof he seised the Tithes in question and the Defendant took them and concludes that upon the matter c. and if the Resignation be good then they find for the Plaintiff otherwise for the Defendant and by the opinion of the whole Court Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe for the Resignation was good both in respect of the thing resigned and of the person to whom it was made for it being a Donative and exempt from ordinary Jurisdiction the Resignation must be into his hands and the Incumbent shall not be constrained to keep the Church whether he will or no if the Patron will not accept it and because there is no person to whom the Resignation can be made but onely into the hands of the Patron it is good and although the Resignation be to one Patron and to a stranger it is good to both the Patrons and void as to the stranger and the more strong it is because of the following words to wit to all persons whatsoever which words involve all that have any manner of interest and then seeing it is found that D. who collated the Plaintiff and the Estate of both the Patrons although no agreement be found of the Patrons it is not materiall and the resting of the Plaintiff in the Church is good to give him power to take the profits by reason of the primer possession and although the Defendant did resigne but the Church onely yet it is good to all that appertains to the Church and that which the Defendant may have as Rector there 6 E. 3. is that if the Patron grant Ecclesiam that will passe the Avowson but Herlethen said that was in ancient time and therefore not so then to which the court seemed to agree and the court waived the Dispute of any other thing but onely the Resignation for of that onely the Jury doubted and was onely referred to the court but Popham chief Justice said that if the Patron would not collate any man to such a Donative there was no way to compell him but he is left to his own conscience and he might in time of the vacancy take the profits and sue for the Tithes in the spirituall court for such Donatives at first grow by consent of all persons who have any manner of Right or Interest to wit the Ordinary and Parishioners but Gawdy Fenner Yelverton and Williams against him that the Ordinary might compel him to collate any clerk for the Rectory is only exempted from the power of the Ordinary and not the Patron and that is onely as to charges to be taxed upon the church for the ordinary attendance in a Visitation and such like and Popham said that although the Church in execution of the charge is spirituall yet the patron may collate and a meer lay man as the King may make a temporall man a Dean which hath often happened but all the other Judges were against him in case of the person which is meerly spritual but as to the Deanery they did agree it for the function is temporall but yet Williams said that lay men who have Deaneries ought to have and at all
times used to have a Dispensation from the Archbishop and if the Incumbent in this Case should preach Heresie as the Attorney and Popham said the Ordinary might correct him for the parson is not exempted out of his Jurisdiction but his Parsonage onely but by Gawdy and the rest the Ordinary could not meddle with him for the Parson is priviledged in respect of the place but the Patron may commission and examine the matter and thereupon out and deprive him and so it happened in Coverts Case as Gawdy and Williams said wherein the Bishop of Winchester was the Donor of such a Donative 13 E. 4. LEe versus Lacon 3. Jac. In trespass the action was Land in the County of Salop and not guilty pleaded and the venire facias was made with a space for Salop but Salop was not named there And by vertue of that Writ the Sheriffe of Salop impannelled the Jury and found for the Plaintiff and the matter above specified was moved in Arrest of Judgment to wit that the venire facias was vicious and so a mistriall but by Fenner and Williams it was to be accounted his if no venire facias had been awarded And so indeed by the Statute of Jeofailes for the County to wit Salop is omitted and left out and so the Sheriffe of Salop had no power nor authority to summon the Jury because the Writ which is his Warrant is generall to the Sheriff and not naming of any County but the Court held it to be the best way to amend it and they put this difference For when the action is laid in Salop and upon a special pleading the issue is drawn into a forreign County there the entry and award of the venire upon the Will is speciall to wit to the Sheriff of that County where the issue arises to be tryed and in such case a venire facias with a blanâ—k shall not be good because it cannot be judged to which of the Sheriffs the venire was to be awarded and upon that incertainty it shall be naught but when the generall issue is taken or the matter is triable in the same County where the action is laid there the venire facias is awarded generally and must of necessity be intended to be the Sheriffe of that County where the action is laid and cannot be otherwise intended and for this reason it was but the default of the Clerk which is amendable and so it was amended BAylie versus Moon Trin. 3. Jacobi An action of Battery brought in Plymouth Court before the Major and Bailiffs there and not guilty pleaded but afterwards the issue was waived and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ to enquire of damage was awarded to the Serjeant of the Mace that by the oath of twelve c. he should inquire and the Writ was made returnable at the next Court before the Maior and Baylifs And upon a Writ of Errour brought it appeared by the Record certified that the Writ to inquire of damages was taken before the Maior of Plymouth who was also Judg of the Court and for that cause reversed for the Writ warrants the inquiry to be before the Serjeant of the Mace who by the writ for that purpose is made a distinct Officer and so an inquiry before the Maior is not warranted by any writ And so by consequence a Judgment to recover those damages taxed before a wrong Officer to whom the Writ was not directed is erroneous which was granted by the whole Court LAxworth versus West Mich. 3. Jacobi Trespass brought for the taking of Hay severed from the ninth part of Elthorp in the County of Warwick the Defendant to part pleads not guilty and to the residue pleads a devise of the Parsonage made by Lepworth to the Defendant at Wapenbury in the same County and to inable the devise for tithes in L. alledges L. to be a Hamlet in Wapenbury to the intent that the whole Tithes may pass and upon a non devisavit the venn was of Wapenbury and found for the Plaintif that T. L. did not devise it and the other issue of not guilty found for the Defendant and moved in Arrest of Judgment that the venu was mistaken because it was of Wapenbury only and not of Elthorp and they of W. could not try a matter in E. And although it was answered that the Defendant himself by his plea had confessed that E. was but an Hamlet yet the Court held the venu mistaken for when the Plaintif declares of a Trespass in E. This by generall intendment is presumed to be a Village of which Village the matter which is there in question ought to be tryed and although the Defendant had alledged Elthorp to be but an Hamlet yet it was but to inable the devise and doth not extend to the issue before joyned upon the not guilty for part for in that issue both parties agree that Elthorp is a Village and it is a perfect issue taken which hath not any coherence with the other issue of non devisavit but if the Defendant had to the whole issue pleaded the devise as his excuse and had alledged E. to be an Hamlet of W. and that only been in issue there the venu awarded had been good of W. only but in this case it was adjudged that the venire was mis-awarded and that the Plaintif should have a venire facias de novo DElves versus Wyer Mich. 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an action of Trespasse for breaking his Close and for cropping 200. Pear-trees and 100. Apple-trees and damage found to 40. l. And the Court was moved by Richardson for that the damages might be mitigated because he produced an Affidavit whereby it appeared that the party himself before the Action brought would have took 5 l. but denyed for the Court said that they could not diminish the damages in Trespass which was locall and therefore could not appear to them and the damages might well amount to 40 l. for cropping of an Orchard and so Judgment entred WOody's case Mich. 3. Jacobi Woody brought an action of false imprisonment and Battery against two who justifie and set forth that London is an ancient City and that the Maior of London is a Justice of Peace and that the Defendants were Serjeants of the Mace according to the custome of the City and that the Lord Maior to wit one Lee commanded them to arrest the Plaintif for causes to them unknown but to him known and to imprison him c. Walter moved that this Justification was insufficient because they only shewed that they were Serjeants at Mace duely elected according to the custome of the City but do not shew the Custome and Authority that they have to make Serjeants and to arrest as it is 4. H. 4. 36. in trespass the Defendant justifies that the Tower of London is within the City of London and time out of mind c. one Court was there used
GOodwin against Welsh and Over Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Trespass for severall things against the two Defendants and declares to his damage c. The Attorney for the Defendants pleads non sum informat and thereupon Judgment was given severally for the Plaintiff and Writs to inquire of the damages issued out and were returned and it was moved that the Writs should not be filed because the Plaintiff at the time of the inquiry did not prove that the goods did appertain to him but only proved the value of the goods for Serjeant Nichols took a difference between an Action confessed and non sum informat for in the first case the property of the goods is also confessed to be in the Plaintiff but it is not so in the other case for here Judgment passes without the privity of the Defendant and only for want of pleading as in the case of a nil dicit but by the whole Court it was all one And the Plaintiff is not bound to prove the property in any of the Cases and the reason is because the Writ commands only the value to be inquired of and no more and that only is the charge of the Jury And the whole Court were of opinion that they themselves as Judges if they would in such Case might assesse Damages without any Writ if they would trouble themselves for the Writ goes onely because it is known what Damages are but it is otherwise when not guilty is pleaded for then the Trespasse is denyed which must be proved and tryed by the Jury and there both the value and property come in proof and observe the Judgement is that he should recover and if upon a Writ of inquiry he should be bound to prove the property and fail thereof it would be in destruction of the first Judgement which cannot b. observe this TAilor against Markham Trin. 7 Jacobi An Action of Trespass and Battery brought for c. The Defendant pleads that he at the time of c. was seised of the Rectory of c. where the Battery was supposed in Fee and that at the time in which c. Corn was severed from the nine parts at the place aforesaid and because the Plaintiff came to carry away his corn and the Defendant stood there in defence of his corn and keeping the Plaintiff from taking it away and the hurt that the Plaintiff had was of his own wrong c. the Plaintiff replies that it was of his own wrong with the such cause alledge c. and the Defendant demurred in Law and adjudged for the Plaintiff for that generall replication is good and doth not behove the Plaintiff to answer the Defendants Title because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not claim any thing in the Soil or corn but only damage for the Battery which is altogether collaterall to the Title but when the Plaintiff makes a Title by his Declaration to any thing and the Defendant shall plead another thing in destruction thereof or if the cause of Action in such Cases the Plaintiff must reply specially and not say without such cause as it is in 14 H. 4. Trespasse brought for taking a servant the Defendant shews that the Father of him that the Plaintiff supposes to be the servant held of him in Knights Service c. and died seised his Heire the Servant being within age by reason whereof he seised as his Ward as it was lawfull for him to do and there the Plaintiff replied that he did it of his own wrong and without such cause and disallowed by the Court because he did not answer to the Seigniory to wit that he did that of his own wrong without it that the Father of him that is supposed to be the Servant held of him in Chivalry and the reason was because the plaintiff by his Action made Title to the Servant according to 16 E. 4. and Judgement given accordingly ALlbon against Dremsall Mich. 7 Jacobi The plaintiff declares in an Action of Trespasse that the Defendint the twentieth day of February 5 Jac. did break the plaintiffs Close at c. called Sandy Heath and entered it and spoiled his grasse and kiiled took and carried away a hundred Conies and also that the Defendant the same day the free Warren of the plaintiff at Sandy aforesaid did enter and chase without license and killed fifty Conies and took carried them away to his damage of c. the Defendant to the whole Trespasse except the entring and breaking of the Close called Sandy Heath not guilty and in Issue joyned upon that and as to the breaking the Close the plaintiff ought not to have his Action for he said that William Lord Russell and Elizabeth his Wife were and yet are seised in Fee in the Right of his Wife in a certain peice of Heath containing ten acres in Sandy close adjoining on every side separated from the place called Sandy Heath that they and all those whose Estate they have in part in that peice of Heath have used to have for themselves and Farmers of the said peice of Heath and for their Servants a passage unto the said peice of Heath and from the said peice in by and through the said Close called Sandy Heath in which c. the whole year at their pleasure to take and receive the profits of the said peice of Heath and the Defendant further sayes that long before the Trespass supposed to be committed very many Conies were wandering in the said peice of Heath and divers Cony holes were there made in which the said Conies did delight to live in and at the time in which c. they were in the said peice of Heath eating the grasse growing there and the Defendant as Servant to the Lord Russell and by his command the time in which c. in by and through the said Close in which c. towards and unto the said peice of Heath did walk over to hunt and take the said Conies in the said peice of Heath then being and feeding as it was lawfull for him to do which walking in by and through the said Close in which c. for the cause aforesaid is the same breaking the Close and entring thereof whereof the Plaintiff complains and averres that the place by which the Defendant walked for the cause aforesaid to Sandy Heath in which c. was the next passage by which he could go to the said peice of Heath to which the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for a passage is properly a passage over the water and not over Land and the Defendant ought to have prescribed for the way and not for the passage for he ought to have observed the usuall words and such as are known in the Law for a prescription and usage is for a way and not for a passage and see 32 Assis 58. and 11 H. 4. 82. b. Secondly the prescription is not good
Disseisin and Doddridge sayd It would be mischeivous if it should Hill 6. Iac. In the Common Pleas that if in the Common Barre in Trespass the place in the Common Barre is alledged to be Blackacre the Plaintiff may plead that it is his Free-hold and then it was held by the whole Court that an abuttall of one side is sufficient without alledging it of every side SWaine against Becket An Action of Trespass brought for cutting down of Trees And upon a speciall verdict the question was that whereas there is a Mannor wherein are Copi-holders for life which have used to lopp Trees growing upon the Copy-holds for their necessary fire and repairing of their customary Tenements the Lord of the Mannor maketh a Lease of the Mannor for yeares excepting the Trees the Lessee of the Mannor granteth a copy for life the Copy-holder loppeth the Trees growing on his Copy-hold whether by law he might do it or no was the doubt of the Jury And it was held by all the Court that the Copy-holder might lopp the Trees because he is in by the custome which is above the Lords Estate after he is admitted and that the copy-hold doth not depend upon the Lords interest And that the Trees excepted and the Soil remained parcell of the Mannor because the Lease was but for years but if the Lease had been for life it had been otherwise because it had been severed from the Mannor And whereas it was objected that the Tenant should not be in a better condition then his Author it was answered that a Lord of a Mannor at will may grant a copy for life or in fee and it is good If the Lord cut down all the Trees so that the Copy-holder can have no lopping he may have his Action upon the Case against the Lord as it was adjudged in Gosnolds case If the Lord sell away his waste and the Copy-holder dye and the Lord grant a new copy he shall have his Common If the Lord sell away the Trees so that the Copy-holder cannot have Estovers because the Bargainee felleth down the Trees the Copy-holder shall have his Action against the Bargainee Common and lopping are incident to the copy-hold Judgment for the Defendant HArris against Ap-John An Action of Trespasse brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and verdict found for the Plaintif And in Arrest of Judgment it was alledged that the venire facias was de placito debiti and so also was the habeas corpus and it should have been de placito transgressionis And it was amended by the whole Court MYnwinnock against Bligh Trin. 16. Jacob. rotulo 1697. An action of Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close done Septemb. in the 13. year of King James The Defendant pleads as to part of the Trespasse in award and that the Defendant submits himself to the award the 15. yeare and that the Arbitrators in the 13. yeare which was before the submission made the Award and traverses that he was guilty of the Trespasse after the award made And the Plaintiff replies that the Arbitrators the said day in the 13. year made not any award c. And after Tryall exception was taken that the issue was ill joyned being of a thing that was void yet notwithstanding Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and they resembled to a payment upon a single Bond and conditions performed at a Feast not contained in an Obligation Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3044. An Action of Trespass brought wherfore by force and armes his Goods and Chattels to wit a thousand posts and forty railes took and caryed away and damages given intire and after a verdict exception taken because Rales was pretended to be no Latine word nor to have any exception but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff DVncomb against Randoll Hil. 9. Jac. rotulo 2267. Three issues in Trespasse One issue was upon a prescription to wit that they had accustomed to have for himselfe his Farme and Tenants of the same Mannor common of pasture in the said c. for all his Sheep which are levant and couchant in and upon the Demesne Lands of W. which lye and are in A. aforesaid every yeare And exception was taken for the uncertainty because it did not appear that those were demesne Lands which lye in A. for it was ill pleaded and ought to be averred but notwithstanding it was held good after a tryal and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and in this case an exception was taken to the venire facias because it was of A. and of the Mannor of C. and because it was made in this manner to wit de visu de A. and de visu manerij de C. but it was disallowed because against the form used in the Common Pleas. DOwnes against Skrymsher Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 334. An Action of Assault and Battery brought and there was a Demurrer upon the Evidence And the case was that the Defendant the day specified in the Declaration said that the Plaintiff assaulted the Defenant and in defence of himselfe justifies the beating the Plaintiff replies that he did it of his own wrong without any such cause and in the Evidence the Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff beate him the day mentioned in the Declaration and in the same place And the Plaintiff perceiving that gave in evidence that the Battery was made another day and place to wit c. which was the cause of the speciall verdict for if there be two Batteries made between the Plaintiff and Defendant at divers times the Plaintiff is bound to prove the Battery made the same day in his Declaration and shall not be admitted to give another day in evidence by the opinion of the whole Court HEydon against Mich. 8. Jac. rotulo 839. An Action of Battery brought against three two of them pleaded not guilty and Judgment by non sum informat against the third and the two were found guilty for all And the Jury gave damages severally against one a 100 l. and against the other a 100 s. and what Judgement should be given was the question and at first the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Judgment at all for where the Defendants are found guilty of all the Trespass in this case the damages shall be intire but if one shall be found guilty of part or at another time in this case the damages shall be severall otherwise not And they thought a Venire de novo ought to issue out because the Jury had mis-behaved themselves in severing the damages but afterwards it was resolved that the damages that were given by the first Jury to wit one 100 l. should be recovered against all the Defendants in that Writ named and that in Trespass the first Jury taxes the damages for the whole Trespass and that shall bind all the Defendants and therefore execution was given against all the Defendants for the hundred pounds Trin. 9. Jam. rotulo 1835.
BAnks against Barker Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1979. In an Action of Trespass the venire facias was well awarded upon the case of the venu in Westown and of the Mannor of D. and the Writ of Venire was mistaken to wit of the venu of Westown and exception being taken after tryall the Court was moved for the amending of the venire facias by the roll and it was denyed because the Jury did come of another venu then they ought by the Law of the Land to come and therefore could not be amended but afterwards the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the awarding of the venu in the roll was mistaken because it was of the venu of the Villiage and Mannor and it should have been of the Mannor only being to try a custome of the Mannor FOrrest against Headle Hill 13. Jac rot 1123. An Action of Trespass brought and a continuando of the Trespass unto the day of the shewing forth the Plaintifs Originall to wit the 20. day of November which day was after the shewing forth of the Originall and because the Jury gave damages for the whole time which ought not to be it was proved that the Judgment upon the verdict might stay but by the whole Court the videlicet was held idle and Judgment given for the Plaintiff COcks against Barnsley Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 2541. An Action of Trespass brought and a speciall verdict found and the question was whether Land held in ancient Demesne was extendable for debt and an action of Trespass brought for that cause And Justice Nichols held it was extendable for otherwise if it should not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice for if a Judgment should be had against a man that had no other Land but what was in ancient Demesne and that it could not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice which the Law doth not allow of but an Assize or a re-disseisin doth not lye of Land in ancient Demesne because of the Seisin that must be given by the Common Law and it would be prejudicial to the Lord which the Law allows not and Wynch and Hubbard were of the same opinion For ancient demesne is a good plea where the Free-hold is to be recovered or brought in question but in an action of Trespass it is no plea. And note that by this execution neither the Free-hold nor Possession is removed but only the Sheriffe enters to make execution upon a Judgment had in the Common bench in debt which is a proper Action to be brought there WRight and his Wife against Mouncton Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 43. An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defend pleaded not guilty And the Husband only made a challenge that he was servant to one of the Sheriffs and prayes a processe to the Coroners and the Defendant denies the challenge and therefore notwithstanding the challenge the Venire issued to the Sheriffs and after a tryall exception was taken because the woman did not joyne in the challenge and it was held that the Husband and Wife should joyn in the challenge although the cause of challenge proceded from the Husband only but after tryall it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and judgment given for the Plaintiff BIde against Snelling Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 1819. An Action of Ejectment brought and also a Battery in one and the Writ and after a verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Battery was joyned with the Ejectment The damages were found severally and the Plaintiff had released the damages for the Battery and prayed Judgment for the Ejectment Winch held the Writ naught but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding STeward and his Wife against Sulbury An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Wife while she was sole at D. hath broken and the wood of the said D. to the value of 1005. there lately growing hath cut down and carried away and in his Count shews that he hath cut downe two acres of wood and exception was taken because he declared of so many acres of wood and not of so many loads of wood to wit twenty c. loads and held by the Court to be a good exception BLackeford against Althin Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 3376. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes a certain Horse of the said Plaintiffs took away c. The Defendant conveys to himselfe a certain annuity granted to him by one John Hott The Plaintiff shews that one William Hott Father of the said Iohn Hott the Grantor was seised of Land in Fee which Land was Gavel-kind Land and devised it to his Wife for life the remainder to Iohn Hott the Elder and Iohn Hott the Younger his Sonne and the Heirs of their bodies And afterwards William dyed and the Woman entred and was seised for life and the two sonnes entred and were seised in tayl and being so seised Iohn Hott the younger had issue Iohn Hott c. and traverses without this that Iohn Hott the Father at the time of granting the annuity was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of fee as c. And the Defendant as before saith that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the granting the annuity aforesaid was seised and after the tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgment supposing it was mistried because the issue was that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the grant c. And it doth not appear that the said J. H. was nominated Father neither could it appear that the said J. H. was the Father and so the word Father was idle and the Court were of opinion that it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and the word Father was idle and judgment was given for the Plaintiff A. brought an Action of Battery against the Husband and Wife and two others the Wife and one of the others without the Husband pleads not guilty and the Husband and the other pleaded seu assault demesne and tryed and alledged in arrest of Judgment because the Woman pleaded without her Husband and Judgment was stayed and a Repleader alledged and this case was confirmed by a case which was between Yonges and Bartram HArvy against Blacklole Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 1749. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes his Mare so strictly to a Gelding did fetter that by that fettring the Mare aforesaid did dye If a stranger take a Horse that cometh and strayeth into a Mannor the Lord may have his action of Trespass If my stray doth stray out of my Mannor and goeth into another Mannor the day before the yeare be ended I cannot enter into the other Mannor to fetch out the stray If I take an Horse as a stray and onother taketh him from me the Action lyeth not by the Owner against the second taker
because the first taker hath devested the property out of the Owner The Defendant in this justified the taking of the Mare as a stray and did not alledg that he came as an estray and the Plea was held insufficient and the Court held they could not tye them together And the Defendant said that the Hayward took the Mare and delivered her to the Defendant this was but not guilty and Judgment for the Plaintiff LVttrell against Wood and other Defendants Pasch 40. Eliz. An Action of Trespasse brought wherefore by Force and Armes he broke the Plaintiffs Close and cut down his Trees The Defendant in Barre to the new assignment alledges that he is a Copy-holder for life of the Mannor of Mynehead in the County of Somerset and that in that Mannor there was a Custome that every Copy-holder for life had used at his pleasure to cut downe all the Elmes growing upon his customary Lands and to convert them to his own use when and as often as hee would and so justifies and a Demurrer upon the Barre And the question was whether the Custome was good and reasonable and the later opinion was that it was a good and reasonable Custome but now it is otherwise held Actions of Waste IN Waste the Writ shall be brought where the Waste was committed And the Processe in this Action is Summons Attachment and Distresse peremptory by the Statute of Westminst 2. But at the Common Law the Distresse was infinite And if the Defendant doth not appear upon the Distresse although a Nihil be returned yet the Plaintiff shall have Judgment and a Writ to inquire of damages of the Waste and an Essoine lies as in a Quare Impedit and the Processe shall be executed as in a Quare Impedit and returned from 15 dayes to 15 dayes and the Plaintiff in this Action shall not recover costs but the value of the Waste found by the Jury shall be trebled by the Court for costs shall not be recovered in such Actions as are given by the Statute as in this Action a Decies tantum and Quare impedit And so Judgment is to recover the place wasted and severance lies in this Action Mich. 9. H. 4. rot 104. And note in the tryal of the issue in Waste if the Defendant by his Plea doth not confess the Waste six of the Jury which are impannelled to try the Waste must have the view of the place wasted to the intent that the Plaintiff may be put in possession of the place wasted by the view of the Jury And if the Defendant confesse the Waste the Jury ought only to inquire of the value of the Waste but not who committed the Waste But upon a default upon the grand Distress the Sheriff in his proper person shall repair to the place wasted and there inquire what waste and spoile is done And if he doth not return that he was there in his proper person it is naught But upon a Judgment by non sum informat nil dicit or in a Plea by which the Defendant confesses the waste the Sheriff shall inquire only of the damages And he is not bound to return upon that Writ that he in proper person went to the place wasted And when the Judgment is by default the challenge lies against the Sheriff and if it be denyed it is Errour And if the Plaintiff do not take jungment upon the first distress being returned executed but takes another distress it is Error And no receit lies by the VVife upon the default upon the Distress at the return of the VVrit to inquire of the wast Trin. 6. H. 6. rotulo 133. For if the VVoman at the Assize before verdict doth not pray to be received she shall never be received afterwards in the Court at the return of the Nisi prius And note that the Jury may give severall values and one joynt value of the place wasted but severall values is the better way If a Lessee for yeares makes a Lease of one moity to one man and of the other moity to another man and one of them commit Waste the Action shall be brought against the two for the Waste of one is the Waste of the other if a Lease be made by three to one for life and afterwards two release to the third and the Lessee commits wast he alone shall have a Writ of Waste supposing that hee demised onely If Waste be committed in two Villiages and the Sheriff hath executed his Office naughtily in one Villiage and well in another all shall be inquired of De novo because the whole in Inquisition was but one Inquest at one time but if the Plaintiff assigne the Waste in the Houses and Woods and it doth not appeare by the Count that the Houses were demised and upon a Nihil dicit a Writ to inquire of the damages issues out and the Jury find c. the Plaintiff shall have his of the Houses BEdell against Bedell Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3052. An Action of Waste brought the Case was There is a devise to two for one and twenty yeares the Father and Son and made the Son Executor and he refuses to prove the Will and take the terme and so no Waste committed And if Lessee for life and his Lessor joyne in a Lease for yeares by Indenture and the Lessee for life dye and waste is committed the surviving Lessor shall have the Action of Waste and shall count that he did demise it alone If a Lease be made to Husband and Wife for life and for twenty yeares after their deaths and the Wife dye and Waste is committed the Wife shall not be named in the Wriâ— nor the terme after her death If Husband and Wife during the Coverture make a Lease and Waste is committed they both shall joyne in the Action of Waste And if a Lease be made but for one yeare or for halfe a yeare onely yet the Writ shall be for a terme of years but the Count shall be speciall if a Lessee for yeares or life grants Rent out of the Land he had for yeares and afterwards commits Waste if the Lessor recover the place wasted the Land shall be charged If a Lessee for a hundred yeares grants part of his terme to another and be commits Waste the Action shall be brought against the first Lessee If Tenant for life commits waste and afterwards grants his estate to another waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet and after Judgement a Scire facias shall issue to the Grantee to shew cause wherefore the Plaintiff shall not have Execution of the place wasted and the like if Lessee for yeares commit waste and grants over his Estate Waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet And if a Lease be made for life upon condition that if the Lessee shall do such an Act his Estate shall cease and he doth commit such an Act the Writ shall be brought against the Lessee in the Tenet
elect him See the Statute of 25 H. 8. That a Canon against Common Law confounds the Roiall Prerogative of the King or Law of God is void and Custome of the Realme cannot be taken away but by act of Parliament See 21 Ed. 4. 44. the Abbot of Saint Albones hath a Charter of the King to be discharged of Collection of tenthes granted by Parliament or Convocation The Clergy grants tythes in Convocation there is a clause in the grant that no one of them who shal be chosen to be collector shal be discharged of collection by colour or force of any Letters Patents and after they return the Abbot of St. Albones Collector who pleads his Letters Patents in discharge of Collector and resolved by the Court that the clause in the grant of tenthes doth not take away the exemption of discharge by the Letters Patents granted And it was resolved that if the Parish clark misdemene himselfe in his office or in the Church he may be sentenced for that in the Ecclesiasticall court to Excommunication but not to Deprivation And after Prohibition was granted by all the court and held also that a Prohibition lyeth as well after sentence as before Trinity 8. Jacobi Common Bench. ON was cited to appear in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury which was out of the Diocesse of Canterbury and upon that he praied Prohibition upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. Which willeth that none shall be cited to appeare out of his Diocesse without assent of the Bishop and Prohibition was granted And yet it was said that in the time of H. 8 and Reigne of Mary that the Arch Bishops of Canterbury had used to cite any man dwelling out of his Diocesse and within any Diocesse within his Province to appeare before him in the Prerogative Court and this without the assent of the Ordinary of the Diocesse But it was resolved by the Court that this was by force of the power Legantine of the Arch-Bishop that as Lynwood saith ought to be expressed in the Prohibition for the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury York Pisa and Reymes were Legati nati and others but Legates a Latere Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Beareblock against Reade IN an Action of Debt brought by Beareblocke against Reade Administratrix to her Husband upon a Judgement given in this Court The case was this the Plaintiffe had Judgment against the Husband and after sued him to an Vtlagary and upon that he brought a Writ of Errous and removed the Record into the Kings Bench and reversed the Judgement for the Vtlagary But the first Judgment was affirmed and then the Husband acknowledged a Statute and dyed And the Wife took out Letters of Administration and then the Statute is extended against the Wife and all the goods which shee had of the Intestates taken in execution After which Beareblock in the Kings Bench sueth a Scirefacias upon the said Judgment against the said Administratrix to have execution and shee pleads upon that the said Statute in Barre and the extent of that and that more then that shee hath nothing to satisfie and this was adjudged a good plea. And then the Plaintiffe being not satisfied he hrought an action of debt upon the said Judgment in this Court and in Barr of that the Wife pleaded all this matter in Barr as aforesaid upon which the Plaintiffe demurred in Law and the Judges seemed to incline that this was no Barr for though that the Wife hath not any means to aide her selfe or to prevent the extent of the Statute yet it seemed to them that this should not prevent the execution upon the Judgement and that the Wife might have Audita quaerela against the Connusee of the Statute and so to make the extent void It was not argued at this day but the point only opened see 3. Eliz. Dyer 7. H. 6. See Pasche 9. Jacobi the Residue Petty against Evans IN an Ejectione firme brought by the Lessee of a Copy-holder it is sufficient that the count be generall without any mention of the License if the Defendant plead not guilty then the Plaintiff ought to shew the Lycense in Evidence But if the Defendant plead specially then the Plaintiff ought to plead the License certainly in his replication and the time and place when it was made and in this case the Plaintiff replied that the copy-holder by License first then had of the Lord did demise and did not shew what estate the Lord had nor the place nor time when it was made and all the Justices agreed that it is not good For the License is traversable for if a copy-holder without License of the Lord make a Lease for yeares The lessee which enters by calour of that is a Disseisor and a Disseisor cannot maintain an Ejectione Firme and the Defendant cannot plead that the Plaintiff by license did not demise for this is a pregnant negative also it ought to appeare what estate the Lord had for he cannot give license to make a lease of longer time in the Tenancy then he hath in the signiory And for that if he be Lessee for life of a Mannor and he licenses a copi-holder to make a Lease for 21. yeares of a copy-hold and then the Lessee for life dies the license is for that determined though that the copy-holder be of Inheritance for the Inheritance of the Lord is bound by that And for that the Plaintiff replies that the copy-holder by license of the Lord first therefore had made the Lease that is not good by Coke and Walmesley expresly and though that the Defendant confesse the Replication by Implication by pleading Yet this shall not ayd the Plaintiff for that it is insufficiently pleaded which note Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. IN action upon the case upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff counts that when he such a day at the speciall instance and request of the Defendant lent to the Defendant the same day ten pound And that the Defendant the same day in consideration thereof assumed and promised to the Plaintiff to pay the same summ of ten pound at an other day to come And it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the consideration was too generall and for that the action not maintainable and all the Justices but Foster seemed the consideration was good but Foster it seems was in some doubt of that but Judgement was entred for the Plaintiff according to the verdict And Coke cheife Justice said that such a like action was maintained against Kercher his Chaplain as Executor of his Father and it seems for good Law Legates Case ONe Legate was committed to Newgate Prison for Arrianisme for denying of the Trinity by the high Commissioners and it was moved on the behalfe of Legate to have a habeas Corpus and it was granted and it was said by Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 5. H. 4. Chapter 10. Inhibits Justices of peace to commit any man to
the question was demanded of the Plaintiff and in 22 Rich. 2. Damages 130. Hankford demanded the question if the Jury ought to inquire if the Defendants were sufficient or not and it was resolved that they need not and in 34 H. 8. Trinity Rot. 347. there is a President accordingly where the Husband and the Wife were found guilty and the Action was founded upon the Statute and Capias awarded against them both and to the fayling of the Record it is reason that the Wife should not be imprisoned for the Pleas are the Pleas of the Husband and his acts and in the 11 H. 4 51. and 21 Assis 4 in Assise the Wife was received and voucheth a Record and failed and no judgment upon that against the Husband and the Wife was imprisoned and so upon Allegation of Joyntenancy the Wife was imprisoned and so he concluded and prayed judgment for the Plaintiff and at another day the Case was argued againe by Montague the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant that a marryed Wife was not within the Statute of Westminster 2. Chap. 35. And he sayd that the true course for understanding the Statute is to consider three things First the Common Law before the making of that Statute Secondly the mischeife that the Statute intended to remedy Thirdly against what persons the Statute intended to remedy such mischeifes And to the first he intended that at the Common Law before the making of the Statute the Remedy for Ravishment of Ward was an Action of Trespasse as it appeares by Fitz. Na. Bre. And then it was questioned if the Plaintiff should recover the Body without Dammages or Dammages only without the Body See 9. Ed. 4. 48. Ed. 3. 20. 27. H. 6. And then there was no greater punishment nor other remedy for the taking of the Ward then of other goods and for the remedy of that the Statute of Westminster 2. chap. 35. was made by which it is provided that if the Ravisher restore the Ward unmarried then the Plaintiff shall recover only Dammages for the Ravishment and not the value of the Ward But if the Ward be married then the Guardian shall recover the value of the marriage and if he shall not satisfie then he shall abjure the Kiugdome or have perpetuall Imprisonment and the punishments inflicted by the Statute being so penall Then the persons which are within the Statute are considerable for in all penall Lawes the persons and the penallties are the things to be considered and to the persons this Statute saith that one for anothers Fault is not to be punished and he said this is referred to Dammages as well as to Imprisonment and it is not a lost case and the Plaintiff without remedy for Action of Trespasse lies against the Husband at the Common Law for for all Trespasses at the Common Law done by a married Wife the Husband shall be punished by payment of the Dammages and costs which are recovered See 14. H. 8. and 9. Ed. 4. But to the Statutes which are penall and inflict corporall punishment there otherwise and as the Statute of 23. Eliz. made against Recusants for not resorting to Church should forfeit twenty pounds for every moneth and resolved that this shall extend to a marryed Wife and for that the Husband shall be lyable to action But by the third of Jacobi there is speciall provision that the Woman shall not be subject to twenty pounds a moneth but other punishmrnt provided for her and he supposed that where a statute gives Imprisonment and Dammages and a marryed Wife offends the statute and shall be imprisoned but the Husband shall not pay the Damages as in 8 H. 8. 18. Upon the statute of Westminster a Woman was Imprisoned for false appeale for the death of her Husband who was brought into the Court and living and in the 11 H. 4. 54. It is marvell that the statute of Westminster 2. gives the action to the Heire insomuch that Interest appears to the Executor And for that Hill saith That the statute was not made by those which were skilled in the Law but he spake ill saith the Reporter Also the words of the statute If the Ravisher cannot satisfie he shall abjure the Realme or have perpetuall Imprisonment and the Wife cannot by any possibility make satisfaction for she cannot have any Goods so as this Case is the statute would make perpetuall separation either by abjuration or perpetuall Imprisonment if this shall extend to a marryed Wife as in 6 H. 7. was the question whether a marryed Wife shall be Attached for that and she had no Goods as it is 48 Ed. 3. 2. the Sheriff returnes Nihil against a Monk for that that he had no Goods for all his Goods are the Goods of the Abbot and it is impossible that a marryed Wife should have any Goods and the Law doth not compell to impossible things See 3 Ed. 4. 4 H. 6. Also the Statute saith That if the Ravisher dye hanging the Writ let the Law proceed against hiâ— Executors by resummons and a marryed Woman cannot make Executors and to the like cases he thought that a marryed Wife was not within the Statute of Offenders in Parks and this gives the same punishment that the Statute gives as it is resolved 13 Assis So if a marryed Wife fayle of a Record in Assise she shall not be imprisoned and the Husband is joyned onely for conformity and for no other cause and to the President of 34 H. 5. which hath been cyted here against the Husband and Wife and Judgement by default against both and upon this Capiatur is awarded against them both but this is onely for the Imprisonment but not for the Damages and also this Case differs from that for here the Husband is found Not guilty Also it seems that the Book of Entrys 366. 15. lyes against Husband and Wife and there they both plead but if the Wife onely be condemned the Husband shall not pay the Damages recovered against her 44 Ed. 3. 25. As a Lease is made to the Husband and Wife the Husband makes waste and an Action of waste is brought against them both and the Husband dyes and the Writ abates for the wrong dyes with him and the Wife shall not be punished and so prayed that the judgment might stay and Doctor Hussey not punished Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff prayed that the Judgment might be entred and first â—ee considered the Common Law and after that the Statute and at the Common Law hee agreed that a Trespasse lyes against the Husband and the Wife for Ravishment made by the Wife and in this hee should recover Damages against the Husband and the Wife and the Husband shall be charged with the Damages though it be but for words proceeding from her tongue or any other Trespasse and if the Husband make default his body shall be imprisoned so that it appears that there was remedy at the common Law by action of trespasse and
executed for then it would be too late for then the Estate is transferred to another as it was in the cases put by Anderson in Corbetts Case But here all the Estate limited to him which made the forfeyture shall be determined and also he intended that the Reason that the Replication containes that the parties being in actuall possession are only to satisfie the words of the Condition And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff In dower the Demandant recovered Dower of tenths of Wool and Lamb and how execution shall be made was the question And the Justices intended that the Sheriffe might deliver the tenths of every 3 yard land and assign the Yard Lands in certain Bâ—t after it was conceived that this would be uncertain and unequall and for that the Sheriffe was directed to deliver the third part of all in generall and yet the first was agreed to be good but onely in respect of Inequalities as in dower of a Mill the third Toll dish and of a Villayne the third dayes work as in 23 H. 8. And it was also agreed that the Sheriffe may assign this dower without a Jury It was moved if an Attachment be granted against a Sheriffe for contempt after he is removed out of his Office and the Justices intended that not insomuch that now he is no Officer and for that he cannot be now fyned and without fyne they did not use to Imprison but the Judges would be advised to see the Presidents of the Court in such a case Mâ—chaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Kemp and Philip his Wife James and Blanch his Wife Plaintiffs against Lawrere and Trollop and the Wife of Gunâ—er Executrix during the minority of the Wives of the Plaintiffs THe case was An Executrix during the nonage for so it was and not Administratrix that is shee was ordained Executrix till the Wives of the Plaintiffs came to their full age or were marryed and then they should be Executrixes And this Executrix during the minority brought an action of Debt and recovered and before Execution the women Executrixes took Husbands and brought Scirefacias upon the Record to have Execution upon the Judgment against these Defendants as Ter-tenants which pleaded specially that they had nothing in the Free-hold nor in the Land but only a lease for yeares and that the free-hold was in another stranger upon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred in Law And Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiffs that there is the difference betwixt this Executor and an Administrator during the minority as in 26 H. 8. 7. a. if an Administrator have Judgment and dyes before Executors or other have sued out their Letters of Administration they shall have no execution of this Judgement insomuch as he comes in paramount the first Administrator and as immediate Administrator to the first Intestate as it is agreed in Shelleys case So the Administrators of one Executor shal not have execution of a Judgment given for the Executor as it is resolved in Brudenels case 5 Coke the 9. b. And in 21 Edw. 4. It is agreed if two are made Joynt-Executors and one of them dies the other shall be sole Executor to the Testator and if hee make his Executor and dyes his Executors shall be Executors to the first Testator And also there is in Fox Gretbrooks Case in the Com that one may be Executor for certain years and another after and this differs from the other cases for in this case all these Executors were in privity one to another but in the other case one comes paramount the other But here they are all made by the first Testator and the Will And he cyted the 2 Case in the Lord Dyer and 18. and 32 Edw. 3. there cyted where a Purchasor brought a Writ of Errour and was not privy to the first Record And Grantee of a Reversion brought a Scire facias against Conusee of a Statute-Merchant alledging that he had received satisfaction So if a Parson of a Church recovers an Annuity and after the Church is appropriate to a house of Religion the Soveraign of the said house shall have a Scire facias And so if union be made of two Benefices and yet in all these cases there was no privity to the first Judgement so he in reversion shall have Errour in Attainâ— upon Judgment against his Lessee for life and the Reason is given in Brudenels Case that is they which may have prejudice may have scire facias and it is not like where two Joynt-tenants are and one makes a Lease for years and dyes the other shal have the Rent insomuch that he comes in by survivorship and not in privity But here the Executors come in in privity as in case of two Executors are joyntly one â—yes the other which survives shall have Execution of Judgement given for them for Administrator during the nonage is only to the use commodity and profit of an Executor and of a Testator so that he being Executor to the Testator he shall have execution And to the second that is that the Defendants have nothing but for yeares and that the free-hold is to a stranger he intended that this is not good yet he agreed that in scire facias where a free-hold is to be recovered speciall non-tenure is a good plea as in 8 Edw 4. 19. and 8 H. 6. 32. but not of the contrary and there also generall non-tenure is no plea But here where the free-hold is not to be recovered nor one nor the other is a Plea for it may be averred that the Defendant hath a release from him that hath the reversion and as in 14 H. 4. 5. in scire facias to accompt against an Executor who pleads that the Testator was never his Bayliffe to give an accompt and yet it is agreed that this hath been a good plea for the first Defendant and this is the reason that it was not taken nor was allowed for a good plea in the 11 H. 4. 11. Insomuch that this amounts to non-tenure and in 44. and 45. Eliz. Mich. Rot. 834. it was adjudged in Scire facias where the Defendant pleads that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and adjudged no plea And so he said it was adjudged in the case of All-soules Colledge in Scire facias to have execution of a Judgment in Ejectione firme and the Defendant in the Scire facias pleads that he was but Lessee for years and adjudged no Plea insomuch that nothing was to be recovered but only the tearm and not the Free-hold and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff in Scire facias Harris Serjeant argued to the contrary and he intended that the Return of the Sheriffe is void insomuch that the Writ commanded him to give notice to the Tenants of the Land in Fee-simple and hee did not return that those which he had returned were Tenants of the Land in Fee-simple and
is a stranger and doth not know if these Defendants are Executors or Administrators as it is said by Danby 9 Edw. 4. 13. And he conceived that the plea is good that the Defendants have not goods besides the goods which do not amount c. And divers presidents were cyted by him to this purpose as Trin. 18. Eliz. Rot. 1405. between Blanekson and Frye Hillary 40 Eliz. Rot. 902. Smalpeeces case and Trin. 44 Eliz. Rot. 1900. between Goodwin and Scarlet in all which the pleadings were all one with the plea in question and no exceptions taken to that and infinite other presidents may be shewed in the point for which cause he demanded Judgment for the Defendants Coke cheife Justice seemed that in an action brought against one as Executor he may plead that Administration was committed to him for such intent that the dead dyed Intestate and demands Judgment if action without traverse that he was Executor and with this agreed 1 Ed. 4. 2. a. 20 H. 6. 23. And so if the Ordinary be charged as Executor he may plead that he administred as Ordinary without traverse that he was Executor but only shewed that the party dyed Intestate and the Plaintiff ought to reply that he made a Will and the Defendant proved that and traverse that he dyed Intestate and with this agreed 9 Edw. 4. 33. and 1 Edw. 4. 11. And if an action be brought against Executor of his own wrong hee may plead that administration is granted to such an one and the Party dyed Intestate and demand Judgment if action for he shall not be charged for more goods then came to his hands But if a man administer of his own wrong and after rightfull administration is committed to him yet he may be charged as Executor of his own wrong insomuch that Right of action is attached in him But this seems for the goods that he hath administred before rightfull administration committed unto him And he cyted 14 Eliz. Dyer 305. b. where in debt brought against one as Executor which pleads never Executor nor ever administred as Executor and the Plaintiffe replies that he administred as Executor of the Will c. and so to Issue And in Evidence the Defendant shews Letter of administration to him committed of goods of the dead by which he administred them and before that he did not administer and this seems there to be good Evidence but the Book was Quere of that and for that he would rather plead that in abatement of the Writ and so the Book inclined also And he conceived here that the medling with the goods here by the Defendant as Administrator made him Executor of his own wrong insomuch that it was for Funeralls and when it is a work of Charity and the other is to preserve them And the Defendant hath not conveyed himselfe to be Executor insomuch that he said that administration was committed to him by an Arch-Deacon and he doth not say that Administration of right belonged to him to commit insomuch that hee hath but a sub-ordinate Jurisdiction And the Common Law doth not take notice that he nor no other but the Ordinary hath such power and for that the power of all which have such subordinate and peculiar Jurisdiction is pleaded that ought to be shewed as it seems by 1 Ed. 4. 2. a. b. 22 H. 6. 23. And the rather when this is pleaded by the Administrator himselfe which ought to have notice of that and make title to himselfe and if so it be then he conceived that the Recovery by Hornego was void and so all the goods confest remain as Assets Also he conceived that if the Executor allow a Writ to suffer Judgment to be had against him upon a Writ which is abateable he shall not have allowance of that but this shall be returned as Devastavit as in 10 Edw. 3. 503. a. If the Tenant vouch when he might have abated the Writ he shall lose the benefit of his Warranty So here and Com. Manwells case 12. a. 22 H. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 Also he conceived if a man be charged as Administrator where he is no Administrator he cannot plead that he never administred as Administrator but he ought to traverse the Commission of Administration as it appears by 21 H. 6. 23. And it seems also to him and by 9 Edw. 4. 33. that if a man be an Executor of his owne wrong and after administration is committed to him and he is charged as Executor after administration committed that the Writ shall abate otherwise if administration be committed hanging the Writ So if a man be made Executor and hee not knowing of that Iues letters of Administration he shall be named Administrator and if after when he hath notice of the Will he proves it then he shall be impleaded by the name of Executor for in such manner as the power is given to him by the Bishop he shall be charged and it seemes though that he plead where he is Administrator and is sued as Executor or otherwise in such manner that hee might have abated the Writ or suffer Judgment yet the Writ shall abate and he intended also that Executor of his owne wrong might pay debts due to another and shall be discharged and shall not be charged with more then he hath in his hands And if two Executors are joyntly sued and one confesse the action this shall bind him and his companion also for so much as he hath in his hands But if an Executor of his own wrong confesse the action this shall not prejudice him which is rightfull Executor and so he conceived that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice conceived that the Barr is good notwithstanding that he did not shew that the Arch-Deacon had power to grant Administration insomuch it is no Inducement and the Defendant doth not relie upon it as Littleton saith in Trespasse where the Defendant pleades that it was made by two and the Plaintiff releases to one and if the Defendant pay due Debts it is not materiall whether he have Authority or not though that it be in another respect As if a man be Indicted of man-slaughter and aquitted and after is Indicted of Murder by the same man he may pleade another time aquitted insomuch that these are matters of substance But here it is but of forme and then if it be not shewed it is not materiall But the matter upon which he relied was insomuch that the Action was brought against two Executors and one hath confessed the Action And he intended without question that if this shall bind his companion and for that he will not dispute the other questions but declares his opinion cleerely that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgement against both these Defendants upon the confession of one and this shall bind his companion Wynch Justice conceived that the Plea is good by Administrator without traverse insomuch that it is to the Writ as it
awarded good because it comes in Lieu of Goods which they had as Executors and shall be Assets in their hands as the Goods should have been and for that it is well brought in the Detinet only And they said that in the principall case it shall be mischeivous if the Action shall be brought in the Debet and Detinet for it may be the Rent reserved is of more worth then the Profits of the Land will amount unto and that the Executors or Administrators have no other Assets now shall be the Executor or Administrator be charged with his own proper Goods which shall be mischeivous and the case of 10. H. 7. 5. and 6. that is direct in the point was often times cited and all these three things which were of councell with the Defendant informed the Court that they were of Councell with Hargrave when the Judgement given in the Kings Bench was reversed for Error in this very point and for this cause because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet where it should be in the Detinet only And so they praied that the Judgement should be hindered But by the whole Court except Yelverton And so it was adjudged that the Action was well brought as it is and especially for the reasons given in Hargraves Case 5. Coke 31. And to that which hath been said by Yelverton Justice that in all cases where Executors are charged by the name of Executors or Administrators that there the Action shall be against them in the Detinet only Flemming cheife Justice answered that â—rue it is in all personall things where they are named as Executors Action shall be in the Detinet But as it is an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Chattell reall and an Executor is as an Assignee in Law and so charged as privy in Estate and not meerely as Executor and if he have no more Assets then the Rent which he is to pay he may plead nothing in his hands against all the World and to that that hath been said that the Executor hath been charged of his own Goods If the profits be not more then the Rent or the Rent more then the profits to this he said that in this case where the Executor hath the Tearme and hath not any other Assets that they may wave this Tearme And in Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent may plead to the occupation and that recover The reason of the diversity between this case and the case of 28. H. 8. Dyer 14. is plain for in an Action of Debt against the Termor himselfe Non habuit nec occupavit is no Plea for there was a contract between them and for this privity of contract is the Lessee charged though he did not occupy But in the case of an Executor the privity of the contract is gone and so may be a difference But yet it seemes if he have Assets sufficient to pay the Rent he cannot wave it And to the case 14. H. 4. 28. that hath been cited that doth speake nothing how the Action should be brought And the Justices have seen the record of Hargraves case and the Reversall of that And they said the same error which was in Hargraves case is in this case and for that bring your Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber if you will for we so adjudge And then it was moved that the Lord Rich was Tenant in Tayle of part of the reversion and Tenant in Fee-simple of the other part and so it seemes that he ought to have two Actions because he hath as two reversions But it was resolved by all the Court that if a man have a reversion of part in Fee-simple and of the other part in tayl and makes a Lease for yeares rendring a Rent he shall have but one Action both being in the hands of one But otherwise it had been if the reversion had been in severall hands they should not Joyne in Debt and for that Fenner put this case two Coparceners are of a reversion and they make partition now the Rent is apportioned and they shall sever in Debt But if one dies without Issue and the part discends to the other Parcener now he shall have but one Action of Debt againe and so it is if a man makes a Lease of two Acres rendring Rent and after grants the reversion of one Acre to J. S. and of the other Acre to J. N. now they shall sever in Debt for this Rent but if J. S. and J. N. Grant their reversions againe to the first Lessor he shall have but one Action of Debt and so the exception dissalowed by all the Court and the Judgement given for the Plaintiff according to the Verdict Yates and Rolles THe case was this J. S. covenants by Indenture with J. N. I. D. and A. B. to enter Bond to pay ten pound to J. N. and J. N. dies and his Administrator brings a Writ of covenant and the question was insomuch that this ten pound was to be paid to J. N. if his Administrator shall have Action of Covenant or if the Action shall survive to the other two and it was moved by Stephens that the Action shall be well brought by the Administrator for this shall be taken as a severall covenant and this now is in nature of a Debt and enures only to him which shall have it also the payment of the money which is the effect of the covenant shall be to him only Ergo the Damages for the not performing of it shall goe to him also and by consequence to his Administrator But it was adjudged insomuch that this was a joynt covenant that this shall survive to the others and not well brought by the Administrator So also resolved that insomuch that the words are that he would enter Bond and doth not say to whom that this shall be intended to the Covenantees and though that the Solvendo is but to one of them yet that is very good as an Obligation made to three Solvendum to one of them is good by Fenner and by Williams Obligation to two Solvendum ten pound to one and ten pound to another both ought to joyne in Debt upon this Obligation and Judgement for the Defendant Sammer and Force THe Case was this The Lord of a Copy-hold Mannor where Copy holders are for life grants Rent-charge out of all the Mannor one Copy-hold Escheats the Lord grants that againe by Copy the question was If the Grantee shall hold it charged or not and by the whole Court but Fenner he shall not hold it charged because he comes in above the Grant that is By the custome the same Law of Statutes Recognizances or Dowers but the 10. of Eliz. Dyer 270. by the whole Court that he shall hold it charged but this hath been denyed for Law in a Case in the Common Bench between Swaine and Becket which see Trinity 5. Jacobi But to Coke Justice it seemed that
if a Copy-holder be of twenty Acres and the Lord grants Rent out of those twenty Acres in the tenure and occupation of the sayd Copy-holder and name him There if this Copy hold Escheat and be granted againe the Copy-holder shall hold it charged for this is now charged by expresse words Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Goodyer and Ince GOodyer was Plaintiff in a Writ of Error against Ince and the Case was this Ince brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation in the Common Bench against Goodyer and had Judgment to recover and by his execution prayed an Elegit to the Sheriff of London and another to the Sheriff of Lancaster and his request was granted and entred upon the Roll after which went out an Elegit to the Sheriff of Lancaster upon a Testatum supposing that an Elegit issued out to the Sheriff of London which returned Nulla bona and Quod Testatum sit c. That the Defendant hath c. in your County c. upon which Elegit upon this Testatum the Sheriff of Lancaster extended a forme of the Defendants in a grosse sum of a hundred pounds and delivered this to the party himselfe which sold that to another and now the Defendants brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that this Elegit issued upon a Testatum where no Writ of Elegit was directed to the Sheriff of London and so this Writ issued upon a false supposall and upon that two points were moved in the Case First As this Case is if this were Error in the Execution or not Secondly Admit that it were Error if the Plaintiff shall be restored to the tearme againe or if to the value in Money and it was moved by Davenport of Grayes Inne that this was no Error and to that he took this difference That true it is when a man brings an Action of Debt in London and hath Judgment that without request of the Plaintiff he is to have his Elegit to the Sheriffs of London where originally the Action was brought and in such Case he cannot have Elegit to the Sheriff of another County without surmise made upon the returne of the first Elegit and the surmise ought to be true or otherwise it is Error but where upon the request the Elegit is granted to both Counties at the first and so entred upon the Roll It seems to him that insomuch that he may have both together that if the surmise be false that this is but a fault of the Clarke which shall be amended and shall be no Error and to that he cyted the Case of 44 Edw. 3. 10. Where an Elegit issued upon a Recognizance of a hundred Markes and the Writ of Extent was a hundred pounds and the Sheriff extended accordingly of the Land of the Defendant and he came and shewed this to the Court and praied that the Writ should abate and a new Writ to the Sheriff that he might have restitution of his Tearme and Thorp said this is but a misprison of the Clark and the Roll is good and he shall have the Land but till the hundred markes are Levied and after this you shall have restitution of the Land which case proves as he conceives that if the Roll warrant a writ in one manner and the Clark makes it in another manner that this shall not be Error and so in this case the Roll warrants an Elegit originally to the Sheriff of Lancaster and though that this is made upon a Testatum this shall not be Error because warranted by the Roll And to the second point he would not speake for if that were no Error the second point doth not come in question Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Kings Bench. Marsam against Hunter IN Trespasse the case was this Copy-holder of a Mannor within which Mannor the custome was that the Copy-holders should have Common in the wast of the Lord The Lord by Deed confirmes to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heires with the appurtenances and the point was insomuch that his Copy-hold was now distroied whether he shall have his Common or not And Davyes of Linclones Inne argued the Common is extinct and his reason was that this Common was in respect of his Tenure and the Tenure is distroid Ergo the Common and he cited the case of 5 Ed. 4. fol. ult Where the office of the King of Herraulds was granted to Garter with the Fees and profits Ab Antiquo and also ten pound for the office and there it is resolved if the office be determined the Annuity is determined also and the case in 7. Ed. 4. 22. b. Where an Annuity was granted to John Clark of the Crown and for Tearme of life and after he was discharged of the office and the oppinion of the Justices then was that the annuity was determined and in 19. Ed. 3. Assis 83. 12 Assis 22. A man gives Land to his Daughter and I. S. within the years of marrying in frank-marriage the Husband sues Divorce the marriage being dissolved the Wife from whom the Land first moved shall have the Land againe so in the principall case insomuch that this common was in respect of Tenure the Tenure being distroied the common is gone and this was all his argument and he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and another day Brautingham of Grayes Inne seemed that the common remaines for three reasons First of the nature of a prescription and to that there are three manner of prescriptions First personall prescription and in that Inhabitants may prescribe as for a way or matter of ease as it is said in 7. Ed. 4. 15. Ed. 4. and 18. Ed. 4. and 6. Coke Gatwoods case Secondly reall prescription and this is Inherent to the Estate and this is where a man prescribeth that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Thirdly locall prescriptions an that is where a man prescribes to have a thing appendant or appurtenant to his Mannor and this is so fixed to the Land that whether soever the Land goes the prescription is concommitant unto it and it seemes to him that this common is annexed to the Land by prescription and so locall and cannot be seperated but alwaies shall go with the Land into who soever hands that comes but Dixit non Probant And for this he supposed that the custome of Copy-hold is that the Copy-hold shall discend to the youngest Son if the Copy holder purchase the Free-hold and the Fee-simple of the Copy-hold so that this is made Free-hold this shall discend to the youngest Son so if a Copy-holder by custome is discharged of payment of Tythes in kind so the office of the master of the Rolles hath many liberties pertaining to it and this is granted but Durante placito yet if the King grant that in Fee as he may yet he shall have all the Fees and Priviledges annexed to that and so it seemes to him that
of the Lessor But he agreed the case of Littleton that an Assignee of an Estate may perform a condition in preservation of an Estate otherwise of an Assignee of a Reversion in destruction of an Estate so at the Common Law it is clear that the Feoffee cannot perform the condition and by him it is cleerly out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for this Statute doth not extend to a collaterall condition as it appears by Spencers case 5. Coke and so hath been many times after this adjudged and this is a collaterall condition Ergo c. And so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nicholls Serjeant to the contrary and that this Disseisin hath not suspended the condition but that he may pay the Money and make the Estate to cease notwithstanding the Disseisin for-that that the condition is collaterall like to the 20 of Ed. 4. and 20 H. 7. That where a Feoffee upon a collaterall condition takes back an Estate for years yet this shall not suspend the condition but it may be performed or broken notwithstanding the Lease for that that it is collaterall so in our case for suppose that the condition had been if he marry Mistris Holbeam that then his Estate shall cease and as well it shall be upon the Tender of the Money here and he said that this case was late in the Common Bench. This feoffment was made to the use of the Feoffor for life Remainder to another for life the Remainder to the third in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor in fee with power of Revocation and after the Feoffor lets for years and during the Tearm he revokes the mesne Remainders and it seems to the Justices that well he may for that that the Lease for years goes only out of the Estate for life as he sayd and for that the power of Revocation as to the Mesne Remainders was not suspended Quere of the truth of this case in the common Bench for perchance it is not truly collected but so entred and so he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Flemming cheife Justice sayd that the point of the principall case would be if by the wrong of the Lessor the Estate of the Lessee shall be prevented to accrue then he might perform the condition to determine the ancient Estate that is the Lease for years and it is adjourned Pasch 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Earle of Shrewsbury against the Earle of Rutland IN a Writ of Errour the Earle of Rutland brought an Assise of Novel Disseisin against the Earle of Shrewsbury and four others and the Plaint was of the office of the keeping of the Park of Clepson and of the vailes and fees of the sayd Parke and of the Herbage and Paunage of the same and the Demandant made his title and alledged that the Queen Eliz. was seised of Clepsam Park in fee in right of her Crown and that she being so seised by her Letters Patents under the great Seal granted unto one Markham the keeping of the Park of Clepson with the vailes and fees and the Herbage and Paunage of the same Park for his life after the Queen Eliz. reciting the Grant made to Markham and that Markham was alive gave and granted by her Letters Patents to the Earl of Rutland the Office of the keeping of the sayd Clepson Parke with the Fees and Wages to that appertaining to have and to hold to him for his life after the death of Markham or after the surrender or forfeiture of his Letters Patents and further granted the Herbage and Paunage to the sayd Earle of Rutland for his life and doth not say when this shall begin after which the Queen Eliz. died and the Eee-simple discended to our Lord the King which-now is as lawfull Heir to the Crown of England which granted that to the Earle of Shrewsbury after which Markham dyed and the Earle of Rutland entered and was seised till the Earle of Shewsbury with four others entered upon him and dissersed him and to that the Tenants alledged no wrong no disseisin and when the Assise was to be taken in the Country the Array was challenged by the Tenants for that that one of the Tenants in the Assise had an Action of Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff and this challenge was not allowed and the Assise being perused at large for the Herbage and Paunage they found that the said Queen Eliz. was seised of Clepson Park as aforesaid and by her Letters Patents as afore is rehearsed granted the Keeping of this to Markham for his life and further by the same Letters Patents granted to him the Fees and Wages to that belonging and further granted by Letters Patents and doth not say Easdem to him the Herbage and Paunage of the sayd Park and that the Queen after the reciting the Grant made to Markham and that Markham was alive granted to the Earle of Rutland the keeping of the sayd Park and vailes and fees to have and to hold after the death surrender or forfeiture of the Letters Patents of Markham for his life And further by the sayd Letters Patents shee granted the Herbage and Paunage of the same Park to him for his life as more fully appears by the Letters Patents and it was not expressed as to the Herbage and Paunage when that began and they found the death of Markham and that the Earle of Rutland put two Horses into the sayd Park to take seisin of the sayd Herbage and Paunage and they found further the grant of the King to the Earle of Shrewsbury of the fee-simple and of that prayed the advise of the Court and to the keeping of the Park they found the seisin and disseisin of that and of the fees and wages to the Dammages c. And this being adjourned into the Common Bench was remanded into the Country and there Judgment was given for all for the Demandant and after this it came into the Kings Bench by Writ of errour and the Errours assigned by the councell of the Tenants and argued at the Barr were foure The first was that the Earle of Rutland himself between the verdict and the Judgment hunted in the Park and kild a Buck and took a shoulder of that for his fee and so he hath abated his Assise and so the Judgment was given upon a Writ abated and therefore they cannot plead that in abatement insomuch that it was mesne betwixt the Judgment and the verdict they assigned that for errour The second was because the principall challenge was not allowed where that ought to have beene allowed and the challenge was that one of the Tenants had an Action or Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff before the Assise The third was Because the Jury have found the Letters Patents made to Markham and that the Queen granted to him by her Letters Patents the custody of the Parke of Clepson in Clepson And further by the same Letters Patents granted the vailes
22 Assise 24. 48 Ed. 3. 8. Register 47. And in case that one common person hath any Office which he cannot exercise by a Deputy yet if he be imployed in the Kings service as if he be made Ambassador out of the Realm or other such imployment he may during his absence make a Deputy and this shal not be forfeiture of his Office and an Earl in ancient time was not only a Councellour of the King but by his Degree was Prefectus sive prepositus commitatus as it appears by Cambden 106 107. Comes prefectus Satrapas which is Prepositus comitatus and was in place of the Sherif at this day and when that he was Sherif though that he had the custody of the county committed unto him which was a great trust yet then by the Common Law he might make an under Sherif which was but a Deputy the like Holinsheads Chronicle 463. Amongst the customes of the Exchequer he called the under Sheriff Senescallus which agreed with the Definition before for he held the place of Sherif himself and by the statute of Westminster 8. chapt 39. It is sayd that Vice comes est viccarius commitatus and if a Barony discend upon the Sheriff yet he shall continue Sheriff 13. Eliz Dyer and Britton 43. If a Rybaud strike a Baron or a Knight he shall loose his Land And Tenant by Knights service may execute it by Deputy 7. Ed. 3. Littleton And if it be so in the case of a Sheriff which hath the County committed to him that he may make a Deputy by the Common Law upon that he inferred that the Steward which hath but the Mannors of the King committed to him that he may make a Deputy And also he said that the words in the last clause that is Volentes precipentes that the Officers and the Subjects should be attendant expoundes and declares the intent of the Queen for the words are Omnibus premisses and the Grant of the Office of the Stewardship is one of the premisses and so he concluded upon these reasons that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff and that the Grant was good and the Action wel maintainable And oâ— this opinion were Warburton and Foster Justices And Judgement was given accordingly this Trinity Tearm 8. Jacobi And Coke cheife Justice remembred a Report made by him and Popham cheife Justice of England upon reference made to them that this Patent was good and that the Earle of Rutland might exercise this Office by Deputation and he conceived that there were other words in the Patent which were found by the Jury that the said Earle should have the said Office Cum omnibus Juribus Jurisdictionibus c. as full c. as any other Patent hath been had and withall the Appurtenances and it seemed that a former Patentee had power by expresse words to execute that by a Deputy and he conceived though these words Adeo plene c do not inlarge the Estate yet this inlargeth the Jurisdiction of the Officer as in 43. Ed. 3. 22. Grant is made by the King of a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant Adeo plene tam amplis modo forma c. And these words past the advowson without naming that and he said it was adjudged Hillary 40. Eliz. in Ameridithes case where the case was the Queen granted a Mannor Adeo plene intigre in tam amplis modo forma as the Countesse of Shrewshury or any other had the same Manno r and Queen Kathrin had the same Mannor and diverse liberties with it of great value during her life and adjudged that these liberties should passe also by this Patent by these words and so in the principall case if the former Patent had been found also by the Jury and so was the opinion of Popham and him and was certified accordingly FINIS A Table of the Second Part. ARch-Bishops Jurisdiction 1 2. 28. Admiralties Jurisdiction 10 11. 13 16 17. 26. 29. 31. 37. Arbitrement satisfaction what 31. 131. Assumpsit 40 41. 273. Arrianisme one committed for it 41. Assets 47. Almony 36. Apurtenant what shall be said 53 Action sur Case by a Commoner for words 55. 84. 100. 119. 122. Avowry the whole plea 62 63. 102 Agreement what 72 Account 76 Audita Querela 81. 83. 168 Atturnment good by one under age where and why 84 Award void 100 Age not allowed in Dower 118 Administration repealable 119 Accord with satisfaction good plea where where not 131 Attorney ought to finde Baile in an Originall not Bill 134 Action sur Assumpsit 137 Assuâ—psit against an Executor where maintainable 138 Assets in Formedon what 138 Attachment 144. 168 Assent to a Legatee 173 Ayd prayer 191 Attachment for contempt of the Court 216 Accessary null unlesse there is Principall 220 Assignment of an estate suspended 225 Assise of novel Disseisin 229 Abatment of brief per entry 231 232 Abatement de facto and by plea differ in what 235 Agreement and Arbitrement good pleas where 132 Agreement by word to keepe backe tythes 17 Admiralls Commission for measuring of Corne 29 Administration during minority of c. 83 Atturney brings Debt for Trees 99. Arbitrement 130. 131. Arrest of Judgment 167. Acts what to make an Executor de seu tort 184. Attachment of Priviledge for an Estate against the Marshall c. 266. Assise where it may lye sans view 268. Assise the Recognitors challenged ibid Ajournment of the Tearm 278. Annuity or Writ of Covenant where 273. Arbitrement submission and revocation 290. Approvement of Common 297. Account 308. Award submission 309. Arbitrement 310 Arbitrement who it binds 323. Assise del Office 328. B BIshop not displaceable 7. Baron alone cannot sue for not setting forth Tithes without the feme proprietory 9 Ballast granted to Trinity House a Monopoly 13. Baron and Feme joyn where 66. Baron Judgment against an Executor 83 Baron how chargeable pur sa feme 92. 93. 95. Bar in trespass 121. By-Laws whom they bind 180. To what extended 258. Baron and feme take by intirity where 226. Barwick whether part of England or Scotland 270. Bayle 293 Banckrupt actionable 299. C CHase an action not to be divided 56 Cui in vita of Copy-hold 79. Custome for pound breach 90. Common Recovery 16. Copiholder shall hold charged where 208. Confirmation to a copiholder destroys common 209 210. Consultation after it no Prohibition grantable upon the same Libell 247. Cape grand Petit 253 Cause of a commitment traversable 266. Count in trespass after the teste del Breife 273. Covenant to pay Rent 273 Continuance Ibidem Chellenge 275 Customes of London argued by the Justices 284. 285. 286. Certiorari 312. Capias ad satisfaciendum no satisfactory execution 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. Copy-hold at common Law 44. Creditor may sue both heireand Executor 97. Court of Equity not proper after Judgment 97. Copyhold intayled 121. Covenants direct and collaterall how they differ 136.
Corpus amended Debt upon two Bils and one not due and tried for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest the Plaintiff released his Damages and had Judgement upon the Bill due Lessee of the Vicars Gleab-land shall pay Tithes Nota. Venire facias de D. or within the Parish of D. or de Parochia good Scire facias upon a Recognisance may issue out into any County Deprivation of a Minister may be given in evidence Best to have Damages severed upon two Contracts Breach for not acknowledging a Fine Nota. Feossment of Land in satisfaction of Debt upon a single Bill held naught A Steward of a Leet within the Statute of E. 6. against buying of Offices One thing in Action cannot be a satisfaction for another thing in Action Vpon a Request and none ready to receive and after a Request Damages shall be paid from the Request Nota. Nota. Nota. An Almoner would have acknowledged satisfaction and doubted Judgement against the Plaintiff for incertainty of his Count. Nota. Judgement for the Plaintiff Nota. Because the first Contract was not usurious the latter shall not No Action of Debt for Soliciting Fees Defendant pleads the Plaintiff was indebted to him and he took Administration and retained his own Debt in his hands Bailiff of a Colledge claims the Liberty of the University but denied to him Special Verdict Nota well Appearance though at another Day the same Terme saves the Bond. Demand necessary for a Nomine penae Costs omitted in the Roll and Error brought and demed to be amended Nota. The Venire facias mis-awarded The Defendant pleads that be was ready to grant and naught No Demand necessary Note this diligently Fully administred no good Plea by an Administrator to a Scire sacias to revive a Judgement had against the Intestate An Executor an Assignee in Law Nota. Nota. Nota. An Executor by wrong shall not by his Plea prejudice a rightfull Executor Condition of non-payment of Rent to re-enter the Rent was behinde but before re-entry accepted the Estate is confirmed by the Acceptance The Defendants name mis-taken in the Venire and a new Triall awarded No costs against an Executor Devise of the profits of the Land it self Debt brought against an Excutor after full age for Goods wasted by the Administrator during his minority Release of all Demands a good Barr in Rent not then due Judgement arrested for improper words without an Anglice The want of a Bill not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles To forbid no Breach The Defendant pleads a Plea by which he pretends the Plaintiff to be barred in another Suit but no Barr. One by his own Election cannot be Executor for part and not for part Tenants in common Severall Debts Debt lies by him to whose use money is delivered Debt upon a Statute of Perjury at a Commission issuing out of Chancery not ly Outlary pleaded in Barr and Nul tiel record pleaded and in the mean time the Outlary reversed Judgement that the Defendant should answer over No Escape lies against a Sherif vpon a Capias upon a Recognisance out of the Chancery Request to make Assurance generally and good Appearance upon warning and for default adjudged naught Action of Debt upon the Statute of E. 6. for Tithes Sufficient to say the Plaintiffe is Proprietor without shewing the Title Misprision of the Clerk amended after Triall Judgement reversed by Writ of error being in the disiunctive The Plaintiffe had no Interest but 〈◊〉 rendring of the Land Lessee at Will cannot determin his will within the year but must answer the whole Rent The Plaintiffe not bound to alleadge a speciall breach when the Defendants Plea continues speciall matter Debt for Flemish Money but demanded by the name of 39. l. English If the Obligor marry the Obligee the Bond gone Judgement obtained by an Administrator and after Administration revoked and party took in Execution and delivered because erroneous To plead an Appearance and not say Prout patet per Recordum naâ—gâ—… Nota. Award void for the incertainty for being the Judgement of one it ought to have plainness and certainty Judgement obtained by President of the Colledge of Phisicians his Successor after his Death and not his Executor shall have Execution Assurance Tithe shall be paid of Wood above twenty years growth if it be not Timber Variance between the Obligation and count shall not be shewed after imparlance Demand of Rent must be at the place of Payment Judgement reversed in an inferior Court for want of this word Dicit Want of an Original after a Verdict no Error but a vitious Original is Error Plea naught for want of a Traverse Nota. Plaintiff in Debt for Tithes need not be named Rector in the Plaint in the upper Bench. Tithes cannot be leased without Deed Judgement reversecâ— for Error in the Judgement If a Suggestion in part need proof and part doth not no Costs Judgement reversed for Error in changing the Defendants Additions Action upon the Statute for Tithes the Statute mistaken yet it being according to divers Presidents ruled good Bill abated for not naming an Infant Executor in the Action although Administration was granted during his minority Action upon the Statute 32 H. 8. of Arrerages of Rents Action lies not upon that Statute for Arrerages of Copy-hold Rents Action of Debt brought upon a Bill for money received to another use An Executor of his own wrong cannot retain Goods in his hand to pay himself Primo deliberat shall not be pleaded without a Traverse If the Plaintiff assign no breach he shall never have a Judgement though he hath a Verdict Rent reserved at Michaelmas or within ten dayes after due at Michaelmas A Judgement reversed by Writ of error notwithstanding a Verdict and the Statute of 18 Eliz. Executor shall not pay Costs upon the statute of 4 Jacobi cap. 3. How a reservation for Rent shall be construed One must not plead in discharge of the Obligation but of the Condition contained in the Obligation A contingent Debt cannot be discharged False Latine shall not overthrow an Obligation A Deed of gift good against him that makes it notwithstanding 13 Eliz. and against his Executors and Administrators Action brought upon an Obligation to stand to the Award of four or two of them Award made by two good Debt Judgement arrested for Nil shewing in what Court the Deed was inrolled Judgement reversed for want of these words in a Tales at Assises nomina Jurat c. By a Release of all demands money to be paid at a day to come may be released before the day If the Defendant confess he hath Assets the Sheriff may return a Devastavit Action of Debt brought against the Sheriff upon an Escape for one taken upon a Capias upon a Recognisance and adjudged that it would not lie Debt brought upon a Lease made to an Infant One may take his Executioâ— either against the principall or Bail at Election An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond
Iac. against Invocation c. for these words The Devil appeareth to thee every night in the likeness of a black Man riding on a black Horse and thou conferrest with him and whatsoever thou dost ask he doth give it thee and that is the reason thou hast so much money and this I will justifie Judgement for the Plaintiff In Trover Judgement by Nihil dic and Exception taken to the Declaration to stay the filing the Writ of Inquiry because no day of the conversion was in the Declaration and by two Judges held naught Mich. 14. Iac. PArker versus Parker Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 426. In Trover after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the imparlance Roll was entred with Spaces for the possession and conversion but both those Spaces in the Issue were filled up and held good The Imparlance was entred Mich. 12. Iac. rotulo 547. WHitepain versus Cook Pasch 12. Iac. For words Thou art a Rogue and I will prove thee a Rogue no Judgement STone versus Bates A man may well incourage one that was robbed to cause the Felon to be indicted and accompany him to the Assizes and this shall be lawfull for to do without incurring the danger of an Action upon the case upon conspiracy but if he knew that he was not robbed then he is in danger of the Action upon the case COpe and his Wife administratrix Plaintiffs versus Lewyn Trin. 12. Iac. rotulo 1714. An Action upon the case brought upon a promise made to the Intestate and in the Court omits to shew the Administration and after Triall that Fault moved in Arrest of Judgement and the whole Court was of opinion that he should not have his Judgement for it did not appear that he was Administrator for at the Common Law no Administration lay but the Ordinary ought to have the Goods HArvey Attourney versus Bucking Mich. 12. Iac. rotulo 842. Action of the case for slanderous words He meaning the Plaintiff shewed me first a Bill of fourty pounds without a Seal meaning the said Bill by the said E. as aforesaid sealed and delivered and afterwards he shewed me the same Bill with a Seal and he meaning the Plaintiff hath forged the Seal of the same Writing meaning the Seal of the said Bill by the said E. as aforesaid sealed and delivered The Defendant traverses the words and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Declaration was naught for that it did not directly appear that there was any communication between the Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the Bill but onely in the inuendo which will not maintain the Action and Judgement arrested MOrton versus Leedall Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 1783. Action upon the case for these words He is a lying and dissembling Fellow and a mainsworn Fellow And a Verdict for the Plaintiff And afterwards it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but at length Judgement was given for the Plaintiff And Serjeant Hutton cited the like case adjudged in t Barnes He is a mainsworn Villain 〈◊〉 Skipwash SKipwash versus Skipwash Hill 14. Iac. rotulo 3472. Action upon the case that whereas the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would marry one A. B. did assume to pay the Plaintiff twenty pounds when he should after the Marriage be thereunto requested The Plaintiff alleadges no special Demand and that Fault was moved in Arrest of Judgement Hobart and Wynch were for the Plaintiff Warburton for the Defendant JOtham versus Ball Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1920. Action upon the case for slanderous words Videlicet Your Master Euseby meaning the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Rascall and Forger of Bonds the Plaintiff laid a Colloquium between the Defendant and one R. G. And after Verdict moved in Arrest of Judgement for that it did not expresly appear that the said R. G. at the time of speaking the words was Servant to the Plaintiff and Judgement was stayed by the Court. COddington versus Wilkin for words Trin. 12. Iac. He is a Theif and why will you take a Theifs part spoken 1. Martii 10. Iac. The Defendant justifies the words because the Plaintiff stole Sheep The Plaintiff by way of replication sets forth a general Pardon granted such a time and further saith that if any Felony were committed it was before the general Pardon made and shews himself to be a Subject and no person excepted in the Pardon The Defendant demurs The Court were of opinion that by the Pardon both the Punishment and Fault were taken away and that the wrong was done to the King by the Common Law and the King being the supreme Head if he pardons the party is cleared of the wrong As if a Villain be infranchised he from thenceforth is no Villain Note if a man upon good consideration promise to become bound to another by his Obligation to do an Act and if he do not become bound Action upon the case will lie against him and the Plaintiff is not bound to tender him an Obligation but the Defendant hath took it upon himself to do it RIchards versus Carvamell Action of the case brought and counts for non-payment of money at the Plaintiffs next coming into the County of Somerset and avers that such a day he came into the County of Somerset Videlicet apud T. in Com. Somerset and that the Defendant though often requested hath not paid And Exception taken because the Plaintiff did not alleadge in his count that he gave notice to the Defendant when he came into the County of Somerset but not allowed and Judgement given for the Plaintiff And note when a man assumes to pay money or do any thing upon condition the Defendant may take Issue upon the condition and needs not plead Non assumpsit but if he pleads Non assumpsit then he confesses the performance of the condition which mark AVstin versus Jarvis Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 2180. The Plaintiff declares that such a Day and Year he bought of the Defendant a Horse for a peice of Gold of the value of 22. s. by him to the Defendant then in hand paid and for a 11. l. to be paid to the Defendant at the Day of Death or Marriage of the Plaintiff which should first happen for payment of which 11. l. the Plaintiff should bring to the Defendant one sufficient man to be bound together with the Plaintiff to the Defendant the Defendant in consideration thereof assumes to deliver the said Horse to the Plaintiff when he should be thereunto requested and the Plaintiff avers that such a Day he brought the Defendant one sufficient man Videlicet I. A. de B. Yeoman to be bound together with the Plaintiff to the said Defendant for the payment of the said 11. l. and shews that he requested the Defendant to deliver the said Horse yet the Defendant hath not delivered
him according to his promise The Defendant pleads Non assumpsit And a Verdict for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintiff at the time of the Contract was an Infant and that he could not perform his promise by reason of his Infancy and therefore the promise void and another Exception for that it was not alleadged in what sum the Plaintiff and his Surety offered to be bound and Judgement was that the Plaintiff Nihil capiat per breve JAcob versus Songate Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 2776. An Action upon the case brought for this word Perjured The Defendant justifies that it was found by Verdict that the Plaintiff was perjured but no Judgement entred upon that Verdict And whether the Plea were good being there was no Judgement was the Question and it was adjudged no Bar because no Judgement was given in the first-Action and so Judgement entred for the Plaintiff CRuttall versus Hosener Pasch 16. Iac rotulo Action of the case for these words He meaning the Plaintiff hath caught the French Pox and brought them home to his Wife And Judgement for the Plaintiff THornton versus Iepson The Plaintiff being a Currier brought an Action upon the case for these words He is a common Barretor but the words would not lie for a man of that Profession but would lie for a Justice of Peace or Lawyer IReland versus Smith Hill 9. Iac. rotulo Action upon the case brought for these words You Norgate take part against me with Ireland who is a Papist and hath gotten a Pardon from the Pope and can help thee to one if thou wilt The Plaintiff laid a communication between the Defendant and Norgate and alleadges himself of the age of 40. years and not above because it might appear to the Court that he was born within Queen Elizabeths Reign The Court held the Action would not lie as it was adjudged in Halls case and for this word Papist no Action will lie If I deliver my Goods to you to keep and I request them and you deny the Delivery of them now an Action of Trover will lie otherwise it is without a Deniall if I distrain Cattle I must not use them WArter versus Freeman Mich. 15. Iac. rotulo 1941. Action upon the case brought for that the Defendant sued out a Fieri facias upon a Judgement which he had against the Plaintiff upon which Judgement the Defendant had before sued out a Fieri facias and the Sheriff of Oxford had upon the first Fieri facias returned that he had levied the Debt and Damages and that they remained in his hands for want of Buyers and the Defendant knowing that the Sheriff had levied the Debt and Damages and intending to charge him again prosecuted another Fieri facias and that the Sheriff had again levied the said Debt and Damages and hath paid the Debt and Damages to the Plaintiff to wit at Westminster in Com. Middlesex where the Action was brought and Judgement after Debate was given for the Plaintiff though the Defendant alleadged that the Fieri facias was an Act in Law and so no cause of Action against him PArkhurst versus Powell vic Denbigh Mich. 15. Iac. rotulo An Action of the case for a false Return of a Capias utlagat and declares that he prosecuted a Capias utlagat directed to the Sheriff of Denbigh where the Defendant inhabited and delivered the said Writ to the Sheriff to be executed and the Defendant being then in the company of the Sheriff and might safely have arrested him did not but suffered him to escape and returned that he was not to be found and upon Not guilty pleaded it was tried in the County of Middlesex where the Action was brought and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Triall ought to be in Denbigh because the not arresting was the principal matter but because the Action was grounded upon double matter the Plaintiff had his Election to bring his Action either in the County of Denbigh or Middlesex by the whole Court BLand versus Edmonds Pasch 16. Jac. rotulo 444. Action upon the Case brought for these Words Videlicet George Bland is a troublesome Fellow and he did combine with thee to trouble the Countrey and I hope to see thee at the next Sessions indicted for Barratry or for sheep-stealing as George Bland was at the last Sessions for Bland was indicted the last Sessions for sheep-stealing And it was held by the whole Court that those Words would not bear an Action the Plaintiff layed the Words to be spoken to one Jo. Eagle and the Declaration was held naught and insufficient because it was not averred that the Plaintiff was not indicted at the Sessions BRadshaw versus Walker Hill 16. Jac. rotulo Action upon the case brought for these words Videlicet Thou art a filching Fellow and didst filch from A. B. 4. l. And Judgement that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ for it shall not be intended that he stole the money ADams versus Fleming Hill 16. Jac. rotulo 890. Action of the case brought for these words Videlicet He hath forsworn himself before the Councel of the Marches meaning the Councel of the Marches of Wales in the Suit I had against him there and I will sue him for Perjury there And after Verdict for the Plaintiff moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable for their uncertainty because the Court could not take notice that they had authority to hold plea in matters of record Judgement for the Plaintiff for these words Thou art a false forsworn Knave for thou didst take a false Oath before a Judge of Assise to hang a man GOre versus Colthorpe Trin. 5. Jac. rotulo The Declaration was in consideration that the Plaintiff would give credit to E. C. then servant to the Defendant for any thing the said E. should deal for to the use of the Defendant with the Plaintiff promised that he would see the Plaintiff contented that which the said E. should deal for with the Plaintiff for the use of the Defendant any way when the said Defendant thereof after it should become due should be requested and a special Verdict by which it was found that the Defendant promised to see the Plaintiff contented that which the above named E. C. should deal with the Plaintiff for the use of the said Defendant any way The Judgement of the Court was that the Verdict did not maintain the Declaration because for collaterall matters which are not Duties a Request is material and are not like a Duty as for Debt which is due and no Day of payment expressed that shall be alleadged to be when he shall be thereunto requested generally For if I sell my Horse for ten pounds and no Day of payment that shall be alleadged in the Count Cum inde requisitus esset And one case of Peters was cited which was
grounded upon a promise made in this manner Marry my Neice and when I come from London I will give you 100. l. and the Action was brought in this manner Videlicet in consideration that he would marry A. promised to pay the Plaintiff 100. l. after he returned from London when he was thereunto requested and for these words when he was thereunto requested the Action was maintainable HInch versus Heald Trin. 17. Jac. rotulo Action upon the case for these words Videlicet He is a Witch and hath bewitched me and the Court held the Action would not lie for he might bewitch him by fair words or fair looks GReen versus Harrington Trin. 17. Jac. routlo 953. The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant such a Day was indebted to the Plaintiff in 10. l. for Rent due to the Plaintiff for one year ended at Michaelmas then last past for divers Lands in H. demised to the Defendant by the Plaintiff the Defendant in consideration thereof promised to pay the Plaintiff the said 10. l. when he should be thereunto requested The Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and after Verdict given for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that there was no consideration to maintain the Action because an Action of Debt lay upon the first Contract being in the realty for upon an implied promise no Action will lie where it is in the realty except there be a special promise made upon a collateral cause Videlicet If the Plaintiff had threatned suit for the said 10. l. and the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear to sue promises to pay c. and the like for if a man be bound in a Bond to pay money and the Day past now an Action of the case will not lie for that money except there be a collateral promise and so in the like cases and Judgement was given against the Plaintiff Michaelmas 17. Jac. It was adjudged in the Kings Bench in an Action upon the case Videlicet whereas the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in 10. l. without expressing the cause for which the Debt grew due the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the Defendant then and there had given Day to the Defendant untill a time to come to pay the money the Defendant promised to pay the money that the Action was maintainable without expressing the cause for which the Debt was Hill 17. Jac. rotulo 2722. Action of the case brought for these words Thou art a perjured Knave and I will make thee wear Papers for it the Defendant justifies the words and shews that the Plaintff was a Church-warden and took his Oath to exercise that Office and whereas one Article made was that he should present whether the Church-yard was repaired or no and he knowing it did not present it Action of the case brought for these words Thou art a scurvy perjured Knave the Action will lie WIlson versus Sheriffs of London Hill 17. Jac. rotulo 3069. The Plaintiffs declare upon an escape made upon a Capias ad respondendum after the Defendant was arrested the Defendant pleads a Custome in London that the Maior and Sheriffs of London have used to inlarge Prisoners that were arrested in coming and returning from their Courts having Causes there depending and set forth a Plaint in London against the Defendant and that he was arrested and appeared and pleaded to Issue and as he was coming to the Court to defend that Action he was arrested as is supposed in the Action upon the case brought against the Sheriffs and shew that he was brought to the Court and inlarged by the Court and the Court held that if a man were arrested in the face of the Court the Court might discharge him otherwise not PAin versus Newlin Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 3042. Action upon the case brought upon a promise and Judgement by Nihil dicit and at the return of the Writ to inquire the Defendant moved in Arrest of Judgement and shewed that the Day of the promise was supposed in the inquiry to be Anno Domini 1614. And in the Declaration it was made 1617. and for that variance Judgement was stayed BElcher versus Hudson Hill 6. Iac. rotulo 132. The Plaintiff declares that in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry one T. M. his familiar Freind the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff yearly after the Decease of the said T. M. 40. s. for her maintenance and the Plaintiff averrs the Marriage and that she survived The Defendant pleads that the said T. M. in his life time after the Marriage c. did release to the Defendant all Actions as well real as personal and all Demands and Challenges whatsoever from the beginning of the World unto the Date thereof to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and adjudged a naughty Plea BOx an Attourney against Barnaby Action upon the case for these words George Box is a common maintainer of suits and a Champertor and a Plague of God consume him and I hope to see his Body rot upon the Earth like the Carkase of a Dog and I will have him thrown over the Bar next Term and I will give a Beech to make a Gallows to hang him and Judgement given for the Plaintiff for this word Champertor and no other Trin. 14. Iac. Action upon the case for these words She is an arrant Whore and had two Bastards in Ireland and Judgement by the whole Court that the words would not bear an Action YOrk versus Cecill Mich. 14. Iac. Action upon the case brought by A. Tanner for these words Thou art a bankrupt Knave and the Court held that the Action would not lie but Quaere Skaif versus Nelson Mich. 12. Iac. rotulo 1106. Action upon the case brought for words against Husband and Wife spoken by the Wife and Judgement was entered for the Plaintiff and in entering of the Judgement it was made Et praedicta E. being the Woman in misericordia which was naught for it should have been both the Husband and Wife in misericordia and after the Record was certified by Writ of Error Serjeant Richardson moved that it might be amended because the Judgement Papers were right and so it was ordered to be amended according SMails an Attourney versus Moor Hill Iac. rotulo 753. Action upon the case for the words He is a forging Knave and the Court held that the words were actionable for he alleadged in his Declaration that he was an Attourney of the Common Pleas and so being touched in his Profession the words would bear an Action and if a man said of a Bishop that he was a Papist the Action would lie because Religion is his Profession and so he is defamed STeward versus Bishop Trin. 14. Iac. rotulo 769. Action upon the case for these words James Steward meaning the Plaintiff is in
Berwick Gaol for stealing of a Mare and other Beasts and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable and so it was adjudged for that he did not directly say the Plaintiff was a Thief but onely implied Hill 15. Iac. rotulo An Exception taken to a Declaration in Trover brought by an Administrator because he declares that whereas he was possessed of divers Goods and Chattels as of his own proper Goods and should have said as was pretended as of the Goods and Chattels of the intestate at the time of his Death but the Exception was over-ruled by the Court. Exception to an Action of the case brought and the Plaintiff declares that whereas the Plaintiff had delivered the Defendant unum statum salis Anglicae a Bushel of Salt pretending that statum had another proper signification but because it was shewed to the Court that statum by one Dictionary was Latine for a Bushel Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In Trover it is usual to prove no more but that you requested the Goods and the Defendant refused to deliver them this is a Conversion When a Justification arises upon a Sale then I need traverse no more but the place alleadged and not go to the whole County but where it is a transitory Trespass as for Battery taking of Goods and the like then the whole County must be traversed CAtford versus Osmond Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 1063. Action of Trover brought for two Steers the Defendant being an Attourney of the Common-pleas justifies the taking as Under-sheriff by reason of Process from the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands of divers persons in a Schedule in the said Writ named the Debts therein specified and doth not recite the Schedule and he being Under-sheriff took the Steers in the Land of the Plaintiff which was lately one Stones who was Debtor to the King in 59. s. being behinde upon the Land and Exception was taken for that it was not directly alledged that the Land such a Day was the Land of the said S. The Writ commanded to levy the summs in the said Schedule mentioned and if they could not to take their Bodies and it was adjudged a good Warrant to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands that were the said S. 59. s. COles versus Flaxman Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. Action of the case brought for disturbing the Plaintiffs Common The Defendant pretends Title to the Common by reason of Common appurtenant to certain customary Land of part of which he conveys a Title to himself but not of the whole and the Question was whether it were Common appurtenant or appendant and if appurtenant it could not be divided KEymes versus Moxham Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 559. Action of the case brought for a promise made at C. for the Delivery of a Mare which the Plaintiff delivered the Defendant to plow his ground in P. And shews the Defendant did so excessively and immoderately labor and work the said Mare that the Mare died The Defendant confesses the promise and that the Mare at the time of the Delivery was infirm and that he worked her moderately and traverses the excessive labouring of the Mare and after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that it was mis-tried because the Venn was of C. which was naught and there was no place alleadged where the excessive labouring was for the Venn ought to come from that place where the laboring was HArbin and his Wife versus Green Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 2263. Action upon the case brought for not grinding his Corn at the Plaintiffs Mill and shews that the Bishop of Salisbury was seised of four customary Mils called A. in his Demesne as of Fee in right of his Bishoprick and prescribes that all Inhabitants and Residents within the City of Salisbury holding any ancient Mesuages of the said Bishop in right of his Bishoprick were time out of minde used and ought to grinde all their Corn whatsoever spent in their houses or exposed to sale in the said City at the said Mils of the said Bishop and no where else without the licence of the said Bishop and to pay Toll therefore to the said Bishop his Successors Bishops or their Farmors for the time being and in consideration thereof the Bishop his Successors or Farmors for the time being of the said Mils time out of minde have been used and accustomed at their own charges from time to time to keep and maintain a Servant expert in grinding as well by night as day there attending to grinde their Corn as soon as conveniently might be and the Plaintiff shews that such a Day the Defendant was and yet is an Inhabitant in one ancient Mesuage in the said City held of the Bishop and so possessed intending to deprive the Plaintiff of the profit of his Mill did such a day grinde divers sorts of Corn in other Mils without the Bishops leave to his damage of c. The Defendant pleads Non cul The Jury finde the Defendant guilty for a longer time then the Plaintiff had interest in the Mill and gave Damages intire and upon a Motion in arrest of Judgement adjudged naught GResley versus Lother and his Wife Executrix of R. B. and declares that communication was had between the Testator in his life and the Plaintiff concerning a Marriage to be had and solemnized between one T. B. son and heir apparent of the said R. B. and Jane Daughter of the Plaintiff and heir apparent of John F. deceased the said Testator such a Day and Year in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said R. B. then and there would agree that the said T. B. should marry the said J. promised to pay 20. l. and adjudged a good consideration GOwland versus Mason Hill 17. Jac. rotulo Action of the case for these words I charge him with Felony for taking of money out of the pocket of Henry Sparry and I will prove it and the Court was divided in opinion whether the words would maintain an Action or no. SMith and his Wife versus Stafford Executor of Stafford Hill 15 Jac. rotulo 906. Action of the case brought upon a promise made to the Woman when she was sole in consideration the Woman would marry the Testator he promises that if the Woman should over-live the Testator that then he would leave her worth 100. l. and they averr that she did marry him and after the Husband died and did not leave her worth 100. l. and the Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that by the Inter-marriage the Promise was drowned and released Three Judgeâ—…r the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant The like Observations in Actions of Covenant DRury versus Allen al. Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 926. Action of Covenant
brought against Administrators The breach was for not repairing Houses by the Administrators according to a Covenant made by the Intestate The Administrators plead divers Judgements given against them in Bar of the Covenant and that they have not Assetts over HAre versus Savill Trin. 7. Jac. rotulo Action of Covenant brought upon an Indenture upon a special Covenant to pay Rent at certain Dayes therein specified and reserved The Defendant pleads that no Rent was behinde The Plaintiff demurrs to that Plea and it was held by the whole Court to be a bad Plea in Covenant for by that Plea the Defendant confesses the Covenant broken and that Plea tends but in mitigation of Damages MOrdant versus Wats Pasch 17. Jac. vel 7. Jac. rotulo 1532. Action of Covenant brought for a Rent-charge granted for the life of an Estranger and for half a Year after to be paid at the Feasts of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary and Saint Michael the Archangel and alledge that the Estranger died in February and that the Rent was not paid at the Feast of the Annunciation and so the Covenant broken the Defendant demurres pretending that the Rent was not due untill half a year after the Death of the Estranger and not at the Feast but the Court held the contrary And if the Grantee had died his Heirs should have had it during the Life of the Estranger because it was payable to him his Heirs and Executors If I grant an Annuity for Life and twenty years after these are two severall Grants and the Executor shall have it after the Death of Tenant for Life And Sir Edward Cook said When an express Covenant is made to pay the Rent at divers Dayes an Action of Covenant will lie before all the Dayes of Payment be past but an Action of Debt will not lie untill all the Dayes be past and that in such case Debt doth properly lie upon a Grant of an Annuity for life or years H. 7. Eliz. rotulo 908. LAm versus Tresham Hill 7 Jac. rotulo 2145. The Indentures of Covenant were made between T. Tresham E. Lord Stourton Meriel T. and the Defendant and the Lord Stourton and Meriel never sealed the Indenture and mention thereof was made in the Count Videlicet which Lord Stourton and Meriel were parties to the said Indenture but never sealed The Case was Sir T. T. conveyed one Lease to the Lord Stourton and he to the said Meriel and by the Indenture brought into the Court it was covenanted that the said T. T. M. and L. or one of them at the time of the ensealing and Delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully possessed of and in the Mannour of c. And covenant that the Defendant his Executors and Assignes might and should quietly have and injoy the said Mannour clearly and absolutely freed and discharged or otherwise upon request saved harmless from all Incumberances and former Bargains by the said T. S. E. M. and the Defendant or any of them and the breach was that the Plaintiff was damnified for that the said M. that had the State did not seal and adjudged good PYot versus Lord Saint-John Mich. 7. Jac. rotulo 3214. The Plaintiff had the Reversion of two Houses one in Fee and the other for years and makes a Lease for years with Covenant for Reparations of both Houses and Question was whether the Plaintiff should have one Action or several Actions and adjudged that he should have a joynt Action for both FIsher versus Ameers Hill 8. Jac. rotulo 1061. Action of Covenant brought against the first Lessee after he had assigned over his terme for not repairing and the Question was if an Action of Covenant would lie against the first Lessee upon a Covenant to repair the Houses c. who had assigned his terme to another whom the Lessor had accepted for his Tenant and received the Rent and he suffered the House to be consumed by fire and if the Covenant by such Acceptance were gone as Debt for the Lessor is barred of his Action of Debt for Rent against his first Lessee after he hath assigned and the Lessor accepted the Rent of the Assignee If I covenant that I my Executors Administrators and Assignes shall pay the Rent if I assigne over my terme and the Assignee pay the Rent to the Lessor yet the Covenant lieth against the first Lessee otherwise it is where Rent is reserved and no Covenant to pay it there if the Lessor accept the Rent of the Assignee the Action will not lie against the Executor of the Lessee and Judgement after a Demurrer for the Plaintiff that the Action would well lie WAlter versus Decanum Capitulum Norwici Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 1414. Action of Covenant brought upon an express Covenant in a voidable Lease and the Question was whether the Covenant be good the Lease being void and it was adjudged Trin. 10. Jac. that the Action would lie although the Lease were void and Mapes case was cited which was Mapes made a Lease of a Parsonage of D. for seven years and did covenant to save the Lessee harmless against B. the person c. in that case it was held if the person sue the Covenant by right or wrong an Action lies upon the Covenant and Sir E. Cook said that if the Lease were originally void yet the Action of Covenant would lie for else a great mischief might happen for a Dean might as to day make a Lease to one and keep it secret and to morrow make another and covenant to injoy it and so avoid the second Lessee If a Lease be good at the beginning and become void after their terminus is the number of years otherwise where it was void at the first if a Dean and Chapter make a Lease contrary to the Statute and reserve a Rent it shall not be void against them so long as the Dean liveth but against his Successor The Lease in question was not void but voidable A Covenant in Law shall go to lawfull eviction although the Lease be void A Covenant real to Warrant and Defend there must be a Title paramount and a lawfull eviction Covenants for Lessees shall be taken beneficially for the Lessees BRight versus Cowper Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 638. Action of Covenant brought upon a Covenant made by the Merchant with a Master of a Ship Videlicet that if he would bring his Fraight to such a Port then he would pay him such a summ and shews that part of the Goods were taken away by Pirats and that the residue of the Goods were brought to the place appointed and there unladed and that the Merchant hath not paid and so the Covenant broken and the Question was whether the Merchant should pay the Money agreed for since all the Merchandises were not brought to the place appointed and the Court was of opinion that he ought not to pay the Money because the
agreement was not by him performed CRockhay versus Woodward Hill 15. Jac. rotulo 2001. An Action of Covenant brought upon this Writing Videlicet Memorandum that I John Woodward do promise and assume unto B. C. to pay to him such Moneys or other Goods as Josias my son shall imbessell mispend or wrongfully detain of his during the time of his being Apprentice with him within three Moneths next after request to me in that behalf made and due proof made of such imbesselling or wrongfull detaining in witness c. and the Plaintiff shews that the Defendants son did imbessell Goods of his Masters and shewed what Goods and left out in his Declaration these words Videlicet and due proof likewise made of such imbesselling or wrongfull detaining The Defendant demands Oyer of the Writing and pleads that he did not imbessell and it was tried for the Plaintiff and after Triall Exception taken because the Plaintiff did not alleadge any proof made and for that reason Judgement was arrested BRagg Assignee of Bragg versus Wiseman Executor of Fitch Mich. 12. Jac. rotulo 538. Action of Covenant brought and the case was this that Fitch and his Lady were seised of Land in right of his Wife for terme of her life and joyn together in a Lease by Deed indented in which were these words demise and grant and afterwards Fitch dieth the Lady enters and avoids the Lease and maketh a new Lease to a stranger whereupon an Electione firme is brought against the first Lessee and Judgement thereupon and the first Lessee put out of Possession whereupon the first Lessee brings his Action of Covenant against the Executors of Fitch upon the words demise and grant The Defendant demurrs The words were have demised granted and to farm letten for years if the Wife should so long live and Judgement for the Difendant A Covenant in Law shall not be extended to make one do more then he can which was to warrant it as long as he lived and no longer The Law doth not binde a man to an inconvenience If Tenant for Life make a Lease for twenty years and covenant that the Defendant shall injoy it during the terme that shall be during his Life for the terme endeth by his Death but otherwise it is if the Covenant be during the terme of twenty years by the word Demise an Action of Covenant lieth although he never enter and this word Demise implieth as much as Dedi concessi An Action of Covenant brought for that the Defendant covenants to bring again a Ship Perils and Damages of Sea onely excepted and he to excuse himself saith that the Hollander in a warlike manner by force and armes took the Ship and much doubt was where the Issue should be tried and the opinion of the Court was that the Action should be tried where it was laid COwling versus Drury Action of Covenant brought for that the Defendant did not pay a Rent with which the Land was charged the Defendant replies he was to injoy the Land sufficiently saved harmless and answers not the Breach and adjudged a naughty Bar by the whole Court SElby versus Chute Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3804. Action of Covenant brought and the Breach was alleadged that the Plaintiff should quietly injoy the Land demised to him and he shews that Chute exhibited a Bill in Chancery against him pretending the Lease was made in trust and it was decreed to be otherwise and whether the exhibiting this Bill was a Breach of Covenant there being no Disturbance at Common Law was the Question and the Court were of opinion that it was no Breach of Covenant for it was no Disturbance at Common Law nor Entry and the Law could not take notice of it and Judgement for the Defendant HOlder versus Tailor Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 1358. An Action of Covenant brought upon this Covenant that the Lessee should repair the House provided alwayes and it was agreed that the Lessee should have such necessary Timber to be allowed and delivered by the Lessor and the Breach was that the House wanted Reparations and that so many Loads of Timber were necessary and that the Lessor allowed them according to the form and effect of the Indenture and a general Request laid and Exception was taken to the Declaration for that the Plaintiff did not alleadge a special request to the Defendant and that it was laid in the Declaration that a stranger brought the Timber which was held to be naught by the whole Court for it amounted to an Entry upon the Lessees Possession Exception taken to a Breach laid in Covenant for Repairs because it was generally alleadged and not shewed in what but being after a Verdict it was helped by the opinion of the whole Court TIsdale versus Essex Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 2131. Action of Covenant brought upon these words covenant promise and agree that the Lessee should quietly occupy and injoy the Lands demised for and during the terme of seven years and the Plaintiff shews that an Estranger entred upon the Land and shews not that he entred by Title and the Court was of opinion that it was naught because it did not appear that he had a good Title to enter Dedit concessit imply a Warranty for Life and Judgement was given for the Defendant because the Breach was naught HIcks versus Action of Covenant brought and the Land alleadged to be in Weston alias Weston Vnderwood and the Venn was de visu de VVeston Vnderwood and it was alleadged by the Defendant that the Venn was mis-awarded because it was not of VVeston onely but the Court was of a contrary opinion that it was well awarded and Judgement for the Plaintiff CAstilion al. versus Smith Exec. Smith Trin. 17. Jac. rotulo 1849. Action of Covenant brought against the Defendant and the breach of Covenant alleadged to be in the time of the Executor and the Judgement was entred of the Goods of the Testators the Breach was for plowing of Land contrary to Covenant RIdent versus Took Hill 13. Jac. rotulo 3516. Action of Covenant brought to discharge the Plaintiff of a single Bill in which he was bound for the Debt of the Defendant and he alleadges for Breach non-payment and a Suit and recovery at Law for the Money which remained in force The Defendant pleaded that he paid the Money at the Day and thereof gave the Plaintiff notice before the purchasing his Writ the Plaintiff demurs and the Court held the Plea naught and Judgement for the Plaintiff Actions upon Account WIlloughby against Small An Action of Account brought against the Defendant as Receiver of the Plaintiffs Money The Defendant pleads that he never was Receiver where he hath a Release from the Plaintiff whereby he shall lose the benefit of his Release for that he cannot give that in Evidence upon such Issue The Process herein is Summons Pone Distress and upon a Nichil returned
upon the Summons pone or Distress the Outlary lies the Process is returnable from fifteen Dayes to 15 Dayes an Essoin lies In this Action there are two Judgements the first Judgement is that the Defendant shall account because he hath not accounted before in this first Judgement the Plaintiff shall not recover Costs or Damages but a Capias ad computand shall issue and if a Non est inventus shall be returned thereupon then an Exigent and when the Defendant by the rigor of the Law is imprisoned yet the Court doth in favour of the Defendant take Bail for he shall account before Auditors which the Court shall appoint which shall be the Officers of the Court to audit the Account and he shall appear from day to day before the Auditors at every day and place assigned by the Auditors untill the Account shall be determined and before the Auditors the Plaintiff or Defendant may joyn Issue or demurr upon the Plea pleaded before the Auditors and if any of the parties shall make Default and shall not appear then if after Appearance the Defendant shall not plead or if he shall joyn Issue or joyn in a Demurrer the Auditors shall certifie that to the Court and the Court shall proceed to the matter certified by triall of the Issue if it be joyned or by arguing the Demurrer as the cause shall require and if the Plaintiff shall make Default or shall not prosecute or if the Defendant shall not answer they may commit him to the Fleet and if Verdict pass for the Plaintiff Costs and Damages shall be recovered by reason of the inter-pleadings and the Plaintiff shall recover his Goods or Moneys demanded with his Costs and Damages and a Fisa or Elegit or casa shall be awarded and if a Non est inventus be returned then an Outlary after Judgement An account against a Bailiff of Lands shall be brought in the County where the Lands lie In every case in account where an Attachment may be returned an Essoyn lies Where the Defendant is charged to account for Moneys received from the hands of the Plaintiff the Defendant may wage his Law and likewise for Goods delivered to be sold but it is otherwise where the Receit is by the hands of a Testator or of any other then the Plaintiff That after a year and a day after Judgement given every Action shall be revived by Scire facias which is given by the Statute for all Actions at Law if the Plaintiff shall not obtain his Execution within a year and a day he shall be driven to bring a new Action Or if a Defendant be charged as Receiver by Indenture he shall not be admitted to plead that he was not a Receiver If the Plaintiff die before the second Judgement the Writ shall abate and no Scire facias lies for the Executor if the Defendant die before the second Judgement If two be adjudged to account and a Ca. exfa. issue and one appear and the other be outlawed he that appears shall account alone for that the Plaintiffs Process is determined against the other and so if one die the other shall account alone and if one be adjudged to account and will not he shall be committed to the Fleet. That if I deliver Goods to one to the value of 100. l. to traffique with for my use and he sels them for 10. l. I have no remedy but if my Bailiff buy a thing for 10. l. which is not worth it he shall not be allowed it Account lies not before a Sheriff for that he can assigne no Auditors If two be joyntly possest of Goods one of the two deliver the Goods for Merchandise he onely shall bring the Action An Account lies not against an Executor or Infant An Account lies not for a Park of Deer Matter that is in discharge of an Account shall not be pleaded in Barr of the Action for the Judges are Judges of the Action and not of the Account If Money be delivered to render an Account an Account lies but if it was delivered to keep untill the Plaintiff shall require Account doth not lie but Detinue If the Plaintiff account upon Witness of the Receit the Defendant shall not wage his Law If an Account shall be brought for Goods in the Declaration the Plaintiff declares that they were in his house whereas indeed they were not it is good HArrington versus Dean Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 3230. Action of Account render brought against the Defendant for the Receit of Money by the hands of one Rotheram for 200. l. The Defendant pleads that he was not a Receiver for to render an Account the Jury finde it specially that Rotheram was indebted to the Plaintiff in 200. l. and the Plaintiff required the Defendant to receive the said 200. l. and the Defendant required Rotheram to pay the 200. l. and Rotheram upon Request to him made desires the Defendant to borrow of any person 200. l. and to pay the Plaintiff and finde that the Defendant did borrow 200. l. of one Stanhop to pay the Plaintiff and Rotheram became bound to Stanhop for the payment of the said 200. l. and that the Defendant appointed his Wife to pay the Money to the Plaintiff and if upon the whole matter c. and Judgement was given that the Defendant was a Receiver THe Earle of Cumberland against Hilton The Clerk that entred the Cause had omitted the Charge which was for 400. l. and it was omitted in the Roll and Nisi prius and after a Verdict Excepon taken and amended by the Court. Assise IN an Assise Trin. 29. Jacobi rotulo 27. brought against Thacker and Elmer the Defendants come and say that there was no Tenants of the Tenements put to the view of the Recognisors of the Assise aforesaid nor at the time of purchasing the Writ to wit such a Day nor any time after and this they were ready to verifie and pray Judgement and if so then they say that they have done no injury or Disseisin of the Tenements with the appurtenances to the said W. T. and put themselves upon the Assise and the said W. T. doth so likewise therefore the Assise was taken between them and thereupon the Recognisors of the Assise say that the said E. E. at the purchasing of the original Writ of the Assise Videlicet such a Day were Tenants of the Tenement aforefaid with the appurtenances as of his Free-hold and that the said W. T. was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of Fee untill the said E. did unjustly and without judgement disseise the said VV. but not by force and armes and assess Damages to 12. d. and for Costs 6. d. and Judgement given that the said VV. should recover his Seisin of the Tenements aforesaid against the said E. by the view of the Recognisors of the Assise and his
Damages c. An Assise brought and the Grant was of the Herbage and Pannage c. and whether this were good or no some held it void for the incertainty of the Grant when it should begin Sir Edward Cook held the Grant good for if the King make a Lease for Life and granteth the Land without reciting the state to one for life this is a good Grant for Life of the Reversion to begin immediately after the Death of the Tenant for Life Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 35. An Assise brought for the Office of a Harald at the Funeral of the Earle of Exceter and the great Question was where the view should be made and it was alledged that it should be made in the place where he exercised his Office but the Court doubted of that but they were examined of the view made in the Abbey of Westminster being the place where the Funeral was performed and the Court were of opinion that in Dower where Tithes are demanded no view lies for of things that are invisible no view lies but the Tenant in such case shall be denied it SIr William Saint Andrew brought an Assise de Darrein Presentment against the Arch-bishop of York the Countess of Shrewsbury and F. H. for the Church of O. in the County of Nott. The Archbio p and H. appeared and the Countess did not appear and though the Countess made Default yet the Assise was not taken against her by Default but a re-summons was awarded against the Countess and the same Day given to the Arch-bishop and H. and a Habeas Corpora against the Recognisors And note the Tenants that appeared pleaded in abatement that a Writ of Quare impedit for the said Church was hanging in such a Court between the same parties and the Assise was brought afterwards and with this agrees the Register and it was adjudged a good Plea The Writ was returned in this manner Pleg de prosequend John Doo Richard Roo The within named Arch-bishop and Countess are attached and either of them is attached per Pleg H. S. N. J. And the within named H. hath nothing in the Sheriffs Bailywick by which he may be attached nor hath a Baily within his Liberty nor is therein found and the residue of the Execution c. and Judgement given that the Writ should abate and the like was in the Earle of Bedfords case where two Quare impedits were brought one after another and the last Writ abated J. Lovelace versus Baronissam Despencer R. Harvey Clericum Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 74. de Darrien Presentment for the Church of M. And the said H. being solemnly exacted came not and the Sheriff made a Return that he was summoned by J. O. and W. C. and therefore the Assise was to be taken against him by Default but the said Baromsh by T. her Attourney faith the Assise ought not to be so taken and confesses the said J. was the person last presented but conveys a Title to her self of the Mannour to which the presentation belongs and that being so seised the Plaintiff in the Assise by usurpation presents the Clerk in the Count whereupon the Defendant brought a Quare impedit and hanging the Writ the Clerk in the Count dies and the Plaintiff presented the Clerk that made Default who by vertue of that presentation is yet Parson of the said Church by which she is seised of the Advowson as in her former Estate and so she saith that the Presentation of the said J. by the said L. made ought not to prejudice her and a Demurrer upon this Plea and that the Assise should remain to be taken c. for want of Recognisors and the Sheriff was commanded to distrain them c. and Judgement given that the Plea was good but quaere of the Declaration whether sufficient because it was not alleadged that he that presented was seised of the Advowson Pasch 8. Jac. rotulo 31. An Assise brought for the Office of Clock-keeper of and it was held that it must be an ancient Office and because they could not prove that it was an ancient Office the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Plaintiff shewed a Grant of the same in E. 6. time but that was held no ancient time Pasch 6. Jacobi It was held by the whole Court that an Assise of Sadler to the Queen would not lie being granted to one by the King but was held void by the whole Court for the King cannot make an Officer to the Queen and by the Patent no place was expressed where he should injoy and exercise his Office and take the Profits and therefore the Jury could not have the view and for that cause an Assise cannot be taken and if the King should grant the Office of Usher to his Son the Prince an Assise would not lie An Assise brought against Demetrius the Plaintiff was non-suit and Demetrius moved to have Cost and it was denied by the whole Court because an Assise is not within the words of the Statute Audita Quaerela BIrd versus Kirton Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3118. An Audita Quaerela brought and the case was this Bird and Milles were bound to Kirton and Kirton makes a Bond to Milles in the summ of 100. l. that if Milles be not sued upon the first Bond then that shall be void and it was alleadged that Kirton did both sue Milles and Bird and that he had no notice of the second Bond that he might have pleaded it and so pretends that the second Bond should be a Defeasance of the first and Judgement was given for the Defendant BEck brought an Audita Quaerela and surmises the matter following that Boon Administrator of C. brought his Action of Debt upon an Obligation and before Judgement that Administration was revoked and Administration granted to another and notwithstanding the Revocation he procured Judgement and the second Administrator released and the rest brought an Audita Quaerela upon that Release and the Court would not grant a Supersedeas because the Revocation was but matter in fait for that Revocation was not under Seal and the first Administrator might appeal Cases in Law and Notes IF a Writ of Covenant be brought against two and if one acknowledge the Fine before one of the Justices and the other acknowledge by Dedimus or before another Justice that Fine cannot be proceeded upon these two acknowledgements by the opinion of the Court. A Writ of Covenant was brought against three men and their Wives and onely two men and their Wives acknowledged the Fine and the other Husband and Wife never acknowledged and the Fine was sued as a Fine acknowledged by all and it was desired the Fine might be amended and the Man and Wife that did not acknowledge might be put out but the Court would not grant it If I make a Lease for years reserving Rent during the Life of A. and B. if one of them die
certain Day specified in the Condition The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff at the Day of Payment accepts of another Bond for the Payment of the said Money in satisfaction of the said 52. l. 11. s. and upon a Demurrer held to be a naughty Plea for one Bond cannot overthrow another LEa versus Pain Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 953. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform an Award the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award The Plaintiff by way of Replication sets forth an Award that the Arbitrators did arbitrate of all matters untill the Date of the Award which was a Moneth longer then the Submission and so pretends they exceeded their Authority The words were for all causes before the Date of the Award Another Exception was because the Arbitrators awarded that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff such a Day of April and doth not say what year or next following and the Court held that good enough because the second Day of Payment was made to be such a Day and such a year and it was held good enough for if any new matters did arise between the Submission and Award or c. the Defendant ought to shew it Another Exception was that it was not said that the Award was made between the Parties but it shall be intended to be made between the Parties because the Award was made de super praemissis and therefore it shall be implied that it was made but of such things as they had power to deal in The Court was of opinion that the Award being de super praemissis the Court shall not say but that this was a cause submitted and except it had been discovered by pleading that there was a new cause since the Date of the Award which was made known to the Wardsmen the Court is not to take notice thereof SCot Executor versus Herbert The Plaintiff in his Declaration sayes the Testator in his life-time was possessed of Land for a terme of years and so possessed grants part of his terme to an Estranger reserving Rent and he grants his Estate to the Defendant And that the Testator died possessed of the Reversion of the terme and because the Rent was behinde the Executor brings his Action of Debt for the Rent and the Declaration was held naught for that it did not appear that he that made the first Demise was seised in Fee or in any other Estate by which he could make a Lease NOrris and Trussell Wardens of the Society of Weavers in the Town of Newbury in the County of Berks versus J. Scapes Pasch 14. Jac. rotulo 907. An Action of Debt brought and the Plaintiffs declare that Queen Elizabeth had incorporated them by such a name and given them Power to make by-laws for the better governing their Corporation c. and further shew that they made an Order which was confirmed by the Justices of Assise according to the Statute of 19 H. 7. and for the Breach of such Order brought their Action the Defendant pleaded that he owed them nothing and tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiffs and Hutton Serjeant moved in Arrest of Judgement and took three Exceptions the first because the Constitution was against Law to restrain one to exercise a lawfull Trade The second the Constitution was that the Offender should forfeit such a summ and it did not appear to whom this Forfeiture should go Thirdly the Plaintiff shews in his Count that the Queen by her Letters Patents had appointed A. B. C. to be Wardens for one year and shews not which those that brought the Action were elected which ought to be to intitle them to that Action It was against sense to barr all their own Apprentices it doth not appear how many Wardens should be and they do not intitle them to the Action by the Corporation the Law is altered and Judgement was given for the Defendant BRet versus Averder Mich. 29. 30. Eliz. Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Arbitrement the Defendant confesses the Arbitrement but pleads in Barr that the Plaintiff did not require him to make Payment and to that Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and it was adjudged no Plea for the Defendant at his perill ought to make Payment and the Plaiutiff ought not to make a Request HAles versus Bell Trin. 39. Eliz. rotulo 1974. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Dèbt upon an Obligation with a Condition for the Payment of 40. l. within fourteen Dayes next after the return of one Russell into England from the City of Venice and then the Obligation should be void the Defendant pleads in Barr that the said Russell was not at Venice upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and adjudged a naughty Plea for where part is to be done within the Realm and part out of the Realm the Plea ought to be triable within the Realm GArret versus Harrison Executor Trin. 40. Eliz. rotulo 1651. To an Action of Debt upon a Bond brought against him as Executor the Defendant pleads six Judgements in Barr the Plaintiff replies that they were by fraud and covin and the Jury found for the Plaintiff that two of the six were by covin and Williams moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Jury ought to have found all but Glanvile said that if any part of the Plea be insufficient defective or false the Issue shall be found against you for your Plea is one intire thing and he said that the Plaintiff should have taken Issue upon one onely as in an Obligation with diverse things in the Condition Walmsley held that by the Plea the Defendant had confessed implicatively that you have sufficient to satisfie those six Judgements and no more So that if any part be found against you this is Assets and Judgement was given accordingly for the Plaintiff GReen versus Wilcox Executor To an Action upon an Obligation brought against the Defendant as Executor he pleads that the Testator was obliged to A. in 20. l. which remained due to him at his Death and that the said A. recorded against him in the Common Pleas and averres that it was a true Debt and the persons and matters to be the same and that he had no Assetts beyond that and the Plaintiff replies that the said Recovery was had by fraud and covin between them to defraud him of his Debt to which Plea the Defendant demurrs specially because he had in his Plea averred it was a true and just Debt so that it could not be by covin Trin. 44. Eliz. It was adjudged for Law by the whole Court that if a Fieri facias be directed and delivered to the Sheriff he may not break the outer Door of the House and enter and do Execution but if the outer Door be open then he may enter by that and then he may and ought to break the Door of an Entry or Chamber which is locked and break
open any Chest which is locked and take the Goods in that in Execution and if he doth it not an Action of Case will lie against him In Debt if it be demanded by Original the Process is Summons Attachment and Distress and for Default of sufficiency upon a Nichil returned Process to the Outlary if the Summons or Attachment be returned an Essoyn lies And Wager of Law lies if the Count be upon a simple Contract And if the Parties be living which made the Contract or Debt against an Heir the Writ shall be brought in the Debet but when it is brought against an Executor or Administrator or of Chattels it shall be in the Detinet tantum The Judgement in Debt where the Demand is in the Debet detinet is to recover the Debt Damages and Costs of Suit and the Defendant in misericordia but if the Defendant denies his Deed then a Capias for his Fine issues out And if the Original be in the Detinet for Chattels then the Judgement is to recover the thing in Demand or the value thereof and Costs and Damages and the Process of Execution is a Distress to deliver the Chattels or the value and Damages And if the cause of Action be against Executors or Administrators the Judgement is to recover the Debt and Damages of the Testators Goods if the Executor hath so much in his hands and if he hath not then the Damages of the Executors or Administrators proper Goods And if the Sheriff upon a Scire facias return a Devastavit then a Fieri facias or Elegit may be sued out to levy the Debt and Damages of the Executors or Administrators proper Goods And if the Executor plead that he never was Executor and it is found against him that he hath administred but one Penny the Judgement shall be to recover the Debt and Damages of the Executors own Goods Debt brought upon a Record the Execution shall be brought where the Record remaines MIch 9. Jac. rotulo 2304. Throckmorton Administrator versus Hobby The Aministrator releases and afterwards the Administration is revoked and declared by Sentence to be void and null and then the Release is void TRin. 9. Jac. rotulo 917. Brookesby Vaux versus M. Tresham Executor of the Testament of T. T. and Exception was taken to the Defendants pleading because the Defendant pleads divers Statutes to divers persons and the Plaintiff shews that some were by fraud and that others were for performance of Covenants that were not broken and for other Statutes that they were satisfied and the Defendant in pleading a Statute by three sayes two of them did not pay and doth not say that the three nor any of them have not paid In pleading of a Statute it must be generally pleaded that it is a true Debt And my Lord Cook held that a man without a Defeasance may plead that the Statute was acknowledged for Payment of a lesser summ and it was held that if the Count be good and the Plea naught and Replication naught if it appears that the Plaintiff had good cause of Action the Plaintiff shall have Judgement And Warburton said that one may plead generally that the Statute was acknowledged by fraud without shewing the special matter SPeak versus Richards The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Money levied by the Sheriff upon a Levari facias and not paid to the Plaintiff upon the Sheriffs Return upon the Levari issued out of the Chancery and that it would well lie But note the Plaintiff had concluded his Demurrer ill for he demurring to the Defendants Plea which was grounded upon a Release should have demanded Judgement if the Defendant should be admitted to plead a Release which was made after the Sheriff had made his Return TRin. 15. Jac. rotulo 1630. Parson versus Middleton Action of Debt brought to be tried in Durham and the Record sent to the Chancellor of Durham because the Bishops Sea was empty and before the Day given by the Judges a Bishop was elected and he sent the Record and not the Chancellor MIch 15. Jac. rotulo 2118. Maddock versus Young The Plantiff brought an Action of Debt for an Escape against the Sheriff upon a Capias utlegat after Judgement the Defendant pleads that there was no such Record of the Recovery of the Debt and Damages to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs pretending he had not directly and plainly answered the Declaration but Judgement was given for the Defendant Where a Capias is not the Process a Capias ad satisfaciendum is not the Execution and no Capias lies against a Countess or Baroness and at Common Law no Capias ad satisfaciendum would lie but onely where the Action was Vi armis but onely a Levari facias MIch 14. Jac. rotulo 3140. Bawkey versus Isted An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes of Land lying within the Parish of Horsted parva the Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and after Triall and a Verdict Exception was taken to the Venire facias because the Venire facias was of Horsted parva and not of the Parish of Horsted parva but the Court were of opinion that it might be either of the Town or Parish of Horsted parva and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff because both the Town and Parish were named in the Record An Action of Debt brought against an Administrator who pleads that the Intestate was indebted to him and that he had fully administred and that he had no Goods or Chattels which were the Intestates beyond Goods and Chattels to the value of 10. l. which the Administrator retains towards satisfaction of the said Debt to him due the Court were of opinion that the Administrator ought to plead generally fully administred else the Debtor should be prejudiced in taking Issue upon that Plea the Case was between Fox and Andrew PAsch 6. Jac. rotulo 751. Sharpley versus Hurrell Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation and the Defendant pleads the Statute of Usury and sets forth that one Ship went a fishing to New-found-land which Voyage might be performed within eight Moneths the Plaintiff delivered fifty pounds to the Defendant to pay sixty pounds upon the Return of the Ship to Dartmouth from fishing and if the Ship should not come to New-found-land by reason of Leakage or Tempest should return to Dartmouth then the Defendant should pay the principal Debt and if the Ship should never return he should pay nothing and it was held by the Court that it was not Usury for if the Ship stayed at the New-found-land two years he should pay but 60. l. An Action of Debt brought against an Executor who pleads that he had nothing in his hands at the time of the Writ purchased and saith not nor any time after the Plea is not good but if the Plaintiff had took Issue
that he had Assets at the Day of the Writ purchased and it had been found for the Plaintiff now the Plea is made good If an Action of Debt be brought against two Executors and one of them onely appear and confess the Action the Judgement shall be against both of them of the Goods of the Testators in the hands of all the Executors and the Damages of him that appeared onely TRin. 16. Jac. rotulo 988. Houldsworth versus Barker An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill the Defendant pleads the Bill was delivered to the Plaintiff upon a Condition not performed and it was held a naughty Plea by the whole Court HIll 13. Jacobi rotulo 842. Harrison al. at the Suit of Fleet. An Action of Debt brought for 32. l. and the Plaintiff counts upon an Emisset Harrison pleads that he and the other do not detain from the Plaintiff the said 32. l. nor any Penny thereof and the other pleads to Issue and a special Entry made that the Issue should remain untill the said Harrison had perfected his Law or made Default and he at the Day did wage his Law and Judgement was that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ PAsch 16. Jac. rotulo 1200. Rayson versus Winder An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform an Award which was good in part and void in part and the Breach assigned upon the good part and the Award was to pay Money but no time of Payment afterwards it was demanded the Award is good GAsington versus Burcher Knight Turner Jones and Bowden for 1800. l. Burcher was outlawed Turner and Jones appeared by Supersedeas and Bawden appeared by another Attorney and the Plaintiff declared against them three that appeared upon an Account Turner offered to wage his Law and the others plead Nil debent per patriam and the Court was moved pretending that Turner shal not be admitted to wage his Law because the Defendants should not sever in Plea but the Court upon sight of divers Presidents were of another opinion although it was urged that Turner Jones joyned in a Supersedeas and therefore pretend that Turner should not sever in Plea from Jones that pleaded Nil debet per patriam but that Exception was disallowed for although two appear by Supersedeas yet they may vary in Plea MIch 16. Jac. rotulo 581. and the Imparlance entred 16. Jac. rotulo 1727. An Action of Debt brought by Lee versus Arrowsmith upon an Emisset for divers Parcels and upon an Account and the Parcels and Account amounted to the summ of 300. l. but in the Imparlance Roll the Parcels and summ accounted for did not amount to 300. l. by 6. l. And this variance was moved in Arrest of Judgement after a Verdict but the Court were of opinion that it was amendable because Ball the Attorney made Oath that he commanded his Clerk to summ the Account for 6. l. to maintain his Writ and therefore the Roll was amended HIll 36. Eliz. rotulo 1908. Action of Debt brought by Gage versus Gilbert upon an Obligation for 500. l. bearing Date first of February Anno 25. Eliz. The Defendant pleads a general Release made to him by the Plaintiff bearing Date after the making of the Bond of all Dues and Demands whatsoever except an Award made between the Plaintiff and one G. W. why R. R. then dead and one Obligation of 500. l. for performance of the said Award bearing Date 29. April 25. Eliz. and whether these words bearing Date 29. April shall have reference to the Arbitrement or Bond was the Question upon a Demurrer upon the Replication in which the Plaintiff shewed the special matter that the Award was made the 29. April and that the Bond was made the said first of February and it was adjudged that these words bearing Date should have reference to the Award and not to the Bond. And if the Heir pleads Ciens per discent besides one Acre if the Plaintiff please he may have Execution of that Acre or if the Plaintiff plead that he hath Assets beyond that Acre and it be found that he hath ten Acres more the Plaintiff shall have Execution of the Land onely and not of his person as it is where the Heir pleads that he hath nothing by Discent generally and it is found against him that Land and all other his Land which he hath and his Body are liable to the Judgement by a Capias ad satisfaciend Fieri facias or Elegit If a man be retained in London to serve beyond Sea he may have his Action for his Wages in England in any County And the like of an Obligation bearing Date at Roan in France it may be sued in England alleadging the place to be in such a County where he brings his Action And note that Debt may be brought in the Common Pleas without Original against any Officer or Minister of the said Court by Bill exhibited to the Court but no Process of Outlary lies upon that and the Judgement upon that is that the Plaintiff shall recover his Debt and Costs and shall have an Attachment ad satisfaciendum but no Exigont for because it is not by Original and all the Process by Bill shall be returnable at a Day certain but no Bill lies against a Serjeant at Law And note that the Judges Serjeants and Officers Clerks Attorneys and Ministers of the Court may have an Attachment of Priviledge out of the said Court without an Original to arrest any to them indebted or for any personal cause to proceed upon it as if it were by Original but no Process of Outlary lies thereupon and such Process of Attachment shall be returnable at a Day certain and not at the common Return and they may be returned from Day to Day If a man be bound to perform an Award of Arbitrators and they make an Award accordingly that one shall pay Money he may have his Action of Debt for the Money and declare upon the Award and afterward may have another Action upon the Obligation for not performing the Award by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 5. Caroli An Action of Debt brought by an Executor the Defendant pleads an Outlary in the person of the Executor and demands Judgement if he ought to answer his Writ the Plaintiff demurrs in Law to that Plea and Judgement was given that the Defendant should answer over WOlly versus B. and his Wife Trin. 37. Eliz. rotulo 1306. An Action of Debt brought by Husband and Wife as Executrix the Defendant pleads in Barr an Outlary in the Testator by an Estranger which is in its force and upon a Demurr and solemn Debate adjudged a naughty Barr. Trin. 40. Eliz. rotulo 507. The like Plea pleaded to an Executor that brought an Action of Debt and adjudged no Plea And Dixon Administrator of Collins exhibited a Bill against
arbitrated or else it is void and in every award there must be satisfaction of that which was awarded POwel versus Crowther trin 9. Jacob. rotulo 313. det port e un three executors which appeared at several terms and plead severally ne unques execut the plaintiff proceeds to triall against one of them and was non-suit And then one of the other defendants take the record down by proviso and the plaintiff was again non-suit and both the defendants desire costs before the third issue was tried but costs was onely given to the first and denied to the second for his trial was erroneous because by the first triall the originall was determined If a defendant wage his law no excuse of sickness or water can save his default but in real actions he may excuse himself by such accidents If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a messuage of all incumbrances there one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all incumbrances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease there he must shew how NOrton versus Sims Pasch 11. Iacob rotulo 346. debt upon a Bond entred into by an under Sheriff to his high Sheriff that the under Sheriff shall not meddle with the execution of executions and shall discharge the Sheriff from all escapes and the plaintiff shewes a breach in the under Sheriff for an escape by reason whereof the Sheriff paid the debt and damages question was whether this covenant be good or not Judgment for the plaintiff A high Sheriff may make an under Sheriff to be at will An under Sheriff hath the same authority an high Sheriff hath it is a void condition to save a man harmless from all men but good if it be special if the condition be to discharge and acquit I must shew how An under Sheriff was before the Conquest A Bond made to the Sheriff by the under Sheriff to discharge of all escapes this is good and lawful If any part of the condition of a Bond be against a Statute-law it is void in all but otherwise if part be against the common-law See Boswels case 10. Rep. when a man is under Sheriff he may do all ministerial things the Sheriff may do but not judicial If the under Sheriff will covenant that he will not meddle with executions above 20. l. this covenant of his own accord is good if a Sheriff binde his under Sheriff that he shall not return Venire Facias nor intermeddle with executions untill he be acquainted it is against Law and naught by all the Court A Bond to perform divers Covenants some against Law and others lawfull it is good for lawfull things and void for the rest The Death of one of the Parties in an Original Writ doth abate the Writ it is otherwise in a Judgement If Husband and Wife sue a Scire facias and the Husband dieth the Scire facias shall abate for it is no more a judicial Writ but as it were an Original to revive a Judgement The Court were of opinion in the case of Sir H. Dowckray that where he had delivered Money to his Servant to provide Victuals and the Servant buyes the Victuals in his Masters name and payes not for them and afterwards an Action is brought against the Master for the Money and he offers to wage his Law and the Court held he could not safely wage his Law because the Victuals came to his own use and therefore he is chargeable and must have his Remedy against his Servant But if the Master did forbid the Tradesman to deliver any Wares except his Man paid for them in that case if the Tradesman deliver Wares the Master may safely wage his Law as it was adjudged in Sir H. Comptons case MAntell versus Gibbs Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 1254. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that an Estranger was imprisoned by another stranger and kept in Prison untill the Defendant as Surety of the stranger made the Bond and it was held a naughty Plea and a Repleader awarded ALston versus Walker Mich. 6. Jacobi rotulo 1342. Land was Mortgaged and a Promise that if the Mortgager at such a time and place should pay the Money to the Mortgagee his Heirs or Assignes that then the Mortgage should be void the Mortgagee died and the Money was paid to his Executors and it was adjudged to be no performance of the Condition for the Executor was not named and the Money ought to be paid to the Heir who should have the Land if the Money were unpaid and not the Executor STurges versus Dean Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 2915. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill for Money to be paid within fifteen Dayes after his Return from Ierusalem he proving his being there the Defendant pleads that he did not prove-his being there to which the Plaintiff demurrs he making proof that is if it be true Sir Edward Cook and Daniel held that the proof should be made upon the Triall and the proof should be subsequent But Warburton and Foster held that the proof shall be precedent because it was restrained to a certain time but it had been otherwise if no time had been appointed NOrton versus Goldsmith Trin. 7. Iac. rotulo 3100. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition that Chamberlain his Under-sheriff should not meddle with Executions beyond such a summ and alleadges a Breach for intermeddling with Executions contrary to the Condition and the opinion of the whole Court was that the Bond was void PAin versus Nichols Trin. 8. Iac. rotulo 134. An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of Ed. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and the Plaiutiff declared as well for Prediall Tithes for he might well bring his Action and for other Tithes as of Lamb and Wooll for which no Action would lie and upon a Triall the Jury found for all as well for those that would as would not bear an Action and after a Verdict this Exception was taken and Judgement arrested BOoth versus Davenant Trin. 8. Iacobi rotulo 805. A Bail taken in the then Kings Bench and an Action of Debt brought upon that Recognisance which was that if it happened the Defendant in that Action to be convicted then the Manucaptors granted and every of them granted that as well the Debt as Damages and Costs which should in that Action be adjudged the Plaintiff should be levied upon their Lands and Chattels And in Easter Terme 7 Iacobi the Defendant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum awarded against him did not render his Body but afterwards Mich. 7. Jacobi he did render his Body and the Court accepted of it and discharged the Bail and whether the Bail should be discharged or not was the Question and the Court held the Bail should be discharged and Judgement was given for the Defendant RAyson versus Winder Pasch
of the Statute are to have and injoy and Winch said it was within the Statute and so the Office of a Cursitor was within that Statute Exception was taken to an Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting out of Tithes because the certainty of Loads of Corn were not expressed but it was held good notwithstanding HAwes versus Birch Hill 12. Jacobi rotulo 1843. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond of 6. l. for the payment of 3. l. upon the 16. of April The Defendant pleads that an Estranger at the Defendants request the said 16. of April made an Obligation to the Plaintiff in lieu of the first Debt and adjudged naught by the whole Court for one thing in Action cannot be a satisfaction for another thing in Action but this being done by a stranger is good by no means Pasch 12. Jacobi The Court was of opinion that if Money be tendred and none ready to receive it and afterwards he to whom the Money is payable demands the Money and the other refuse to pay and afterwards an Action is brought and a Tender pleaded the Court held that the Defendant should pay Damages from the time that the Money was demanded FLeet versus Harrison Hill 13. Jac. rotulo 841. An Action of Debt brought against two Defendants one of them pleads Nil debet per patriam and the other lets a Judgement go by Default and he that waged his Law at the Day appointed performed it and Judgement that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ for a Respectuatur of the Judgement was entred untill the other had done his Law WIlliamson versus Spark Mich. 13. Jac. rotulo 3511. Upon a cire facias brought against the Bail upon an Attachment of Priviledge The Defendant pleads a Release made after the Verdict and before Judgement which was before the Recognisance was forfeited and if the Recognisee may release before the Damages are ascertained or no was the Question and it seemed he might An Action of Debt brought against a Baker for a Fine imposed on him in a Court Leet and an Exception was taken because it was not alleadged that he sold Bread against the Assise of Bread made to sell for a man may make and bake Bread for his own use under the Assise limited BAcon versus Pain Trin. 14. Jac. An Action of Debt brought and declare that such a Day and Year the Defendant was a Brewer and for one Year then next following and that the Defendant the said Day at K. bought of the Plaintiff the fourth part of the Grains that the Plaintiff that Year next following should make in brewing for 3. l. to be paid upon Request The Defendant pleads that he ought him nothing and after a Triall an Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff did not aver that he made Grains in that Year LOrd versus Huxly An Action of Debt brought on a Judgement thereupon and the Defendant taken in Execution upon that Judgement and afterwards the Plaintiff became Felo dese by which the Almoner seised of all his Goods and afterwards the Almoner would have acknowledged satisfaction of the Debt and Damages in that Judgement and doubted that he could not SAwyer versus Crompton Hill 14. Jac. rotulo The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Costs given before the Judges of the Marshalsey newly erected 9 Jac. by Letters Patents of the same King within the Virge And the Plaintiff declared that whereas at the Court of the said King for the Houshold held at S. in S. within the Virge of the Houshold then at Whitehall such a Day and Year before T. B. Knight Marshall c. and F. B. c. Judges of the said Court to hear and determine all Pleas personal within the Virge between Persons not being of the Houshold arising by vertue of Letters Patents bearing Date such a Day and Year in due manner made came c. and the Court held a repugnancy in the Count and the whole Court against the Plaintiff If it had been brought upon the ancient Court it must be between two of the Houshold and they held that cost lay and the Exception was because the Plaintiff had not shewed the Grant to hold the Court. If a Bond be made to one and he doth not say in the Bond that it shall be paid to the Obligee in this case the Plaintiff must shew that it is to be paid to him though not expressed in the Bond. HOnne Executor of R. Hutton and E. May Pasch 40. Eliz. rotulo 433. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition that the above bound T. G. or his Heirs do or shall at any time before the Purification of the blessed Virgin which shall be in the year 1596. according to the Custome of the Mannour c. Surrender into the hands of the Lord of the same Mannour for the time being all those c. to the use of the said R. Hutton his Heirs and Assignes for ever in such wise as the said R. Hutton his Heirs and Assignes shall or lawfully may by the custome of the Mannour be admitted c. or if after such Admittance the Premises shall be recovered against the said Rich. his Heirs or Assignes by one W. K. within four years then if he shall pay upon notice c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff ought not to have his Action because the said R. Hutton after the making of the Bond and before the said Feast of the Purification which was in the year 1696. to wit the sixth of October 38 Eliz. at B. died The Plaintiff demurs and Judgement for the Plaintiff If one be indebted to one and he dieth intestate and after his Death Administration is committed to the Debtor this is no Release of the Debt If he marry the Executrix of the Debtee and the Executrix dieth the Husband shall be charged with the Debt after her Death VAughan versus Chambers Trin. 20. Eliz. rotulo 145. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond the Defendant pleads the Statute of Usury and shews a corrupt Agreement for Money lent in the year 32. to be paid in 33. and afterwards in 35. a new Bond given for part of the first summ and it was pretended that this Bond was void but it was adjudged because the first Bond was no Corruption the later should not be LEech Attorney versus Phillips Executor of Phillips rotulo 3415. An Action of Debt brought for soliciting a Cause in the upper Bench and it was adjudged by the whole Court that an Action of Debt for Solicitors Fees would not lie but ought to bring an Action of the Case and afterwards the Court held an Action of the Case would not lie PAsch 12. Jac. Grove versus Jourdain An Action of Debt brought against an Administrator who pleads that the intestate was indebted to him
by Obligation and that he retained the Money in his hands to satisfie the Debt The Plaintiff replies that the Money was not due and payable to him at the time of the Intestates Death and that he took Administration after the Day of Payment and if the Administrator had pleased he might have took Administration before the Day of Payment and the Court held the Defendants Plea good but he shall not have the Forfeiture CArrell versus Paske Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1018. Debt brought upon an Obligation made at C. in the County of Surry The Defendant pleads the Priviledge of Cambridge granted to them by the Queen Eliz. for Scholars Bachelours Masters and their Servants upon Contract made within the University and shews the Bond was made in Cambridge and that he was a Servant of the Scholars to wit Bailiff of Kings Colledge in that University and inhabiting within the Town of Cambridge and Precincts of that University and therefore a priviledged Person of the same and upon reading the Record it seemed that the Defendant being a Bailiff of the Colledge is not capable of the said Priviledge PReist versus Cee Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2197. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill bearing Date 17 Novomber 1604. by which Bill the Defendant did acknowledge himself to owe the Plaintiff 10. l. to be paid to the Plaintiff at two Payments to wit 5. l. to be paid upon the 19. of November then next following and other 5. l. to be paid upon the 10. Day of December then next following The Defendant pleads it was not his Deed. The Jury finde it specially that the Defendant the 17. of November 1604. sealed and delivered to the Plaintiff one Bill obligatory shewed to the Jury bearing Date the Day and Year above and finde the Bill in haec verba Be it known c. to be paid at two Payments that is to say 5. l. to be paid the 19. of November which is the present of this Moneth and the other 5. l. on the 10. of December The Question was whether the Bill maintain the Count for the first Payment and adjudged it did RAwdon versus Turton Trin. 13. Jac. 1011. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond for Payment of Money such a Day The Defendant pleads that he the same Day made an Obligation for the Payment of the said Money another Day which the Plaintiff accepted for the Money and Issue taken thereupon and tried for the Defendant and after the Verdict the Plaintiff moved the Court to have Judgement though the Verdict passed against him because the Plea was insufficient and that he confessed the Debt but the Court would not grant it The like Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1061. And the like Hill 12. Jac. CArter versus Freeman Mich. 13. Jac. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition that the Defendant should appear before the King at a certain Day Videlicet Die Jovis post Octobras Martini and upon a Nul tiel Record pleaded the Defendant brought his Record of Appearance Lunae post xvam Martini and this was held by the whole Court an Appearance at the Day in the Condition by the whole Court GRubham versus Thornborough Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1773. An Action of Debt brought for Rent and for a Nomine penae the Rent due 14 November Anno 9. and no name alleadged for the Nomine penae therefore the Action would not lie for the Nomine penae but it would for Rent PAsch 44. Eliz. Elliot versus Golding An Action of Debt brought and Judgement given for the Plaintiff and a space was left in the Roll for the Costs of the Judgement and after the Year and a Day a Scire facias was brought to revive the Judgement and in the Scire facias the Costs are put in and so Judgement by Default and afterwards a Writ of Error brought and the Error was assigned because there were no Costs put into the principal Roll and afterwards the Record was removed the Count was moved that Costs might be put into the Roll but it was denied upon the first motion and afterwards Pasch 13. Jac. it was denied by the whole Court BOnd versus Green Administrator An Action of Debt brought against him as Administrator he pleads divers Judgements amounting to 670. l. and the Assignement of 100. l. Debt to the King by Deed inrolled and he pleaded that he retained his Debt in his hands and he might have given this in Evidence or pleaded it at the Liberty of the Defendant COoper versus Bacon Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for Tithes and the Plaintiff declares that one was seised of the Rectory of Elveley alias Kirkley in Kingston upon Hull in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised such a Day and such a Day at Elveley alias Kirkley did demise to the Plaintiff the said Rectory with the Appurtenances to have and to hold c. for years and that by vertue thereof he hath been and is thereof possessed and that the Defendant such a Day and before and alwayes afterwards hitherto had held and occupied 30. Acres of Land in Swandland in Kingston in a place called T. and that the Tithes did belong to him The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and after a Verdict it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Issue was mis-tried because the Venire facias was of Elveley alias Kirkley and it should have been of Swandland where the Tithes grew CHapman versus Pescod Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 2106. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to give and grant to him his Heirs and Assignes The Defendant pleads that he hath been ready to give and grant and adjudged naught for he must plead that he did it otherwise it had been if the words had been as Councel should devise MAncester versus Draper Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 2613. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition to pay Money if C. R. shall be then living and shall before the same 20. Day of O. by due form and course in Law perfect levy and knowledge a Fine and a Recovery before his Majesties Justices of his Highness Court of Common Pleas of and in certain Houses and Tenements with the Appurtenances which the said Draper lately had and purchased of the said C. R. the Defendant pleads that C. R. was living and did not levy c. and a Demurrer and the Question was whether Draper or Ro. should levy the Fine and held that Draper should levy the Fine BAker versus Pain Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 3139. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond to pay Rent and perform all the Covenants Grants Payments and Conditions contained in a pair of Indentures and the Defendant pleads the Indenture and performance thereof The Plaintiff assignes the Breach that the Defendant had not paid the Money The
Defendant replies that the Plaintiff had entred into part of the Premises the Day before the Day of Payment and so at Issue upon that and Exception was taken because the Plaintiff had alledged no Demand to be made and the Court held that was implied by the Issue and that it was not necessary FRyer Administrator of Mary Costiden of the Goods not administred by Mary Fryer Executrix of the said M. C. versus Jacobum Gildiich Executor of N. Pope Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1990. The case was this two were bound to one and the Obligee makes the Wife of one of the Obligers his Executrix and one of the Obligers makes the same Woman Executrix and she dies and the Plaintiff takes Administration of the Goods of the Woman not administred and Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court If an Executor hath a Lease and purchaseth the Fee-simple the Lease is gone but it shall be Assets in the Executors hands if a persnal thing be once gone it is extinct for ever If the Husband had survived the Wife he should be charged HArcock Executor of Harcock versus Wrenham Administrator of Wrenham Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1963. A Scire facias brought to revive a Judgement had against the Intestate and the Defendant pleads Plene administravit which was held a naughty Plea by the whole Court for he cannot pay so much as Funerals before he pay the Judgement and therefore that general fully administred is naught The Jury found that the Intestate in trust conveyed one Lease to Fisher and that Fisher promised upon the Payment of 300. l. to re-assure the Interest to Wrenham and after his Death the Administrator the Defendant preferred a Bill in the Chancery as Administrator against Fisher and that the Chancery ordered that Fisher should pay the Defendant for his Interest in the Lease more then the summ received the summ of 1060. l. which was paid the Defendant accordingly and whether that should be Assets was the Question and it was held to be Assets If an Executor make gain of the Testators Money that gain shall be Assets the Doubt in this case was because this was but in Use and now whether the Court shall take notice of this Use they shall being found by the Jury Judgements shall be paid before Statutes or Recognances and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and although in this case the Barr of generally administred be naught yet an Issue taken thereupon and tried shall not arrest the Judgement for the Plaintiff PEase and Stilman Executors Hanchet against E. Meade Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 945. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition if Meade his Executors Administrators or Assignes or any of them shall pay 20. l. within the Porch of the Parish Church of R. unto such person or persons as the said Hanchet shall by her last Will and Testament in writing limit nominate or appoint the same to be made in manner c. The Defendant pleads that the said Hanchet by her last Will and Testament in writing hath not nominated limited or appointed to what person or persons the said 20. l. should be paid The Plaintiff replies and sues that the Testator made him Executor and died and that he took upon him the burden of the Will and that the Defendant did not pay the Executor the Money and a Demurrer thereupon And if it had been to pay to her Assignee that she should name the Executor should have it such things as go by way of Executorship shall be to the Executor without nomination or appointment STannard versus Baxster Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 1123. An Action of Debt brought for Damages recovered in an Assise of Nuzans for stopping the way before special Commissioners The Defendant pleads no such Record and the Record was delivered into the Court by the special Commissioners TRin. 8. Jac. rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition for performance of Covenants of an Indenture The Defendant confesses the Bond and that after the making the Bond and before the purchasing the Plaintiffs Writ the Indenture by the consent and assent of Plaintiff and Defendant was cancelled and the said Plaintiff cancelled the said Indenture and it was held a naughty Plea by the said Court for it did appear but that the Bond might be forfeited For he ought to have pleaded performance of Covenants untill such a Day which Day the Indenture was cancelled BRook versus Smith Hill 9. Jacobi rotulo 829. Two Tenements in Common make a Lease and reserve a Rent and Covenant that neither should release and one of them releaseth his part this is a Breach for that in Debt they both should joyn and now by the Release the Action is gone LAny versus Aldred and another Executor Trin. 10. Jac. vel Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 504. An Action of Debt brought against them as Executors one pleads that he was Administrator and that the Administration was committed to him by the Bishop and pleads a Recovery against him as Administrator and that he had fully administred and had no Assets to satisfie the Judgement and the other Executor acknowledged the Action and the Plea was held a good Plea but it was said the Defendant might have defeated the Action which was brought against him as Executor and therefore they would infer that it was no good Plea but it was a good Plea and it was held by the chief Justice that if an Executor of his own wrong be sued with a rightfull Executor in one Writ the Executor of his own wrong shall not by his Plea prejudice the rightfull Executor MArsh versus Curtis Hill 38. Eliz. rotulo 132. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for performance of Covenants in a Lease upon which Rent is reserved and the Condition was that if the Rent should be behinde then lawfull to re-enter and the Rent was behinde and before re-entry the Rent was accepted The Question was whether he may enter for the Condition broken after the acceptance of the Rent Sir Edward Cook was of opinion that by the acceptance of the Rent he did confirm the Estate but if a Bond be entred into to perform Covenants in a Lease whereupon Rent is reserved and a Fine to be paid with a Condition of re-entry for not paying the Rent or Fine and if the Rent be received and the Fine not paid the acceptance of the Rent doth not take away the Condition for not paying the Fine R. Milton versus R. Pearsey Trin. 10. Iacobi rotulo 445. An Action of Debt brought and in the Venire facias the Defendants name was mistaken for the Venire was to impannell a Jury between R. Milton Plaintiff and I. Pearsey Defendant in a Plea of Debt and the Court held the Venire as none and a new Triall awarded and the like Judgement was given Trin. 7. Iacobi rotulo 787.
to seal and he refused and upon such Refusall the Plaintiff brought his Action and a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff ought not to have Judgement for he said that the Defendant was not bound and compellable to seal that Obligation because it was not in Law any Assurance but a collateral thing and the whole Court agreed that and therefore being the Action was brought for refusing to seal the Obligation and Letter of Attorney and the Judgement according it ought to be arrested but Cock said that Judgement ought not to be arrested for the Premises of the Delaration it appeared that he refused to seal the Letter of Attorney and thereupon concluded that it should not be arrested and Fennor said that the Letter of Attorney was not any such Assurance as the Law required in such Case for when he had made the Surrender it should be accounted the Surrender of him that made the Assurance and he said he should make a present Assurance of it but Tanfeild was of another opinion and said that when the Surrender was made it shall be said to be the immediate Surrender of him that made the Letter of Atturney and such an assurance as the Law required and Yelverton Justice said the Letter of Atturney was lame for this cause the Letter of Atturney was made to one for the surrendring of such a Copy-hold and did not say in the Letter of Atturney for him and in his name for otherwise the Copy-hold might be the Copy-hold of him that surrendred by vertue of the Letter of Atturney and then he should surrender his own Copy-hold but Tanfeild was of another opinion because he said in the Letter of Atturney that he did constitute and appoint and in his stead and place put such a one which words in his stead and place are as full as if he should have said in his name HOllingworth versus Huntley Pasch 5 Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation the Condition amongst many other things contained that the Husband and Wife being Lessees for life of certain Lands that if the said Husband and Wife should levy a Fine to an estranger at the Costs and Charges of an estranger and also that they should levy a Fine of other Lands that they also held for their lives to an estranger and at their Charge then c. the Obliger sayes that the Husband and Wife did offer to levy the Fine if the estranger to whom the Fine was to be delivered would bear their Charges the Obligee demurres and it was adjudged for the Plaintiffe because the levying the second Fine had not any reference to the other because they are two distinct sentences and these words and also make them so Man versus Somerton Pasch 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe being Parson of Henley brought an action of Debt for six hundred pounds upon the Statute of 〈◊〉 6. for not setting forth Tithe of Wood and the Plaintiffe shews that the Defendant had cut down two hundred loads of Wood to the value of two hundred pounds and saith the tenth part of that did amount to two hundred pounds and so he brought his action for six hundred pounds upon the Statute and the Plaintiffe was nonsuit for one fault in his Declaration for whereas he names the price of the Wood to be two hundred pounds it was mistaken for it should have been two thousand pounds for he demanded more for the tenth part then the principall is by his own shewing and Tanfeild Justice held that Beech by the common Law is not Timber and so it was adjudged in Cary and Pagets Case and it was held that Tithes shall not be paid for Beech above the growth of twenty years in a common Countrey for Wood as in Buckingham-shire for there it is reputed Timber but in a plentifull Countrey of Wood it is otherwise for there it is not Timber and Tithes shall be paid for such wood Silva cedua for which Tithes shall be paid is under the growth of twenty years but Tithes shall be paid for such wood which is not Timber which is above the growth of twenty years PErcher versus Vaughan Trin. 5. Jac. An action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for six pounds thirteen shillings eight pence The Defendant demands Oyer of the Obligation and imparles and after an imparlance the Defendant comes and sayes there was variance between the Plaintiffes writ and the Obligation for it appeared by the Obligation that the Defendant was obliged in viginti nobilis and so his action ought to be brought according to the Obligation and demands Judgement if the Plaintiffe ought to have his action the Plaintiffe demurres and it was argued by the Plaintiffes counsell first that it was no variance for it was said that twenty nobles and six pounds thirteen shillings eight pence were all one in substance if a man be bound to pay a hundred nobles and brings his action for fifty marks it is not variance 34 H. 8. 12. and 4 E. 3. Fitzherbert Title varians 102. agrees to that but if a man be obliged to pay certain money in Flemish money he ought to shew the performance of that strictly 9 Ed. 4. 49. and the Plaintiffes counsell said that it was variance it could not be shewed after an Imparlance in Marks Case Co. 5. 74. and said the conclusion of the Defendants Plea to demand Judgement of the Plaintiffe ought to have his action was not good for this Plea was not in barr of the action but in abatement of the Writ and Yelverton Justice agreed to that and he said when the Obligation was in viginti nobilis it shall be intended twenty nobles and good Tanfeild said that when there is no good and apt Latine words for a thing no unapt Latine word is put in the Bond for that thing the Bond is void as when a man is bound in quinque libris it it was adjudged in Mich. Term 5 Jac. that the Obligation was void because there was a fit Latine word and that was quinque and so it was adjudged in the Lord Danvers Case where the Indictment for one blow super capud and it was held void because it was an unapt word and there was a fit and apt word to wit Caput and VVilliams agreed to this for he said it was adjudged in the common Pleas between Pencrosse and Tout a man was bound in a Bond in viginti literis when it should have been viginti libris and adjudged void for the same cause but after in Hillary Term the Plaintiffe had Judgement because in one Dictionary nobilis was a Latine word for six shillings eight pence VEntris versus Farmer Trin. 5. Jacobi A Lease was made for years rendering Rent payable at a place of the Land and the Court was moved whether a Demand of the Rent may not be made upon the Land but denied by the
of Clanrickard with whom Yelverton was of Councel it was resolved that if the Issue be upon the custome of Tithing and that it be found against the Defendant he shall pay the value expressed by the Plaintiff in his Declaration for because by the collateral matter pleaded in Barr the Declaration is in whole confessed SMith versus Smith Trin. 6 Jacobi one Bisse made K. his Wife and John his Sonne being one year old Executors and K. solely proved the Will and afterwards married the Plaintiff and they two brought an Action of Debt as Executors against the Defendant and the Defendant pleads in abatement of the Bill that John was made Executor with K. and is yet in life and not named the Plaintiffes reply that John was but of the age of one year and that K. proved the Will and had Administration committed to her during the minority and that John is and was at the time of the Writ purchased within the age of seventeen years and upon that Yelverton demurred and adjudged for the Defendant that the Bill should abate for both of them in truth were Executors and ought to be named in the Action and although by the Administration granted during the minority K. had the full power yet the Infant ought to be named he being Executor GOmersall versus Ask Trin. 6. Iacobi The Defendant brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of her Husband upon two former Judgements given in two Actions of Debt against the intestate and shews the recoveries the Defendant pleads that the intestate entred into a recognisance 35 El. in Chancery to Sir Henry Bechel and shows that after the Judgements had by the Plaintiff Sir H. obtained a Judgement against the intestate upon the Recognisance and that she hath not assets to satisfie the Plaintiff of the intestates Goods beyond Goods that are chargeable and liable to the Judgement upon the Recognisance to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and by Fennor and Williams justifies the Plea in Barr was good for although the Plaintiffes Judgements mentioned in his Actions are before Sir H. Judgement yet because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not demand Execution of the Judgements but onely his Debt recovered for this Action brought it as an originall and in the same Court as if he did demand the Debt upon the first Obligation and therefore because the Plaintiff had not sued out a Scire facias to execute the first Judgements but had prosecuted a new originall the Plea is good and allowable as it had been upon the said Obligation but Yeluerton and Fleming were of a contrary opinion for the Plea had not been good against the intestate himself and the Executor or Administrator represents his person and therefore the Plea is not good but onely in excuse of a Devastavit and they were of opinion that the Action brought by the Plaintiff was in nature of a Scire facias for he demanded the Debt in another course then it was at first for that Debt which was but matter of escript is now become by the Judgement to be Debt upon Record and of so high a nature that the Judgement being in Force he can never have an Action upon the Obligation which is adjuged in Higgins Case Co. 6 Rep. but Cook doubted and the Plaintiff dying the Court did not resolve APleton versus Baily Mich. 6. Jacobi Apleton as Executor of Apleton brought an Action of Debt against Baily for the Arrerages of diverse Rents as well Copy-hold Rents as Free-hold Rents pertaining to a Mannor whereof the Testator was seised and thereof died seised and the Rents were not paid to him in his life time by reason whereof they belonged to the Plaintiff as Executor And the Defendant though he was requested had not paid against the form of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. And the Court that the Action did not ly for the Arrerages of Copy-hold Land for the Statute of the 32 H. 8. doth not extend to them but only to Rents out of Free Land Secondly It lies not for the Rent of free Land because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that the Defendant had attorned to the Testator in his life And although in pleading it is good to alledge a Feoffment of a Mannor without pleading any Livery or of any Attornment of Tenements but when the Rent of any Free-hold Land comes in Debate it behoves both the Owner of the Mannor and and his Executor that demands it to convey the privity between the Tenant and the Lord which ought to be by attornment for Rents and Services rest not without Attornment which mark PEirson versus Ponuteis Mich. 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Executor of Peirson brought an Action of Debt against Jo. Ponuties of London Merchant that he should render to him three and thirty pounds twelve shillings in that the Defendant 5. Oct. 1598. at London c. By his Bill obligatory hath acknowledged himself to owe to the Testator 1518. Florens Polish which then amounted to thirty three pounds twelve shillings to be paid to the Testator Ad solucionem festi purificat c. Called Candlemas day next insuing and to that payment had obliged himself by the same Bill And the Plaintiff avers that Predicti soluciones dicti festi purificat c. Next after the making the Bill were according to the use of Merchants the twentieth of February 1598. Yet the Defendant had not paid the 1518. Florence Polish or the thirty three pounds twelve s. to the Testator nor to the Plaintiff The Defendant pleads Non est factum and found against him and moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good because first the payment of Candlemas is not known in our Law but that was not allowed for that which is unknown in ordinary intendment is made manifest and helped by the Averment in the declaration because that payment among Merchants is known to be upon the twentieth of February and the Judges ought to take notice of those things that are used amongst Merchants for the maintenance of traffick and the rather because the Defendant doth not deny it but pleads non factum by which he confesses the Declaration to be true in that averment Secondly it was objected that as the Case is the use of Merchants is not materiall because the Testator by any thing that appears was not a Merchant but it was not allowed because the defendant that bound himself to pay was a Merchant and the Testator ought to take the Bill as the defendant would make it and he chose to make the payment according to the use of Merchants and not according to the Ordinary intercourse between party and party which mark this by the whole Court TAlbot versus Godbold Mich. 6. Jac. Godbold 28 Eliz. sealed a Bill to the Plaintiff made in this manner memorandum that I have received of Edw. Talbot who was the Plaintiffes Testator to the
that the Sheriffes of London had returned quindena Martini which is before the eight and twentieth of November that the Defendant had nothing in London which seemed to be contrary to the Record yet that is not materiall but makes the matter more vitious for it may well be that since the Judgement was Crastino animarum a Testatum might not issue out returnable Quindena Martini and it shall be the Plaintiffes fault that he did not file it and it shall be presumed to be such a Writ as the Plaintiffs own Processe doth recite and note that the whole Court did adjudge in this Case that Goodier should be restored to the Term again and although it was valued by the Jury but at a hundred pounds and delivered to Jounce the Plaintiff to hold as his own Goods and Chattells yet Goodier shall have it again from Jounce for he being the party himself it is in Law but a bare delivery in specie and therefore ought to be restored in specie again and doth not absolutely alter the property but attends upon the Execution to be good or naught as the Execution is and so it was adjudged before in Robothams Case and also in Worrells Case as Mr. Noy said to Yelverton but it had been otherwise if the sute had been to an estranger by the Sheriff of the Term for a hundred pounds according to the opinion of 28 Eliz. Dy. for it is the parties folly that he doth not pay the Judgement and if such sales should be made void none would buy Goods of the Sheriff by reason whereof many Ex ecutions would remain undone and this by the opinion of the whole Court SMith versus Newsam and his Wife Mich. 6 Jacobi The Plaintiff as Son and Heire of Geo. S. his father brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant for twenty Marks and declares that his father April the twenty seventh 25 Eliz. leased to the Defendant one house c. in B. in the County of Bedford from Michaelmas next following for one and twenty years yielding and paying during the Term if the Father should so long live thirty pounds at our Lady day and Michaelmas by equall portions and yeelding and paying to the Heires and Assignes of the Father after his death twenty Marks at the Termes aforesaid by vertue whereof the Defendant entred and occupied from Michaelmas 35 Eliz. c. the Father dyed the fourth of May 7 Jur. at B. and because twenty Marks for a half years Rent were behinde the Action was brought the Defendant demurred to the Declaration and adjudged against the Plaintiff for the clause by which the Court is reserved to the Heirs gives but twenty Marks for the whole year and not twenty Marks every a year and therefore the Plaintiff had mistaken his demand in suing for twenty Marks for one half year for these words ad Terminos praedictos are onely the time of payment of the twenty Marks which were to be paid as the thirty pounds were and although in the clause that reserved the Rent to the Heirs the words by equall portions were omitted yet the Law will supply them as it is in the 13 H. 9. Avowry 2. 40. Rent granted to be taken at two Termes of the year and they named it shall be intended by equall portions although the Deed makes mention of that for the reservation being the Act of the Lessor shall be taken most strongly against him and his Heirs and therefore shall have but twenty Marks for all the whole year and no more as in Perkins 22 two tenements in common make a Lease rendring ten shillings it shall be five shillings to each of them March 171. according to it the second cause of the Judgement was because the Plaintiff brought this Action as Heire to his Father and doth not shew in his Declaration that the Reversion descends to him and the Rent demanded is incident to the Reversion discended and so the Plaintiff doth not make any Title to have the Rent which mark and Judgement was given that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Bill NEale versus Sheffeild Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 782. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an obligation for fourteen pounds the condition was that if the Defendant should pay seven pounds to the Plaintiff upon the birth-day of the Child of John living which God shall send after the Date of the Bond then c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff after the making of the Obligation and before the birth of any Infant of the said J. living to wit the 1. September 7. Jacobi was indebted to the Defendant in one load of Lime to be delivered upon request and the same day it was agreed between them at L. that if the Defendant would discharge the Plaintiff of the said load of Lime that then in consideration thereof the Plaintiff would discharge the Defendant of the said Obligation and would accept the said load of Lime which the Plaintiff accepted in discharge of the Obligation and did then acquit the Defendant of the said Obligation and demands Judgement to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two causes first because the Defendant had pleaded his Barr in discharge of the Obligation whereas he should have pleaded it in discharge of the same contained in the Condition of the Obligation for it is not a Debt simply by the Obligation but the performance or breach of the Condition makes it to be a Debt for the Obligation is proved by the Condition so that if the Condition be not discharged the Obligation remains in his force and the matter in the Barr is not pleaded in discharge of the Condition but of the Obligation and therefore it is not good which mark Secondly it appears that the Condition it self cannot be discharged for the seven pounds is not due nor payable untill the Birth of the Childe of John living which is a meer Contingency and remote possibility whether he shall ever have a Childe or no and therefore it resting in Contingency whether it will ever be a Debt or no it cannot be discharged for a possibility cannot be released as it hath been adjudged in Carters Case and it is not to be resembled to the Case where the Condition is to pay Money at a Day to come for that may be discharged presently for it is presently a Duty although it be not demandable untill the Day and therefore because it cannot be known whether the Day will ever come wherein John will have a Childe and because it is no Debt nor Duty therefore it cannot be discharged by the opinion of the whole Court DOdson versus Keyes Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation for ten pounds and declares that the Defendant 23. Octob. 1608. at M. became bound to the Plaintiff in ten pounds to be paid upon request the Defendant demands Oyer of the Obligation which
Puttenhams Case the Reason because he was not in Execution before And for the second Objection although the Capias did not lie yet it is but Error for if the Court had Jurisdiction to hold plea of the Cause although the Process be naughtily awarded it is but Error of which the Sheriff shall not take benefit and therefore if a Woman have recovered in Dower and hath Damages in the Common Pleas and thereupon the party takes a Capias for the Damages and the party be taken and suffered to go at large it is an Escape 10 Hen. 7. 23. and if a Capias be awarded in the Common Pleas after the Record removed it is but Error and so ruled 13 E. 3. Title Barr 253. But if the Court hath no Jurisdiction in the cause as a Formedon brought in the upper Bench as it is 1 R. 3. 4. or an Appeal in the Common Pleas or where a Writ is awarded out of the Chancery returnable in Chester these are void and coram non Judice and there ought not to be any arrest upon such a Writ and he cited a Case Trin. 31. and 37. Eliz. in the Exchequer Woodhouse and Ognells Case ruled accordingy and as concerning the difference taken there is no other form of pleading but only quod prosecutus fuit quoddam c. without saying that it was by the award of the Court and the Court at that time did strongly incline that it was but Error at the most but Mich. 11 Ja. It was adjudged by the whole Court that the Capias could not ly and that it was onely Error of which the Sheriffe shall not take the benefit KKetleys Case Pasch 11 Jac. An Action of Debt brought for arrearages of Rent brought against R. upon a Lease for years the Defend pleads in Barr that the time of the Lease made he was within age to which the Plaintiff demurres and upon the first reading of the Record the question was whether a Lease made to an Infant be void and it was said it should be void otherwise it might be very prejudiciall to Infants whom the Law intends not to be of sufficient discretion for the mannaging of Land and also the Rent may be greater then the value of the Land to the great impoverishing of the Infant and took this difference where it is for the apparant benefit of the Infant a sa Lease made by an Infant rendring Rent and the like and when it is but an implied benefit as here for the Law intends that every Lease is made for the benefit of the Lessee although prima facie it seems to be but tail and trouble but the Court held it onely voidable as Election for if it be to the Infants benefit be that benefit apparant or implied it shall be void in no Case prima facie as 21 H. 6. 31. b. but the Infant may at his Election make it void for he shall before the Rent day come refuse and waive the Land an Action of Debt will not ly against him for otherwise such a Lease shall be more strong then any Fine or Record and great mischeif would insue and as to the prejudice it well be answered for if more Rent be reserved then the value of the Land he ought to have set it forth that it might have appeared to the Court which is not done for then clearly he should not have been bound for there had been no profit to the Infant as Russells Case is 5 Rep. 27. for if an Infant release it is not good except he hath received the money and it also appears by 21 H. 6. that if he did not enter and manure the Land that an Action of Debt would not ly against him but the principall Case was without colour for the Rent and taking the profits were Land as one day of the Reservation and secondly it was not shewed that the Rent was of greater value and thirdly the Defendant was of full age before the Rent day came HIggins Case Pasch 11 Jac. Action of Debt brought by Higgins against Yelverton was of an opinion at the Barr that if one be arrested upon a Processe in that Court and he puts in Bail and afterwards the Plaintiff recovers that he might at his Election take out his Execution either against the principall or Bail but if he took the Bail or arrested him or had him in Execution for the Debt although he had not full satisfaction he could not meddle with the Plaintiff but if two be Bail although one bee in Execution yet he may take the other also and Coderidge Justice was of the same opinion and Man the secondary said it was the daily practice there and so if the principall be in Execution he cannot take the Bail HAukinson versus Sandilands 11 Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation for forty pounds against the Defendant who demanded Oyer of the Condition and afterwards pleads that the Obligation was made and delivered by him and one M. who is still living at D and demands Judgement of the Writ to which the Plaintiff demnrres the words of the Obligation were Noverint universi c. adquam solucionem bene fideliter faciend Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum And whether this was should be accounted a Writ Obligation or Severall at the Election of the Plaintiffe was the question and Ger. Cook was of opinion that it should be brought against both and his onely reason was that at most the Plaintiffe had but an Election for the word vel could not be taken for et as it is 11 H. 7. 13. a Grant made to J. S. at J. D. is void and 20 H. 6. grant to two to them or to the Heires of one of them is not good and then if he had only an Election he hath made that already for the Defendant hath pleaded and averred that is was made by two joyntly by the appearance whereof he hath agreed to take it accordingly but Yelverton argued in this manner that although the words in an Obligation be not proper and apt yet if they be substantiall it is enough and therefore 28 H. 8. 19. utrumque nostrum is adjudged good and the 21 R. 2. 939. ad quam quidem solucionem obligamus nos singulos nostrum is adjudged severall and joint and for a direct authority he cited 7 H. 4. 66. where an Obligation was nos vel alterum nostrum and the Plaintiff brought severall Precipes and adjudged good that he might make it severall or joynt and all the Judges were clearly of an opinion that the Action was well brought for as it hath been said the Plaintiff had his Election and that Election would be said to be executed by the joynt Delivery for there was no cause to make Election untill the Bond was perfected and therefore though one delivers it at one time and the other at another yet the Plaintiff may have a caput Precipe if he
will for the Election is in bringing the Action and the words vel and are but Synonimaes and Champions Case Plowden 286. is taken for vel and the 21 E. 3. 29. in Mallories Case u is taken for and therefore they gave Judgement that the Defendant should answer over FReeman versus Shield Trin. 11 Jacobi and adjudged Pasch 12 Jacobi Freeman brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Shield and proved Oyer of the Condition which was that if the Defendant should stand to the Award and Arbitrement of J. S. that then c. the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators awarded that whereas there was no suit in the Chancery depending against the Plaintiff for divers matters that the Plaintiff should be acquitted of that suit and of all the matters contained in the same Bill and the Defendant further alledges that he did not make any prosecution of the said Bill but that the Plaintiff stands acquitted thereof the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant after the said Award such a year and day did exhibit a new Bill which did contain the same matter which the first Bill had and set forth at large both the Bills by which it appeared to the Court that it was so to which Plea the Defendant Demurres and the cause of the Demurrer onely was because the Plaintiff had pleaded that the Defendant had exhibited a new Bill but had not alledged any Processe taken forth upon the same Bill and if this be a breach of the award is the question Govin was for the Plaintiff and he was of opinion that it was a breach for the words were quod staret acquietatus and to be acquitted is not onely to be intended of an actuall disturbance or molestation but if the party be put in fright or is liable to any Processe it is a breach 8 Ed. 4. 27. a Condition to save one harmlesse if a Capias be awarded against him although it be not executed yet it is a forfeiture of the Bond nay though it was never delivered to the Sheriff for otherwise the Plaintiff should be in continuall care trouble for fear lest the Defendant should do it and so the Defendant may dally with him a long time which shal be mischievous therefore it may be resembled to 9 H. 7. where if a man sell a thing with warranty to pay for it at a day to come if the thing sold be corrupt the party may have his Action of deceit before the day of payment because it is in the others power to bring his Action and so it is in the Defendants power to serve the Plaintiff with Processe when he pleases and therefore it is a breach Coventry for the Defendant first because it is no such Process as can prejudice for neither goods nor Body shall be taken and therefore is not like the Cases before cited And secondly it is not such a process as our law respects or regards for a Bill is but as a Petition Haughton Justice was of the same opinion with the rest of the Judges but adjourned untill Hill 11. Jac. and an Exception taken because the Defendant had not answered the Declaration for the Condition is that he should be acquitted the Defendant pleaded that he hath been acquitted and Cook was of opinion that it was good and Pasch 12. Jac. Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court KIpping versus Swain Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against Swain upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and declares whereas the Plaintiff being Proprietor of the Rectory of B. in the County of c. for the term of seven years and that the Defendant was Occupier of Lands within the same Parish for six moneths by a Devise made the tenth of March Anno decimo Jacobi And that the Defendant 27. Aug. the year aforesaid did cut his Corn there growing and that the tenth of September then next following the Defendant being Subdit dicti Domini Regis carried away the said Corn not setting out the Tenth according to the Statute and upon a Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement first because of the Plaintiffs own shewing he had no cause of Action against the Defendant for the interest of the Defendant in the Land was determined before the Tithes were carried away but the Court were of opinion that it was no Exception for although his interest in the Land was gone yet he remained Owner of the Corn for if Corn is cut although a stranger take them away before severance yet an Action will lie against him upon this Statute for otherwise the intent of the Statute may easily be defeated Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff said he was Subdit dicti Domini Regis which is a Fault incurable for the Statute referrs Subdit to his politick capacity but Dicti goes to his natural and sole capacity and so the force of the Statute shall be determined by his Death and for this cause an Indictment upon the 8 H. 6. Contra pacem dicti Domini had been severall times reversed and of this opinion were three Judges but Haughton doubted of it and so it was adjourned PEnniworth versus Blawe Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation and prayed Oyer of the Condition which was that he should stand to the Arbitrement of J. S. of all Suites Quarrels Controversies and Debates from the beginning of the World untill the making the Obligation so that the Award be made in writing under the hand and seal of N. S. and should be delivered to the parties before such a Day c. and observe that the Sealing and Delivery of the Obligation was at twelve a clock the first of May the Defendant pleads in Barr that the Arbitrators made an Award and did deliver that to the parties above-said but said further that in the morning and before twelve a clock the first of May aforesaid one Debate and Controversie did arise between the parties concerning a Trespasse committed by the Plaintiff the same morning of which the Defendant gave notice to the Arbitrator before twelve a clock of the said first of May concerning which Trespasse the Arbitrator made no Award and therefore pretends the Award to be void and demands Judgement to which the Plaintiff demurrs and Yelverton being for the Plaintiff that the Plea was not any Answer to the Plaintiff and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiffs Action is grounded upon an Obligation as single and the thing which helps the Defendant is the Condition indorsed to stand to the Award of S. the which is restrained so that it be delivered under the hand and seal and if the Defendant will plead the Condition against the Plaintiff he must plead it to be performed and executed according to the Submission by the
for the intent of a Will must be certain and agreeable to Law and there must not an intent out of the words of the will be sought out and the whole Court held that the Plaintiff was barred YOung versus Radford Pasch 10 Jacobi Rotulo 1515. Action upon an Ejectment brought and the Jury found a speciall Verdict and the Case was that Elizabeth Rudford was possessed of a house full thirty years and she took a Husband the Husband and Wife morgage the Term the Wife dies and the Husband redeems the Land and marries another wife and then dies and makes his Wife Executrix and she maries the Lessor The Defendant takes Administration of the Goods of the first Woman and it was held void and Judgement for the Plaintiff PEttison versus Reel Pasch 12 Jacobi Rotulo 2350. An ejectment brought and Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff and exception taken in arrest of Judgement to the Venire Facias because this word Juratum was omitted for the Writ was posuerunt se in illam and omitted the word Juratum and this was amended by the Court. When a Title is to be tryed upon an Ejectment and a Lease to be executed by Letter of Attorney the course is this that the Lessor do seal the Lease onely and the Letter of Attorney and deliver the Letter of Attorney but not the Lease for the Attorney must deliver that upon the Land and upon an Ejectruent brought of Lands in two villages of a house and forty Acres of Land in A. and B. and a speciall Entry in the Land adjoyning to the house to wit the putting in of a Horse which was drove out of the Land by the Defendant and this was adjudged a good Entry for the Land in both the Villages by the opinion of the whole Court ARden versus Mich. 12 Jacobi The Plaintiff delivers that whereas such a day and year at Curdworth in the said County did demise to the Plaintiff two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in the Parish of C. and the Venire facias was of the Parish of C. and after a verdict exception was taken because it was not of Curdworth but it was adjudged good by the Court and to prove the Lease made Lanheston an Attorney swear that the Lessor sealed the Lease and subscribed it but did not deliver it and by word gave authority to one W. to enter into the Land and to deliver the Lease upon the Land to the Plaintiff as his Deed and by that authority he entred and delivered the Lease as his Deed to the Plaintiff and it was adjudged good MArsh versus Sparry Hill 14 Jacobi Rotulo 1859. An Ejectment brought ex dimissione G. W. and the Originall was made ex divisione and after a Triall Serjeant Hitchaw moved the Court that the Originall might be amended and make ex dimissione and the Court granted it and the Cursitor was ordered to amend it and also in the end of the Originall it was written Barnabiam and it should have been Barnabas and that also was ordered to be amended by the Court. CRadock versus Jones Trin. 14 Jacobi Rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought upon a Demise made by Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and a Challenge to the Sheriff and prayes a Venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is cozen to the Plaintiff and shews how and because the Defendant did not deny it a Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners and after a verdict it was alledged in arrest of Judgement because it was not a principall Challenge and a Venire facias de novo awarded to the Sheriff PArkin versus Parkin 13 Hill Jacobi Rotulo 979. And Ejectment brought and verdict and after a Triall Exception taken to pleading of a Deed inrolled the Action was brought in the County of York and pleaded thus ut infra sex menses tunc proximos sequent coram milite uno Justic c. in West-Riding Com. Eborum ad pacem c. conservand Assign W. C. Clerico pacis ibidem debito modo de Recor. irrotulat and Exception was because the inrollment was not made according to the Form of the Statute because it did not appear that the Justice before whom the Deed was inrolled was a Justice of the Peace of the County of York but of the West-Riding and it was not alledged that the Land did ly in the West-Riding and note that the Defendants Plea in Barr was insufficient because the Defendant did not confesse nor avoid the Count and the Plaintif by his Replication doth not shew any Title to the Land because it did not passe by the inrollment and so he hath lost his Suit and although the Barr be insufficient yet notwitstanding the Plaintif shall not recover GReenely versus Passy Hill 5 Iacobi Rotulo 808. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Jury found it Specially that one Woodhouse was seised of Land in Fee and did infeof the Husband and Wife to have and to hold to the said Husband and Wife and the Heirs of their bodies between them to be begotten by vertue of which Feofment the Husband and Wife were seised of the whole Land in Fee Tail to wit c. the Husband infeofs the youngest Sonne of the land in Fee and afterwards the Husband dies and the woman survives and afterwards she dies before any Entry by her made into the Land and further find the lessor to be the eldest son of their bodies and that the younger Son infeoffed the Defendant and afterwards the eldest Sonne entred into the Land and made the lease in the Declaration and whether the Entry of the eldest Son was lawfull or no was the question upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. that Fines or Feoffements made by the Husband c. during coverture be or make any discontinuance c. or be hurtfull to the said wife or her Heirs and Sir Edward Cook held that the Heir is not barred of his Entry by the Statute PAcy versus Knollis Trin. 6. Iacobi Rotulo 291. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found it Specially and the question is upon the words of the Will to wit And I give to Katharine my Wife all the Profits of my Houses and Lands lying and being in the Parish of Billing and L. at a certain street there called Broke-street and the Jury found that there was not any Village or Hamlet in the said County called Billing and that the Land supposed to be devised lieth in Byrling-street no mans verbal Averment shall be taken or admitted to be contrary to the Will which is expresly set out in the Will If I have two Thomas to my Sonnes and I give it to Thomas it shall be intended my youngest Son because my eldest Son should have it by Discent the Will was held by all the Court to be good HEllam versus Ley Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 2718.
A special Verdict in an Ejectione firme the Question was upon the words of the Will which were that her Husband had given all to her and nothing from her and whether these words imply a consent and so an Agreement to the Devise of the Husband or no. And Foster Warburton and Walmsley that it was an Assent but Sir Edward Cook was of a contrary opinion and note she was made sole Executrix and she proved the Will and Justice Foster held it to be an Assent in Law The property of Goods cannot be in obayance they must be in the Executor Administrator or Ordinary and Warburton held that the words made an Assent and said that when the Bond is delivered to one to the use of another untill he dis-assent it is his Deed but when he dis-assenteth then it is not his Deed Ab initio if a Lease be given by Will to divers and made one of them his Executor in this Case the Executor must make his special Claime else he must have it as Executor and Sir Edward Cook held that the general Entry and proof of the Will is no Assent she must first have it as an Executor before she can have it as a Legatee a Legacy is waiveable but if the Law work it in me whether I will or no then I cannot waive it and therefore he held she should enter specially ROlles versus Mason Hill 6. Jacobi rotulo 2613. An Ejectment brought and the Question grew upon two Customes one was that the Copy-holder for Life may name to the Lord of the Mannour who should be his Successor in the Copy-hold and the other that the Copy-holder for Life may cut down all the Trees of wrong upon the customary Land and the third Question was whether the second Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the pretended Forfeiture for cutting down the Trees by the Law a Copy-holder shall have house-boot free-boot and hedge-boot and common of Turbary to burn in his house but he cannot sell them A Copy-holder by Custome may name his Successor and if the Lord refuse to admit him the Homage may set a reasonable Fine and so he shall be admitted The Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the Forfeiture but in this Case it is no Forfeiture and the Copy-holder may cut downe Trees for he hath a greater Estate then a sole Tenant for Life because he shall name his Successor APrescription goeth to one man and a Custome to many and Judgement for the Defendant MAson versus Strecher alios Pasch 7. Jacobi rotulo 606. An Ejectment brought for the Mannour of P. it was held by the Court that the consent of a Servant in the absence of him who is possessed of the Terme shall not out his Master of the Possession because the Servant hath no interest in the Land CRamporne versus Freshwater Pach 8 Jacobi rotulo 2742. An action of Debt brought upon an Ejectment the Plaintiff was non-suit upon his own Evidence because he declared upon a Devise made for three years and it was confessed by the Plaintiff that the Lands were Copy-hold Land and that the Plaintiff had not license to demise them for three years neither could he prove that by any custome he could demise them for three years without a license and so the Lessor was taken for a Disseisor by the opinion of the Court. CAffe versus Randall Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 3299. An Ejectment brought against Randall and his Wife the Ejectment made by the Wife and not guilty pleaded and tried and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Issue was pleaded in this manner Et dicunt quod ipsi in nullo sunt culpabiles c. And the Ejectment was made by the woman alone and ought to have been that she was not guilty and upon examination of the Plea Rol and Record of Nisi prius it appeared to the Court that the Plea Roll was right but the Record of Nisi prius mistaken but Serjeant Barker said that at the time when the Record of Nisi prius was tried the Plea roll agreed with the Record and was afterwards amended and Waller the prothonotary confessed that he amended the plea rol as upon his private examination of the roll but without notice that there was a Record sent down to try that Issue and therefore the Court ordered that the Record of Nisi prius should be amended according to the Plea roll which was done accordingly PAts versus Chitty Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 2151. vel 2151. An Action of ejectment brought the Defendant pleads a concord with satisfaction in Bar the Plaintiff demurs and it was held by Winch and Foster a good Plea because the Action is not only in the realty for he recovers damages and possession which are meer Chattells Secondly Because the Defendant pleads the satisfaction as in discharge of that Action and all others and ten shillings for rests Warburton of the same opinion and he vouched the like case satisfaction is good Plea in a Quare impedit wherein a man recovers the presentation And Cook said that in all Actions wherein money or Damages are recoverable as well wherein the Defendant might wage his Law as wherein he might not it is a good Plea Pasc 3. Jacobi rotulo 1033. Eden and Blake but in matters where one Free-hold or Inheritance is recoverable concord is no Barr and in dower recompence in other Lands or Rent is no Barr. But by petition in Chancery but Rent Issuing out of the same Land demanded is a good Barr and in all Actions Quare vi armis wherein process of Outlary lies by the common Law concord or an Award is a good Barr 38 H. 6. title Barr satisfaction in trespass by an Estranger is a good Barr although it be without notice of the trespassor by the opinion of the whole Court CRaddock versus Iones Trin. Iacobi rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought and declares upon a Lease made by W. Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and makes a challenge and praies a venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is Cozen to the Lessors Wife which is not a principle challenge but by favour and after a Triall and Verdict it was amended in arrest of the Judgment because it was mistried and Barker vouched a case in the Exchequer Chamber in 43 El. upon a Writ of Error between Higgins and Spicer upon a Venire facias awarded in the like manner and it was adjudged to be mistryed and it was then agreed that misconveyance of process is where one Writ is awarded in place of another to an Officer which of right ought to execute that process and he returns it this is helped after a Verdict by the Statute But if a writ be awarded to an Officer who ought not to execute that process and he returns it this is a mistriall and not helped by the Statute and Warburton said that Dyer
to the estate casts the possession of his Ancestors upon him but a stranger to whom a Copy hold is surrendred hath nothing before admittance because he is a purchasor And a Copy made to him upon which he is admitted is his Evidence by the custome and before that he is not a customary Tenant and so he could not transfer any thing to another and adjudged so according to 24 Eliz Alderman Dixies Case BEdell versus Lull Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made by Eliz James of certain Lands The Defendant pleads that before Eliz had any thing one Martin James was seised in fee of it and had issue Henry James and dyed seised by reason whereof it discended to H. J. as Son and Heir and that Eliz entred and was seised by abatement and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and that afterwards the Defendant as servant to H James and by his command c. The Plaintiffe by way of replication confesses the seisen of M. James And that he being so seised by his last Will in writing devised the said Land to Eliz in fee and afterwards dyed seised by reason whereof she entred by force of the devise and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and traverse without that Eliz was seised by abatement in manner and form c. And the Defendant demurrs upon this replication and shewed for cause that the traverse was not good and adjudged for the Defendant for the Plaintiffe by his replication need not both confesse avoid and traverse the abatement too for the Plaintiffe made a title to his Lease by the Will of his Ancestor and that proved that he entred legally and not by abatement as the Defendant had supposed And then to take a traverse over makes the replication vitious For a traverse shall not be taken but where the thing traversed is issuable And here the devise is onely the title issuable And it was also held that the traverse was not good as to the manner of it for he should not have traversed without that that he was seised by abatement but it ought to have been without that that he did abate and also if the Plaintiffe had minded to have fully answered the Defendant he ought to have took his traverse in the very same words the Defendant had pleaded it against him to wit without that that he did enter and was seised by abatement which observe The Case concerned Sir H. James to whom the Defendant was Tenant SAunders versus Cottington Mich. 7. Jac. An Ejectment brought of two Houses but the Bill was onely for one and it was filed And the Defendant by his paper book pleaded to both Messuages And the Roll in Court and the Record of Nisi prius were two Houses And there was a verdict for the Plaintiffe and Judgement entred accordingly And a Writ of Error was brought by the Defendant and before the Record was removed the Plaintiffe moved the Court that the Bill upon the file might be amended and made two Messuages And because the Defendant had pleaded to Messuages in his Answer in paper and that the Roll and Record were according it was resolved by the whole Court that the Bill upon the File should be amended and made two Messuages for that Bill which made mention onely of one House could not be the ground of all the proceedings afterwards but it was as if no Bill had been filed and therefore it should be supplied and so had been severall times before the Record was renewed Which observe THe Plaintiffe declared in Ejectment upon a Lease of an House 10 Acres of Land 20 Acres of Meadow 20 Acres of Pasture by the name of one Messuage and ten Acres of Meadow be it more or lesse and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintiffe had a Verdict but moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement was stayed For by the Plaintiffs own shewing in his Declaration he could not have Execution of the number of Acres found by the Verdict for in the Lease there is but ten Acres demised And these words more or lesse could not in judgment of Law be extended to thirty or fourty Acres for it is impossible by common intendment and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature then that which is mentioned in the per nomen c. For that is only of Meadow and the Declaration is of arrable and Pasture MOore versus Hawkins Mich. 8. Jacobi In Ejectment after issue Joyned upon a not guilty pleaded the cause came to be tried before Brook and Yelverton Judges of Assize in the County of Oxford the Plaintiffe had declared of divers Messuages and divers Acres of Land lying in three Villages in the said County And at the tryall before the Jury was sworn Walter the Defendants Counsell put in a Plea that after the last continuance to wit such a day in Trinity Terme before the day of Assize to wit the 20. of July the Assizes being held at Oxford the 21 of July the Plaintiffe had entred into such a Close by name containing eight Acres parcell of the premises specified in the Declaration c. and this Plea was received by the Judges of Assize And afterward in Mich. Terme Yelverton and Walter being of Counsell with the Defendant desired that they might amend their Plea to wit to put in the very Village where the Land did lye into which the entry of the Plaintiffe was because it was but matter of form and not of substance and they were of opinion that the tryall of that new lssue ought to be of all the three Villages named in the Declaration And Yelverton Justice having asked the opinions of all the Judges in Serjeants Inne Fleetstreet related their opinions in the Court the Record of Nisi prius was returned into the Exchequer to wit that it was in the discretion of the Justices of Assize to accept such a Plea as is before and that it might be well allowed as the 10 H. 7. is and it shall stay the Verdict But otherwise it is of a protection for although they allow a protection yet the Judges may take the Verdict de bene esse yet he said that in the 7. E 3. in a Precipe quod reddat a Release was pleaded at the tryal and the Jury found the Verdict but that was the indiscretion of the Judges to allow it when it should not have been allowed And all the said Judges held as he related that the Plaintiffe could not have a replication to that Plea at the tryall for the Justices have no power either to accept a Replication upon that Plea or to try it but onely to return it as parcell of the Record of Nisi prius And they held also that the Plea being put in the Countrey could not be amended in adding the Town in certain in which the Close did lye for it was matter of substance And that the Court of
that it was collaterall warrantry where in truth it was a lineall warranty and it was held naught because the warranty was in Law a lineall warranty the Case was that Land was givenby Feoffment made to the use of the Feoffer for life remainder in Tail Tenant for life dies Tenant in Tail had Issue a Son and two Daughters and the Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment with warranty and after the Father and Son die without issue and the Daughters bring a Formedon and this is a lineall warranty PIt versus Staple Trin 14 Jac. rotulo 112. Formedon in le discender against three which plead non-Tenure and issue thereupon joyned and found specially that two of them were Lessees for life the remainder to the third person and whether the three were Tenants as is supposed by the writ was the question and the better opinion was that it was found for the Demandant for the Tenants should have pleaded severall Tenancy and then the Demandant might maintain his writ but by this generall non-Tenure if any be Tenant it is sufficient but in some Cases the Precipe may be brought against one who is not Tenant as a morgagor or morgagee COmes Leicester versus Comit. Clanriccard In Formedon upon a Judgement given in part for the Demandant and part for the Tenant the Tenant brought a writ of Error and had a Supersedeas upon it and afterwards the Demandant prosecuted a writ of Seisin and delivered it to the Sheriff and he executed the writ and immediately afterwards the Tenant delivered the Supersedeas to the Sheriff and the Tenant moved the Court and prayed a writ of restitution and it was granted him because the Tenant had done his indeavour and had not delayed the prosecuting the writ of Error COmes Clanriccard Francisca uxor Ejus Demandants versus R. S. milit vicecomit Lyple for three messuages c. which R. late Earl of Essex and Frances late wife of the said Earl by Fine in the Court of the Lady Elizabeth late Queen of England before her then Justices at Westminster levied and gave to William Gerrard Esquire and F. Mills Gentleman and the Heires of the said W. for ever to the use of Elizabeth Sydney Daughter and Heir of P. S. Milir and the Heirs of the Body of the said E. comming and for default of such issue to the use of the said F. then wife of the said Earl and the heirs of the said Fr. and which after the death of the said Eliz. ought to revert to the said Fr. by form of the gift aforesaid and by force of the Statute in such case provided because the said Eliz. died without Heir of her Body The Tenant pleaded in abatement of the writ because the writ ought to revert to the woman alone and it should have been to the Husband and wife and upon a demurrer Judgement was that he should answer over the writ may be either to revert to the Husband and wife or to the wife alone and herein the Tenant vouch two vouches and one is Essoined and an idem dies given to the other and Serjeant Harris demanded of the Court if he should Fourcher by Essoin because the Statute of Westminster the first is that Tenants Parceners or Joint Tenants shall not fourcher in Essoin therefore they two should not fourcher by Essoin but the Court held that before appearance it could not appear to the Court whether they were Tenants or not and therefore before appearance they shall have severall Essoins and Westminster the first is expounded by Gloucester the tenth which is that two Tenants shall not fourcher after appearance and at the day of the adjournment of the last Essoin the Tenant was Essoined and such Essoin was allowed and adjudged by the whole Court and the reason hereof seemed to some to be because the Tenant might be informed of the Vouchee that he vouched was the same person or no for he might be onother person for if he should be an estranger and demand the place and the Demandant could not hold him to the warranty the Demandant should loose his Land and they held that upon severall Processe to wit upon the view and upon the summons to warranty which are divers Processes the Tenant ought to be Essoined and the Court held that this Essoin was at the Common Law if the Tenant and the vouchee at the day given to the Tenant and the vouchee make default Judgement shall be given against the Tenant to wit a petty Cape and nothing against the vouchee SHotwell versus Corderoy In Formedon the Tenant prayes in aid â—nd the prayee in aid and Tenant vouch and the Vouchee was essoined and adjourned and at that Day the Attorney of the Tenant without the Prayer in aid cast an Essoin and an Idem dies given the Prayee in aid and it was quashed for they shall not have severall Essoines but joynt Essoines A Formedon brought of Lands in A. B. C. The Tenant pleads a Fine of all by the name of the Mannour and Tenements in A. B. And it was objected that he said nothing to the Land in C. but the Courtheld that by the name of the Mannor the Land in all the Villages would pass and the Demandant may if he will plead as to the Land in C. that it was not comprised in the Fine Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 76. vel 69. Formedon in the Discender the Writ was general that J. L. gave to T. L. and the Heirs Males of his Body upon the Body of D. V. Widow lawfully to be begotten which D. the said T. afterwards took to Wife and which after the Death of the said T. c. Son and Heir Male of the Body of the said T. upon the Body of the said D. lawfully begotten to the said J. L. younger Son and Heir of the said J. L. Son of the said T. ought to descend by form of the Gift aforesaid c. and whereof he saith that the said T. was seised c. and 2 Eliz. of the said Tenements did infeoff the Plaintiff in Fee to the use of the said T. L. and his Heirs c. and note in the Count no mention made of the Marriage If a Gift be made in tail to D. and his Heirs Males the Remainder to A. in tail D. discontinues in the Life of A. and D. dies without Issue and the Heir of A. brought his Writ as the immediate Gift to A. his Ancestor who never was seised in his Life and for that cause the Writ was naught but if A. had been seised of the Land then it had not been necessary to have shewed the first Gift to D. by the opinion of the whole Court Actions upon the Statute of Hue and Cry NEedham versus Inhabitant Hundredi de Stoak Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 534. Action brought upon the Statute of Hue and Cry by the Servant who was robbed in his own name and part of the Goods
a Distress infinite did lie and no Writ to the Bishop before the appearance of the Defendant but now this is taken away by the Statute of Marlborough cap. 13. A Writ of Journes accompts lieth upon the death of the Testator and summons and severance if one of the Plaintiffs will not sue The Judgment in a Quare impedit is to recover the presentment and the value of the Church for half a year if the Plaintiff remove the Clerk And if he do not remove the Clerk then the value of the Church by two years and the value shall be levied by fifa or elegit and not by capias ad satisfaciend for that no capias lay before the appearance upon the Original Four things are to be enquired on in a Quare Impedit the first is whether the Church be full or no the second is if it be full of whose presentment thirdly whether the six moneths be past from the time it became void fourthly the value of the Church by the year If a Quare Impedit be brought against diverse they shall have severall essoins before appearance if the first man be essoined it must be adjourned for 15. days idem dies shall be given to the rest And at that day another of the Defendants may be essoined for 15. days more and an Idem dies given to the rest and so of all the rest of the Defendants And if the Defendant take not his essoin upon the summons he may take his essoin upon the Attachment And if the Plaintiff do not adjourn the essoin he shall be nonsuit And note that the Defendants are not bound to appear after they have had their essoins untill the return of the Distress for an essoin is no appearance because it may be cast by a stranger And note if the Quare Impedit be not brought against the Incumbent that is presented and admitted into the Church at the time of purchasing the first original Writ that Clerk shall never be removed by the Plaintiff although he hath judgment to remove his presentation but if a stranger be presented hanging the Writ if the Plaintiff recove he shall remove him And therfore the surer way is to bring the Writ against the Bishop Patron and Incumbent and then the Bishop shall not present by Cupps and if the Patron be omitted in the originall the Writ is abateable If the Originall writ be brought against three one May appear before his companions and Processe shall be continued untill Distresse be against the rest and the Plaintiff in the mean time declare against him that appears in the Simulcum and if he that appears pleads non impedivit the writ shall be awarded to the Bishop but there shall be acesset Executio untill the Plea between the Plaintiff and the other Defendants be determined and if the Bishop appear and claim nothing but as Ordinary a writ shall issue to the same Bishop upon that Judgement but if the Bishop makes a Title to present Judgement is given for the Plaintiff then the writ shall issue to the Metropolitan of Canterbury if the Church be within his Province and so to the Metropolitan of York if it be within his and upon a Judgement by non sum informat or nihil dicit the writ shall go to the Arch-Bishop and not the Ordinary if the writ be against him The death of one of the Defendants hanging the writdoth not abate the writ nor of one of the Plaintiffs Parcenors If the Incumbent recover he shall recover damages for he cannot have a Writ to the Bishop and if a man recover in a Quare impedit and die his Heir shall not have Execution for it is not a reall Action and the Plaintiff ought alwayes in his Declaration to make mention of the last Incumbent or otherwise his Writ shall abate The Husband alone but in the Right of his wife may without his wife bring a Quare impedit but not an Assise de Durraigne presentment for he shall recover nothing but his presentation and dammages and if the wife dye hanging the writ it shall not abate and a writ did abate because it was that he should permit him to nominate a fit person where it should be to present for an Advowson in VVales the writ shall be brought in the next English County and Judgement shall be given in his Action for the Plaintiffe at the Assises and deceit lyes as upon a Judgement had in this Action upon default upon every Issue issued joyned by Iury the Iury shall inquire of the points of the writ and note admission plenarty institution and ability shall be tried by the Ordinaries Certificate but if the Issue be whether the Church be empty by resignation or whether the Patron have presented his Clerk it shall be tried by the Couutrey and in this writ the Defeudant shall neither have his age nor a protection nor an Essoin as in the Kings service to avoid the Cupps If the King was Plaintiff that the defendant was not summoned by the Sheriff nor attached nor distrained and the King had Judgement by default no writ of deceit lies in an Assise of Durraign Presentment of the writ be brought in Midd. at the Return of the writ the Assise shall be there arraigned by the Serjeants at the Barr in French and the Tenant shall be demanded and if the Tenant do not appear when he is demanded a resummons shall be awarded and if upon the resummons the Tenant shall not appear the Assise shall be taken against him by default and if the Tenant appear he may demand Oyer of the writ and the Return and the writ shall be read to him in haec verba and the Return thereof and the Jury shall have the view and the Tenant may take exception either to the writ or to the Return thereof if there be cause and if there be no cause then he may pray a day to plead and if the Court give a day then the Jurors that appeared shall be discharged of their attendance and ought to appear upon a new Processe to be awarded against them the Judgement in this Assise is to recover the Presentation dammages and the value for half a year and if six moneths be past the value of the Church for two years by the Statute of Westminster Ed. 2. and six of the Jury ought to have the view of the Church to the intent that they may put the Plaintiff into possession if he recover and in this writ the Plaintiff shall not recover the Advowson but the Presentation the Processe in this writ is summons resummons against the Tenant and summons habeas corpus and distresse against the Jury and the Processe shall be returned from fifteen dayes to fieteen dayes and no Essoin nor voucher lies after a resummons If the King present his Clerk one may have an Assise against his Clerk only and not against the King and at Common Law none can have an Assise but
only the Tenant of the Freehold but by the Statute Tenant by Statute Merchant or Elegit may have an Assise if the Incumbent hanging the writ die and the disturber present again that writ lyes by Journes account upon the first disturbance and alwayes in a Declaration in a Quare impedit you must lay a Presentation in him from whom you first derive your Title or under some from whom he claimeth otherwise it is not good The Bishop cannot grant a Sequestration in no Case but where the Church is void but if the Clerk be instituted and inducted no Sequestration lieth CVppel versus Tansie Trin. 16 Jac. rot 3210. Quare impedit brought for the Church of Bleby the Issue was that there was no such Church and the Venire was de visu de Bleby and the Exception was because it was not of the Body of the County but the Exception was salved because in the Declaration it was alledged that one died at Bleby aforesaid and it was held that every place alledged shall be intended to be a Town and by the user of the writ it is presumed in Law to be a Parish and then if there be a Parish and a Town if the Venire facias be either of the Parish or Town it is good and it is a good Writ to demand Manerium de D. with the appurtenances Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall Defendants as one against the Bishop and another against the Patron and Incumbent but if J. S. brings a Quare impedit against A. B. that A. B. cannot have a writ against the said J. S. if a Quare impedit abates within the six moneths the Plaintiff may bring another writ but if the Plaintiff be non-suit within the six moneths he cannot have a new writ because the Defendant upon Title made hath a writ to the Bishop and for that cause a new writ will not lie COmber versus Episcopum Cicester al. Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 1629. The issue in a Quare impedit was if S. Rose by covin between him and Comber and Rivers did resign into the hands of the said Bishop if the King hath Title of lapse and a resignation be made by fraud and one admitted this shall not take away the Kings Title for if the Kings Title appear upon Record then shall go out a writ for the King but otherwise it is upon matter of Evidence the King shall loose his presentation as well by resignation as by Death where he hath Title to present by lapse and doth not except the resignation be by fraud and where an avoidance is by Statute there needeth not notice to be given to the Bishop LOrd Say versus Episcopum de Peterborrow Mich. 30 Jacobi rotulo 2601. The Imparlance and the demurrer entred Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 3458. The Case was Tenant in Tail grants the Advowson to others to the use of himself and his wife and the Heirs males of the Husband and the Husband dies and the wife survives and the Lord Say marries the woman and brought the Quare impedit the estate is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail and Judgement was given for the Bishop upon a Demurrer in a Quare impedit if any of the Defendants do barr the Plaintiff the Action is gone WAllop versus Murrey Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3905. The Church became void by resignation and a presentation upon the proviso in the Statute of 21 H. 8. for the Kings Chaplains The Kings Chaplains might have three Benefices with license nay he may give to them as many as he will being of his own gift Judgement for the Plaintiff if the Incumbents Plea be found for him he shall never be removed although other Pleas be found for the Plaintiff by the whole Court Pasch 9. Jacobi If the writ abate for Form you shall never have a writ to the Bishop nor where it appears that you have one Title DOminus Rex versus Emerson Trin. 8. Jac. rot 1811. The question was where the King had Title to present to a Church by reason of ward-ship and after livery and before the King doth present under the Seal of the Court of Wards the King doth present by his Letters patents under the great Seal of England and the Clerk is admitted instituted and inducted whether the Clerk shall be removed or no and the Court held that he should not and Judgment that the Plaintiff nihil capias per breve he that getteth it first by the Court of Wards or great Seal shall have it there needeth no recitall in the grant A common person by his letter or his word may make a presentation to a Benefice to the Bishop the King may present by word if the Ordinary be present for a presentment is but a commandement if the King under any Seal present it is good It is best to plead the King presented generally and not to plead it by Letters Patents for it is the worst way and judgment was given for the Defendant and Mich. 10. Jacobi it was held by the whole Court that a presentment under the great Seal to a Church parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster is good and needeth not to be under the Dutchy Seal CRanwell versus Lister The Defendant had been Parson for three years and pleaded plenarty generally by six moneths of the presentation of one Stiles a stranger to the Writ And the Court held the Plea to be nought because the Defendant shewed no Title in Stiles NEedler versus Winton and Needham Hill 12. Jacoci rotulo 1845. In a Quare Impedit the Case was Husband and Wife bargain and sell Land to the King this is as good as a Fine being found if it was delivered to the King but not entred of Record if it was made and delivered it was good but if the King should before it be delivered grant it out it had been void being not enrolled of record for the King in consideration of the bargain and sale of the Husband and Wife before the Deed inrolled did grant to them the Parsonage of Horsham in this case the Wife is bound as strong as by Fine and the King made the grant between the date of the deed and before inrolment If the Kings Clerk be once inducted the K. cannot remove his Clerk at the common Law before the Statute of 34. H. 8. If a Quare Impedit were brought against the Patron and Clerk the Patron might confess the Action and so prejudice the Clerk therefore by the Statute the Clerk being inducted he may plead that he is Parson impersoned and so defend himself GLaswick versus Williams Hill 9. Jacobi rotulo 854. A Quare Impedit brought of the Rectory of I. Stoneley one of the Tellers in the Exchequer was indebted to Queen Eliz. And it was found that he was seised of a Mannor ad quod c. in fee and sold it to the Plaintiff who brought a writ to
remove the Clerk who was admitted by the presentation of Stoneleys wife to whom a joynture was made by her Husband before he was indebted to the Queen and it was pretended that the joynture was void by the Statute of 〈…〉 and so was the opinion of the Court. If one usurp upon the King where the King hath Title the Clerk cannot be removed but by a Quare Impedit but where the King is to present by laps and one doth present the King during the life of the Clerk shall remove him but if he dye the King hath lost his presentation but if the Clerk resign then is it no prejudice to the King COmes Bed versus Episcopum Exo. Trin. 14 Jacobi rotulo 2235. A Quare Impedit brought the Bishop and Incumbent joyn and plead that there is another writ depending against the same Bishop only and pleads it and that the disturbance in this Declaration and the disturbance in the former Declaration are one and the same disturbance The Plaintiff replies that the first writ was brought for another disturbance and traverses without that that they are one and the same impediment and the Defendant demurs upon that plea and Judgment given for the Defendant that it was a good plea in abatement for although the presentation and the disturbance are both of them in question yet the presentation is the main and the presentation but as accessory BIrkhead versus Archiepiscopum Eborum al. Pasch 14. Jacobi rotulo 953. A Quare Impedit brought for the Vicaridg of Leeds in York-shire The Arch-Bishop claims nothing but as Ordinary and pleads further that the Church became void the first of January An. 12. Jacobi and that six moneths had elapsed by reason whereof he collated the 23. Decem. and Cook the Incumbent pleaded the same plea the Plaintiff replyed and confessed the Avoidance the first of January but he further said that within the six moneths to wit the 20. of May c. he presented his Clerk and the Arch-bishop refused to admit him And afterwards to wit the 30. of May the Bishop collated and the Defendant demurred for the doubleness of the plea. If the Incumbent plead good matter for his presentation although the Bishop plead insufficiently that shall not prejudice the Clerk And the Defendant took exception to the Plaintiffs writ because it bore-date the 9. of May the presentment was 29. of May and the refusall of the Bishop was the said 29. of May and he collated the 30. of May and so the writ was brought before the refusall made by the Arch-Bishop DOminus nuper Rex Jacobus versus Episcopum Roffen al. Hill 13. Jacobi rotulo 2330. A Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Milton near Gravesend in Kent and the issue was that Queen Eliz. was seised of the advowson of the said Church c. and upon tryall of the issue the Jury found it specially by which it appeared that the Queen had Title but at two turns and the Bishop had one turn and because it appeared to the Court that the Queen had Title to that turn therefore a writ was awarded to the Bishop for the King WInchcomb versus Episcopum recutor al. Pasch 14. Jacobi rotulo 1026. The case was that a Clerk in Salisbury when the Church was full contracted with the Patron to give him 98. l. when the Church should become void the then Incumbent being a very old and sickly man and did conclude that the Patron should grant the next avoidance to a Friend of his who presented him And this was held to be a Simonaicall contract The Clerk was admitted and continued in all his life and died and now the King presented The qustion was whether the King not taking advantage thereof during his life shall have now the presentment if he had resigned or made cession and then another had been presented and then the first Clerk had died the King then had lost his turn Hubbard and Winch held that the King had not lost his presentation for he never was Parson and that the King after his death shall have his turn and Winchcomb cannot have it because the Church was void when the lease of the Mannor was made And Calverts case in the Exchequer was remembred for the Church being void P. contracts simoniacally with the Patron to have the presentation and upon this corrupt agreement he presents R. who was ignorant of this corrupt agreement and yet he was removed for he shall be punished for the offence of his Patron the admiission upon such corrupt agreement maketh the institution and induction void AVsten versus Episcopum London al. Pasch 12. Jac. rotulo 2255. A Quare Impedit brought for the Church of B. he claimed by grant of the next avoidance from Sir Edward Pynchion The Defendant pleads a Usurpation by Queen Mary upon a deprivation and plenarty of her Clerk by six months The Plaintiff pleads a recovery by a Quare Impedit upon a non sum informat by the Patron against the Queens Clerk If the King upon usurpation present and his Clerk be in by six moneths if the Patron bring a quare Impedit against the Kings Clerk and recover by non sum informat this shall remit the Patron to his ancient right otherwise it is if the King do present by Title in the case of deprivation the Patron must have six moneths after notice And Judgment was given for the Plaintiff WIvel versus Episcopum Cestrie al. Pasch 12. Iacobi rotulo 626. Tenant in tayle and his sonne grant an advowson and the Father dyeth the grant is void and Judgment for the Plaintif WIndham versus Episcopum Norwic. al. Mich. 13. Jac. rotulo 2042. A Quare imped brought that the Bishop should permit the Plaintiff to present c. to the Church of A. c. and declares that whereas E. W. Knight was seised of the Mannor of M. with the appurtenances to which the advowson of the said Church to wit to present to the said Church every first turn c. and that the Duke of Norfolk was seised of the advowson of the said Church to wit to present to the same every second turn And that one T. G. was seised of the advowson of the said Church to wit to present to the same every third turn c. And an exception was taken to the Declaration because by the writ the Plaintiff claimed the intire advowson and by his count he claimed but the third turn and also he did not alledg that he ought to have the first turn but the exceptions were over-ruled by the Court for when the Church is void and it appertains to him to present he hath the intire advowson but otherwise it is when there are two advowsons in one Church for there the Court must be to the moity of the Church or the third part THe late King James against Matthew Trin. 4. Jacobi The King was Plaintiff in a
and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff every Leet was derived out of the Sherifs turn PAul versus Barwicke Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. A stranger in replevin pleaded non est factum where he should have pleaded non concessit and good after a verdict though it 's not formall pleading REad versus How In replevin the place was omitted in the Declaration and the Defendant demurred and held a good cause for the Plaintiff is bound to take notice where the Cattell are distrained a man cannot distrain for a rent charge but in the day time because I may take notice where it is because the Law presumeth that I or my servants are all the day upon the ground A second deliverance must not vary in the place a disclaimer goeth to the locus in quo c. HYnd versus Wainman al. Pasch 8. Jacobi rotulo 758. Wainman pleaded non cepit and the other made cognisance as Bayliff to Wainman The Plaintiff pleads that the parties to the Fine had nothing c. and it was tryed Mich. and Jacobi and it was moved by the Councell of the Defendant that the Plaintiff should prove an actuall taking but the Court held the contrary And the Judges said that if one takes Cattell as Bayliffe to another and by his command this shall be adjudged to be the taking of the Master as of a Bayliff in trespasse FRancis versus Forrest Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 2033. In replevin for the taking of Cattell at A. in a certain place called R. the Defendant avows dammage fesant the Plaintif in his Barre saies that he was seised of one Messuage c. in C. in the Parish of A. and prescribes for common And after a tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the venire facias was ill awarded because it was of A. only and so it was adjudged by the Court. And Cook said that at C. or in C. imply a Village and therefore he said the venire facias ought to have been of C. and A. or at least of the Parish of A. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary agreed to this RIchardson versus Sterer Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 786. In Replevin the Defendant avows for Damage fesant The Plantiffe replies that long before the time of taking the Cattell H. late Earl of L. was seised of one Messuage c. and so prescribes for Common of Pasture for ten Beasts and so justifies the putting in of one Cow of the two Cowsusing his Common And the Plaintiffe further saies that the said W. R. long before c. lent to the said T. P. the other Cow to manure the Land of the said T. P. as long as the said W. pleased And so prescribes for the putting in of that Cow being thereof possessed by reason of the lending of it and so demands Judgement And Hutton Sarâ—eant moved that the Barr was naught because the Plaintiffe had falfified his Replication because the Replication is by two and by the pleading another time of the taking the property was in P. only and the speciall property by verture of the lending was also in P. And so Replevin ought to have been brought in the name of P. onely and the Defendant demurred the Replication and the Plaintiffe was non suit POpe versus Shurm Hill 7 Jacobi rotulo 336. The Defendant avows Damage fesant The Plaintiffe claims Common by reason of a Demise made to him by one H. W. who was seised in Fee of one Messuage and Common for him his Tenants and Farmers c. And alledges one Lease made the thirtieth of March 11. to have and to hold c. from the Feast c. then last past for one yeer and so from yeer to yeer c. The Defendant traverses the Demise and the Jury finde that the said H. W. before the said time of the taking to wit the 25 of March Anno 11. did demise to have for one yeer then next following and so from yeer to yeer and this found specially And Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe because the matter in question was whether he had right of Common or not and not the title of the Lease and it appears by the Jury that he had just right of Common And Warburton put this difference if a Tenant brings an Action of Trespasse wherefore by force of Arms c. against his Lord And the Lord pleads that the Defendant holds by such services and Issue be taken upon it And the Jury finde that he holds by other services the Verdict is sufficiently found for the Lord because the Plaintiffe could not maintain an Action against his Lord. IOhnson versus Thorowgood Trin. 12 Iacobi rotulo 1734. In Replevin the Plaintiffe allows damage fesant the Plaintiffe claims Common by prescription to when the Fields called F. and C lye fallow all the time of the year And when the Fields are sowed after the Corn c. After the Feast of Pentecost they used c. And the Jury found that he had Common to wit when the Feilds lye fallow every year all the time of the year And when the Fields were sowen they used to have Common c. And it was held by Nicholls that for Common Appendant it is not necessary to prescribe but to say he is seised of one Messuage c. in Fee and that he hath Common of Pasture in the said place as belonging and appertaining to the Tenement And saies further that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffe because it appeared by the Record that the Defendant took the Cattle at such time as the Plaintiffe ought to have Common And therefore Nicholls said that if a man have Common for great Cattell and Sheep and the Sheep be taken and he prescribes that he hath Common for Sheep only and the Jury said Common for Sheep and great Cattel the Common is found for the Plaintiffe And the like if one claim Common all the time of the year when the Land lyes fallow and when it is sowen from such a day unto c. And his Cattel are taken in the year when it is sowen as lies fallow it is sufficient for the Plaintiffe to prescribe for Common either in the year when it is sowen or when it lies fallow And if the Jury find all the Common it is sufficiently found for the Plaintiffe The like if a man hath Common from such a day to such day and the Cattell are taken and a day between the dayes and he prescribes that he hath Common in the said time quo c And the Jury find he had Common before that time the same day and after the Verdict is found for the Plaintiffe and Warburton and Winch of the same opinion PIts versus James Mich. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2155. Upon a speciall Verdict for the Misnomer of a Corporation The first question was whether the foundation of poore men to pray for Souls departed is within the Statute of Chaunterys and secondly for the Misnomer And
village is in question or could come in Issue yet it was resolved by the whole Court but him that those of the village of Bail might well know whether the Plaintif being an inhabitant within the village in which the Leet was were a chief Pledge at the Court or no for to have cheif pledges doth properly belong to a Leet which Leet is within the village and therefore they of the Mannor cannot have so good knowledge of the matter as they of the Mannor and village together and therefore they all ought to have been of both as in the Case of Common or a way from one village to a house in another village this ought to be tried of both villages and so also of the Tenure of Land in D. held of the Mannor of Sale the triall must be as well of the village where the Land lies as of the Mannor of which the Land is holden as it was adjudged Hill 45. El. in the then Queens Bench in the Case between Lovlace and and Judgement was reversed and see 6 H. 7. and Arundels case in my Lord Cooks Reports BVrglacy versus Ellington Burglacy brought a Replevin against Ellington for the taking of his cattell c. the Avowant pleads that one W. B. was seised of the place in which c. in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised died by reason whereof the Land descended to one Crist. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband the Avowant the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry confesses that W. B. was seised and that it descended to C. who took to Husband the Avowant but he further said that the 16 of April primo Jac. the Husband and Wife by their Deed indented and inrolled did bargain and sell the same Land unto one Missenden and a Fine levied by them and that M. the 30 of James bargained and sold it to F. M. in Fee and he being so seised licensed the Plaintiff to put in his cattell the Avowant replies if in the said Bargain and Sale made by the Husband and Wife a Proviso was contained that if the said Ellington should pay one hundred pounds a year after then c. and pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. of usury with an averment that the profits of the Land were of the value of twelve pounds by the year the Plaintif rejoyned that true it is there is such a clause in the Indenture but he further said that before the sealing of the Indenture it was agreed by word that the said Ellington should have and receive the profits and not the Plaintif and thereupon the Avowant demurres and the Case was thus Ellington bargains his Land to M for the payment of one hundred pounds a yeare after to be paid and that the Bargainee should have the profits the bargainor enters as upon a void Sale because of the statute of usury for by the Proviso â—he is to have the hundred pounds and ten pounds for the forbearance and by the Law he is to have the profits and the which did amount above ten pounds by the hundred the bargainee to avoid the usury pleaded an agreement by word before the sealing of the Bargain and Sale and the question arising upon this was if the Bargainee might plead this verball agreement for the avoiding of the Deed which did suppose the contrary and Moore of Lincolns â—nne counsell was of opinion that he could not put that maxime that every thing must be dissolved by that by which it is bound and his whole argument depended upon that and he cited divers Cases as 1 H. 7. 28. 28 H. 8. 25. 1 Eliz. Dier 16. 9. Rutlands Case 5 Rep. and Cheyney 6 Case there but the whole Court without any argument were of opinion that he might plead the verball agreement and avoid the usury and first they all agreed that when a Deed is perfected and delivered as his Deed that then no verball agreement afterwards may be pleaded in destruction thereof as it is in the Cases put but when the agreement is parcell of the Originall contract as here it is it may be pleaded and secondly otherwise it would bring a great mischief being the custome so to do by word but if it had been expressed within the Deed that the Bargainee should have the profits and that it was delivered accordingly that no agreement or assignment of the profits could now avoid it for it is an usurious contract and therefore the whole court gave Judgement for the Plaintif that he might well plead the agreement Actions of Trespass and Battery JOhnson versus Turner Trin. 44 Eliz. Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintifs house and the taking and carrying away his goods the Defendant justifies all the Trespasse the Plaintif as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods and the matter therein contained demurres upon the Defendants Barr the Defendant joins in demurrer in this form to wit because the Plaintif aforesaid as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods is sufficient demands Judgement and Judgement given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiff and a Writ to inquire of Damages upon which Damages are assessed for the breaking of the House and taking the goods and whether the subsequent words to wit and the matter therein contained go to the whole matter in the Barr to wit to the carrying of the Goods away also for when the Defendant joyned in Demurrer with the Plaintiff he joyned specially to wit to the breaking of the House and taking the Goods but nothing of the carrying them away and so as to the carrying of them away nothing is put into Judgement of the court yet the Writ to inquire is for the whole and the Judgement also and the carrying of the Goods away being parcell of the matter and for which greater Damages are adjudged and that being not put into the Judgement of the Court by the Demurrer therefore the Judgement is erronious for there is a discontinuance as to the carrying of the Goods away which is part of the matter and this businesse concerned Mr. Darcy of the privy chamber concerning his patent for Cards PVrrell versus Bradley Pasch 1 Jacobi The Plaintif declares in Trespass wherefore by force and Arms such a day the Defendant did assault him and one Mare price six pounds from the person of the Plaintiffe then and there did take and Yelverton moved for the Defendant in arrest of Judgement and the Declaration was not good for the Plaintif did not shew any property in the Mare for he ought to have that it was his Mare or the Mare of the Plaintif for as it is laid in the Declaration the words may have two intendments that the property of the Mare was to the Defendant and then the taking was lawfull or that the property was in the Plaintif and then the taking was wrongfull and it being indifferent to whether it shall be taken most strongly against the Plaintif for his
although another take away part of my Common yet no action lyeth As if one beat my servant lightly except the Master lose his service no action lieth And if my friend come and lye in my house and set my neighbours house on fire the action lyeth against me and Judgment for the Plaintiff HAtton versus Hun Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3314. In Trespasse and Imprisonment the Defendant justifies by vertue of a Capias and the Plaintiff did afterwards escape and he being Sheriffe did follow him by vertue of the said Warrant taken upon the Capias the Plaintiff replies that he escaped by license of the Sheriffe and traverses the latter taking by vertue of the Warrant and the Court held the traverse idle because the Plaintiff had sufficiently confessed and avoided and if he escaped by the Sheriffs License that ought to be the thing put into issue and not the traverse PAtry versus Wilsh Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 1055. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes he broke the Plaintiffs Close and eat his Grasse c. The Defendant justifies for common of pasture and saith that he was seised in Fee of one Messuage with the appurtenances in G. and used to have common for all his Cattell levant and couchant upon the said Messuage And it was moved after a verdict in arrest of Judgment by Sergeant Nichols that the plea was insufficient because the certainty of the Cattell was not expressed as for 200. or the like but the Court held the contrary that levant and couchant is a certainty sufficient and all the Books prescribe for a Common by reason of a Messuage RInghall versus Wolsey Mich. 11. Jacobi rotulo 820. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes the servant of the Plaintifs out of the service of the said Plaintiff hath taken and laid to be at H. The Defendant justifies that one was possessed of Corn at S. And that the said servant by the command of his Master had carried away the Corn and that the Owner came to the defendant being Constable and prayed him to detain the servant untill hee could procure a Warrant of a Justice of Peace and traverses that he is guilty at H. The Plaintiff demurres that it was held by the Court a naughty plea First because the Constable could not detain any man but for Felony And secondly the traverse is naught because the Trespass is in the same County and so he might have justified as well in H. as in S. DArney versus Hardington Pasch 9. Jacobi rotulo 1857. An action of Trespass brought to which the Defendant pleads a justification for an Amerciament set in the Sheriffs turn to which Justification exceptions were taken First because the Defendant justified by vertue of a precept to him lawfully granted saith not at what place Secondly he prescribes for the turn to be held and doth not any or what estate c. And Hutton said that a prescription for a turn or one hundred Court by what estate is naught because a hundred is not manurable but lies in grant but he ought to have said that the King and all they that were seised of the said Hundred have had and from the time c. And my Lord Cook said that a prescription by what estate for a thing incident to a Mannor is good for an Hundred that lies in grant it is naught And he and Warburton held that except it was shewed before whom the turn was held it was naught because where any thing is taken by common right as the Sheriffs turn it ought to be holden before the Sheriff as in the prescription it ought to be shewed before whom the turn was held or else it would be naught ROberts versus Thacher al. Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1928. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Arms the Close and House of the Plaintif at A. did break and a certain Cow price c. took The Defendant saith that the Plaintiff ought not to have his Action against him because he saith that the Close House is one Messuage c. in A. aforesaid and that before the time in which c. such a one was possessed of the said Cow as of his own proper Cow to wit at A. aforesaid and being thereof so possessed certain Malefactors unknown to the said c. before the said time in which c. the said Cow out of the possession of the said B. did feloniously steal take and lead away whereupon he made Hue and Cry and thereupon hee had intelligence came and was in the possession and custody of the Plaintiff and B. upon notice thereof did request the Defendant to ask the Cow of the Plaintiff and to bring her c. By reason whereof the Defendant the said time in which came to the said Messuage by the usuall way by and through the said Close c. to demand c. And the Defendants then there finding the aforesaid Cow in a wall'd parcell of the Messuage they took the Cow from thence and brought her to the said B. and to him delivered her as c. which is the same Trespass to which plea the Plaintiff demurres and it was adjudged a naughty Justification for these reasons First because it doth not appear but that the Plaintiff had good right to the Cow Secondly because the Defendant took the Cow without demand And thirdly it is not pleaded that the Defendants were servants to the said B. R. and that he did it by his command and therefore Judgment given for the Plaintiff HAll versus Stanley al. Pasch 9. Jacobi rotulo 2289. An action of false imprisonment The Defendant as to the whole Trespass except the Battery and Imprisonment and keeping in prison not guilty And as to that pleads that the Marshals Court is an ancient Court c. and so justifies because the Plaintiff was the pledg of T. C. to the Defendant in an action of trespass upon the case in an indebilat assumpsit generall and thereupon a Judgment against C. and a Capias awarded and a non est invent returned and thereupon a capias awarded against Hall the pledge according to the custome by vertue whereof the said Hall was taken and detained and traverses that he was guilty c. of any imprisoning the Plaintiff before such a day and averres that they are the same persons And the Plaintiff replies that neither R. C. nor T. T. at the time of exhibiting the Bill were of the houshold c. The Defendant demurs and Judgment for the Plaintiff and the whole Court agreed that the Marshalls Court could not hold Plea Covenants and Contracts except both of them were of the houshold of the King and all the matters of which they could hold plea were Trespass Covenants and Contracts of the houshold and within the verge to wit within twelve miles of the Court and Doddridge said that before the Statute of 28
c. and that the Plaintif was sued there by J. S. and that hee was summoned and upon a nihill returned a capias issued according to the Custome c. And that he being an Officer there did arrest and the Court ruled him to plead the Custome particularly for holding the Court and to prescribe c. And here it is shewn that the Maior is a Justice of Peace And it doth not appear whether he did it as a Justice of Peace or Maior as 14. H. 7 8. A Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one without a Warrant in writing in his absence And Popham chiefe Justice said That although the Judges knew the Authority of the Maior by which they arrested men yet because it did not appear to them judicially as Judges it must be pleaded And a Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one if not in his presence which was granted And Fennor Justice said that the servant is not an Officer to the Maior as he is a Justice of Peace but the Constable and Walker also added that the Plea was that the Maior commanded to imprison him presently without shewing any cause which was held naught for the maior ought to temper his Authority according to Law For the Judges cannot imprison without shewing cause but them and the Maior both may command an Officer to arrest a man without shewing the cause for else before he shall be examined he may invent and frame an excuse and the accessories will flye away And Williams Justice finds that it was incertain for the Plaintif by what authority he commanded it whether as Maior or Justice of Peace and his power as a Justice of Peace the Judges knew by common Law but his power as a Maior they knew not if it be not shewed by pleading and Judgement HVggins versus Butcher Trin. 4. Jac. The Plaintif declared that the Defendant such a day did assault and beat his Wife of which she dyed such a day following to his damage 100 l. And Serjeant Foster moved that the Declaration was not good because it was brought by the Plaintiff for a Battery done upon his Wife And this being a personall wrong done unto the woman is gone by her death And if the woman had been in life hee could not have brought it alone but the woman must have joyned in the Action for the damages must be given for the wrong offered to the body of the woman which was agreed And Tanfield said that if one beat the servant of J. S. so that he die of that beating the Master shall not have an Action against the other for the battery and loss of service because the servant dying of the extreamity of the beating it is now become an offence against the Crown and turned into Felony and this hath drowned the particular offence and prevails over the wrong done to the Mr. before And his action by that is gone which Fennor and Yelverton agreed to BRown versus Crowley Pasch 5. Jac. Action of Trespass brought against Croyley for wounding the Plaintif upon the hinder part of the left legge being rendred in Latin super posteriorem partem levis libaei and the Jury found for the Plaintiff And Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment for hee said that these words levis libaei made the Declaration vitious for the incertainty for he said that levis signified light and it was an improper word for left and that judgment ought to be respited for the incertainty And Yelverton argued that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for he said the Declaration was not vitious for if the Plaintiff had declared generally that he had wounded broken or evill intreated him and had omitted those other words it had been sufficient and then the adding of those words which were not materiall but for damages did not make the Declaration vitious and he said that levus leva levum was Latin for left And whereas he hath said that he strook him super posteriorem partem levis libaei where it should have been levis libaei it was but false Latin and the Declaration shall not be made naught for false Latin And Popham said that hee shewing upon which part of the body the wound was were laid only to incense damages for the Declaration had been sufficient though they had been omitted And Justice Fennor agreed to Popham and he said it had been judged that where a man brought an Action against another for calling him strong Theife and the Jury only found that he called him Theife but not strong Theif yet the Plaintiff recovered for this word strong was to no other purpose then to increase dammages and Judgement was given for the Plaintif VIccars versus Wharton Pasch 5. Jac. Viccars brought an action of false imprisonment against Wharton and others and shews that he was imprisoned two dayes and two nights without meat or drink The Defendants come and shew that King Edward the 1. by his Letters Patents did incorporate one Village in Nottingham-shire with Bailiffs and Burgesses and that the King did ordain and make those Burgesses Justices of the Peace there and that the Defendant was Bailiâ—â— and a Justice of Peace there and that the Plaintiff did speak divers opprobrious and contumelious words of the Defendant by reason whereof they imprisoned him And shews further that the Bailiffs have used from the time of the making their Patent to imprison the disturbers of the Peace and it was held a naughty plea for a custome could not be shewn in such a manner And Tanfield held in this case that a man could not prescribe to be a Justice of peace but Justice Williams held he might prescribe to be a conservator of the Peace And Tanfield held that the King might grant that all the Burgesses and their Heires should be Burgesses which Justice Williams denyed HAll versus White Pasch 5. Jac. An action of Trespass brought against the Defendant for impounding the Plaintiffs Cattel the Defendant justifies for Common And upon that they were at issue in Derby-shire and the Jurors being sworn the Bailiff found one Bagshaw one of the Jurors rending of a Letter concerning the said cause and shewed it to the Judg and a verdict given by the Jury And this matter moved in the then Kings Bench to quash the verdict but denyed by the whole Court because the Letter and the Cause was not certified by the Postea and made parcell of it for otherwise the examination of that at the Barre after the verdict shall never quash it And so it was adjudged between Vicary and Farthing 39. Eliz. where a Church Book was given in Evidence of which you shall never have remedy except it be entred and made parcell of the Record BVtler versus Duckmonton Trin. 5 Jacobi In Trespasse upon a speciall Verdict the Case was that no demised Land to a woman if she should live sole and unmarried
the remainder to John D. bastard in Tail the Remainder to the Defendant Ro. Duckmonton in Fee the woman married with Ro. D. the Defendant the Term expired Jo. D. Tenant in Tail in remainder releases to the Husband and whether this should alter the estate of the Husband he being Tenant at sufferance was the question and adjudged by the whole Court that the Release was void and it was cheifly void because the Release was made to him in the Remainder to take effect as upon the Remainder and there was no privity and he had but a bare possession and no Freehold and 10 Eliz. Dier Lessee for years surrenders and afterwards the Lessor releases to him and held a void Release for the reason aforesaid and 31 and 32 Eliz. it hath been adjudged between Allen and Hill where a Devise was made to the woman for life if she would inhabite and continue in the house and he went and inhabited in Surrey and the Heire released to her and it was held void because she was but Tenant at sufferance and so no privity but Yelverton and Tanfield that such estate for life was not determined without Entry and Yelverton Justice demanded that when the Husband continued in possession after the Lease determined whether he should be in the Right of his Wife and so remain Tenant at sufferance whether he should be in his own Right or be as an intruder Disseisor and then the release made to him was good but no answer was given to him but Judgement was given that the release was void and Fennor put this Case Tenant for life remainder in Tail remainder in Fee he in the remainder in Fee released to Tenant for life a void release because of the mean remainder in Tail and cited 30 E. 3. and no answer was given to it and Yelverton said that if Tenant for life release to him in the remainder in Fee it is void because it shall be void as a surrender and this word release shall not recite as a surrender HOldesden versus Gresill Mich. 5 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close called B. at L. and for taking of two Conies the Defendant to the whole Trespasse but the entring in the Close pleads not guilty and as to the Close justifies because he Common in the Close called B. for five Cowes and because very many Conies were there feeding and spoiling the Common the Defendant in preservation of his Common entred to chase and kill the conies to which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and Judgement was given that the justification was naught for a Commoner cannot enter to chase or kill the Conies for although the owner of the Soil hath no property in the Conies yet as long as they are in his Land he had the possession which is good against the commoner for if the Lord surcharge the common with Beasts the commoner cannot chase them out but the owner may distrain the Beasts of an estranger or dammage feasant or chase them out of the common for the stranger hat no colour to have his Beasts there and also conies are a matter of profit to the owner of the Soil for Housekeeping and therefore because it appears that the cause of Entry was to chase and also to kill which are not lawfull as against the Lord who is Plaintiff therefore the matter of the justification is not good for if the Lord surcharge the Soil with conies the commoner may have an Action of case against him for that particular dammage which is a sufficient remedy against the Plaintiff upon a full and deliberate considera-of all the Judges JEnnings versus Haithwait Mich. 5 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defendant pleaded not guilty the Jury found the Defendant Vicar of D. and that he such a day leased his vicaridg to J. S. for three years rendring rent which J. S. assigned one Acre parcell thereof to the Plaintif and the Defendant was absent severall quarters in one year to wit sixty dayes in every quarter but they did not find the Statute of 13 Eliz. adjudged for the Defendant for the Statute of the 13 Eliz. is a generall Law for although it extends but to those which have cure of Souls yet in respect of the multiplicity of Parsonages and vicaridges in England the Judges must take notice of it as a generall Law and adjudge according to the said Statute and so is the Statute of the 21 H. 8. for non-residence DRewry versus Dennys Mich. 5. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought against a man and his Wife and the Plaintif declares that they did beat one Mare of the Plaintifs and committed diverse other Trespasses and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found that the Woman beat the Mare and for the residue they found for the Defendant and the Verdict adjudged naught by the Court for it is altogether imperfect for they have found the Woman guilty of the beating the Mare and have given no Verdict concerning that for the Husband either by way of acquittall or condemnation and the finding the Defendant not guilty as to the residue doth only extend to the other Trespasses contained in the Declaration and not to the beating of the Mare And Williams and Cooke Justices said that where a Battery is brought against Husband and Wife supposing that they both beat the Plaintif or the Mare of the Plaintif and upon not guilty pleaded it is found that the Woman onely made the Battery and not the Husband this Verdict is against the Plaintif for it now appears that the Plaintifs Action was false for the Husband in this case shall not be joyned for conformity onely and there is a speciall Writ in the Register for this purpose and is not like a Battery charged upon I. D. and I. S. for there one may be acquitted and another found guilty and good because they are in Law severall Trespasses SAnds and others versus Scullard and others Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffs brought an Action of Trespass against the Defendants for entring their Close and Judgement was entred against Dawby one of the Defendants by nil dicit Scullard pleaded not guilty whereupon a Venire facias was awarded upon the Roll between the parties as well to try the Issue as to inquire of the damages And the Plaintiffs took their Venire facias to try the Issue between the two-Defendants and the two Plaintiffs And according to that was the Habeas Corpus and Distringas but the Plaintiffs knowing Dawby to be dead took their Record of Nisi prius against Scullard onely and he was found guilty And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement and shewed the Venire facias and that there was no Issue joyned between the Plaintiffs and Dawby for Judgment was given against him by Nil dicit and the Writ ought to have made mention onely of the Issue between the Plaintiffs and Scullard And their ought to have been
intaile had been in both 19. H. 6. 75. And the like Law if it had been to the Heirs which the Husband should beget of the body of the woman Little 82. 6. HOrn against Widlake Mich. 6. Jac. An action of Trespass brought wherefore he broke his Close and spoiled his Grass in D. The Defendant pleads that in the Close wherein the Plaintiff supposes the Trespass to be done time out of mind there hath been a foot-way for all people passing in by and through the said Close untill such a day and that such a day the Plaintiff plowed up the said Foot-way and sowed it with Corn and laid thorns on the sides of it And further pleads that in the said Close neer the said ancient Foot-way the Plaintiff before the Trespass supposed to be committed left and set out another Foot-way for all people who would use that new way which way since it was laid forth hath been used by all Foot-passengers by reason whereof the Defendant the time in which c. went in the way so laid forth unto such a place c. which is the same trespass c. and demands judgment c. and the Plaintiff demurs and adjudged against the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff made the first wrong in stopping up the ancient way and had assigned a new way for passengers And therefore the Defendants plea is good by way of excuse as to the Plaintiff for it is not fit he should punish the Defendant against his own agreement As if there were a Foot-way through the Close of I. S. over an hedg and I should remove the hedg into a new place if passengers in using their way goe over the hedg where it is newly placed and fixed they shall not be punished for that for it arises of the Act and wrong of the Plaintiff himselfe and volenti non fit injuria As if water run by the Land of M. and M. stop the water-course so that it surround my ground if now abate this hee shall not have an action against me for entring into his Close because the stoppage was his own Act and the same law in the principall case And although the Defendant hath pleaded generally that the Plaintiff hath set out a way and shews not where it is is not materiall for that which is common to all cannot be assigned to any particular person which was the opinion of the whole Court except Justice Yelverton MEtham versus Barker Mich. 6. Jacobi An action of Trespass brought for that the Defendant the first of August in the fifth yeare the Plaintifs Close at L. in the County of Suffolke hath broken and entred and spoiled his Grass with his Cattel c. The Defendant pleads that in the time when the Trespass c. the free-hold of the Land where c. was in Sir Jo. T. And that the Defendant as servant and by his commandement hath entred and put in his Cattell The Plaintiff replyed that true it was that the Free-hold was in Sir John T. But said that a long time before the Trespasse c. Sir Iohn leased the Close to the Plaintiff at will by reason whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and traverses without that that the Defendant by the command of Sir Io. entred and put in his Cattell and the Defendant demurred and adjudged against the Plaintiff for the plea in Barre is good and in no wise avoided by the Replication for the Replication must be good only by way of Title And the Plaintiff doth not intitle himselfe to any good Lease at will for he doth not alledg indeed any Seisin in Sir Iohn or any possession in him out of which a Lease at will may be derived And although a Declaration may be good to a common intent and in debt upon a Lease as 21. H. 7. is the Plaintiff may declare that he devised And need not alledg a seisin in himself when he made the Lease c. Yet when a title is made by Barre or Replication as 2 E. 4. 9. is that ought to be certain to all intents because it is traversable and because the Defendant had made a good Justification in Law that ought to be answered by the Plaintiff with a good title to wit that Sir I. T. was seised and made a Lease to him at will which is not so done but it is all one as if he should have replyed that Robin-Hood in Barnwood stood without that by the command of Sir Iohn c. which observe And this by the opinion of Fennor Williams and Cook being only then in Court and Judgment was given accordingly GOodman against Ayling Mich. 6. Jac. An action of Trespass brought that the Defendant the 8. of February 4. Iacobi broke the Plaintiffs house and took and carried away one Brasse Chafer of the Plaintiffs price 20 s. The Defendant pleads that the house is parcell of halfe a yard Land in P. and that it was holden of H. Earl of North as of his Mannor of W. by homage fealty escuage incertain suit of Court inclosure of the Park-pale rent one pound of Comyn and for the Rent behind for three years and the homage and fealty of Th. P. Tenant thereof the Defendant as servant of the Earl and by his command justified the Entry and taking c. The Paintiff replies that the house was held of R. Stanley as of his Mannor of Lee without that that it was held of the Earl in manner and form and upon this they were at issue and the Jury found it was held of the Earl as of his Manner of P. by homage fealty inclosure of the pale rent of a pound of Comyn and no otherwise And if it seemed to the Court that it was not held in manner and form they found for the Plaintiff c. And adjudged for the Defendant for although the verdict did not agree with the plea in manner and form of the tenure yet it agreed in substance in the point for which the taking was to wit that the Land was holden of the Earl and that suffices for there is difference between a Replevin and Trespass For in Replevin because the Avowant is to have return it behoves the Avowant to make a good Title in all things but otherwise it is in Trespasse for there the Defendant is bound only to excuse the Trespass and therefore if there be any tenure it suffices for if the Lord or Bayliffe in his right distrains for that which is not due yet he shall not be punished in Trespass as Littleton 114. for the manner and form And 9. H. 7. which mark by the whole Court and Fleming Justice vouched the 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. B. where the issue was whether a Villain regardant c. or free And the Jury found a Villain in grosse yet it was held good for the substance of the Villianage and of the issue were found H. 5. Jac. rotulo 834.
because he doth not shew from what place nor to what place the passage or way is for although a way be in grosse yet it ought to be bounded and circumscribed to some certain place especially when it appears to ly in usuage time out of mind for that ought to be in a place certain and not in one place to day and another to morrow but constant and perpetuall in one place Thirdly the Plea in Barr is not good because he doth not shew what manner of passage it was whether a Foot-way or Horse-way or Cart-way and therefore it is altogether incertain and Judgement given accordingly TRoughton against Gouge Mich. 7 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for entring into the Plaintiffs Close called Wild Marsh and for mowing and cutting five Loads of hay to his damage of c. the Defendant saith that the Close aforesaid did contain twelve Acres whereof a long time before the Trespasse done and at the time the Mayor of c. of Lincoln were seised in Fee and being so seised Leased it to the Defendant for years before the Trespass committed by reason whereof he entred and was posaessed untill the Plaintiff claimed by Deed of the Maior c. for life whereas nothing passed and entered and the Defendant the time aforesaid re-entred as it was Lawfull for him to do the Plaintif replied that the Close in which the Trespass is supposed to be done contained one Acre and three Roods and abutts it East West North and South and one of the abutnals were upon the twelve Acres mentioned in the plea in Barr and concludes it is another Close the Close mentioned in the Plea in Barr containing twelve Acres whereupon the Defendant demurres and the Court were of opinion at the first opening the matter that the replication was not good because it answers not to the matter supposed in the Barr for when the Plaintiff in his Declaration gives the place a certain name as he hath and the Defendant by his Plea in Barr agrees the place as here he doth to wit that the Close aforesaid to wit Wild Marsh is the inheritance of the Mayor c. and he as Lessee to them for years makes a Title to himself the plaintiff ought to answer to the Title or avoid it which he doth not by his replication for the plaintiff by that indeavors to assign a new place which he cannot do when they are agreed of a place before and therefore he ought to have pleaded that there were two Closes called Wild Marsh the one containing twelve Acres as the Defendant had alledged and the other containing one Acre and three roods whereof the Plaintiff was seised and that the Close where the Plaintiff supposed the Trespass to be committed and the close called Wild Marsh contained one Acre and three roods which mark and see 21 E. 4. LEe against Atkinson and Brooks Hill 7. Jacobi An Action of Baâ—tery brought against the Defendants at London for assaulting the Plaintiff to wit in such a Parish and Ward and beate wounded and evill intreated him to his damage of an hundred pounds the Defendant as to the force pleads not guilty and as to the residue that Atkinson the time in which c. at Gravesend in the County of Kent was possessed of a Gelding and being so thereof possessed the Plaintiff the time in which c. at Gravesend c. came to the Defendant to hire the Gelding for foure shillings for two dayes in which the Plaintiff would ride from Gravesend aforesaid to Nettlebed in the same County and from thence to Gravesend within the sayd two dayes by reason whereof the Defendant for the consideration aforesayd the time in which c. lent the Gelding to the Plaintiff who had it and in a direct line rode for the space of a mile to Nettlebed aforesaid upon the Gelding untill the Plaintif the time when c. intending to deceive the Defendant of his sayd Gelding went forth of his way to N. and rode towards London by reason whereof Atkinson in his owne right and Brook as his servant came to the Plaintif and at the same time in which c. required the Plaintif then riding upon the sayd Gelding towards London to deliver the Gelding which he refused to doe by reason whereof Atkinson in his owne right and Brook as his servant and by his command the time in which c. to repossess himselfe of the sayd Gelding layd hands upon the Plaintif and took him from the Horse back and would have taken the Gelding from the Plaintif by reason whereof the Plaintif did by force and Armes assault the Defendant and by strong hand kept the Gelding by reason whereof the Defendant did defend the possession of the Horse against the Plaintif as it was lawfull for him to doe And further say that if any damage hapned to the Plaintif it was of his owne assault and in defence of the possession of the Gelding and Traverses that he was not guilty in London or any where else out of Kent c. and the Plaintif demurs and adjudged for the Plaintif for the Battery is confessed and did arise from the evill behaviour of the Defendant for it appeared by their owne Plea in barr that the Plaintif had hyred the Gelding for two dayes and that they within these two dayes disturbe the Plaintif of his possession of the Horse and thrust him off his back which was not lawfull for the Plaintif had a good speciall property for the two dayes against all the World and although the Defendant pretends that the Plaintif had misbehaved himselfe in riding to another place then was intended yet that was to be punished by an Action of the Case but not to seise the Horse Which observe KNieveton against Roylie Mich. 8. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for breaking the Plaintifs Close called G. in Woodthorpe in the County of Derby to the damage of c. The Defendant pleads that the Close was known as well by the name of G. as by the name of D. And that it was and had been time out of minde parcell of the Wigenworth and pleads his freehold in the Mannour The Plaintif maintaines his Declaration and traverses that the place where c. was not parcell of the Mannor and upon this they are at Issue and a Venire facias awarded of Woodthorpe onely and moved in Arrest of Judgment by the Defendant the Verdict being for the Plaintif and urged that it was a mistryall for the Venire facias ought to have been as well of the Mannor as of Woodthorpe for although the parties be agreed that the place where the Trespass was committed lyes in Woodthorpe yet that being supposed indeed to be parcell of the Mannor of Wigenworth the Venu of the Mannor by intendment have a more perfect and better knowledge of it then the Villiage of Woodthorpe onely which was granted by the whole Court and a new Venire awarded to
try the Issue anew DOwglas against Kendall Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintif declared that the Defendant the 21. of January 6. Jac. by force and Arms thirty Loads of Thornes of the Plaintifs ready to be carryed in a place called the Common wast at Chipping-warden in the County of Norfolk did take and carry away to the Plaintifs damage of ten pounds the Defendant pleaded not guilty to all but to ten Loads and as to them that the place where c. contained one Acre of pasture and that one William Palmer was seised in fee of a Messuage and three quarters of a yard Land in C. aforesayd and that he and those whose estate he had in the sayd Messuage c. time out of minde were used to have for their farmers c. all the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture to their use to be imployed and spent upon the sayd Messuage c. as appurtenant thereunto and the sayd ten Loads were growing and unjustly cast downe by the Plaintif upon the sayd Acre of wast and being ready for them to carry the Defendant as servant to Palmer and by his command took them and carryed them away and imployed them upon the House as it was lawfull for him to doe the Plaintiff by protestation that Palmer and such c. time out of minde had not the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture parcell of the wast and that Sir Richard Saltonstall was seised of the Mannor of Chipping-warden whereof the common wast was parcell in fee and that he the 21. of January the sixth yeare of K. James granted license to the Plaintif to cut and carry away thirty Loads of Thornes mentioned in the Plea in barr growing upon the Wast by reason whereof they cut those ten Loads of Thornes growing upon the wasts and they were ready to be carryed by reason whereof they were possessed thereof untill the Defendants took them away and upon this Replication the Defendants demurred and adjudged against the Plaintif and there was a differance taken by the Court where a man claimes reasonable Estovers in anothers Soyle and where a man claimes all the Thornes in anothers Soyle for in the first case if the Owner of the Soyle shall cut downe the Thornâ—s first he that hath title to the Estovers cannot take them for the property and interest of all the Thornes continues in the Owner of the Soyle and the other hath onely Common there and if the Owner of the Soyle cut them downe all he that should have the Estovers shall have an Action upon the Case onely and not an Assise for when all the Wood is destroyed it cannot be put in seisin as the Abridgement of the Assise is fol. 21. And so it appeares by Sir Thomas Palmers Case Co. lib. 5. fol. 25. And if one grant an hundred Cords of Wood to be taken at the election of the Grantee and the Grantor or an Estranger cut downe the Wood the Grantee cannot take the Wood but must supply his Grant out of the residue for the Grantee hath but an especiall interest in part of the Wood and not in all but now in this Case the Defendant in right of Palmer claimes all the Thornes in the name of all the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture and if he hath all Sir Richard S. cannot have any and so by consequence cannot license the Plaintif to cut any and so the whole interest is in Palmer and it is not in the nature of Estovers for Estovers is but parcell of the Wood and that to be taken to a speciall purpose and in this case it was agreed that although the Defendant had alledged an imployment of the Estovers yet since the Defendant had claimed all the Thornes and Trees the imployment is not traversable for he that hath the generall interest and property in Trees by custome or prescription cannot be restrained but may use them at his pleasure And see 10 E. 4. 2. and adjudged accordingly MAssam against Hunt Mich. 6. Jacobi A Copi-holder of a Messuage and two Acres in fee. The Lord grants and confirms the Messuage and Lands with the appurtenances to the Copy-holder in fee and whether he to whom the confirmation was made shall have by the usage as a Copy-holder common in the wasts of the Lord was the question and adjudged he should not for the Copy-holder by that confirmation is extinct and infranchiz'd for the words with the appurtenances will not create a common for at first the Common was gained by custome and annexed to the customary estate and is lost and perished with that for Common of its own proper nature is incident to a Copy-hold Estate FArmer against Hunt Hilar. 8. Jacobi An Action of Trespasse brought for chasing the Plaintiffs Cattle in such a Close the Defendant justifies taking damage fesant in his Free-hold The Plaintiff replies and shewes one grant of Common in the place where c. by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and that afterwards the Defendant had erected a reek of Corn and the Plaintiff put in his Beasts to use his Common and the Defendant chased them But note that the Plaintiff in his replication in pleading the grant of the Common by Indenture did omit the bringing it into Court. And by all the Judges the chasing of the Cattell by the Defendant is not lawfull for by such means he may defeat his own grant for by the grant of common in such a place the Grantee may use the whole Common And then when the Grantor erects a Reek of Hay upon part of the Common he had granted he will diminish the Common and tend to the enfeebling of his Grant which ought not to be for the Beast ought to range over the whole place and eate the Hay without doing any wrong for the wrong did first begin in the Grantor who is the Defendant of which he shall never take advantage And whereas hee hath erected one Reek of Corn hee may erect twenty and so the Beasts shall have no liberty of pasture there but because the Plaintiff did not shew to the Court the Indenture of the Grant which is the ground of his title for that very cause judgment was given against the Plaintiff DVrant against Child Hillar 9. Jaco An Action of Trespasse brought for chasing the Cattell of the Plaintiff and shews what Cattell and that the Trespasse was done at B. to his damage of c. The Defendant justifies the chasing in one Close called M. in B. which is his Free-hold and that the Cattell were there damage fesant The Plaintiff replies and shews that one B. is seised of one Close called Catley in D. in fee and made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff for years and that the Defendant is seised of one Close called Fursey in Fee which lies next adjoyning to the Close called Catley and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate he hath in Fursey Close have used
time out of mind to repair the Fence and Hedges betweene Catley Close Fursey Close which Fursey Close doth next adjoyn to the Close called M. where the Cattel were chased and shews that the Plaintiff put his Cattell in Catley Close to feed the Grass there which by default of inclosure escaped into Fursey Close as above but he said that between Catley Close and Fursey Close there is a little Brook which Brook at the side of Catley close had a banck next adjoyning to it which banck the Lessor of the Plaintiff and those whose Estate they have c. have used time out of mind c. to repair And that the Brook at the side of Fursey Close had another Brook next adjoyning which the Defendant used to repair and shews because the Plaintiff had not repaired the banck on the side of Catley Close the Cattell did escape into Fursey Close and stayed in the Close called M. By reason whereof the Defendant chased them as it was lawfull for him to doe whereupon the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintif for the Defendant had pleaded a good Barre and the Plaintif had replyed a good replication and had removed the fault from himselfe and laid it upon the Defendant by his negligent inclosure between Catley and Fursey and the rejoynder doth not confess and avoid the replication but perplexes the matter by adding one point of prescription on the Plaintiffs part that he ought to repair one banck between Catley and Fursey upon which an issue could not be taken for then two prescriptions should be an issue together which cannot be no more then two affirmatives as the 5. H. 7. 12. And also the matter contained in the Records doth not answer the matter contained in the Replication but by way of Argument only And whether that be true is no matter in evidence against the Plaintiff who is bound to prove his Replication true For the Plaintiff saith that Catley and Fursey doe lye together that is without any space between them And the Defendant in his Rejoynder saith there is a banck between Catley and Fursey which if it be so they do not lye together but the Defendant ought to have traversed the prescription alledged by the Plaintiff which had made an end of all the matter which observe was by the opinion of the whole Court SVtcliffe against Constable Trin. 10. Jac. Ch. Constable 32. Eliz. was seised in fee of the Mannor of East-hatfield in the County of Yorke and by his Indenture infeoffes H. Remingham paying for certain Lands parcell of the Mannor 60 l. at two Feasts with a clause of Distresse if it be behind by the space of 14. days Ch. 43. Elizab. by Indenture bargains and sells the 60 l. Rent to the Plaintiff which was inrolled by reason whereof he was seised of the Rent for the life of Ch. and being so seised loses that part of the Identure sealed by Remingham which the said day to wit the 24. Novemb 44. Eliz. came to the hands of the Defendant who by Force and Armes teared the seale of the Indenture against the Peace c. to his damage of 400 l. The Defendant pleads that Ch. hath not granted the Mannor of E. to Remingham paying the rent c. in manner and form and the Plaintiff demurres upon this Plea And it was argued that the Bar was good which is a direct traverse to the title of the Plaintiff to destroy the ground of the Plaintiffs action for if no rent were granted then the Indenture concerning which the Plaintif complains did not belong to the Plaintiff for it passes not to the Plaintiff but as an incident to the second Grant of necessity to make good his title As the Lord Buckhursts Case Co. 1. 7. E. 4. 30. in assize of rent the Plaintiff made his title by deed of a rent charge it was a good plea to say that nothing passed by the grant because the issue is taken upon the speciall matter and not the generall but in an Assize brought of an Office it is no plea to say there is no such Office for that amounts to no more but that he hath not disseised him 45. E. 3. In trespass for taking away of writing it is no plea to say that he never had such a writing but must plead not guilty So in an Action of Trespass for Goods it is no Plea to say that the property of them was to an Estranger and not to the Plaintif because by that plea hee denies not but that the Plaintif was in posaession which is sufficient to maintain the Action 20. H. 8. 28. which books prove that the Plea in Bar is not good for the Defendant destroys the Plaintifs Action but by way of Argument And the rent by such Action is not demanded but damages for tearing the Indenture and so the Title of Rent is not in question and exceptions were taken to the Declaration First the Action was brought for tearing the Counter-part by which the Rent was not created And the Indenture is not expresly granted to the Plaintif but the rent of 60 l. only is bargained and sold and by that the counter-part that pertains to Remingham doth not pass to the Plaintif as an incident for it is not the Originall Deed by which at first the rent was reserved which was granted by all but the Cheife Justice for he said that the counter-part waited upon the interest and was good evidence for that Secondly the Plaintif had not averred that Ch. for whose life the Rent was granted was alive at the time of tearing the Indenture and if C. was dead the Indenture pertained to the Defendant of right as Heir of Ch. for so much appeared by the Plaintifs own shewing which was granted And thirdly the Plaintiff shewed not that ever hee was posaessed of the Deed but by way of Argument to wit that he casually lost it which is not sufficient for none shall have trespass but he who is in actuall posaession which was also granted by the Court. Fourhly the counter-part whereof the Plaintif complains by the Plaintifs own shewing contained as well a warranty as the rent reserved And therefore without a special gift made of that Deed by Ch. to the Plaintiff that Deed doth not pass by Law to the Plaintiff as it is adjudged in Lord Buckhursts Case Fifthly if Ch. the Father be dead then the writing hath lost his force as to the rent for by his death the rent is determined and therefore of necessity the Plaintiff ought to averre the life of Ch. For no Action lies for a Deed that is determined and for these reasons the Plaintiff did discontinue his Action An Action of Trespass was brought for entring into a mans House and continuing there divers dayes c. And after a Tryall and verdict for the Plaintiff Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgment and shewed for cause that the Plaintiff had declared with a continuando for breaking
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
of Parent 42 Imparlance what plea after 42 Judgment Arrested 2 Judgment reversed because the Sheriff was not named in the Venire facias 3 Iudgment arrested 5 Justification not good where 5 Justification amounting to a not guilty naught 5 Innuendo will not help the action 7 9 Imparlance Roll supplyed by the issue 9 Juror committed 44 Judgment upon a By-law 48 49 Judgment pleaded in Bar by Executor 49 Judgment against Executors 53 Imparlance amended 53 Judgment arrested for improper words Sans Anglice 82 Jeofaile the statute not helping where 82 Judgment reversed by Error in the disjunctive 88 Intendment upon a Will 89 Judgment reversed in an inferiour Court why 97 Judgment reversed for Errour in the judgment 99 Judgment reversed for changing the Defendants addition 100 Judgment priority considerable 102 Judgment reversed for not shewing in what Court a deed was enrolled 115 Judgement reversed for want of words in the Tales 115 116 Implication not allowed of in a surrender where 128 Judgment in an Eject firmae 129 Interest what 136 Judgment reversed by Writ of Error non obstante a verdict the Statute of 18. Eliz. 106 Imparlance what is pleadable after 138 Joynture what 139 Interest in possession and in future the difference 148 Implication not intended where 153 Judgment arrested for that the plea was naught 172 Jurors name mistaken was amended upon constat de persona Iudgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lie to which Common did belong 188 Iury challenge 194 Iudgment it 's nature as to the Plaintiff and Defendant 194 Issue helped by the Statute of Jeofailes where 200 Iudgement reversed because the writ of Enquiry was before a wrong Officer 203 Imprisonment justified by the commandment of the Maior of London naught where 204 Justice of Peace cannot command his servants to arrest in his absence without Warrant 205. Iustification in Trespass for a way 212. Iustification not good where 218. Iustification speciall pleaded in Battery 226. Issue of things in severall places 229. K. KIngs Title not lost 164 Knight ought to be returned in the Pannell where 193. L. LAw Gager lies not if the except be per manus proprias 25 Lease to two determined upon the death of one where 30. Lease of a Reversion sans Attornament where good 30. Legacy of Land not suable for in Court Christian 32. Legacy of a Chattell suable for in Court Christian 34. Locallity not to be made transitory 35. Limitation is taken strictly grant aliter 39. Lessee at will cannot grant over his Estate 43. Law mistaken where it is hurtfull 41. Letters of Administration ought to be shewed 9. Law waged where 53. Law wager by a false party 55. Letter of an attorny where naught 94. 95. Law Gager lies not in debt for sallery 60. Law Gager where 70. 65 Lessee at will if he determine his Will Devis au yet shall pay the intire Rent 90. Lease to try a Title of Lands in the hands of many 129. Lease to be executed by Letter of an Attorney how 129. Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remain to the survivor for 90 years is a good Interest in the Survivor 136. London how houses passe without inrollment 141. 142. Liberty to make Leases 169. Lease for life to three where it was naught 175. Lord of Parliament not appearing shall forfeit 100 l. 193. Lunatick where an Action ought to brought in his name 197. Levant and Couchant is certainly fufficient 198. M. MIstryall the Ven. fac mistaken 17 Mistake of the Iury 18 Misprision of the Clerk amended 26 Monasteries dissolved onely those Regular 39 Mistake by the Court no prejudice 42. Mistriall 7. Missworn fellow Actionable 9. Medietas Linguae where 45. Master chargeable where 64 Misprision of the Clerk amended after tryall 88. Mannor by that name what will passe 155. Mistake of a day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudicial 196. Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea of Debt except one party be of the houshold 199 Marshalsey no Iurisdiction 199. 200. Master cannot have an Action for the loss of Service if the Servant die of the beating 205. N. NOtice not necessary 10 Non est inventus where the party did escape 12 Nusance where it lyeth 4. Non damnificatus pleaded 7 Noverint for non assumpsit 8. Notice where needfull 46. Nul tiel Record pleaded to a Plea of Outlawry 84. Non damnificatus pleaded 118. Nisi prius amended by the Roll 133 Nonage tryed where it is alledged not where the Land lies 150. 151. Non-tenure pleaded 153. Nisi prius the Record amended upon motion 156 Nullum tempus occurrit Regi 166. Negativum praegnans 172. Non residency the Statute 13 El. a generall Law 208. New Asignment where not good 217. Bar to it 236. Nihil dicit 237. 238. Non omittas 240. O ORdinary cannot make a division 32. Ordinary his power 45. Outlawry no Plea where 55. Outlawry in the Testator 55. Originall want of it after verdict no Error 97. Obligation discharged why 98. 99. Originall against four count against three without a Simulcum adjudged naught 130 Ordinary and Patron their severall Rights 202. P. PArdon generall de effect 10. Promise by an Infant not good 11 Papist to a Bishop actionable 12. Proviso implicit where good 14. Perjured knave actionable 15. Proviso 18 19. Pyracy no excuse in an Action of Covenant 21. Plea in abatement 27 in Assise 28. Premunire in a Parson 30. Pleas severall cannot be in a joint debt or contract 30. Proof how far extendible 33 Where required and where not 34. Pardon crimen legitur non tollitur 34. Priviledge from Arrest where not to be allowed 84 Prender and Render the difference 34. 35. Prescription where good 35 Property not altered upon a Scire facias 41. Punishment corporall not to be imposed for the default of a deputy where 45. Proviso Executory and executed the difference 8. Priviledge respective 47 Payment where peremptory 49 Plea made good by verdict 52 Payment when upon demand 52 Pardon generall pleaded 56. Plea to a Bond taken by the Sheriff 58. Payment to the Heir and not to the exceutor where good 64. Priviledge of an Vniversity where not to be allowed 75. Plene adm nistravit no Plea where 77 78. Proprietor sufficient 88. Priviledge of Parl. pleaded 92 Plea naught for want of traverse 98. Primo deliberat shall not be pleadded sans traverse 105. Propriety of goods cannot be in abeyance 132. Prescription and custome do differ how 132. Processe misawarded where helped by the Statute 134. Plea where it shall be in discharge but not in Barr of an obligation 109. Partition Processe in it 156. For whom it lies 157 Partition error in the first Judgement 157. Partition in another Writ was pleaded Presentment of a Clerk by words good 162. Patrons 6 moneths 165. Proprietate probanda 167. Plea naught 173. Pannell of hab corp
of his confirmation and not by the first see 11. R. 2. Grants 9. Ed. 3. 4. 12. R. 2 Feoffments 58. See Perkins fol. 8. b 9. a. Grants 10. Eliz. Dyer 279. 4. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Styles against Baxter STyles brought an Action upon the case against Baxter for calling him perjured man the Defendant justified that he was perjured in such a Court in such a deposition and so pleaded that certainly and it was found for the Defendant at the Nisi prius and Judgment was given accordingly and the Defendant afterwards published the same words of the Plaintiff upon which he brought a new Action for the new publication in which the Defendant pleaded in Barr the first Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it was adjudged without any Contradiction that it was a good Barr. Hillari 8. Jacobi 1610. In the common Bench. Andrewe against Ledsam in the Star Chamber ANdrewe exhibited his bill in the Star Chamber against Ledsam the matter Andrew being a rich Usurer delivered to Ledsam being a Scriâ—ener one thousand pound to be imployed for him for Interest that is for ten pound for the use of every hundred pound for every yeare Ledsam being a Prodigall man as it seemes spent the Money and delivered to Andrewe diverse severall obligations every of them containing three severall persons well known to be sufficient being some of them Knights others Gentlemen and Esquires of great Estates and the other good Citizens without exceptions were bound to Andrewe in two hundred pound for the payment of one hundred sixty pound to Andrew at a day to come within six Moneths then next comming as Andrew had used before to lend his Money and delivered the Obligations with Seales unto them and the names of the parties mentioned to be bound by that subscribed and his own name also subscribed as witnessing the sealing and delivery of them as a publique Notary aâ— the good and lawfull obligations of the Parties which were mentioned in them where indeed the parties mentioned in them had not any notice of any of them But Ledsam had forged and counterfeited them as he hath confessed upon his Examination upon Interrogatories administred by the Plaintiff in this Court and at the hearing of the Cause and sentence of that it was moved if Ledsam shaâ—l loose both his Eares or but one for if it be but one forgery then by the Statute of 5. Eliz. Admitting that the Bill is grounded upon this Statute he shall loose an Eare and pay the double dammageâ— and cost to the party greeved And also if Andrew being but the Obligee and not any of the parties in whose names the Obligations were forged if he be such a party greived which shall have double costs and dammages and these doubts were resolved by Coke cheife Justice of the Common Bench where they were moved and Flemming cheif Justice of the Kings Bench that Ledsam should loose but one eare for that shall be taken as one forgery for that it was made at one time and also that Andrew was the party greived within the Statute but Coke said that the Bill was generall that is against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and not precisely upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. For he said that when a Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament that this ought to containe all the branches which are mentioned in the Act the which wants in this Bill but insomuch that it was adjudged in Parliament what punishment such offenders shall have they inflicted the same punishment which is appointed by the Statute and added to that that he should be Imprisoned till he found good Suerties for his good behaviour and also that hee shall be brought to every one of the Kings Courts at Westminster with great Papers in his hatt containing his offence in Capitall letters but the Lord Chancellor expounded the double dammages in such manner that is that they shall not be intended double Interest but only the Principall Debt Note that if Execution be directed to a Sheriffe to Arrest any man or to make Execution within a Liberty And the Sheriffe direct his Warrant to a Bayliffe of the Liberty for to make Execution of the Processe which makes it and after is a Fugitive and not able to answer for that the Lord of the Franchise shall answer for that and shall be liable to answer for his Bayliffe by all the Justices Burdett against Pix IN Debt upon a single Bill by Burdett against John Pix as administrator of Freewen the case was this that is Freewen was bound in an Obligation of thirty four pound to Burdett the Plaintiff and was also bound to one William Pix in 80. l. Freewen dyed Intestate and the Letters of Administration of his Goods were Committed after his Death to the said John Pix the Defendant and the said William Pix also made the said John Pix the Defendant his Executor and died and the Defendant in this Action pleads that the said Freewen was indebted to the said William Pix and that he was his Executor and that he had Goods of the said Freewens sufficient to satisfie the said debt the which he retained for the satisfaction of that and that over that he hath not of his to satisfie him upon which the Plaintiff Demâ—…or that that the Defendant doth not plead that he hath â—…is election to retaine the said goods for the satisfaction of â—…own said Debt before the Action brought and by all the Justices he ought to make his election before the bringing of the Action otherwise he shall be charged with the other Debt See Woodward and Darcyes Case Commentaries 184. a. and 4. Cook 30. Coulters Case Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Bone against Stretton THe case was this A man seised of two Acres of Land makes a Lease for years of one Acre to one and another Lease for yeares of the other Acre to another and then he enters and makes a Feoffment and severall Liveryes upon the severall Acres and one of the Lessees being present doth not assent to the said Livery and the use of the said Feoffment was not the use of his last Will and then he declares his last Will and by that recites the said Feoffment and then declares the use of that to be to the use of himself for life the remainder over to a stranger and after the Tenant for years which did not assent to the Livery grants his Estate to the Feoffor and the Feoffor dies and Nicholls Serjeant moved first That this enures as a grant of a reversion and that the grant of the perticuler Tenant enures first as an Attornement and then as a surrender of his Estate as if it had been an expresse surrender and all the Justices agreed that this doth not enure to make Attornement and surrender as expresse surrender will for an expresse surrender admits the reversion to be in the Grantee to whom the surrender is made
Cletherwoods Case of the Middle Temple but he said that Prescription to have all the Vesture of the Land is good for such a time and at the first day of the Argument of this Case Foster Justice seemed that the prescription was good and might have reasonable beginning that is by Grant as if they have Common together and they agree that one shall have all for one part of the yeare and the other for another part of the year and that shall be good to which Coke answered that that cannot be by Prescription to have that as Common and at another day Coke cited Shirland and Whites Case to be adjudged 26 of Eliz. in the Kings Bench to be prescription to have common in the Waste of the Lord and to exclude the Lord to have common in the place and adjudged to be void prescription and also he cited a case between Chimery and Fist where prescription was to have common in the Soile of the Lord and that the Lord shall have feeding but for so many cattell and adjudged that the Prescription was not good to exclude the Lord but a man may prescribe to have the first Crop or the first Vesture of anothers Land and it is good and with that agrees the resolution in Kiddermisters Case in the Star-Chamber Warburton justice said that this prescription is not for the excluding of the Lord but for their good ordering of their Lands according to the Book of 46 Ed. 3 25. before cited that the great Cattell should have the first feeding and after that the sheep Coke said that if it had appeared by the pleading that all the Demesnes of the Lord ought to be common and in consideration that the Lord had inclosed part and injoyed that in severall the Free-holders and Tenants of the Mannor which have Common over all the Residue and exclude the Lord and this shall be good by prescription and it is adjourned see 15 Ed. 2. Fitzherbert Prescription 51. And afterwards in Trinity Tearme 1612. 10. Jacobi this case was moved againe and all the Justices agreed as this Pleading is Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff and they moved the parties to replead Pasch 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Portington against Rogers Trin. 8. Jacobi Rot. 3823. MARY Portington brought a Trespasse against Robert Rogers and others Defendants for the breaking of her house and Close upon not guilty pleaded and speciall Verdict found the Case was this A man had Issue three Daughters and made his Will in writing and by that devised certain Land to the youngest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the Eldest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the middlemost daughter in taile with Proviso that if my sayd daughters or any of them or any other Person or persons before enamed to whom any estate of Inheritance in possession or Remainder of in or to the said Lands limited or appointed by this my last Will and Testament or to the Heires before mentioned of them or any of them shall joyntly or severally by themselves or together with any other willingly apparently and advisedly conclude and agree to or for the doing or execution of any Act or Devise whereby or wherewith the said Premises so to them intailed as aforesaid or any part or parcell thereof or any estate or Remainder thereof shall or may by any way or means be discontinued aliened or put away from such person or persons and their Heires or any of them contrary to mine intent and meaning in this my Will otherwise then for a Joynture or shall willingly or advisedly commit or do any act or thing whereby the premises or any part thereof shall not or may not discend remaine or come to such persons and in such sort and order as I have before limited and appointed by this my last Will and Testament then I will limit declare and appoint that then my said Daughter or Daughters or other the said person or persons before named and every of them so concluding and agreeing to or for the doing or execution of any such act or Devise as is aforesaid shall immediately from and after such concluding and agreeing loose and forfeit and be utterly barred and excluded of and from all and every such Estate Remainder and benefit as shee or they or any of them should might or ought justly to have claime Challenge and demand of in or to so much thereof as such conclusion or agreement shall extend unto or concern in such manner and forme as if she or they or any of them had not been named nor mentioned in this my last Will and Testament and that the Estate of such person c. shall cease and determine c. And after that the youngest Daughter tooke a Husband and then shee and her Husband concluded and agreed to suffer a Recovery and so to barr the Remainder and upon that the Plaintiff being the eldest Daughter entred and upon the Entry brought this Action And Harris Serjeant argued for the Defendant that this shall be a condion and not a limitation and he said that Mews and Scholiasticas Case is not adjudged against him see the Commentaries 412. b. And it shall be taken strictly for that that it comes in Defesans of the Estate and then admitting it is a condition it is not broken for this conclusion and agreement is only the agreement of the Husband and though that the Wife be joyned yet be that for her benefit or prejudice that shall be intended only the Act of the Husband and he only shall be charged as in the 48 Ed. 3 18. Husband and Wife joyne in Contract and the Husband only brings Action upon that and 45 Ed. 3. 11. Husband and Wife joyne in Covenant and the Action was brought against them both and it was abated for that shall charge the Husband only 24 Ed. 3. 38 The Husband and the Wife joyne in an Action upon the Statute of Laborers and the Writ abated and so in cases of Free-hold as 15 Ed. 4. 29. b. The Husband and the Wife being Tenants for life joyne in praying aid of a stranger and this shall be no forfeiture of the Estate of the Wife and 48 Ed. 3. 12. a. Statute Merchant was made to the husband and Wife and they joyned in Defeasans that shall not be Defeasans of the Wife and 28 H. 8. Dyer 6. The Husband of the Wife Executrix aliens the Tearme which was let to the Testator upon condition that he or his Executors should not alien and by Baldwin by the alienation of the Husband the Condition was not broken for it was out of the words so here the agreement and conclusion being made by Husband and Wife shall be intended the Act of the Husband only and so out of the Words and by consequence out of the intent of the Condition and shall be taken strictly but he seemed that the Condition shall be void for the Words conclude and agree are words uncertain for what
if a man devise his Lands to his Wife and after her death to his Son and the remainder to his sayd Wife in Fee-simple the Husband of the Wife having Issue shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for alwayes the Judges have made such favourable construction of Wills that if Estates devised by Will might be created by act executed in the life of the party then it should be good by devise and to the objection that conclusion and agreement is uncertaine and so for that shall be voyd he saith that it is not so uncertaine as going about or resolve and determine an attempt or procure as in Corbets Case first of Coke 83. b. or as attempt or endeavour as in Germins and Arscotts Case there cyted fol. 285. a. See 6 Coke 40. a. Mildmayes Case and also the words subsequent are repugnant that the Estate tayle shall cease as if the Tenant in tayle were dead and not otherwise which is absurd and repugnant for the Estate tayle doth not determine by his death if he doe not dye without Issue And also he sayd that it is more reasonable that the perpetuity in Scholasticas Case for here the limitation depends upon agreement which is a thing certaine upon which the Issue may be joyned and also the condition doth stand with the nature of the Estate tayle and for the preservation of it and Recovery is against the nature of it for this destroyes the Estate tayle and is onely a consequent of it and not parcell of the nature of the Estate and this is the reason that Littleton saith That an Estate tayle upon condition that he should not alien is good for that preserves the Estate and also preserves Formedon for him in reversion if there be a discontinuance and with that agreed 13 H. 7. 23. 24. and he sayd that there was a Judgement in the point for his Clyent for another part of the Land and he cyted 31 Edw. 5. Fitz. Feoffment placito the last and Fitzherberts Natura brevium Ex gravi querela last Case and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff and this Case was argued againe by Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant and he intended that the agreement is voyd to the Wife and shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely for a marryed Wife cannot countermand Livery 21 Assis 25. and if a Woman makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff upon request made by her and she takes a Husband she cannot make request after coverture 35 Assisarum So that he intended that this shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely and not of the Wife and yet he argued that Declaration of a use by a marryed Wife shall be good according to Beckwiths Case But he sayd That the reason of that is for that that she is party to the Recovery which is a matter of Record and as long as the Record remaines in force so long the Declaration of the use shall be good and also he argued that if the condition being that if the Wife conclude or agree to any act to make discontinuance that then c. that that shall be intended unlawfull acts and Recovery is no unlawfull act and for that shall not be within the restraint of the Condition as the Earl of Arundels Case 17 Eliz. Dyer 343. and admitting that it is a limitation yet it shall be of the same nature as a condition and as well as a condition that Tenant in tayle shall not suffer Recovery is voyd So also is such Limitation void and so it was intended before the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus and it appeares by the pleading that the parties did not intend to take advantage of the agreement for it is pleaded that at the time of the Recovery suffered the youngest Daughter was seised of an estate tayl the which could not be if her estate were determined and destroyed by the agreement and conclusion so that the last words make the Forfeyture for the first are not unlawfull and before the execution of the Recovery the estate tayl is determined and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Barker Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff It shall be intended a Limitation and not a condition for a Will shall have favorable construction according to the intent of the Devisor for a Joyntenant may devise to his Companion 49. Ed. 3. and Fitz. Na. Bre. Ex gravi querela last case A man devises Land to his Wife for life upon condition that if he marry that it should remain over to his Son in tayl and the Wife marries and the Son in remainder sues Ex Gravi querela by which it appeares that it was a Limitation and not a condition and 34 Ed. 3. devise was to one for life upon condition that if his Sonn disturbed him that then it should remaine over in taile upon disturbance he in Remainder in tail brings Formedon by which it appears it was a Limitation and with that agrees all the Justices in 29 Assisarum 17. And Wellock and Hamonds Case cited in Barastons Case before and 18. Eliz. Dyer If Land be limited to no third person by the Devise then the Heir shall enter for breaking the condition and also he said that it appears by Littleton and 13 H. 7 23. and 24 and 20 H. 7. and 17 Eliz. 343. the Earle of Arundells case which conditioneth that Tenant in taile shall not alien standeth with his Estate but not with Fee simple and so it is adjudged in Nowes and Scholasticas Case which is adjudged in the point which as he saith cannot be answered and the Words of the Condition are not that her Estate taile shall cease as if shee had been dead but as if she had not been named which is not so repugnant or absurd as the other and this compared to 34 Ed 3. Where the Estate was limited till it was disturbed And he also argued that the agreement of the Wife shall be a forfeiture notwithstanding the coverture for when the Estate is granted upon such condition he which hath the estate shall take it subject to the condition as if two Lessees are and one Seals the Counterpart onely yet the other shall be bound by the Covenants contained in it and 33 H. 6. 31. a Woman disavows to be Executor notwithstanding that shee was marryed and if Precipe had been brought against the Husband and Wife the default of the Husband shall binde the Wife and so she shall be punished for waste made during the coverture and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Foster Justice that an Estate of Free-hold shall not cease by agreement or conclusion without entry for it is a matter of Inheritance and Free-hold and it is not like to 33 H. 6. 31. which concerns Chattels and Goods and Walmesley Justice accorded with him Warburton Justice it hath been adjudged in Scholasticas Case that the condition was good and therefore he would not deliver his
Statute and if the Words do not extend to that then the Equity of the Statute shall not extend to that and he said that Copy-hold is not within any of the Statutes which are made in the same yeare as the Statute which gives Elegit and such like and to Littleton that an Estate by copy is where Lands are given in Fee-simple Fee-taile and that Formedon lies for that with which agrees 10 Ed. 2. Formedon 55. It seems that the Estate taile here mentioned shall be intended Fee-simple conditionall at the Common Law and the Formedon in Discender which was at the Common Law for alienation before Issue And so Littleton shall be intended For the Estate is within time of memory see Heydons case that a Copy-hold Estate is an Estate in being within the Statute of 31 H. 8. And Manwood there said that insomuch the Estate of that is created by custome and the Estate taile is created by Statute yet it shall not be within the Statute and he said that the case of 15 H. 8. B. Copy of Court 24. is repugnant in it self in the words of Formedon for he saith though that Formedon was given by Statute and was no otherwise in Discender yet now this Writ lies at the Common Law and it shall be intended that this hath been a custome there time out of minde c. And so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Pasche 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Yet Bearblock and Read SEE the beginning before Hillary 8. Jacobi this Case was argued by Hutton Serjeant that the Plaintiff in the Action of Debt ought to Recover for if Executor may pay Debt due by the Testator by Obligation before Debt due by Judgement this shall be a Devastavit as it is resolved in Trewinyards Case 6. and 7. Edward 6. Dyer 80. 53. And he shall be charged for the Iudgement with his owne goods And so it was adjudged between Bond and Hales 31. Eliz. that Judgement at the Common Law shall be first satisfied before the Statute which is but a Pockett Record and Medium redditer in invitum Also it was adjudged in Harrisons Case 5. Coke 28. b. That Debt due upon an Obligation shall be first payd before Statute with Defeasans for performing of Covenants the which Defeasens is not broken and also it is adjudged between Pemberton and Barkham here cited that Judgement shall be satisfied before Statute Merchant or Staple or Recognizance though that the Statute be acknowledged before the Judgement had by the Testator See this Case in Harrisons Case 5. Coke 28. b. and in 4. Coke 60. a. Sadlers Case upon which he infers that if an Executor first satisfie a Statute or a Recognisance before a Judgement that this shall be a Devastavit as well as if he satisfies an Obligation first as in Trewynyards Case and that when the Plaintiff which hath Judgement the Executor may aid himselfe by Audit a querela by this matter subsequent Quere of Doctor Druryes Case as in 7 H. 6. 42. in Detinue against Gamishe and Judgment had for the Plaintiff If the Judgement be reversed restitution shall be made to every one which hath losse So here by Audita Querela if the Executrix hath not more then was taken in execution by the Statute and it seemes to him that the Judgement in the Scire Facias shall not be a Barr in this Action for the Judgment remaines Executrix and the Plaintiff may have Action of Debt upon that But of the contrary if the Plaintiff had brought Action of Debt upon the Judgement and had been barred then shall be barred in Scire Facias also But the Plaintiff this notwithstanding may have Scire Facias upon surmise that there are new assets come to the hands of the Executor and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Nicholls Serjeant for the Defendant relies only upon the Judgement had upon the Scire Facias and that till that he Defeated the Plaintiff cannot maintaine Action of Debt for the Action of Debt is nothing but demanding of Execution and for that till the first Judgement be Defeated the Plaintiff hath no remedy at the Common Law All things which barr the Execution of the Judgement in Scire Facias these shall be Barrs in an Action of Debt as in Baxters Case here last adjudged in an Action upon the Case for slanderous words the Defendant pleads that he had justified the speaking of these words at another time in another Action brought against him and had a verdict and Judgement upon that and so demands Judgement and adjudged a good Plea till the first Judgement is reversed for Judgement is the saying of the Law and 13. Eliz. Dyer 299. 34. in Debt for Costs recovered in a Writ of entry the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff hath sued an Elegit which was Executed and a good Barr in an Action of Debt and so 1. and 2. P. and M. Dyer 107. 24. In Debt for Dammages recovered in Assise the Defendant pleads in Barr that after the verdict given and before Judgement the Plaintiff entred into the Land and there no Judgement is given But it seemes if the Plaintiff fayl of Course that the Common Law prescribes that then he shall not have Execution for of those things which rightly are Acted let there be Executions but if the Defendant in the first Action had pleaded a release and Judgement was given upon that against him he cannot plead that againe for it runs into the thing Judged 34. Ed. 3. in Debt against an Executor and part of the assetts found the Plaintiff cannot have new Scire Facias without Averrment that there are new assetts and 34. H. 6. Action with averment that there are assets and Judgement good both waies and presidents shewed of both Courts And he intended that the Executor could not have helped himselfe by Audita Querela unlesse he feares to be impleaded but after Execution he cannot have Restitution and so concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that there cannot be a Devastavit in the Wife unlesse that it be voluntary payment by her for the Statute of 23. H. 8. gives present Execution of a Statute Staple without Scire Facias So that the Wife had no time to plead the Judgement and for that this unvoluntary Act shall not be a Devastavit for she is no agent but only a sufferer And at the Common Law if the Plaintiff hath Judgement in an Action of Debt after the yeare he hath no remedy but new Originall and this mischeife was remedied by the Statute of Magna Charta which gives Scire Facias in place of new Action But it seemes to him that the Barr in the Scire Facias shall remaine good Barr till it be reversed as in 2 Rich. 3. A man hath election to have action of Detinue or action of Trespasse and he brings his action of Detinue and the Plaintiff wages his Law and after
is no parcell of the Bill and for that it need not to be contained in the Count 9 H. 6. 15 16. A thing which doth not intitle the Plaintiff to action need not to be contained in the Count 36 H. 6. 6. If the condition be indorced or subscribed it need not to be contained in the Count but if it be contained before the in witnesse then it ought to be contained in the Count 21 Ed. 4. 36. If a man be bound to pay ten pounds when the Obligee carries two hundred load of Hay to his House there the condition is precedent and it ought to be contained in the Count 22 Ed. 4. 42. accordingly so here the matter is subsequent to the in witnesse and there is not any other matter upon which the action is founded nor contained in the body of the Bill nor to be performed by the Obligee and for that he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the sealing is immediately after the Proviso and is adjoyning to the Bill in writing and for that be it to be performed of the part of the Plaintiff or Defendant it ought to be mentioned in the Count for this intitles the Plaintiff to his Action of the case in 36 H. 6. 6. It is a condition subsequent and there need not to be shewed but if the condition be precedent and contained in the writing before the insealing there it ought to be mentioned in the Count and in this principall case this is either a condition Precedent or nothing for it is that he shall not be compelled to pay the sayd ten pounds untill he had recovered thirty pound and if he never recover he never shall pay the ten pound and it is a condition of the part of the Defendant and it is adjudged in Vssards case that where a condition is precedent there it ought to be contained in the Count but where it is subsequent otherwise it is So 15 H. 7. 1. Grant that when the Grantor is promoted to a Benefice that he ought to give to the Grantee ten pound this is precedent but in the principall case it is a Condition or Covenant and though that it be subsequent yet it may stay the Suit as well as an acquittance which is to be an acquittance if he be vexed otherwise not but a condition that he shall not sue the Bill is void for it is contrary to that and barrs him of all the fruit of that and precedent condition may be placed after the in Witnesse as well as before so he prayed Judgment for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice said that this which is after in witnesse is not part of the Deed but may be a Condition or Defeasance but if it be not in witnesse in the Deed then it shall be parcell of the Bill but though that this be put after the in witnesse yet it shall have his force as Defeasance but it need not to be contained in the Count for in Bonds and personall things there need not such strict words as in other Deeds and for that this shall be a good Condition or Defeasance but then the Defendant ought to have that so pleaded and not demurr for this makes the Bill conditionall VVarberton and Foster agreed VValmesley did not gainsay it and for that it was adjudged for the Plaintiff if the Defendant did not shew cause to the contrary by such a day which was not done Note It was adjudged by all the Justices that fealty gives seisin of all annuall services sufficient to make seisin in avowry but not in Assise but of accidentall services this gives seisin in Assise and a man cannot take excessiive distresse for that for this is more sacred service as Littleton saith of Homage the most honourable See 42 Ed. 3. 26. 11 H. 4. 2. Note Two retaine an Attorney both dye the Executor or Administrator of the survivor shall be onely charged and not the Executors of them both for a personall contract survives of both parties otherwise of reall contracts as warranty See 16 H. 7. 13. a. 3 Coke Sir William Harberts Case 30 Ed. 3. 40. 17 Ed. 3. 8. The Attorney brought an Action of Debt against both and the Executors of both the parties which retained him for his Fees and both pleaded joyntly that they detained nothing and it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in arrest of Judgement the Judgement was stayed insomuch that the Executor of the survivor was onely chargeable notwithstanding the pleading and admission of the Parties Note That it was agreed by all the Justices that by the Law of Merchants if two Merchants joyne in Trade that of the increase of that if one dye the other shall not have the benefit by survivor See Fitzherberts Natura brevium Accompt 38 Ed. 3. And so of two Joynt Shop-keepers for they are Merchants for as Coke saith there are foure sorts of Merchants that is Merchant Adventurers Merchants dormants Merchants travelling and Merchants residents and amongst them all there shall be no benefit by survivor Jus accrescendi inter Mercatores locam non habet Note That Arbitrators awarded that every of the parties should pay onely five shillings for writing the award to the Clark and agreed that the award was voyd to that part and good for the residue for they cannot award a thing to be made to a stranger Action upon the Case was brought for these words He is a Cozening Rogue and hath cozened Richard Wood of thirty pound and goeth about to doe the like by me and agreed that the action doth not lye So for Rogue or Cozener for it is without aspersion and gentle and words shall be taken in the gentlest sense Devise that Executors shall sell Land with the assent of J. S. if J. S. dyes before that he assents the Executors shall not sell notwithstanding the death of J. S. was the act of God and in the life time of J. S. they could not sell without his consent and so it was agreed in the Case concerning Salisbury Schoole where the under Schoole-Master was to be placed by the head Schoole-Master with the assent of two cheife Bailiffs and it seems the head Schoole-Master cannot place without their consents Note it was said to be adjudged that the Inhabitants of a Town cannot be incorporated without the consent of the major part of them and incorporation without their consent is void In action upon the case the case was this The Brother of the Defendant spoke these words to the Plaintiff that is Thou Theif thou Goale whelpe thou hast stolne a peice of Silver from my Master Hocken and the Defendant sayd as insued that is That which my Brother spake is true I will justifie it and spend a hundred pounds in proofe thereof and it seems to the Court that the Action doth not lye against the Defendant insomuch that it doth not appeare by the Court that
any satisfaction in tender to satisfaction Insomuch that this is only the fruit of Tenure and not like to cutti ng of Trees nor to digging of Cole or other Ore And so Coke cheife Justice that it hath been adjudged and with this agreed the booke of 21. Ed. 3. 1. The manner to make Summons in Dower if the Land lieth in one County and the Church in another County Then upon the Statute the Sheriffe ought come to the next Church though it be in another County and there make Proclamation asthe Auditors in Accompt ought to commit the Accomptants found in arrerages to the next Gaole and there ought to be committed though that they are in another County The words of a Patent of a Judge of the Common Bench are as follows that is to say James by the grace of God c. Know that we have constituted Humphrey Winch Serjeant at Law one of our Justices of the Common Bench during our good pleasure with all and singuler Vales and Fees to the same office belonging and appertaning In Witnesse of which c. Michaelmasse 1611 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Jacob against Stilo Sowgate IN an Action upon the Case for slanderous words The declaration was that the Defendant said of the aforesaid Plaintiff that he is perjured to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff another time hath brought an Action in the Kings Bench against the same Defendant for that that he the said Plaintiff was perjured and had cozened John Sowgate and that the Defendant had pleaded to all besides these words Thou art perjured not guilty and to the words thou art perjured he Justifies that the Plaintiff was perjured in making an Affidavit in the Star-chamber and this Issue was Joyned and it was found for the Defendant but it was not pleaded that any Judgement was given upon it And Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff which had Demurred upon the Defendants Plea Argued that the Plea is insufficient for if it shall be intended by that that the Plaintiff was afore times barred if it be in a reall Action it ought to be averred that it is for the same Land and if it be in a personall Action it ought to be averred that it is the same Debt or Trespasse and if it be pleaded by way of Justification then he ought to have averred also that the Plaintiff hath taken a false and untrue Oath upon which Issue might have been taken But here nothing is pleaded but the Record and nothing averred in Facto So that the Issue cannot be taken upon it for the pleading is only of Record and that the Defendant for the cause aforesaid in the Record afore said mentioned spoke the said words and this is not good for there is not contained any cause of Justification as in Quare Impedit in the 15. and 16 H. 6. The Defendant pleads that he was Incumbent by the cause aforesaid and without that But this was no good Plea for he ought to plead his Title specially And also it is not pleaded as Estoppell for then he ought to have relied upon that precisely as 35. H. 6. in Replevin the avowant relies upon discent 30. assis 32. 2. H. 7. 9. Also Estoppell it cannot be insomuch that Judgement was not given in the first Action Also it is not pleaded as Estoppell for the Plea is concluded Judgement if Action where he ought to have relied upon the Estoppell and peradventure also the Triall was voyd by unawarding of Venire Facias or other Error So that without Judgement it can be no Estoppell and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Barker Serjeant argued for the Defendant that the Declaration is very good and notwithstanding that the words are generall that is he is perjured yet this may be supplyed very well by the Innuendo as it appeares by James and Alexanders Case 4. Coke 17. a. And also that Estoppell by the Verdict is good without Judgement as in Action of Debt release was pleaded and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Defendant and after another Action was brought for the same Debt and agreed that the first Virdict was Estoppell 2. Ed. 3. 19. b. c. And he cited Baxter and Styles Case to be adjudged in the point that the Estoppell is good and also Vernons Case 4. Coke where the bringing of a Writ of Dower Estopped the Wife to demand her Joynture and so concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendant Coke the Count is good being of the aforesaid Plaintiff and may after be supplyed by Innuendo though that the words after are generall But if the words were generall that is He is perjured without saying that the Defendant spoke of the aforesaid Plaintiff these English words following Videlicet he Innuendo the Plaintiff is perjured this is not good and shall not be supplied by Innuendo and he said that another time convicted is a good Plea in case of life without Judgement but this is in favour of life but in trespasse it ought to be averred that it is the same Trespasse and also there ought to be Judgement and the Defendant ought to relye upon that as an Estoppell and agreed by all that Judgement should beâ—given for the Defendant if cause be not shewed to the contrary such a day c. Michaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Hall against Stanley IN Trespass for Assault and Imprisonment the Defendant justifies insomnch that the Action upon the case was begun in the Marshalsey for a Debt upon an Assumpsit made by the Plaintiff and that upon that Capias was awarded to this Defendant being a Minister of the said Court to Arrest the Plaintiff to answer in the said Action and that he by force of that Arrested the Plaintiff and him detained till the Plaintiff found suerties to answer to the said Action which is the same assault and Imprisonment To which the Plaintiff replied that none of the parties in the said Action were of the Kings houshold and so demanded Judgement upon which the Defendant Demurred in Law And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant that the Court of Marshalsey may hold Plea of Actions of Trespasse by the parties or any of them of the Kings house or not and he intended that the Jurisdiction at the Common Law was generall and then they have Jurisdiction of all Actions as well reall as personall and though that their Jurisdiction be in many cases restrained yet in an Action of Trespasse there is not any restraint but at this day they have two Jurisdictions That is in Criminall cases and also in Civill causes within the Virge See Fleta book the second and third where he discribes the Jurisdiction of all Courts and amongst them the Jurisdictions of this Court and also Britton which wrote in the time of Ed. 1. lib. 1. chap. 2. which saith it was held before Bygott who was then Earle
for the matter it is not within the Statute and then for the persons also he intended that it is not within the Statute and this appears by the words of the Statute of 28. Edw. 1. Articuli super Chartas and to that 10. H. 6. 130. it is adjudged that Judgement in such case there given is void and Coram non Judice so 7 H. 6. 30. expresses the cause to be insomuch that none of the parties are of the houshold of the King 4 H. 6. 8. 19 Edw. 4. 8. 5. Edw. 4. 32 H. 6. Rot. 27. And he cyted also Michelburns Case to be adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench 38 Eliz. That they could not tender a Plea in Trospasse for Trover and Conversion if none of the parties were of the Kings house and further he said that when a Court hath Jurisdiction and errs in matter of proceedings or in Law there the Execution made by force of their Process shall be lawfull But where the Judgement is void by default of Jurisdiction as in this Case there it is otherwise as 10 H. 6. 13. Recovery of Land in the Spirituall Court is void so Formedon commenced Judgment given upon that before the Judges of Assises void So 36 H. 6. 32. Recovery of Land in Wales in this Court is void and 8 Edw. 4. 6. Recovery of Land in ancient demesne is avoidable by Writ of Deceipt But in the other cases before the Judgment and Recovery is absolutely void and Coram non Judice for default of Jurisdiction So in 9 H. 7. 12. b. Recovery of Land in Durham Chester or Lancaster here is void for the same cause And in this case also the said Statute makes that void by expresse words see the statute of Articuli super Chartas Chap. 3. And to the case of 14 H. 8. before cyted of Warrant awarded by Justice of Peace he agreed that insomuch that the Justice of Peace had Jurisdiction of causes of Felony and erred only in the forme and manner of his proceedings and so in all the other cases which were put of the other part And also hee agreed that a Writ of Error may be well maintained if such Judgement which is void as it was in Michelburns case for the party may admit the Judgment to be but voidable if he will And to the exceptions to the pleading that is that the authority is not prosecuted 1 Postea that is such a day which was before the Judgment and yet it seems good and that in the first the authority was very well prosecuted in the 2 Postea was sufficient and the other words that is such a day is but surplusage and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives Triâ— 9. Jacobi Rot. 1151. IN Trespasse and Ejectione firme the Defendants pleaded that one of the Defendants made agreement with the Plaintiff for the said Trespasse and Ejectment with satisfaction and demands Judgment if action upon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plantiff that the agreement was no plea though it be said by Keble in the 11. H. 7. 13. That though it be a Plea in Ravishment of Ward quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum insomuch that they are actions personall But Wood denyed that insomuch that Inheritance is to be recovered and in Ejestione firme tearm shall be recovered and for that it shall not be spoken and of this is Wood expresly in the 13. H. 7. 20. b. That in Ejectione firme agreement shall not be a plea insomuch that the tearm is to be recovered which is the thing in demand And there also it is agreed that in Waste brought against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet agreement is good plea and so Vavasor intended if it be in the Tenet but not if it be brought against Lessee for life And also he intended that by Recovery in Ejectione firme more shall be recovered then the tearm only for by that the reversion shall be also reduced and for that the Inheritance is drawn in question and it is said in 11. H. 7. 13. that it shall not be a plea in Assise insomuch that there the Free-hold is to be recovered and by the same reason hee intended that shall be no plea insomuch that more is to be recovered then in Assise for there the Tenant only shall recover the free-hold and his damages but here the Tearm and the Inheritance also are reduced and revested And this is the reason also which is given in 11. H. 7. 13. b. by Fisher That if a man make a Lease for years rendering Rent and after brings Debt for the Rent behind the Defendant cannot wage his Law notwithstanding that the action is personall But this is more high in his nature as it is there said and yet there nothing shall be recovered but only damages for which a man may have satisfaction Also he intended that it was not well pleaded that is that such agreement was had between the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants and betwixt those shall be intended those two only and also Ipsum and Alios by his commandâ—ment and doth not shew that this was made by the other two by his commandement and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the Plea is good and that the nature of the Action is only Trespasse by force and arms and differs from a Quare ejecit but Ejectione firme differs from predict infra terminum and lyes against the immediate Ejector but Quare ejecit lyeth against him which hath title as he in reversion 7 H. 4. 6. b. Ejectione firme was brought by Executors of Land let to their Testator for years upon outing of the Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action for the Executors of goods taken out of the possession of their Testator and it seems to him also that proces of Outlawry lyes in an Ejectione firme but in Quare ejecit infra terminum only summons So it is 11. H. 7. 13. There is a great difference between Waste and this for there the Process is Distress and other speciall Process But so is it not here but only the Process which is in other generall actions of Trespasse and so is the expresse opinion of Keble in 11. H. 7. 13. That in ravishment of Ward Quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum that agreement is a good plea and yet all these trench upon the Realty and in ejectione firme if the tearm expire hanging the action this shall not abate the Writ but the Plaintiffe shall have Judgement for his damages otherwise in a Quare ejecit infra terminum And it was resolved 20 Eliz. That if an ejectione firme be brought at the common Law of Lands in
so these words of the Writ are not answered and so no Tenant is returned at all And it is not like to the Case in 2 H. 4. for there the Return was according to the Exigent of the Writ but here it is not so And to the first matter he intended and agreed that an Executor of an Executor may sue execution had by the first Executor insomuch that hee comes in in privity But he said that so it is not in this case and that there is no difference betwixt this case and the case cyted in Shelleys case that is that Administrator of Administrator shall not sue execution insomuch that he comes in peramount Administrator and accords with this Case 2 Eliz. in the Lord Dyer If two Joynt-Tenants are and one makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and dyes the Survivor shall not have the Rent insomuch that hee commeth in peramount him and to the other he intended that the speciall non-tenure is a good plea as well in Scire facias to have execution of damages as of Free-hold as in 24 Edw. 3. 31. and 5 H. 5. 1. and 9. H. 5. 11. It is resolved that in Scire facias speciall non-tenure is a good Plea and the books of 8 H. 6. 31. cyted before there is Joynt-tenancy pleaded to one part and speciall non-tenure to the other part by Lease for years and the question is if it might be pleaded a part And in 8 Edw. 4. 14. Is Scire facias upon Recovery by Writ of Right Patent in base Court and that the Defendant cannot plead release of the Lessor and so the joyning of the Mise may be forfeiture of his Estate And he said that it was adjudged in 16 Edw. 3. Scire facias 5. that scire facias to have execution of a Fyne shall not be sued against a Lessee for years but against him which hath the Free-hold but where Debt or Damages are to be recovered there it may be sued against him which hath only Lease for years insomuch that the possession is to be charged and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendants and it is adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Crogate against Morris THe case was this Copy-holder prescribes to have common in the Waste of the Lord and brings action of Trespasse against a stranger for his Beasts depasturing upon the Common there and Harris Serjeant argued that this action is not maintainable for two causes First insomuch that he is a Commoner for as it is said by Brook Justice 12. H. 8. 2. a. Commoner cannot have an action of Trespasse for the Common is not Common but after the Commoner hath taken that and then before that he hath taken that he hath no wrong nor damage but the damage is to the Tenant of the Land As if a Lessee for years be outed and he in reversion recovers in Assise hee shall not have damage insomuch that the damage was made to the Lessee and the 22 Assis 48. 15 H. 7. i 2. b. agreed that Commoner cannot maintain action of Trespas nor no other but the owner of the Soil but 13 H. 8. 15. by Norwich 15 H. 7. 6. 5 H. 7. 2. 24 Edw. 3. 42. Commoner may distrain and avow for doing damage 2. He intended that this action is not maintainable insomuch that every other Commoner may also have the action of Trespasse for if it be wrong to one it is wrong to every one of them and so the stranger shall be infinitely punished as in Williams Case 5 Coke 72. b. where it was adjudged an action of the Case doth not lye for the Lord of the Mannor to prescribe that a Vicar ought to administer the Sacraments in his private Chappell to him his Men-servants and Tenants within the Precincts of the said Mannor and adjudged that it doth not lye insomuch that then every of his Tenants might also have action and so the Vicar shall be alwayes punished So in 27 H. 7. 27. a. A man shall not have an action upon the Case for nusance made in the high way so it is 5 Ed. 4. 2. for trenching in the high way see 33 H. 6. 26. a. accordingly and so he concluded that the action is not maintainable and prayed Judgement for the Defendant Dodridge the Kings Serjeant to the exception which hath been made by the other party that the Plaintiff ought to averr that he hath Beasts which ought to Common there and that his Beasts have lost their Common that need not to be averred but it shall be pleaded by the other party for if he have distrayned the Beasts of a stranger doing damage he need to averr no more in this action and to the other matter and the two Objections which have been made by the other part First that the Commoner hath no right to the Common till he have taken it by the mouth of his Beasts to that he said that the Commoner hath right to that before that it be taken by such mouths of his Beasts and notwithstanding that it seems by the time of Ed. 1. That Commoner cannot grant his Common till he have Seisin of that yet 12 H. 8. is otherwise and that a Commoner may have an action the name implyes for he hath Common with others and a stranger which is no Commoner cannot do wrong but this is damage to him and he cyted Bracton 430. that there are two forms of Writs 1. Cursitory Writs 2. Commanding Writs The first of those which are formed and are of course and the others such of which there is no form but are to be formed by the Masters of the Chancery according to every particular Case So that there is not any Case but that the Law affords a Writ and remedy for that as in 28 Edw. 4. 23. Action upon the Case was framed against an Officer which gave priviledge to one as his servant which was not his servant and it is not like to the Case in 11 H. 4. 47. a. where a School-master brings an action upon the Case against another for erecting of a School in the same Towne to his damage but this was damage without Injury But here the Commoner hath received wrong and damage but yet he agreed that the Commoner could not have action of Trespass why he broke his Close for that is proper for the owner of the Soile But it hath been agreed to him that he might distrain them doing damage and the reason of that is insomuch that he hath received damage and amends may be tendered unto him in recompence of his damages without any regard to other Commoners as it is agreed in 24 Edw. 3. 42. And to the Objection that if one Commoner may have action then every Commoner may have the action and so the stranger shall be infinitely punished And to that he said it is a Publique losse and private and when the publique wrong includes private damage to any man there he
Inhabitants to it Sixtly He conceived that the constitution is not pursued for the constitution is that if any Water-man carries any passenger willing to go by the Bardge that such Water-man shall pay for every such passenger two pence And it is not averred that the passengers which the Defendant hath carried were willing to be carried by the Bardge and so not pursued Seventhly The Constitution is further that no Wherry-man shall carry any passenger before the Bardge be fully dismist and transmist and this is not good for it may be the Bardge will not passe to London at all this Tyde and for that it ought to be averred that the Bardge departs in convenient time after that it is furnished for otherwise custome that none shall put his Beasts into such a place till the Lord hath put in his Beasts is not good for it is resolved in 2. H. 4. 24. And the reason is insomuch that it may be that the Lord will not put in his Beasts at all And to the objection that the By-Law shall not bind a stranger he conceives that if all other circumstances had been concurrent that had been very well insomuch that it was within the place where they had power to make By-Lawes and also for the publick good and this as well as the custome of Forraine bought and Forraine sold the which is only for strangers And to the objection that they are severall owners of severall Bardges and for that ought not to joyne in this Action he saith this doth not appeare by the Count but it is said that they were possessed and for that they shall be intended Joynt Owners and so he concluded that Judgement shall be arrested Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. in the Common Bench. Downes against Shrimpshaw Trin. 9. Jacobi Rot. 334. IN action of Trespasse for Assault and Battery the case was this The Plaintiff in his Count supposeth the Trespasse to be made the first day of May 8 Jacobi at such a place The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff the same day would have assaulted and beaten him and that the Defendant laid his hands upon him to defend himselfe and if any hurt came unto him it was by his own wrong the which is the same Trespasse for which the Plaintiff hath complained him The Plaintiff replyes of his own wrong without such cause upon which Issue was joyned and at the Nisi prius for Justification the Defendant produced Witnesses which proved an assault to be made by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant long time that is by the space of a yeare before the day contained in the Count and that at this time the Defendant to defend himselfe hath assaulted the Plaintiff And upon this Evidence the Plaintiff demurred insomuch that this proves an assault made at another day then is contained in the Count and the Defendant by pleading hath confessed an Assault and Battery made upon the Plaintiff the day contained in the Count and now upon Evidence proves his Justification at another day and if this Evidence were sufficient to prove his Justification was the question And if by this pleading the day be made materiall in which it was agreed by the Court and Councell also That if the Defendant had pleaded not guilty the day had not been materiall But the Plaintiffe might have given in Evidence any Battery before the day contained in the Count or after before the action brought and this is sufficient to prove his Declaration but the Parties that is the Plaintiff by his Count and Replication and the Defendant by his Justification have agreed of the day And for that if they may now vary from that it was moved and so it was adjourned Trin. 10. Jac. 1612. in the Common Bench. Laury against Aldred and Edmonds IN Debt against the Defendants as Executors of William Aldred dead upon an Obligation made by him in his life time of 50. l. The case was this one of the Defendants confessed the action the other pleaded that the Testator dyed such a day and that he intending to have letters of Administration caused the Corps of the Testator to be buryed and his goods safely to be preserved and kept and that after administration was granted to him by the Arch-Deacon and that after that one Harnego brought action against him as Administratrix by letters of Administration committed to her by the Commissary of the Bishop being Ordinary there and recovered and averred that this was a true Debt and that he had no goods which were the Testators besides the Goods and Chattels which did not amount to the said Debt and so demanded Judgment if action and upon this the Plaintiff demurred in Law Davis Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the Defendant ought to have confessed and avoyded or traverse the point of the action and not conclude Judgement if action See 1 Eliz. Dyer 166. 10. When intermedling made men Executors of their owne wrong that is when he meddles without any colour of title or authority as receiving Debts and disposing the goods to his owne use But if a man administer about the Funeralls or be made a Coadjutor or Overseer this shall not make him Executor of his own wrong or by reason of a Will which is after disproved by probate of one Letter and in these cases if he be charged as Executor he ought to plead speciall matter without that that he administred in other manner and in 20. H. 7. 27. a. 28. b. adjudged in Debt against one as Executor which had Letters ad Colligendum bona definisti only which pleaded the speciall matter without that that he administred any other way and other manner was out of the pleading for he did not administer in any manner with Intermedling by the letters ad colligendum and 9 Ed. 4. 33. b. If an action be brought against an Executor of his owne wrong and after administration is committed to him by the Ordinary this shall not abate the action upon which Books he inferred that the Defendant ought to have traversed that he administred as Executor and insomuch that hee hath pleaded that he hath not so pleaded the plea was not good and also insomuch that he hath pleaded that he hath no goods of the Intestate besides goods which doe not amount c. And this is uncertain and not good for he ought to have shewed what goods he had in certain and the value of them insomuch that they remain as Assets in his hands and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Barker Serjeant for the Defendant argued that though that the action in which Harnego recovered was begun after the action now hanging yet insomuch that judgment was first had in that now that shall be preferred otherwise before Judgment for till Judgement the elder action shall be preferred And he conceived that if the Writ was abateable and the Defendants would not abate it by plea that shall not prejudice the Plaintiff which
appears by 9 Edw. 4. 33. 37 H. 6. 32 H. 6. 1. Ed. 4. 2. 50. Ed. 3. And he conceived that the burying is not any Administration nor the taking of the goods into his custody to preserve them no more then in Trover and Conversion when a man takes the goods for to preserve them And he agreed that where a man intitles himselfe to goods by Administration committed by any but by the Bishop he ought to pleade specially that he which committed it had power to doe it But here it is not so but only conveiance and for that need not here such precise pleading of that insomuch it is only execution of Administration and for that it is good without intitleing the Arch-Deacon And he agreed that an Executor of his owne wrong may pay Debts due to another and shall be discharged And he agreed also that the Confession of one Executor shall bind his Companion and that Judgement shall be given upon that for the Plaintiff And they all agreed that the pleading that the Defendant hath no goods besides the goods which do not amount c. it was not good and for these causes they all agreed that Judgement ought to be given to the Plaintiff Trinity 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Tyrer against Littleton 9. Jacobi Rot. 299. IN Trespasse for taking of a Cow c. Upon not guilty pleaded by the Defendant the Jury gives speciall Verdict as it followes that is that the Husband of the Plaintiff was seised of eighty Acres of Land held of the Defendant by Harriot service that is the best Beasts of every Tenant which died seised that he had at the time of his death and that the Husband of the said Defendant long time before his death made a Feoffment of that Land in consideration of marriage and advancement of his Son to the use of his Son and his Heires with such agreement that the Son should redemise to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that after the marriage was had and the Son redemised the Land to his Father and the Father injoyed that accordingly and paied the Rent to the Lord and after died and that the Plaintiff had no notice of his Feoffment and that the Husband at the time of his death was possessed of the said Cow and that the Defendant took it as the best Beast in name of Harriot and also found the Statute of 13. Eliz. of fraudulent conveiances to deceive Creditors and so praied the direction of the Court and this was agreed by the Plaintiff aforesaid Nicholls Serjeant first that all conveiances made upon good consideration and Bona Fide are by speciall Proviso exempted out of the Statute of 13. Eliz. chap. And he conceived that this is made upon good consideration and Bona Fide and for that it is within the said Proviso and also he said that as upon the Statute of Marlebridge there is fraud apparent and fraud averrable as it appeares 12. H. 4. 16. b. Where in ward the Tenant pleads that his Father levied a Fine to a stranger the Lord replies that this was by Collusion to re-enfeoff the Heire of the Tenant at his full age and so averred that to be by Collusion to out the Lord of his Ward and this is fraud averrable But if the Tenant had enfeoffed his Tenant immediately in Fee-simple this is apparent without any averment and the Court may adjudge upon it And so upon the Statute of 27. Eliz. chap. 4. it appears by Burrells Case that the Fraud ought to be proved in Evidence or confessed in pleading or otherwise this shall not avoid conveiance for it shall not be intended 6 Coke 78. a. and see 33. H. 6. 14. b. Andrew Woodcocks case upon which he inferred that this is but a fraud averrable if it be a fraud at all and of this the Court could not take notice if it be not found by the Jury and he said upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Devisees as it appeares by Knights Case 8 Coke and 12. Eliz. Dyer 295. 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Circumstances which are found in the speciall Verdict are sufficient to satisfie the Court that it is fraud for as well as the Court may give direction to the Jury upon Evidence that it is fraud and what not as well may the Court Judge upon the special matter being found by special Verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. and 268. that is the special matter being found by special verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. 268. that is the speciall matter is found by Inquisition upon Mandamus and leave to the Court to adjudge if it be fraud or not and in 12 El. 294. and 295. 8. the speciall matter was found by Jury upon Eligit directed to the Sheriffe and by him returned to the Court And in Trinity 27. Eliz. between Saper and Jakes in Trover the Defendant pleades not guilty and gives in Evidence as assignement of a Tearme to him with power of revocation And the Court directed the Jury that this was fraudulent within the Statute of 27. Eliz. to defraud a purchasor and in Burrells Case 6. Coke 73. a. before the fraud to the Court upon Evidence to the Jury and the Court gave direction to the Jury that it was fraud and that upon the Circumstances which appeares upon the speciall Evidence And so in this case he conceived that insomuch the circumstances appear by the Verdict that the Jury may very well adjudge upon it and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 13. Eliz. Doth not aid the Defendant insomuch that the Feoffment was made for good consideration and for that shall be within the said Proviso for if that shall be avoided at all that shall be avoided by the Statute of Marlebridge which is ouly affirmance of the Common Law and this is the reason that not withstanding the Statute speakes only of Feoffment by the Father to his Son and Heire apparent yet a Feoffment to a Cosin which is Heire apparent is taken to be within the Statute and in the 24. of Eliz. in Sir Hamond Stranges Case It was adjudged that if the Son and Heire apparent in the life time of his Father purchase a Mannor of his Father for good consideration this is out of the Statute and so it was adjudged in Porredges Case also he said that the Law is an Enemie to fraud and will not intend it being a conveiance made for consideration of a marriage to be fraudulent no more then if the Father had made a Feoffment to the use of a stranger for life the remainder in Fee to his Son and Heire the which is not within the Statute of Marlebridge as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33.
doth not pass till Livery and Seisin be made Also the intent of the parties is not that they shall pass together for if the intent were otherwise the Law would not devide them as it was adjudged Hillary 15. Eliz. in the Lord Cromwells case where Tenant in Tayl was of a Mannor with the Reversion to his right Heirs and he by his Deed gives and grants the Mannor and the Reversion of that and includes Letter of Attorney within the Deed to make Livery but Livery was not made and yet the Reversion doth not pass for his intent appeares that it should pass by Livery and Seisin and not by grant and also in Androwes case the Advowson appendant to a Mannor shall not pass without inrolment of Bargaine and Sale yet there were words there that that might passe by Grant for this was against their intent otherwise if a man makes a Lease for life or years of a Mannor and grants the Inheritance of the Advowson by the same Deed and so of the case of 23 Eliz. Dyer 374. Lessor deviseth Grants and to farm lets the Mannor and the Trees and they passe joyntly and the Reason is insomuch that it is but a Joynt sentence and not severall as it is here also he intended that the life of the Lessee for life is not averred and for that he shall be intended to be dead and for that it is a severall grant of the Trees of the Free-hold for the Interest of them is setled in his Executors for if he had made Sale of them before that the Copy-holder had cut them down then that had not been forfeiture see 5. H. 7. 15 Ed. 4. 14 Eliz. Dyer And then the Case is this Tenant for anothers life of a Mannor makes a Lease for yeares of the Free-hold of which an Estranger hath a Copy-hold Estate for life in Esse Lessee dies and he conceived that the Copy-holder shall not be an occupant for it ought to be Vacua Possessio and this was the reason of the judgment in Adams Case in 18 Eliz. Where a man makes a long Lease for years and after intending to avoyd this Lease makes a Lease to another old man for anothers life to the intent that the Lessee for yeares should be occupant when the old Lessee died and so drowned his Tearm and after the Lessee died and resolved that the Lessee for years shall not be an occupant insomuch that there was not Vacua Possessio and for this it seems to him that if Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease for years and dyes that the Lessee for yeares shall not be an occupant notwithstanding that he made speciall claim and that for the reason aforesaid but he agreed that a Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease at will and dies there the Lessee at Will shall be an Occupant insomuch that his Estate is determined and yet there is not Vacua Possessio according to 38 H. 6. 27. But he did not say there should be an occupant in these cases but cyted Bracton fol. 8. that if the Sea leave an Island in the midst of that the King shall have it and not Occupanti conceditur and so he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred and that Judgment shall be entred for the Defendant which was done accordingly and it was afterwards agreed upon motion in this case whether it would not make difference if the Trees were cut by the Copy-holder before that he hath made his nomination or not notwithstanding it was objected that when he hath made his nomination then he was only bare Tenant for life and the Priviledge executed and he in Remainder was also Tenant for life only for he cannot nominate till he comes to be Tenant in possession but this notwithstanding insomuch that they had power to make nomination that is the first Tenant again if the second died in his life time and the second if the first died in his life time and so the Peiviledge continues all the Justices continued of their opinions and according to that Judgment was entred for the Defendant and that the Plaintiff should be barred and should take nothing by his Writ Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Kings Bench. The Lord Rich against Franke. THE Lord Rich brought an action of Debt against Franke Administrator of one Franke and this was for a rent reserved upon a Lease for yeares made to the Intestate and the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet for rent due in the time of the Administrator and verdict for the Plaintiff and after moved in Arrest of Judgement by the Councell of the Defendant that this Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only and not in the Debet and Detinet and Chibborn of Lincolnes Inne conceived that the Action was well brought in the Debet and Detinet and to that he sayd that Hargraves case 5 Coke is so reported to be adjudged but he saith that he hath heard the councell of the other part insisted upon that that this Judgment was reversed and for that he would under favour of the Court speake to that And hee conceived that the Action so brought is well brought for three Reasons The first shall be drawn from the nature of the Duty and to that the Case rests upon this doubt that is if the Administrator is now charged for this Rent as upon his own duty or as Administrator and it seems to him not as Administrator but as upon his own duty for he saith that it is not Debt nor duty till the day of payment as Littleton takes the diversity in his Chapter of Release between Debt upon an obligation and a Rent and the day not being incurred in time of the Intestate this cannot be his duty therefore that ought to be duty in the Administrator and to the cases of 19 H. 8. 8. Where the Executor of a Lessee for twenty years which had made a Lease for ten years rendring Rent brought action of Debt against the Lessee for ten years for rent incurred in the time of the Executor and this is in the Detinet only and the Case of 20 H. 6. 4. Where an Executor brings an action of Debt upon Arrerages of Account of an Assignement of Auditors by themselves in the Detinet only and he sayd that in these Actions the Executors were Plaintiffs and in all actions brought by Executors where they are Plaintiffs and the thing recovered shall be Asset the Action shall be brought in the Detinet but in our case they are Defendants and so the diversity and to the Objection that may be made to this Contract out of which this duty grows and arises it was made by the Intestate and not by the Administrator himself and so this is a duty upon the first Privity of the contract he answered that there is great difference when a thing comes due by the Contract of the Testator alone and ought to be payed in his time in
taken to the title because he saith that he was seised and not saith that he is and yet good by this word Fuit for that shall be intended that he continues seised so he sayd that things which are necessarily to be intended though they be not so particularly expressed yet shall be good by Implication and so he concluded that this is no Error for which the Judgment shall be reversed And to the challenge he conceived that this is not any principall challenge and to that he put this difference that if a man brings an Assise of certain Land and hath an Action of Trespass hanging against the Sheriff for entring into the same Land there shall be a principall challenge to the Array but if it be for entry into other Land not in demand otherwise it is and what is principall challenge and what not he cyted the Bookes of 3 Ed. 4. 12. 6 Ed. 4. 1. 21 Ed. 4. 67. 14 H. 7. 1. 21. Ed. 4. 10. And to the point in question he cyted the Bookes before remembred by Crooke and Williams and no others and for that I omit to recite them and he agreed also that in actions which concern life Honesty Mayme Battery to say that he hath such action hanging against the Sheriff shall be a principall challenge but Trespass for entring into Land not for in Trespass there is no Land to be recovered also no damages but to the value of the Trespass And in Debt a man shall recover more then in Trespasse And yet it is agreed that this is no principall Challenge to say that he hath an Action of Debt hanging against the Sheriff as the Book of 11 H. 4. is which hath been remembred and for this I conceive it no principall challenge And to the seisin of the Paunages if a Horse may take seisin of that it seemes that yea for I conceive that the taking of seisin doth not consist in the eating or not eating of that of which the seisin is to be taken and for that he cited that if a man grant to me the Herbage and Paunage of his Parke and I come into the Parke and take the Grasse and Herbs into my hands or if I gather Akornes this is sufficient seisin for me to have Assise though that I do not eate the Grasse nor the Akornes and for that let us put the case that a man hath Herbage granted to him and he puts in his Beasts and before that they eate the grasse they are driven out none will deny but that that shall be good seisin for so is the Book of the 22. Assise 84. Where a man hath Common granted to him and he takes the Beasts of a stranger and puts them in and them forthwith drive out that shall be a good seisin of the Common to have Assise so that he said that the eating is not to purpose also he said Horses will eate Akornes as well as Cowes And he saith that in the Country where he inhabits being a Wood-land Country they will not suffer the Beasts to go into the Woods at a certaine time of the yeare and this is when Crabs are ripe for then their Beasts will eate Crabs and set their teethes an edge and then not being able to chew Akornes do swallow them whole and then those Ackornes being swallowed whole will grow in the Mawe of the Beast and so kill them And he saith that though that Horses be not so proper Beasts to take seisin of Paunage as Porkes are yet being put in for the same purpose if they are disturbed that shall be Seisin and Disseisin and it seemes to him that when things are granted to one that it shall not be strange to say that seisin of one shall be seisin of both and for that if a man grants all his arrable Land all his Meadow and all his Wood Livery and Seisin in one suffices for all but I conceive that this is in respect of the soyle which passeth and so are all of one self same nature and so he conceives that this is sufficient Seisin and Disseisin found to have Assise And lastly to the Title of the Earle of Rutland he said that this was good and to the Grants of the King he said two things are necessary in all Grants of the King that is a Recitall and a certainty and when a recitall shall be necessary and when not and he said that in all cases when a common person makes a Lease for years or for life and the reversion is conveied to the King if the King will make Estate to another he shall not recite this Lease for this not being of Record the King cannot take notice of it and so he shall not recite But in all cases when the King makes a Lease for life or for years and after will make a Grant to another he ought to recite the first Estate because that is of Record And Justice Yelverton as I heard of those which were next unto him put this case That if the King grants a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after the King reciting the Lease grants that to another for years or grants the reversion to another and doth not recite the Rent which was reserved upon the first Lease that this second Grant shall be void for the not recitall And the cheife Justice cited one Phillpotts Case to be adjudged in the 2. of Eliz. That where the King made a Lease for one and twenty yeares and after reciting the said Lease grants the reversion to another and before that the second Letters Patents were sealed the first Lessee surrendred And said that the second Grant was adjudged void for the King intended to passe a reversion and now he shall have a Possession and all that which is said to be in case of Land Now let us see how it shall be in case of office and for that if a common person hath â—n office in Fee and grants that for life and after grants the Fee simple to the King and the King will grant that to another there he ought to recite the common persons Grant as well as if it had been his one Grant for there is not properly a reversion of an office as the Book cited by my Brother Williams sayd Secondly if the office be recited in Esse and be not in Esse the Grant is void as Blanyes Case is in the Lord Dyer 3 Eliz. 197. 47. And this sufficeth for recitalls Then for certainty of the Kings Grant it is said in the 2. R. 3. it is said that the Grants of the King ought to be made in certaine and for that where the King there Grants to Sir John Spencer that he shall not be Sheriff this was void for the incertainty of the place But if the Grant had been of such a County or such a County the Grant should be good Also there ought to be certainty of Estates as it is in 18. H. 8. Where the King gives Lands to
the foundation is of Saint Paul and where it is a person certain but all the name is not so precisely recyted and to that which is sayd by my Brother Williams that no difference between conveiance made to them and by them I agree to him with this difference that is if conveyance be made to them of what by presumption in Law they are knowing and are parties as a Fine levied to them and such like but of a Devise it is not presumed that they have knowledge of that till the Death of the Devisor and he conceived that the Lease is voyd and this Decree shewed hath not changed his opinion but he moved the parties again to an agreement and would not as yet give Judgment Hitcham the Queens Attorney moved the Court for a Prohibition and the case was this two Merchants covenanted by Deed with their Factor to allow him ten pound a Moneth for his Wages and one Merchant sealed the Deed in England and the other sealed that upon the Sea and the Factor came and sued the Merchants in the Admiralty for his wages and by the Court insomuch that one of them sealed it upon the Land this is not any thing done upon the Deepe Sea and for that Prohibition was granted to him Upon a Motion made by Wincolt of the Middle Temple to dissolve a Prohibition granted to the spirituall Court upon a Libel for Tithes there the Court took this rule that when a Consultation is lawfully granted there a new Prohibition shall not be granted upon the same Lâ—bell and yet they qualified that with this difference that is when a Consultation is granted upon any fault of the Prohibition in form by the Mâ—sprision of the Clark or by mis-pleading of any Statute in that or such like there a new Prohibition may be granted upon the same Libell but if Consultation be granted upon the right of the thing in question there a new Prohibition shall not be granted upon the same Libell see the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. Pasch 9. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. BRomehead and Spencer Plaintiffs Rogers Defendant where an Action of Debt was brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant as Administrator during the minority of one J. S. and the Plaintiffs shew in their count that the said J. S. at the time of the Writ brought was and yet is within age of one and twenty years and verdict passeth against the Defendant and Crewe moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was insufficient for they have declared that the Executor was within the Age of one and twenty years and the Administration during the nonage shall cease when the Infant comes to the Age of seventeen years so that he may be of the age of 17. 18. 19. or 20. years and yet the Administration ceaseth and so of Action against Administrator and so was the Opinion of all the Justices and the Judgment was stayed upon that according to the resolution of Piggotts Case 15. Coke 29. a. PLomer against Hockhead the Plaintiff declares in Ejectione firme upon a Lease made to him by three Husbands and their wives and that the Defendant ejected him and at the Issue upon not guilty and in evidence to prove this Lease and the delivery of that was shewed a Letter of Attorney made by the Husbands and their wives and the councel of the Defendant takes exception to the Declaration for they have declared upon a Lease by three Husbands and their Wives with a Letter of Attourney to make delivery and a married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney And so this is not a Lease of the Wives and so the Plaintiff had declared upon no Lease And the opinion of all the Court was that a married Wife could not make a Letter of Attorney And Williams Justice compared this to the case of an Infant as if an Infant makes a Feoffment or a lease and delivers that with his hand this is not but voidable But if it be executed by Letter of Attorney that is a disseisin to him but by Flimming and Williams if the Plaintiffs had declared upon a Lease made by the Husbands only this had been very good Thomas Malin Plaintiff in Replevin against Thomas Tully the case was The Queen Mary was seised of a Park called Eestwood Park in her Demesne as of Fee as in Right of her Crown and so being seised by her Letters Patent's let the said Park to two for their lives and after died And the Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents recyting the said Lease for lives and that the said Lessees were alive granted the said Park to Humphrey Lord Stafford and his Wife and to the Heires of the said Lord Stafford of the Body of the said Wife lawfully begotten And by the said Patent the same Queen by these words Ac de Ampliori et Vberiori Gracia Nostris Volumus et Declaramus quod si Predictus Dominus Stafford Solvat seu Solvi faciat prefacto Dominae Reginae 20 s. ad talâ—m Diem Tunc Concedimus quod predictus Dominus Stafford habebit revertionem predictam sibi et Heredibus suis And the Lord Stafford paid the said sum of twenty shillings according to the said Letters Patents and if he shall have Fee-simple or not was the question And it was objected that he shall not have it for the words of the Patent are that if the Lord Stafford paies the money Tunc concedimus the which words seeme that the Grant shall take effect in futuro and it was not a present Grant but when the money shall be paid then shee granted but it seemes to the Justice that it was a good Grant immediatly to take effect upon the payment of the money and the condition was precedent till that be performed the reversion remaines in the Queen Eliz. And the Queen might grant by one selfe same Patent as by diverse See 10. Assise 13. 7. Ed. 3. 8. Ed. 2. Feoffments and that the reversion shall not extinguish the Estate Tayl but they may well be together but otherwise it is of an Estate for yeares or for life Warburton Justice that the King is specially favoured in the Law and for that he shall not be inforced to attend in case as other persons ought to make attendance And for that in case where a common person may make a good Grant the King also may make a good Grant and in the case at the Barr if the Grant had been made by a common Person it had been good without question But the first objection that hath been made was that where a man hath made a Lease for life or for years upon condition to have Fee there the particuler Estate shall be drowned upon the increasiing of the Estate but the Statute of Westminster 2. preserves the Estate tayl that it shall not be drowned and that the Fee in this case doth not vest till the condition be performed for if the
against three Executors two of them are out lawed and the third pleads and Verdict against him and it was resolved that the Judgement shall be against all by the Statute of 9. Ed. 3. for they all are but one Executor and the Cost shall be against him which pleades if the others confesse or suffer Judgement by default And there shall be but one Judgement and not diverse see 17 Ed. 3. 45. b. 11 H. 6. Upon a Venire Facias awarded the Sheriff returnes but 21. and the Habeas Corpora was against 21. only and this was also returned and upon that ten appeared and upon this Tales was awarded and triall had and but ten of the principall Pannell sworne And this was Error but if twelve of the principall Pannell had appeared and served it seemes that it shall not be error for so it was resolved in Graduers case where twenty three were returned but twelve appeared and tryed the Issue and this was resolved to be good and no error Michaelmasse 7 Jacobi 1609. In the common Bench. Buckmer against Sawyer A Man seised of Land in Gaelvelkind hath Issue three Daughters that is A. B. and C. deviseth all his Land to A. in tayl the remainder of one halfe to B. in tayl the remainder of the other halfe to C. in tayl and if B. died without Issue the remainder of her Moytie to C. and her Heires and if C. died without Issue the remainder of her Moytie to B. and her Heires the Devisor dies A. and B. dies And the question was if C. shall have a Formedon in remainder only or severall Formedons for this Land And it seemed to all the Justices that one Formedon lieth well for all for that that it was by one selfe same conveiance though that the Estate come by severall deaths and this Action was to be brought by the Heire of C. after the death of C. See the three and four Phil. and Mary Dyer Note that after appearance of a Jury and after that divers of them were sworn others were challenged so that it could not be taken by reason of default of Jurors But a new Distringas awarded and at the day of the returne of that these which were sworn before appeared and then were challenged But no challenge shall be allowed for that that they were sworn before if it be not of after time to the first appearance Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Baylie against Sir Henry Clare BAYLIE against Sir Henry Clare the Writ was of two parts without saying in three parts to be divided And it seemed to Nicholls Serjeant which moved this that it was not good but error But the opinion of the Court was that it was good See 17. Ed. 3. 44. 19. Ed. 3 breife 244. 17. Assise with this difference that if there are but three parts and two are demanded there it is good without saying in three parts to be devided for when parts are demanded it is intended all the parts but one and that it is only one which remaines see the Register fol. 16. 12. Assise And it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in the case of one Jordan that demand of two parts where there are but three parts is good see 39. H. 6. Salford against Hurlston in Formedon which demanded two parts where there is but three and so of three parts where there is but four it is good without saying in three or four parts to be divided But if a man grant his part this shall be intended the halfe for Appellatio partis dimidium partis contenetur and a Writ of Covenant ought to be of two parts without saying in three parts to be divided for so is the forme and if in such case in three parts to be divided be incerted the Writ shall abate see Thelwell in his digest of Writs 146. and by Coke if a man bring Ejectione Firme for ten Acres and by evidence it appeares that he hath but the halfe Ex vigore Juris it shall not be good but he said he would submit his opinion to the Judgement of ancient Judges of the Law which have often time used the contrary Note that the Husband may avoid his Deed that he hath Sealed by the duresse of Imprisonment of his Wife or Son But not of his Servant and so Mayor and Commonalty may avoid a Deed sealed by duresse of Imprisonment of the Mayor for it is Idemptity of person between the Husband and the Wife See 21. Ed. 4. and 7. Ed. 4. A man may avoid Seâ—sin for payment of Rent by coersion of distresse but not his Deed. Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Payn and Mutton IN an Action upon the case by Payne against Mutton the Plaintif counts that the Defendant called him Sorcerer and Inchantor And agreed by all the Justices that Action doth not lie for Sorcerer and Inchantor are those which deale with charmes or turning of Bookes as Virgill saith Carminibus Circes socios mutavit ulissis which is intended Charmes and Inchantments and Conjuration is of Con et nico that is to compell the Divell to appeare as it seemes to them against his will but which is that to which the Devill appeares voluntarily and that is a more greater offence then Sorcery or Inchantment which was adjudged that Action doth not lie for calling a man Witch and said that he bewitched his Weare that he could not take any Fishes Dodridge the Kings Serjeant saith that an Action lieth for calling a woman gouty pockye Whore and said that the Pox had eaten the bottome of her Belly out and so it was adjudged that it lieth well for these words get thee home to thy pokey Wife the Pox hath eaten off her Nose But for the Pox generally Action doth not lie But if he saiâ—h that he was laid of the Pox then Action well lieth for then it shall be intended the great Pox. Note that in Prohibition and Replevin the Defendant may have nisi prius by Proviso without default of the Defendant for he himselfe is re vera Defendant and there are two Actors that is the Plaintiff and Defendant But the Court appointed that Presidents should be searched the Plaintiff is not bound to prosecute Cum Effectu in this Court as he is in the Kings Bench And it was agreed that the manner of Pleading was agreement as for Returno Habendo in the Replevin and Pro consultatione habenda in the Prohibition Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench Miller and Francis MYLLER Plaintiff in Replevin against Thomas Francis the case was Richard Francis was seised of Land held in Socage and deviseth that to John his eldest Son for a hundred yeares the Remainder to Thomas his second Sonn for his life and made his four other youngest Sonns his Executors and after made a Feoffment to the sayd uses the Remainder to the sayd John his eldest Son in tayl
Proviso that if the sayd John disturbed the Executors of taking his Goods in his House that then the sayd use and uses limited to the sayd John Francis and his Heires shall cease and after declared that his intent was that in all other points his Will should be in his force and it was pleaded that Iohn did not suffer the sayd Executors to take the sayd Goods in the sayd House and if his Estate for years or in Tayl or Fee-simple shall cease was the question and it seemed to the Judges that the Condition shall not be Idle but shall have hiâ— operation as it appears by Hill and Granges case and the Lord Barkleyes Case in the Comment and the Lord Cheneyes Case Coke And it seems also that it shall not be referred to Estate in Fee simple for then it shall be void and it shall not be referred to a Tearm for it is limited to an Estate limited to the said Iohn and his Heires but it seemeth it shall be referred to an Estate tayl only as it is 2 and 3. P. and Mary Dyer 127. 55. 11 H. 7. 6. But the case was adjudged upon one point in the Pleading for it was not pleaded that Iohn Francis had notice of the Devise nor that he had made any actuall disturbance and peradventure he entered as Heir and had no notice of the Condition and when the Executors came to demand the Goods which were belonging to the Heir and annexed to the House and he sayd that it doth not appear to them to prove that an express notice was given in this case the Books of 43 Assise where a man was attaint and after was restored by Parliament and a Writ being directed to the Esceator the Escheator returns that he was disturbed and upon Scire facias the disturber pleads that he had no notice of the sayd act of restitution and for this he was excused of Disturbance And see 35. H. 6. Barr 162. Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Waggoner against Fish WAGGONER brought a Writ of Priviledge supposing that he had a suit depending here in the Common Bench which was directed to the Maior and Sheriffs of London and upon the return it appears that 4. Iacobi an Act of Common Councell was made that none should be retayler of any Goods within the same City upon a certain pain and that the Chamberlain of the said City for the time being may sue for the said penalty to the use of the sayd City at any of the Courts within the said City and that the Defendant hath retailed Candles and held a shop within the sayd City being a stranger and against the sayd Act and for the sayd penalty the Chamberlain hath brought an Action of Debt within the sayd City according to the sayd Act of Common Councell and upon the return it appeares that by their Custome the Maior and Aldermen with the Assent of the Commoners of the said City may make By-Laws for the Government of the sayd City and that the sayd custome and all other their Customes were confirmed by Act of Parliament and upon this it seems that though there be not remedy given for this penalty in another place then in London that yet if it be against Law he shall not be remanded and if a Corporation hath power to make By-Laws that shall be intended for the Government of their ancient Customes only and not to make new Lawes see 2 Ed. 3 Iohn De Brittens Case but it seems if this By-Law be for the Benefit of the Common-Wealth that it shall be good otherwise not and it was Adjourned see Hillary next insuing for then it was adjudged that he shall not be remanded see afterward Michaelmas 7. Iacobi It was adjudged NOte that this Tearme was adjourned untill the Moneth of Michaelmas by reason of the Plague and upon the adjournment this insued and was moved by Yelverton and Crook at the Bar and the Case was this Michaelmas 7. Iacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. POynes being an Infant levies a Fine and in Trinity Tearm last past brought his writ of Errour in the Kings Bench and assigned for Errour that at the time of the Fine levied was and yet is within age and prayed that he be inspected and insomuch that he had not his proofs there he was not inspected but Dies datus est usquâ— Octabis Michaelis Proximas at which time came the said Poynes the day which was wont to be the day of the Essoyn and prayed Justice Crooke which was there to adjourn the Tearm to inspect him and to take his proofs who did inspect him accordingly De bene esse and now before the Moneth of Michaelmas the Infant came of full age and if this inspection were well taken and what authority the Judge had upon that day to adjourn was the question And Flemming cheife Justice sayd that the day of Essoyn is a day in Tearm and that the Court was full though there was but one Judge and if the inspection had been the day of the Essoyn and before the fourth of the Post he had come of full age this shall be very good but the doubt rose as the case is if upon the day of Adjournment the Judge had power to do any thing but to adjourn the Tearm and for that it was appointed to be argued and for the Argument of that Quere of my Author Lane Michaelmas 7. Iacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Rivet Plaintiff Downe Defendant IN an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit the case appears to be this Copy-holder makes a lease for a year according to the custome of the Mannor the Lord distrains the Farmer of the Copy-holder for his Rent and the Copy-holder having notice of that comes to the Lord and assumes that in consideration that the Lord should relinquish his Suit against his Farmer touching the same distress he would pay the Rent by such a day the Lord delivers the Distress and for default of payment at the day brings an Action upon the case and upon Non Assumpsit pleaded Verdict passed for the Plaintif And Barker Serjeant came and moved in arrest of Judgment First that a man cannot distrayn a Copy-holder but he ought to seise but Williams Justice and others to the contrary and by him if a man makes a Lease at will Rendring Rent he may distrain for this Rent 9 H. 7. 3. The case of Rescous Secondly He moved that when the Lord distraines that now the Tenant hath cause of Action that is Replevin and for that it cannot be sayd Sectam suam and so the consideration failes but all the Court against that and that this was a good consideration and by Flemming cheife Justice Distress is an Action in it self because this is the cause of a Replevin and when the Tenant brings his Replevin and the Lord avowes now is the Lord an Actor and so it is secta sua and by him secta is not
in Prison and agreed that if 2 Precipes are contained in one Originall there shall be but one satisfaction But if one be taken by Capias and remains in Execution Capias shall be awarded against the other and he shall remain in Prison till satisfaction be had for execution is no satisfaction as it is said in 29 H. 8. b. Execution 132. adjudged See 4 Ed. 4. 38. 5 Ed. 4. 4 H. 7. 8. And Hillaries case 33 H. 6. And to the third that is that the Debt remains after the taking of the body in execution and agreed that when execution is made of goods or lands no Debt remains but otherwise it is of execution of the Body as it appears by 29 H. 8. before cyted B. Execution 132. and 41 Assis 15. where a man was condemned in Damages in Trespass and committed to Prison by Capias and escaped the Gaoler dyed the Plaintiff prayed debt against his Executors and could not have it for they are not charged without specialty and the Plaintiff alleadged that the Defendant was vagrant in the County of M. and prays Capias to the Sheriff of M. to take him and it was granted for his remedy against the Sheriff was determined and this proves also that the Debt remains after escape scire facias is licet Judicium redditum sit tamen executio restat ad huc facienda de debito for the body is but as a pledg the form of the Writ in the Register Capias ad satisfaciendum and not in satisfaction which proves that there is no satisfaction but upon the payment of the money his body shall be delivered out of Prison this is execution with satisfaction for there are two Executions that is Medius finalis the first is the Capias the second Satisfaction which is Vltimus Finis And it is a good rule quod nihil videtur factum ubi aliquid restat faciendum and here is aliquid faciendum that is Satisfaction for in all acts there is a beginning progression and consummation Consummation in this case fails Mors est horendum divortium which is the act of God And when the act of God hath delivered him which lyes in prison for his own default it is no reason that the Plaintiff should be prejudiced 43 Ed. 3. 27. A man enfeoffs the Father with Warranty which infeoffs an estranger which enfeoffs the son the father dyes the son may vouch for it is the act of God And to the Mischiefs nec crudelis creditor nec delicatus debitor sunt audiendi for they play at Bowls and keep Hospitality in the Prison Or if a man be arrested and makes a tumult and is slain in indeavouring to break the Prison and breaks his Neck it is no reason that he by such act should defraud the Plaintiff of his Debt the opinions against him are coupled with absurdities as 7 H. 6. 8. Martins opinions is also imparted with absurdity 33 H. 6. 48. The opinion of Lacon is also coupled with another absurdity and 22 Assis b. Execution is also coupled with absurdity that is if the Defendant escape this determines the debt and is satisfaction and 15 Edw. 3. Quare Impedit 174. in Writ of Right of Advowson the Plaintiff hath Judgment and habere facias sesinam in the life time of the Incumbent and after his death sues Scire Facias the first is Execution but not with satisfaction and the last is satisfaction for by this he hath the fruit of his Judgment So 19 Ed. 3. Execution 12. a younger statute is extended and Liberate sued executed and returned And after an elder statute is extended and after satisfaction of that he that hath the youngest may sue Scire Facias and have execution of the youngest So of Beasts distrained and put into the Pound and there dye he which distrayned may distrayâ— again for this is no satisfaction of his Rent 14. H. 4. 4. 15 Edw. 4. 10. 11 Eliz. Dyer 280 And so Capias ad computandum is not Accompt nor Capias ad acquietandum Acquital Register 30. 39. 285. And it is said in Bract. lib. 7. Chap. 17. Sunt brevia Magistralia fâ—rmata the first are made by Masters of the Chancery the others which are Originall by Cursitors which are founded by acts of Parliament and cannot be changed without Parliament and as Fitzherbert in his Preface to his Na. Bre. saith that every Art and Science hath certain Rules and Foundations to which a man ought to give faith credence and the Writ of Fieri facias being founded upon a Statute and the form that executio adhuc restat facienda he saith that this was the Judgment of the Parliament that the first Execution was not Satisfaction But as the Writ is also in the Register 245 That where a man is condemned in Trespasse and committed to prison detinendum quousque he satisfie the party by this it appears that he is but a pledge And Fitz. Na. Bre. 63. 65. 67. and Register If a man be taken by Capias Excommunicatum ad satisfaciendum parendum Clavibus Ecclesiae and is delivered by Writ which issues improvide another Writ of Capias shall be awarded And to the matter of Election he agreed that if Elegit were awarded the party cannot have Fieri facias nor Capias for there is Entry made quod Elegit sibi executionem de meditate But when Fieri facias or Capias is awarded no entry at all is made But if any of them are returned executed then he cannot resort to another Processe and with this difference agrees all the Books of 15 H. 7. 15. 21 H. 7. 19. 30 Ed. 3. 24. 31 Edw. â—3 Process 52. 19 H. 6. 4. 34 H. 6. 20. 45 Edw. 3. 19. 50 Edw. 3. 4. and 5. 18 Edw. 4. 11. 20 Edw. 4. 13. 11 Eliz. Dyer 296. And to the case of Williams and Cuttrys cyted to be adjudged 43 Eliz. the which he cyted as Lambs case he said in this was many apparent Errors in forme of pleading so that the matter in Law cannot come to Judgment 35 H. 6. Prisot seemed that by the law of God the Imprisonment of the body of a man was no satisfaction for by that the Creditor may sell his Debtor and his Children for the payment of his Debts Matth. chap. 18 vers 24. 4 Kings 4 Chap. vers 1. Matth. chap. 5. Luke chap. 12. And so he agreed with Foster in opinion and concluded that the death of the Defendant in the action of Debt was no satisfaction nor determination of the Processe nor of the election But that the Plaintiff may have new Execution against the Executors and by consequence that Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff in the Scire facias but no Judgment was given for that there was equality of opinions that is Coke and Foster against Walmesley and Warburton Danyel being dead and for that it was adjourned Pasche 8. Jacobi 1610. See Hillary 7. Jacobi the beginning Chalke
part this shall not extend to other persons Commoners and it is like to the case in 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. A man makes a Lease for years and covenants that the Lessee shal injoy the Tearm without eviction of the Lessor or any claiming under him if he be evicted by a stranger this shal be no breaking of the Covenant for a stranger is no party to the Deed nor claims under the Lessor and for this his Entry shal not give Action to the Lessee and so is the Case in 21 H. 7. between the Prior of Castleton and the Dean of Saint Stephens which was adjudged the 18 of H. 7. Pasch Rot. 416. Though that no Judgment be reported where it appears that the King Ed. 3. seised al the Lands of Priors aliens in time of War for that that they carried the Treasure of the King out of the Realme to the Kings Enemies and so it was made by H. 4. also during the time of his Reign and then in the second year of the Reign of King H. 5. by a statute made between the King and the sayd Priors aliens al the Possessions of the sayd Priors were resumed into the hands of the sayd King and adjudged in 21. H. 7. 1. before that this shal not extend to the Prior of Castleton which had Annuities issuing out of the Possessions of the sayd Priors for the said Prior of Castleton was not party to the sayd act of Parliament and for that he shal not be prejudiced by that and so it was adjudged 25. and 26. Eliz. In the Court of VVards in the case of one Boswell where the King made a Lease for years which was voydable and after by another Patent granted the Inheritance and then came the statute of 18. Eliz. to confirm al Patents made by the sayd Queen within her time and adjudged that the sayd Act shal not make the sayd patent voyd to the Patentee which is a stranger to the act of the Parliament but only against the Queen her Heirs and successors for by the statute it is made only against one person only and shal not be good against another though there be no saving of such person in the sayd Act. And also he conceived that the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Doth not extend to any woods in forrest in which another hath Common for it doth not extend only to such woods which a common person hath in the Kings forrest or common person and that it may be inclosed for the space of three years after the cutting of the wood in this before the making of the sayd statute and this was no wood in which an Estranger had Common as it appears by the Preamble of the sayd statute and then after in the sayd statute it is sayd such woods may be inclosed And also he conceived where the statute sayth that they may inclose the same Grounds with such sufficient hedges able to keep out all manner of Beasts and Cattell out of the same Grounds but this refers to the quality of the hedge for before it ought to be a small Ditch and by this statute it ought to be with such hedg which shall be able c. And it shall not be referred to the manner of the Cattell But for the difference between Beasts of Forrest Beasts of Chase and Beasts of Warrain see the Register fol. 96. 43 Ed. 3. 13. 12. H. 8. 12. b. Hollinsheads Cronicle fol. 20. b. 32. And he conceived that Sir Francis Barrington is such a Vendee of Wood that is within the statute though that he be Vendee of Inheritance and hath a greater Estate then Vnica vice but for that that he conceived that it was not within the statute for other reasons before cyted he would not dispute it But he conceived if this had been the question of the Case that this was within the statute and also he conceived that this was a generall statute of which the Judges shall take notice without pleading of this And this reason was for that that the King was party to it and this which concernes the King being the head concernes all the Body and Common Wealth and so it was adjudged in the Chancery in the case of Serjeant Heale that the statute by which the Prince is created Prince of VVales was a general statute and for that see the Lord Barkleyes case in the Commentaries Also he conceived that the said statute of 22 of Ed. 4. was repealed by 35. H. 8. for this was in the Negative that none shal cut any wood but only in such manner as is prescribed by the said statute and for that shal be a repeale of the first and that by the first Branch of the sayd statute it appeares that if such giving of Wood in his own Soyl within any forrest he cut to his own use he cannot inclose and by that Branch Commoner is not excluded but by the second Branch it is provided that he may inclose the fourth part of his Wood and cut that in such manner as is appointed by the said statute and then he shal loose his own Common in the three other parts and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff which is the Commoner and Judgment was entred accordingly Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Cesar against Bull. THomas Cesar Plaintiff in Assise against Emanuel Bull for the Office of Clock-Keeper to the Prince this he claims by grant of the King during his own Life with the fee of two shillings a day for the exercising of it and three pound yearly for Livery and the patent purports only the Grant of the Office and not words of creation of the Office as Constituimus officium c. And the Plaintiff could prove that it was an ancient Office and for that was non-suited in the Assise though that the Tenant had made default before Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Heyden against Smith and others THE Plaintiff counts in Trespasse against these Defendants and these Defendants justifie as Servants to Sir John Leventhorp who was seised of a free-hold of Land in which the Tree for which the action was brought was cut and so demands Judgment if action the Plaintiff replyes that the place where c. was parcel of a house and twenty Acres of Land which time out of mind c. have been demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll which was parcel of the Mannor of A. of which the sayd Sir John Leventhorp was seised in his Demesne as of see and by Copy at a Court held such a day and year granted the said Messuage and twenty acres of Land whereof c. To the Plaintiff and his Heirs according to the custome of the said Mannor and prescribes that within the sayd mannor was a Custome that every Copy-holder may cut the boughs of all the Pollingers and Husbands growing upon his Copy-hold for fire to be burnt upon his
a man off an action of a higher nature 219 Vsage its exposition 222 Usitatum whom it doth advantage ibid Variance what 239 Valuable consideration out of the statute 102 Vnity of possession 26 Uoluntas donatores how to be taken 77 Vexation unjust remediable how 100 Vniversity of Oxford was removed for a certain time 244 Vniversity not locall ibid Variance what 245 W WAles councell and presidents Jurisdiction 29 Wast 46 150 168 Wittall who 37 Westminster 2 chap 35 expounded 92 93 94 95 Writs 147 Warrantia chartae 169 Warranty to a tenant pur view 191 Warrantia chartae not upon two deeds 56 Writ of error 137 208 Wife joyn with her husb in feoff what shall bind 141 Wager of law 255 FINIS Case for words You are a Bastard tried by the Countrey Judgement arrested because the Plaintiff did not averr that he was an Attonrney at the time of the words spoken Case for words which dâ—d amount to but petty Larceny For calling one Witch no Action will lie If Felony be committed good cause to arrest one for it but not to speak words to defame one A Feme covert cannot convert Action upon the casebrought upon a collateral consideration and good Judgement reversed by Writ of Error because Sheriffs name was omitted on the venire fac Case for words not actionable Gase for words A man shall not be punished for mistaking the Law Case for words The like The like for Words Judgement arrested because the Plaintiff omitted to shew in his Declaration the words were spoken of himself The Defendants Justification adjudged naught because he justified for words that were actionable To do a thing allowable by Law is no conversion The Defendants Justification amounted but to Noguilty and adjudged naught Judgement arrested for want of certainty in the Count. Judgement arrested for that the consideration was not valuable Case forwords for calling an Attourney Bribing Knave Judgement arrested being mis-tried An inuendo will not maintain an Action Difference between a promise executory and executed quod nota Non cul pleaded where Non assumpsit should have been pleaded and adjudged a good Issue Action of case for words upon the statute of 1. Jac. against Invocation of Spirits Ehe Imparlannce role supplied by the Issue being perfect Judgement arrested for not shewing the Letters of Administration Judgement arrested for that the Communication did not appear but by the Inuendo Action of the Case for calling a man mainsworn fellow Moved in Arrest of Judgement because no Demand alleadged but not allowed Judgement arrested for incertainty in the Declaration By a general Pardon both Punishment and Fault taken away Promise upon condition notice not necessary Nota. Judgement arrested for incertainty in the Count and for that the promise was made by an Infant Justification for calling a man perjured dis-allowed because he was t convicted Action of the Case will not lie for calling a Currier Barretor For this word Papist no Action will lie unless spoken of a Bishop Nota. Action of the Case for double prosecution of a fieri sac Upon a non est invent returned upon an Outlary where the party escaped the Plaintiff hath his Election where to bring his Action Judgement arrested for want of an Averment Judgement arrested for the incertainty of the Count. For collateral matters which are not Duties a Request is necessary The word Witch will not bear an Action An implied promise where it is upon the reality will not lie except upon a collateral cause An Indebitat assumpsit for money ruled good without expressing for what Action against the Sheriffs of London for discharging one who was arrested coming to defend a suit depending there The Court cannot discharge one arrested except he be arrested in the face of the Court. Judgement stayed for variance between the Count and Writ to inquiry Release by the Husband pleaded in Bar to an Action brought by the Wife after his Death for money to be allowed her after his Death and adjudged no Bar. Action for calling an Attourney Champertor The Roll mended after the Record was certified by Writ of Errour it being the Clarks misprision He is a forging Knave spoken of an Attourney actionable Implyed words will not beare an action Trover brought by Administrator as of his owne goods and adjudged good Demand and demall makes a Conversion The Sheriff justifies by vertue of a Process out of the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of S. Lands 59. s. arrear upon the said Lands Common appurtenant cannot be divided Mis-triall the Venn being mistaken Judgement arrested for a mistake of the Jury In consideration the Plaintiff would agree the Testators son should marry the Plaintiffs daughter adjudged a good consideration Rents arrear no Plea in Covenant Difference between Covenant and Debt to bring an Action Difference between Covenant and Debt to bring an Action Breach assigned in default of the Party that never sealed the Indenture of Covenants Covenant lies against the first Lessee upon breach of Covenant made by the Assignee Difference between Covenant and Debt Covenant upon a void Lease is good Action would not lie because if the Covenant was not performed Piracy is no excuse to perform a Covenant Judgement arrested for default in the Declaration A Covenant in Law shall not be extended to make a man do more then he can A Suit in Chancery no Disturbance Judgement arrested for defects in the Declaration Breach that one entred and shews not by what Title and naught Release cannot be given in Evidence upon a Plea that the Defendant was never a Receiver of the Plaintiffs Money In Account the Process are sum Attaint and Distress In Account two Judgements and upon a Nichil Process of Vlamy lies Account against a Baily local The Defendant may wage his Law if the Receit be per manus proprias Nota. In Account the Writ abates the Death Nota. Nota. Nota. Matter in discharge of the Actions shall not be pleaded in Bar. Nota. Nota. Judgement in Account upon a special Verdict Misprision of the Clerk amended after Verdict No Tenant at the time of the Writ purchased nor afterwards and if c. no Disseisin Note upon the Kings Grant View to be there where the Office is performed Another Writ brought and hanging a good Plea in abatement Assise taken by default against Harvey and the other Tenant pleaded in abatement of the Assise that there was a Quare impedit depending Nota. The King cannot create an Office to the Queen who may bring an Assise No Costs in a non-suit in Assise The Court was denied a Supersedeas the surmise being onely matter in suit Nota. A Writ of Covenant brought against more then acknowledged and prayed to be amended and denied Lease made to one during the life two if one die the Lease is ended Nota. A case of Jointure Nota bene Difference between Tenant at will and sufferance Joynt Debt and Contract cannot have several Pleas. Nota. Nota.
Nota. If I command one to do a Trespass an Action will lie against him Wife not bound to perform Covenants of the Lessee Nota. No Action for small Tithes Administration granted during minority not within the Statute 21 H. 8. Nota. Ordinary cannot make a Divident of themselves Legacy of Land shall not be sued for in Court Christian Nota. For Tithes Nota. Nota. Recitall shall not inlarge the Grant Nota. Money paid by an Executor upon a usurious Contract is a Devastavit Proportiament of Rent No Attornement necessary for Acts in Law Nota. For Tithes Nota. Note how far Proof extends Nota Difference Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Copy-hold land extendable upon Statute of Bankrupt Being a member of the Cinque Ports will not free one from Arrest Difference of things that are in Prender and that are in Render Nota. Omission in awarding the venire of these words Quoad triand c. held good Local things shall not be made transitory A Tales prayed by the Defendant upon the Plaintiffs Distring in another Terme but denied If Chamberlain of Chester make an ill Returne the Sheriff shall be amerced No Distress in a Court Baron but by Prescription Actions upon penal Statutes not within the Statute of Jeofailes Nota. Judges not meddle with matters of fact Nota. Information against three and two appear may declare against those two Nota. Return of a Sheriff insufficient upon a Statute Merchant for omitting that he had no other Lands c. Nota. A Statute first acknowledged shall be preferred before a Judgement afterwards retained The case of Villainage within the Statute of Limitation Nota in Elegit Two Inquisitions taken at several Dayes by several Juries upon one Writ naught Nota. All Goods and Chattels bound by the Teste of the Elegit and cannot be sold afterwards Audita Quaerela and Bail put in in the Chancery and held good The Act of E. 6. for Dissolution reaches onely to such that are regular Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Deed of Gift for things in Action Supersedeas granted because Capias ad satisfaciendum was not returned Nota. Nota. A Juror who hath appeared cannot be passed by and to swear others Goods cannot be sold upon a Levari facias in a Court Baron without a Custome Sheriff returned but 21. upon a Venire facias and naught Nota. Judgement that it was a good Devise The property is not altered upon the Sheriffs taking of goods upon a Fieri facias but remains in the Defendant Nota. Alien born no Plea in a Writ of Error Nota. Issue cannot be bastarded after Death Nota. Where the principal is omitted cannot be supplied by Writ Nota. King could not grant precedency in publique things Nota. Ancient Demesne tried by Doomesday Book The Venire facias was Album Breve and denied to be amended Lessee at will cannot grant over his Estate Note difference between Tenant at will and sufferance Nota. One committed bailed being no cause expressed Attorneys name put out of the Roll for a mis-demeanour Nota. Nota. Nota. Writ of Entry filed after the Death of the Tenant Ordinary to place and displace in the Church Fraud shall never be intended except apparent and found Nota. High Commission nothing to do with matters of instance for Tithes Nota. Nota Master shall not be corporally punished for his Deputies Offence Nota. Nota. Nota. One at seventeen years old may be an Executor No new notice needs if the Attorney be living If no place of Payment be in a Will must be a Request Nota. Warrant of Attorney filed upon a motion after Writ of Error brought and Error assigned Nota. Warrant of Attorney filed after Writ of Error by Order of Court Attornement of an Infant is good An Attorney ought to have no Priviledge as on Attorney Husband shall pay for his Wives Clothes though bought without his privity A mans Wife or Infant cannot be examined One Bond cannot overthrow the other Exceptions to an Award pretending the Arbitrators had exceeded their Authority but adjudged good Judgement for the Defendant for insufficiency in the Count. Judgement ' for the Defendant upon a by-law The Defendant at his perill ought to make Payment If part of a Condition be to be performed within the Realm and part without ought to be triable here Defendant pleaded six Judgements in Barr and two found to be by fraud and Judgement for the Plaintiff The Sheriff cannot break open the outward Door to do Execution but that being open he may break open any other Exception taken to the Defendants Plea Nota. Debt lies for Money levied by the Sheriff upon a Levari Nota. Nota. Exception taken because the Venire facias was of the Town and not of the Parish but ruled good Creditor administred and is sued ought to plead fully administred generally Debt brought for 60. l. tr be paid at the Return of a Ship from New-found-land to Dartmouth onely 50. l. lent is not Usury Plea made good by Verdict Nota. Judgement against both of the Testators Goods and Damages of him that appeared onely Nota. Nota. If no time of Payment in an Award due upon Demand Though two appear by one Supersedeas yet they may vary in Plea The Imparlance amended after Triall upon the Attorneys Oath Nota. Bene case A Servant hired to serve beyond Sea may have his Action in England Nota. Nota. Outlary in the Executor no Pled Outlary in the Testator in Barr adiudged naught A wrong man of the same name offers to wage his Law Lessor and Lessee for years one Assignes his terme and the other grants his Reversion Grantee of the Reversion shall have Action of Debt against the Assignee Nota. Nota. Default of the Clerk amended and afterwards upon advice made as it was at first A Bill to pay Money upon Demand must lay a special Demand Amendment of Issue Roll by the Imparlance Roll. Estoppell Repleader awarded Money due upon a Mortgage payable to the Heir and not to the Executor Money to be paid fifteen Dayes after return c. he proving his being there Court divided which proof shall be precedent or subsequent Condition that an Vnder-Sheriff shall not intermeddle with Executions of such a value held void Judgement arrested because the whole matter laid was found and part was not actionable Bail discharged upon the principals rendring his Body in another Terme after a case returned Quaere An Award good in part and naught for part and Breach assigned in the good part and held good If the Plaintiff be non-suit yet no Cost upon the Statute of Perjury Nota. Amendment of the Imparlance demed after Error brought A thing out of the Submission awarded and void Nota. Defendant wage his Law upon a Recovery in a Court Baron A man cannot send his Apprentice beyond Sea except he go with him Vpon a nul tiel Record though some Variances yet the Debt and Damages agreeing Judgement for the Plaintiff Bond taken to appear in the Court of Request void Return of the Habeas
only an Action hanging but that which is cause of an Action And Judgement was given for the Plaintiff Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the common Bench. Flemming and Jales ACTIONE upon the Case for these words Thou hast stolen my Goods and I will have thy neck and maintainable Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Ayres Case ACTION upon the Case for these words Ayer is an arrant Theife and hath stolen divers Apple Tres out of J. S. Garden and the Action well maintainable otherwise if he had said for he hath stolen c. for then it should not be Fellony to steale Trees and the word For shewes the reason why he called him Theife but the word And not Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Bryan Chamberlaines Case against Goldsmith IN Debt upon an Obligation in which the under Sheriff was bound to the Sheriff for the performing of diverse Covenants contained in an Indenture made between them for the exercising of the said Office and the Plaintiff assigned breach of Cevenant by which the under Sheriff hath Covenanted that he would not execute any processe of execution without speciall warrant and assent of the Sheriff himselfe And the sole question was if this Covenant be a good and lawfull Covenant or not and it was argued by Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant that counted that the Sheriff is a publick Officer and may execute the office by himselfe yet when he hath made an under Sheriff he hath absolute authority also and it is not like to private authority but it is as if a man make an Executor provided that he shall not administer his debts above the value of forty pound And as if an Obligation with Condition that if an Obligor shall keep the Obligee without damages for four Beefes taken in Withernam that the Obligation shall be void or as if a man takes an Obligation of his Prentise with Condition that he shal not use his Trade within five yeares or within ten miles of such a place or as a Steward takes an Obligation of another man with Condition that he shall not sue in other place but where he is Steward or in the Common Bench this abridges the subject of his right and that the under Sheriff is a publick officer and mentioned in many Statutes though he shall not be an Attorney the same yeare in which he is under Sheriff And the Statute of 23. H. 8. restraines the under Sheriff that he shall not let any prisoners to Bayl but in the same manner as is contained in the Statute and further he said that all Obligations which have Impossible conditions are good and the Condition void but if the Condition be against Law the Obligation and Condition also is void And so he concluded that the under Sheriff is a publick Officer and that his office cannot be apportioned and that the Condition was performing of a Covenant which was against Law and void and so by consequence the Obligation void And so praied Judgement for the Defendant And for the Plaintiff is was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King that the Obligation is good and not void And he said that there are two Officers to all the Courts of the King which are to execute all Writs and that these Officers are Sheriff and Bishop and the Law doth not take any notice of under Sheriff or Warden of spirituallties for the Sheriff himselfe shall be amerced and not the under Sheriff which is but his substitute and it appeares by 3. H. 7. 2. b. That all Writs shall be directed to the Coroner and by him ought to be executed and 10. H. 4. 42. The Sheriff was merced for an Arrest made by a Bayliff of a franchise and and though that the Warden of Westminster Hall is an Officer to the Kings Courts to some purpose yet no Writ shall be directed to him as it appeares by 8 Ed. 4. 6. Also he agreed that the power of the Sheriff is double that is Ministeriall and Juditiall and some times he executes both together as in Redisseisin for of that he is Judge and also is Minister to the Court of the King and yet he is but one man for the Law doth not take any notice of under Sheriff nor intends that he shall supply any of these Offices for the under Sheriff is but servant to the Sheriff and to execute his Ministeriall power only and if it be so he may limit his Authority at his pleasure And if the Sheriff make a false returne or otherwise retard or make an uncertain returne he himselfe shall be punished by Action for the Law requires knowledge and intelligence of the Sheriff and the ancient Statutes made in the old time make mention of Sergeants at Mace and yet they make not any mention of under Sheriff which is but servant And he agreed that an Obligation taken with Condition against Law is void but he said that this is not against Law for the under Sheriff is a person of whom the Court doth not take any notice for he is but servant of the Sheriff and for this case and removeable at his pleasure and he may exercise his office by himselfe when he pleases and also he argued that the authority which may be totally countermanded may be countermanded in part and that the under Sheriff hath Derivata potestas quae semper talis est qualis committitur And by 35. H. 6. A man may make two Executors one for his Goods in Middlesex and the other to administer the Goods in London and this is good between them But not against a stranger for he ought to sue them both and he shall not be prejudiced by that and so 32 H 8. Brook Executor 155. A man made two Executors Proviso that one should not administer in the life of the other and 36 H. 8. 61. Feoffment and Letter of Attorney to make Livery to three or to any of them Livery cannot be made to two and also he said that there is no difference between power derived from a private person and power derived from the publick when this power comes to execution And admitting that the Sheriff may limit the authority of his under Sheriff for a time as it seemes that he may then of this it followes that he may allwaies abridge and apportion his authority And he agreed that when an under Sheriff is made diverse Statutes have been made to punish him if he offend But the Sheriff is not compellable to make under Sheriff And as to the Obligation that if an execution be delivered to the under Sheriff against one which is in his presence that he ought to execute it he saith that the Law is not so for the party ought to deliver the execution to the Sheriff himselfe for it doth not appeare that he hath an under Sheriff if he have received a Writ of discharge or not And also the Office of the Sheriff is of