Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 11. c. appoints that the Ordinary after complaint made and sentence given against any such incumbent whereby he ought or shall lose one years profits of his Benefice shall grant Sequestration to one of the inhabitants of the same Parish as he shall think meet And upon default there in by the Ordinary that it may and shall be lawfull to every Parishoner where the Benefice is to retein and keep his or their tithes and likewise for the Church-wardens to enter and take the profits of the Glebe lands and other Rents and duties of every such Benefice to be imployed to the use of the poor and he shewed how that the Parson made a Covenant and a Bond that he would permit I. S. to take the profits of his Benefice for a year And whether this were such a Lease for which the Parson ought to forfeit the profits ut super he prayed the opinion of the Court and it seemed to them it is not the reason seemeth to be because he doth not aver him to be absent above 80 daies in the same year 83. PEr Popham If a man find my horse Conversion and after ride him and then delivers the horse unto me and I bring an Action of Trover for the Conversion It is no plea that you have delivered the horse to me before the Action brought for you ought to answer to the Conversion 84. CHesson brought an assumpsit against D. K. Abatement of debt and declared that where I. S. was indebted to him in 64l The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would abate 10l parcell of the said Debt and also would give day to the said I. S. untill Michaelmas then next following for payment of the said 54 l. residue That the next day after she the said Defendant would become bound to the now Party for the payment of the said 54. l. at the said Feast of St. Michael and the Plaintiff in facto saith that he hath abated 10. l. parcell of the said 64. l. and yet the Defendant did not become bounden for the payment of the said 54. l. residue per quod actio accrevit The Defendant pleaded in Barre That after the said day given and before Michaelmas scil tali die the Plaintiff entred a plaint in London for the Debt aforesaid of 64. l. Arrest before the day given for payment and then caused the said I. S. to be arrested and demanded judgement si actio Tanfield The Declaration is sufficient for you have delared that you have abated part of the debt but you have not shewed how that was defaulked and therefore not good for we may take issue upon that if we will and if a man be bound in an Obligation to discharge me of certaine rent it is no plea for him to say that he hath me discharged without shewing how for that that I may take issue upon thaâ— Also to the second matter the Plaintiff ought not onely to give day of payment but also to forbeare to molest I. S. untill the day be come Cook to the contrary And as to the first poiut it seemeth that the discharge ought to be upon the entring into bond Bond for parcell of a contract for if a man make a Contract for 10. l. and after enter into bond for 5 l. parcell of that all the Contract is gone as appears per 3. H. 4. And as to the second point I think the promise is broken by the Defendant for that he did not enter into Bond the next day after the assumption made Gawdie I doubt whether the Declaration be good or not for it seems to me that the Plaintiff ought to shew how he hath defaulked the 10. l. part of the 64. l. for it may not be intended a defaulking in Law but of a defaulking indeed and for that it is not like the case cited in 3. H. 4. But the Plaintiff ought to doe an Act himselfe And 17. Eliz. A man was bound to allow ratifie and confirm a term for yeers And it is no Plea to say that he hath that confirmed But he ought to shew how because every Confirmation must be by Deed but if the Declaration were good then perchance the Barre would not be good And howbeit that Mr. Attorney hath said that there is a breach for not entring into Bond yet the Plaintiff may not sue Every discharge to be by writing if he have not performed his promise Fenner It will be hard to make the Declaration good for when one promiseth to defaulk his debt this shall be intended a lawfull discharge which cannot be otherwise than by writing and per 20. E. 3. Accompt If a man be bound to acknowledge a Statute For the intent must also be performed and he doth acknowledge the same but yet keeps the same in his own hands this is no performance And as to the second point when one promiseth in confideration of one thing to doe another there ought to be performance of the first as if a man be bound to make a new Pale Disturbance of the consideration as 9. Edw. 4. 20. 15. Edw. 4. 2. 3. is having the old pale for his labour there if the old pale be taken from him he is not bound to make the new pale Popham I am of the same opinion 85. DIxon brought an Action upon the case against Adams Assumpâ—it in consideration that a man will voluntarily do that act which otherwise he should have been compelled to doc and declared that whereas I. S. was indebted to the said Adams in 60. l. forwhich the said Adams arrested the said I. S. and the said Dixon was 〈◊〉 for the said I. S. in the said suit and the said Adams recovered in the said suit and after sued forth a Scire facias against the said Dixon being bail whereupon the said Adams in confideration that the said Dixon would pay him the 60. l. the said Adams assumed to assigne over unto him the said first Obligation in which the said I. S. was bound unto him and upon which the first action was brought and the judgement thereupon had and the Plaintiff dixit in facto that he had paid the 60. l. to the Defendant Sed â—radictus defend promissionem assumptionem suas minime curans hath not assigned over to the Plantiff the said Obligation and Judgement per quod act accrevit and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff for the consideration was holden good 86. ROsse brought an Ejectione firme against Thomas Ardwick Limitation and the case was such that one Norwood was seised in see and leased to one Nicholas Ardwick and his Assignes for his own life and for the lives of Thomas Andrew and John Ardwick and after Norwood the Lessor leased the Reversion to Rosse the now Plaintif for 21 years and after Nicholas Ardwick made a lease of the same land to Thomas Ardwick to hold at will and
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good
Livery per baron and would have made Livery but the Wife would not agree to the Livery yet notwithstanding the contradiction of the Wife the Livery was Adjuged good 33 Hen. 6. Husband and Wife are Plantifs in an Assise Nonsuite del feme and the Husband would Prosecute but the Wife would be Nonsuite the act of the Husband shall be accepted and the act of the Wife rejected So if the Husband will make an Attourny and the Wife wil dissavow him Attourny yet he shall be their Attourny And as I think this Limitation by the Husband shall bind the Wife in perpetuity Case per fine indentare Difference Juris clamat For if the Husband make a Lease of the wifes Land for 100 years the Wife may avoid it after his death but if after they both Levy a Fine the Lease shall be good-for ever And 11 Hen. 4. He in Reversion and one which hath nothing Levy a Fine quid juris clamat shall be brought against them both And as I conceive it it shall be counted her folly Reentry per condition that will take such a Husband as will Limit such uses For if a Wife hath an Estate in Land upon condition for not payment of Rent that the Feoffor shall reenter if she take a Husband which doth not pay the Rent whereby the Feoffor or his Heires reenter the Estate of the Wife is utterly defeated And in 4 Ed. 2. A woman Tenant takes a Husband Cessavit who ceaseth by two yeares whereby the Lord bringeth a Cessavit and recovereth the Inheritance of the Wife she shall be bound And this appeareth in Fitzh in Cui invita 21. And it shall be so if the Wife hath but a Freehold Wast as it is in 3 Ed. 3. A woman Lessee takes a Husband who maketh Wast whereby the Land is recovered and 48 Ed. 3. fol 18. Husband and Wife sell the Land of the Wife this is onely the sale of the Husband but if after they Levy a Fine this shall bind the Wife And for express Authority it is the case in Dyer Joynture fol. 290. a pl. 2. And so it is a Common case if a man seised of Lands takes a Wife who hath a Jointure in his Land and he makes a Limitation of uses and after they both Levy a Fine this shall be the Limitation by the Husband because it shall be intended that the Wife consented if it doth not appear to the contrary Whereby the Declaration of the use here by the Husband shall be good to bind the Wife and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plantif Feâ—ner to the contrary for here the Inheritance is in the Wife and where the Husband limits further than he hath Authority there the Law shall make a Declaration of the uses for the Husband cannot Limit uses of that which he hath not 21 Ed. 3. A man takes a Wife seised of Lands in Fee Atteynder del feme and before that the Husband was intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie the Wife was attainted of Treason Homage the Land shall be forfeit and 44 Ed. 3. He shall not make Homage Conusans before he be intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie 12 R. 2. Conusans shall be made by the Bayley of the Husband in the name of the Husband and Wife Warranoy And in this case the Conisee is in in the per by the Wife and Warranty made to the Husband shall inure to the Wife and 18 Ed. 3. A man seised of a Mannor in right of his Wife Villain to which there is a Villain regardant the Villain Purchaseth Lands the Husband shall be seised of the Perquisite in right of his Wife And yet otherwise it is where a man is Lessee for years of a Mannor to which c. For he shall be seised of the Perquisite in his own Right Divorce 12. lib. Ass If he be Divorced his Estate is gone Lease Rent ch diversity And I agree to the case put by my Brother Shut Where the Husband makes a Lease for years and after he and his Wife levy a Fine there the Lease shall be good but if the Husband grant a Rent charge and after he and his Wife Levy a Fine I do not agree that this is good for in the first case the Conisee found one which had an Interest in the Land but not in the last Then Sir here the Husband hath no power to Limit the use for the Land of his Wife to indure for ever Feoffee al use 28 Hen. 8. The Feoffece to use at the Common Law Limits an use to a stranger this Devesteth the first use but if he limit is to cestui que use then it is an ancient use and not new And so it is if Tenant for life and he in Reversion levy a Fine this shaâ—l be to the use of him in Reversion 2 Loyntenants And so if two Joyntenants be in Fee and they limit severall uses this shall be good according to their limitations for the Moities of either of them and for no more And if Husband and Wife levy a Fine to the use of the Husbands Sonne Fits del baron yet this is to the use of the Wife but if he be the Wifes Sonne allso then this is a good consideration and the use shall be accordingly And these cases I put to this intent that when a man limits an use which is repugnant Vse repugnant or further than he hath Authority the Law shall make a Declaration of the same use for Bracton saith Nemo potest ad alterum plus juris tranferre quam ipse habet And I take the Law if Husband and Wife levy a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and render back to the Wife in Tail Fine levie de terres del feme Oâ—e râ—eder al feme en tail and the Husband dye and the Wife discontinue that this is not a Purchase of the Husband within the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. And so it was here adjuged in 18. of Eliz. in Alexanders case And I agree to that which hath been said that the Wife only cannot limit uses but because the Jury hath found for â—he Defendant if the limitation by the Husband be not good as I think it is not then Judgement shall be given for the Defendant Concessum Adjornatur 14 WIlliam Knight Eject firm as Eessee for yeas to Sir John Fortescne and Rich. Thikston Gentleman brought an Executione firme against W. Breâ—h of one Mesnage with the Appurtenances in Themilstreet in the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury appeared at the Bar and Evidence given on both sides And at the length the Plantif Demurred in Law upon the Evidence given for the Defendant Demurrer al evidence and thereupon the Jury were discharged And now Gawdy the Queens Serjeant
keep their Country in such sort so that men may safely travell upon their way So that at this time the Court held that he should be aided by the Statute and also that no Hue and cry was necessary or convenient to be made by the party but they were not resolved and therefore they gave a day to have it argued again 11. AN Action upon the case was brought for these words Normans case thou wouldest have stoln a piece of cloth or else thou wouldest have delivered it to my Wifes Daughter and thou art a thief and an arrant thief and I will prove it and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spoke in arrest of Judgement because the former words proved but onely an Intent Words which was no Flony and the last words shall be referred thereunto and therefore the Action not maintenable But now Shuttleworth moved for Judgement for the Plaintif because the last words are sufficient by themselves and shall not be referred to the former because they were spoken absolutely by themselves and so was the opinion of three Justices Anderson absente Rodes Otherwise it is if the words had been Therefore and therefore thou art a thief 12. SAmuell Hayles brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation the Condition was that if the Defendant did pay to the Plaintif 40. l. within twenty dayes after the retourn of one Russell into England from the City of Venice in the parts beyond the Seas that then c. and the Defendant pleaded in Bar that Russell was not at the City of Venice whereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and at this day the Record was read and clearly per 3. Justices Anderson absente it is no good Plea For in such cases where parcell is to be done within the Realm and parcell without the Realm they ought to plead such a Plea as is triable in this Realm and therefore they commanded the Serjeant to move for Judgement when Anderson was present and so he did the last day of the Term and Judgement was given for the Plaintif by all the Court. 13. IN Trespass by Moor against Hills Attornment the Defendant pleaded that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster made a Lease tâ— one Payn who made Leases out of it first to A. for certain years rendring Rentand after the end of that Lease then to B. rendring Rent and afterwards sold all the entire interest to the Defendant to whom the second Lessee which had no possession Attorned Possession And the Plaintif moved that he might plead a better Attornment for this is not good because it is no Attornment And so was the opinion of the Court and therefore they gave him day to amend his Plea or else let a Demurrer be entred 14. VPon a wager of Law Payment by estranger it was said by Anderson that if I am bound to you to pay you a certain sum of money and a stranger deliver you a Horse by my assent for the same debt this is no satisfaction So if I be indebted upon a simple contract and a stranger make an Obligation for this debt the Debtor cannot wage his Law for this doth not determine the Contract Et nullut dedixit 15. BEtween Peirce and Davy this was the case Legacie A man covenants with I. S. to pay to A. B. and C. every of them x. l. at the age of twenty four years and makes an Obligation to perform the Covenant And afterwards makes his Will in this sort Item I will that every one of my Wifes Children viz. A. B. and C. shall have every of them x. l. at their severall ages of 21 years in performance of my Bond and Covenant in that behalf made at the time of my Mariage and not otherwise and dyeth Then A. B. and C. sued in the spirittuall Court Prohibition for these Legacies and Peirce brought a Prohibition and they prayed a consultation and the Court seemed to encline to their demand because they were all strangers to the Covenant but yet they would not absolutely grant it And afterwards in Termino Pasch 30. it was moved again and then the Court doubted because it was not given as a Legacy allthough that it was payable before for that it was given in performance of the Covenant and not otherwise and Anderson and Rodes said precisely that a consultation should not be granted sed alii haesitabant But yet they all thought it good reason and conscience that it should be payd wherefore they compounded the matter and gave day to Peirce to pay the money and 2 pound 8 pence to them which had sued in the Spirituall Court for their costs The same Testator allso devised diverse summs of money to his Wife to pay to the said A. B. and C. in performance of his Covenant who had the money accordingly And in debt brought upon the Obligation for the same Covenant the Executor pleaded plene administr 〈◊〉 and upon the Evidence all this matter appeared and the opinion of the Court in the Exchequor was that it shall be assetz and so adjudged there 16. BUrnell of Shrewsbery was robbed in Buckinghamshire Hue and cry and thereupon he brought his Action against the Hundred who pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that he was robed the day and year specified in the Declaration but in another place within an other Parish than he had alleged but they found allso that both the Parishes were within the same Hundred and thereupon they prayed the advise of the Court. And three Justices Anderson being in the Starchamber held clearly that the Plaintif shall have Judgement and they said that so was the opinion of my Lord Anderson allso for it is not materiall within what Parish he is robbed so that it be within the same Hundred 17. RIchard Hamington Administr of the goods and Chattels of Isabell Oram brought an Action of debt against James Richards and Mary his Wife Future charge by possibility Administraterix of the goods and Chattells of Laurence Kydwelly upon a bond for performance of covenants and the case was such Tenant for 31 one years deviseth to his Wife as long as she shall be sole and Widow the occupation and Profits of his Term and after her Widowhood expired all the Lease and interest to Reignold his Son and dieth and the Wife hath the Term by force of the Devise and he in the Reversion by Indenture bearing date quinto Decemb An. Mariâ—â— primo did give and grant bargain and sell all that his Tenement to the Wife and to her Heirs for ever And also did covenant to make further assurance and that at the making thereof it should be discharged of all former Bargains Sales Titles Rights Joyntures A Feoffment to her and after also Dowers Morgages Statutes Merch. Statutes Staple intrusions Forfeitures Condemnations Executions Arrerages of Rents and all other
every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine which were a great inconvenience and contrary to this ground in Law that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband yet here she hath shewed an express disassent and so by their variance both their declarations are void Quare impedit as in a Quare impedit by two if both make severall titles both shall be barred and so judgment shall be given against the Plaintif No Vse limited Peryam to the same intent First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use then the use is to them as the land was before Vse what it is for the use is the profit of the land and the Wife alone cannot limit the use for during the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband Silence And if they both levie a fine and he onely by Indenture limits uses Limitation after fine if she do nothing then his limitation is good and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is good And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life Who shall limit uses and afterwards they both agree in the limitation now if the residue in which they agree shall be good I will shew my opinion therein likewise because that also may come in question hereafter And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance for it is a ground in Law that limiters of uses shall be such as have power interest and auctority of the land and no further As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine Fine Tenant for life shall limit but for his life but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone for he had no issue by her and therefore his use shall bee gone allso for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience but if they had joyned in the limitation then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound Inheritance shall be bound by agreement and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife and therefore the Wife to be concluded is but small reason for she may confesse the Record well enough as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good and for their variance both are void And so I think judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Rodes to the same intent for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intendments Intendment And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the intendment of the Law and he cited Eare and Snowes case where it was found that the wife had nothing And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Anderson then enter judgment accordingly 14. AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex Robbery in the night and the Jury found a speciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court And now all the Judges were agreed that for because the Robbery was done in the night and not in the day therefore the Hundred shall not be charged and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly 15 BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was Copulative that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad then he should have certain mony back again and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town or clothing Town or City or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also the Defendant demurred in law And all the Judges held that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer for the meaning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes as those market Townes which were clothing Townes And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad and not from making and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making in the copulative whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred quod Curia concessit 16. BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was Pas 29. Eliz. that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Trâ—w penny and Elizabeth his wife Rot. 1410. if he and shee Copulative or any child or children between them lawfully begotten should live so long And after they were married the wife died without issue if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question because it is in the conjunctive he and she and now one of them is dead without issue and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B. Lease to a for life shall live and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A. Lease for life of 2 lets land to two for life if one dye the other shall have all by survivour because they took it by way of interest Difference but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other if one of them dye the lease is gone quod fuit concessum and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one because so was the intent Rodes the meaning seemeth to be conrrary for by the or which commeth afterward it appeareth that they should have their lives in it Peryam Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them and the reason which moved the Lord Anderson to think so was because the state was made before the marriage and so it is as a joynture to the wife and therefore not determined by the death of the one And after they all gave judgment accordingly 17. WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will Trespass vi armis against Tenant at Will
the Declaration ought to agree with the Writ 14. A Writ of false Judgement was brought upon a Judgement given in a Court of the Deane and Chapter of Westminster Administrators in an Action upon the case brought against one as Administrator And did not shew by whom the Administration was committed which he ought to have done by 32 Hen. 6. 35 Hen. 6. 50. a. and the Assumpsit was laid to be in consideration that Assets came to the hands of the Defendant And whether this were a good consideration was another doubt and it was not averred that the Administrators had goods sufficient after the Debts and Legacies were paid And at this day it was held that when an Action is brought against an Administrator it need not be shewed but in an Action brought by them clearly they ought to shew it And for the other matter whether the Plaintif needed to aver that they had Assets besides the Debts c. it was said that this ought to come and be shewn on the other part And for that Woodwards case in the Commentaries was cited And the next morning Puckering shewed that he had a report of a Judgement given in the Kings Bench that it is not necessary to shew that they had Assets besides the Debts and Legacies c. And therefore he prayed that the Judgement may be affirmed And so it was for Rodes had seen the report of Puckering according to his saying and testified the same whereby Judgement was here given against the Administrator Anderson being in the Starchamber 15. IT was agreed by all the Justices Herriot that for a Herrioâ— service the Lord cannot distrein out of his Fee no more than for a Rent but he may seise a Herriot Custom out of his Fee 16. A Man was outlawed Vtlary and the Sherif retourned the Proclamation tali die omnes singulas proclam fieri feci And did not shew that such a day he made the first and such a day the second c. and this was assigned for Error and prayed that the Utlary night be reversed and so it was 17. FLeetwood shewed that this case came in pleading Rent-service A man had a Rent service payable at the Feast of St. Michael And on Michaelmas day he died about ten of the clock in the morning now he demanded whether his Heir or his Executor shall have the Rent Anderson Hath he not all the day to pay it and upon condition to pay such a sum he may tender it any time before Sun-set Peryam But if the party accept the payment in the morning it is good Curia If it be a case in this Court you ought to demur as your case is and not to be thus Politick 18. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement in the Kings Bench Abatement and one of the parties died hanging the Writ And the Court held this to be an abatement of the Writ and that he ought to purchase a new Writ De Term. Mic. Anno Reg. Eliz. xxx xxxj 1. AFormdon was brought against Haselwood and Haselwood Abatement and the one took the Tenancy of the one Moity Dier 3. 4. Phil. Mar. 134. Absque hoc that the other had any thing therein and pleaded in abatement of the Writ and the other took the Tenancy of the other Moity and vouched Shut Shall I maintain my Writ or answer to the Bar of the other Tota Curia You must needsmaintain your Writ Anderson Where the pleading is such as your Writ cannot be good there it is a ground that you ought to maintain your Writ Praecipe quod reddat but if a praecipe quod reddat be brought against two and the one plead Nontenure and the other accepts the entire Tenancy Absque hoc c. and doth plead in Bar there you may answer to the Bar because there peradventure the Writ is good notwithstanding As if a Writ be brought against the Feoffor and Feoffee upon condition or Morgagor and Morgagee and so there is a diversity 2. IN a Quare impedit brought by the Queen against the Archbishop the disturber Vtlary and the Incumbent the disturber pleaded that long time before he had any thing in the Advowson by whose Utlary the Queen is intitled King Ed. 4. was seised of the Honor of Haststings and granted it to the Lord Hastings in Fee and further granted omnia bona catalla omnium teneutium ejusdem honoris sive manerii residentium non residentium qui forent utlagati c. and so conveyes the Honor by descent to the now Lord Hastings and did not aver that he which was Utlawed Averment was a Tenant of the Honor. Curia It is not good without doubt for otherwise he is not within compass of the Grant and therefore a day was given by which if the Defendant did not shew better matter the Queen should have Judgement 3. IN the Kings Bench Anne Bucher brought an Ejectione Firme against Auncell Samford Devise and other Defendants Glocester And upon not guilty pleaded Hit 30. Eliz. rot 188. the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that William Samford was seised of the Mannor of Stone-house in the Parish of S. whereof the Tenements in demand were parcell and of divers other Tenements within the same Parish and within a place known in the same Parish which is neither Town nor Hamlet called Ebney in which Samford had a Tenement which hath Lands time out of mind perteining thereunto lying as well in Ebney as in Stone-house which Tenement is in the Tenure of one Bucher by Copy of Court-roll according to the custom of the Mannor Afterwards William Samford deviseth to his Brother after the death of Bucher all that my Tenement with the Appurtenances wherein Bucher dewlleth in Ebney Now the question was whether the Lands in Stone-house perteining thereunto shall pass or no And the famous Cook argued that it should pass for this word Tenement referreth to his dwelling which is in Ebney and not to the place where the Lands lie And therefore he said that words ought to have relation ut ne impediatur sententia sed ut res magis valeat quam pereat Quare impedit and he cited 4 Ed. 3 in a Quare impedit quod permittat praesentare ad ecclesiam de Mourton Majorem and the Defendant demanded Judgement of the Writ for false latin because of Majorem and yet it was adjudged good for it shall be referred to ecclesiam and he cited 19 Ed. 3. 3 Ed. 4. Allso it passeth by this word appurtenances for there was such a Chambridgshire case here within this Twelve-month where a man gave instructions to another to make his Will in this form I will that B. shall have my House with all my Lands thereto apperteining And the other made it in these words I devise to B. my house with the Appurtenances and it was adjudged that
But if a man be indebted to me and after I am Outlawed and then the King releaseth this debt Release of the King of the debt of one outlawed and then I bring a Writ of Error and reverse this Outlary I shall be restored to my action again And here he hath shewen to us a peece of cunning for when he pleads the Outlary in us he hath pleaded the Record specially for otherwise we would have sayd Speciall pleading nul tiel record and then it being reversed it should have been certified for us as there is a case in Dyer Then here allthough that be in by a new presentation yet all the words of our Writ are true in this Scire facias but I grant that Executors shall have a Qnare impedit for a disturbance done to their Testator Executors shal have a Quare impedit Anderson The case in Dyer is thus reported That I when I was the Queens Serjeant and Gerrard now Master of the Rolls then being Attorney of the Queen were of opinion that the Clerk of another shall not be removed and concerning that matter I held then as I doe still that in some cases the Clerk shall not be removed and in some cases he shall for if he come in under the title of the Plaintif Title peramont and since the same then he shall be removed but if he come in by title Paramont he shall not be removed and here for that this is done hanging the Writ it seemeth that he shall be removed For if a man bring a Praecipe and hanging the Writ the Tenant alien yet the recovery is good against him Tenant in a Praecipe aliens and shall allso bind every one under him Peryam That point is clear enough but the question is if by the Outlary the Plaintif hath forfeited his presentation to the Queen For if it be so then this is a new title for the Queen Anderson What reason is there in that when it was an apparent practise of the Defendant to resign for otherwise she could not have presented Plenarty the Church being full before Peryam The practise is not good without doubt but what is the Law Anderson The Law is that the Defendant by his resignation shall never extort the Plaintif from his execution Peryam The point is if by the Outlary the Queen have a new title by reason of the Plaintif and I doubt much thereof if by the judgement she shall have the presentation Anderson I am resolved that there is not any colour in the case but what say you Rodes Truly I hold that the Plaintif shall remove the Clerk Windham And in my opinion it is clear enough that by the reversall of the Outlary the Plaintif shall have his presentation Reversal Anderson Then let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif Peryam In the name of God if you be agreed against me 10. A Writ of Partition was brought by Henry Tannworth Partition and Christian Tannworth against John Tannworth their elder brother for lands in Hawlesteed alias Elsted in Leicester-shire because that Halsteed is parcel of the Soak of Rothelay wherein there is such a custom Members of a Mannâ—r that the lands shall equally descend to all the heirs males and in giving of evidence Walmisley sayd that the members of a Mannor are other Towns in which the Mannor extends and Puckering sayd Soak quid that at this day the Queen may make a Soak For it is nothing else but a Precinct to which divers Mannors come to doe suit and as a great Leet containing divers other Courts and the Evidence was strong for the Tenant for he shewed by plain proof that this was never parcell of the Soak allthough that it was within the ancient Demeasne of Rothelay Domesday as it was proved by the Book of Domesday which was there shewen and a Clerk of the Exchequer read it for other Clerks could not and he sayd and so sayd the Serjeants and the Tenant delivered to Anderson and Peryam an ancient Book of the time of Ed. 2. for their remembrance wherein in 4 Ed. 2. in a nuper obiit it is sayd that if the Lands which have been departible and departed come into the Lords hands by Escheat they shall not be departible in his hands Partible lands Escheat vel in manibus alicujus alius perquisitoris non possunt partiri And he sayd that such was the opinion of Sir Thomas Bromley the last Lord Chancellor upon hearing of the matter there whereby when the Jury came to give their Verdict the Plaintif was Non-suit 11. SHuttelworth shewed how Robert Hughson brought an Action of Debt against B. Office of the Court. as Administrator of F. and declared upon a simple contract made by the Intestate Pasch 30 El. rot 421. and the Defendant pleaded plene administravit and it was found by Verdict against him And now in arrest of Judgement the Defendant alleged that the Action is not maintainable against him upon a simple contract And Shuttelworth thought that now he is past that advantage because he did not shew it in pelading and cited the opinion of Cottesmore in 13 H. 6. And whether the Court ex officio ought to bar the Plaintif or no was the question Rodes It appeareth to us judicially that no action will lie upon a simple contract against Executors or Administrators wherefore then ought the Plaintif to have Judgement Shuttelworth Because by his Plea he took upon him notice of the contract and by 46 Ed. 3. where the Administrator was privy to the retainer of a servant he was charged by a simple contract Rodes Here he did not take notice and in 15 Edw. 4. The Court ex officio abated the Writ Shuttelworth This is by Littleton onely Rodes The case is ruled and Littleton gave Judgement so is the case in 11 Hen. 4. where an Action upon the case is brought against an Inne-keeper A common Ianholder if he be not named Hospitator allthough he plead in bar yet we ex officio ought to abate the VVrit Peryam If he be no Hosteler the Action lyeth not against him And if an Action of Debt be brought and doe not shew the place of the Obligation if the other plead a release this is good enough Shuttelworth So is 18 Edw. 4. A Deâ—d not shewed in Court 6 Hen. 7. Rodes If a man bring an Action and the Defendant plead in bar by Deed and do not shew the Deed and the other pleads in bar and doth not except thereunto but they were at Issue this is Error for we ex officio ought to have adjudged it evill and so is the Book in 22 Hen. 6. or 28 Hen. 6. and I can shew the case Then Shuttelworth sayd privily to his Client I doubt we shall doe no good by our Action Anderson being then in the Star-chamber After at another day Anderson rehearsed the case and sayd
Plaintif was non suit And it was now moved whether the Plaintif ought to have a new venire facias upon the first issue insomuch as the first venire facias did not issue forth upon the first Record and no non suit Et opiniâ— Curiae that he may go to a new triall but whether he shall have a venire facias de novo or that the old venire facias should serve the Court doubted for that the first Jury was sworn 38. FOrd brought an Action of Debt against Glanvile and his Wife Administratrix bonorum Catellorum qua fuerunt Johannis S. durante minore aetate T. S. Abatements The Defendant pleaded that hanging this action against them the said T. S. during whose nonage the Wife was Administratrix came to full age and if this were a good Plea or no was the question And adjudged a good Plea 39. UPon an information against Sr. Christopher Blunt a Juror was challenged for want of Free-hold Free-hold of a Juror and by examination was found that he had 20 shillings a year Fenner and Gawdy doubted whether this be sufficient Free-hold or not Popham and Clinch held it is sufficient for the Statute binds not the Queen and by the Common law if he had any Free-hold it was sufficient Fenner This is a Statute made for the benefit of the Common-wealth and therefore the Queen shall be bound by it though she be not named in it Gawdy Me thinks every Juror ought to have 40. s Free hold at the least by the Common-Law No bill of enception against the Queen Cook No certainly and if they doe take the Law to be so they may have a bill of exception Tanfield Wee cannot have a bill of exception against the Queen see the Statute of 1 Hen. 5. cap. 3. that that is between party and party and the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. the preamble is between party and party But Popham commanded the Jury to be sworn but Gawdy would have sent to the Justices of the Common Pleas for their opinion but the Juror was sworn by Commandment of Popham against the opinion of Justice Fenner 40. PEr Cook Proxime future If I am bound in an Obligation in Lent upon Condition to pay a lesser sum in quarta septimana quadragesima proximae futurae This money shall be paid in Lent Twelvemonth after And so it is upon the Feast day of St Michael I am bound to pay a lesser Summe upon the Feast day of Saint Michaell prox futur without question said he it shall be paid the Twelvemonth after and not the instant day 41. THE Duke of Norfolk Morgaged certain Lands to Rowland Haward Demand Alderman of London upon Condition that if the said Duke do repay to the said Alderman a certain Sum of money That then the Duke might re-enter and after the Duke was attainted before the day of payment Condition given to the Queen and all his Lands Tenements and Conditions were given to the Queen And the question moved at the Table in the Serjeants Inne was whether Sir Rowland ought now to make a Demand of the money upon the Land or to demand that at the Receipt of the Exchequer or that the Queen ought to make the tender upon the Land And it was agreed by all the Judges and Serjeants at dinner that the Queen ought to make no tender But the Alderman ought to make his Demand at the Exchequer and not upon the Land 42. REdfrein agaiust I. S. an Action of the case was brought for words Slander viz. I was robbed and you were privy thereunto and had part of my money It was pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the words will not maintain an Action For that a man may be privy to a robbery after that it is made and have part of the money by honest meanes and therefore it is no slander but the whole Court held the contrary Infected Smell of robbery as well as you are infected with a robbery and smell of the same will maintain an Action so will these words therefore Judgement was given for the Plaintif 43. MEggs against Griffyth brought an Action for these words Slander viz. A woman told me that she heard say that Meggs Wife poysoned her Husband in a mess of milk and Judgement given for the Plaintif 44. REvell against Hart A Parsons Lease the case was upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of Leases made by a Parson Serjeant Harris A Lease made by a Parson is not void against the Parson himself no more than a Lease made by a Bishop which is not void against the Bishop himself as was judged in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury Fenner The Law is as you said in a case of a Bishop but the case of a Parson percase will differ Popham If Rent be reserved Rent reserved it is good against the Parson himself otherwise not Clinch and Gawdy It is good against the Parson himself 45. WInch brought a Writ of Error against Warner Space in the roll upon a Judgement in a Writ of Debt in the Common place upon Arrerageâ— upon an account and it was assigned for Error for that the Plaintif in the Common place The emparlance roll is the Warrant in the first Declaration left a space for the day and year And after imparlance he put in a new Declaration which was perfect But for that the two Declarations did not agree and the first Declaration is the Warrant of all and therefore ought to be perfect therefore the Judgement ought to be Reversed for this default 46. IT appeared in Evidence inter Petties and Soam Foractor upon an Assumsit for ware bought by the Factor of Soam per opinionem Cur. If one be Factor for a Merchant to buy one kind of Stuff as Tin or other such like and the said Factor hath not used to buy any other kind of wares but this kind onely for his Master If now the said Factor buy Saies or other Commodities for his Master and assume to pay money for that Now the Master shall be charged in an Assumpsit for the money and for that let the Master take heed what Factor he makes 47. A. B. being seised in Fee Devise made his Will and devised his Land to his Wife for life the remainder to his Son in Tail and if he died without issue the Land to remain to R. W. and his Wife for their lifes and after their deceases to their children The question is whether the children of W. take by descent or as Purchasers Popham Gawdie were of opinion that they had an Estate Tail But Fenner Clinch but for life 48. WIlliam Gerrard was arrested by a Latitat and put in bail by the name of William Gerrat Bail by a false name and the Plaintif declared against him by the name of Gerrart and all the proceedings and issue was accordingly and Judgement was had
pleaded that before the said Feast of St. Mich. the said G. did not tender to him any acquittance Gawdie The Obligation is void for in so much as the Obligee hath not tendred to him any acquittance therefore he hath tolled from him the election whereof he shall not take advantage Fenner è contra for the election is not in the Partie for the making â—o the acquittance resteth in the will of the Obligee and so the Obligor hath no election Popham was of the same opinion 56. IF a Sheriff doe execute his Writ the same day that the Writ is retornable Execution of a writ done the day of the retorn it is a good execution per Yelverton and he cited these cases A Judgement given in a quare impedit 18. Eliz. and the Writ of dammages was executed the same day that it was retornable and this matter pleaded in arrest of judgement and notwithstanding the partie had judgment and if a capias ad satisfaciendum goe forth and the Sheriff take the Partie the same day that the Writ is retornable and send him into the Court who will say that this is not a good execution 57. WOodcock brought an Action of Debt against Heru Assets Executor of I. S. The Defendant pleaded that the Testator in his life time made a Statute Staple to one I. K. in the sum of 1000 l. and above that he hath nothing And if this Plea be good or not is the question Fenner The Plea is good without question Gawdie I have heard divers learned men doubt of that for if the Testator were bound in a Statute to perform Covenants which are not yet broken and it may be they will never be broken and then he shall never be chargeable by this Statute and yet he shall never be compelled to pay any debts which will be a great inconvenience And again I think there will be a greater mischief of the other part for put the case if the Executors doe pay this debt and the Statute is broken after he shall be chargeable by a devastavit of his own proper goods the which will be a greater inconvenience 58. BRough against Dennyson brought an Action for words Slander viz. Thou hast stoln by the high-way side Popham The words are not actionable for it may be taken that he stole upon a man suddenly as the common proverb is that he stole upon me innuendo that he came to me unawares And when a man creepeth up a hedge the common phrase is he stole up the hedge Fenner When the words may have a good construction you shall never construe them to an evill sense And it may be intended he stole a stick under a hedge and these words are not so slanderous that they are actionable 59. A Copy-holder was not upon his Land to pay his rent Forfeiture of a copy-hrld when the Lord was there to demand it And whether this were a forfeiture or not was the question Fenner It is no forfeiture if there were not an express denyall for the non-payment here is but negligence the which is not so hainous an injurie as a willfull denyal for it may be that the Copy-holder being upon the Land hath no money in his purse and therefore it shall be a very hard construction to make it a forfeiture But if he make many such defaults it may be it shall be deemed a forfeiture Popham If this shall not be a forfeiture there will grow great danger to the Lord and the Copy-holders estate was of small account in ancient time and now the strength that they have obtained is but conditionally to wit pay their rent and doing their sevices and if they fail of any of these the Condition is broken and it seemeth cleer if the rent be payable at our Lady day Demand after the day and the Lord doth not come then but after the day to demand the rent there is no forfeiture 60. THe Case was that there was Lessee for life Sir Henry Knevit against Poole interest of Corn. the Remainder for life and the first Lessee for life made a lease for years and this Lessee was put out of possession by a stranger and the stranger sowed the Land and the first Lessee for life dyed and he in remainder for life entred into the Land and leased it to Sir Henry Knevit and who should have the corn was the question Tanfeild argued that Sir H. K. being Lessee of the Tenant for life in remainder shall have the corn for the reason for which a man which hath an uncertain estate shall have the corn is for that he hath manured the land and for that it is reason that he that laboureth should reap the fruit but he said that the stranger that sowed the land shall not have the corn Lease of ground sowed because his estate begun by wrong for if a man make a lease for life of ground sowed and before severance the Lessee dyed now his Executor shall not have the corn Assignment after sowing concess per Popham cont per Gawdy for that they came not of the manurance of their Testator so it is if the Lessee for life sowe the land and assign over his interest and dye now the Assigne shall not have the corn cansa qua supra and for this reason in our case neither the Executors of the first Tenant for life nor the Lessee of the first Tenant for life shall have the corn here for that it comes not by their manurance and the stranger which sowed them he shall not have them Vncertainty necessarie unnecessary difference for albeit he manured the land and howbeit his estate was defeasable upon an uncertainty yet he was a wrong doer and the incertainty of his estate came by his own wrong for which the law will never give any favour to him and for that when he in remainder for life entreth it seemeth that he shall have the corn for he hath right to the possession and the corn are growing upon the soile and by consequence are belonging to the owner of the soile but it hath been said that here there was no trespasse done to him in remainder and for that he shall never have the corn Sir as to that I say if an Abator after the death of the Ancestor enter and sowe the land Abator soweth and after the right heire enter in this case the heire shall have the corn and yet no trespasse was made to him and it hath been adjudged in this Court where a man devised land sowed to one for life and after his decease the remainder to another for life and the first Tenant entred and dyed before severance and he in remainder entred that there he in remainder shall have the corn and by consequence the same Law shall be in our case Godfrey è contra and he argued that the Lessee for yeers Devise of land sowne of the first Lessee for life
Wife sued execution and the Debtor upon this release brought an audita querela and adjudged against him because of covin but there is a third matter which makes an end of all for it is found that Sir John Pagginton entred upon Goodale and Goodale re-entred and then the Defendant entring is a Trespassor to the Plaintiff because no title is found for him to make his entrie lawfull Finner I thinke no payment ought to be made to the heir in this case no more than it shall be where a man is bound by obligation to pay a lesser sum to the Obligee his Heires or Executors there payment shall be to the Executor and not to the Heir And I think in this case Conusee by Starute grants over his estate that the payment ought to be to the Feoffee for that that he is to have the losse for by 22. E. 3. 15. E. 3. if a man have exeution by Statute and grant his estate over if the Conusor will pay the money and have the land again it shall be paid to the Grantee and not to the Conusee But I am cleer in opinion that for another cause judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for the words of the condition are sub conditione That if Sir John Pagginton pay 50. l. to the Heires Executors or Administrators of W. That the said Deed of Feoffment Liveriâ— cannot be void without a reentire and the seizin upon that given shall be void And I think it is no condition for livery of seisin may not be void without a re-entry as 15. H. 7. is but for the matter of the Covin it seems to me that if the Heir may receive the money that shall not prejudice for if he have right to have the money who hath any wrong if he give part of that to another Clinch The payment of the money to the Heire is good for when a man departeth with his estate it is in his dispose to annexe what condition he will and for that when he appointeth to the Heires Executors or Administrators payment to any of them is good And he said it was a good condition Possession a good title against all which have not a better and no fraud for the duty was due to the Heir but for the last matter that is not to be cured for when one title is found for the Defendant and it is found that the outed one that had elder possession his entry is torcious Popham I think the condition is not good for whensoever you will have an estate of inheritance to cease Estates beginning by liverie and otherwise you ought to have apt words to make it cease for an estate which beginneth by liverie may not cease by words but it is otherwise of an estate that beginneth by contract without any liverie and seisin but in the point of fraud I am of opinion with my brother Gawdy Fraudulent recoveries are void although they be by a good title For fraud in our law is not favoured albeit the partie have right for if he that hath right is of covin with one to disseise him that is in possession to the intent that he will recover against him now this recoverie albeit he hath right will doe no good to him but the last makes all without question and so judgement was given for the Plaintiff 112. SAyer brought an Eejectione firme against Hardy A Lease determinable made good for the insensibility of words and a speciall verdict was found to wit that a Lease was made to a widow for 40. yeers sub hac tamen conditione quod si ipsa tam diu sola fuerit inhabitabit in the same house the woman continued sole all her life and dwelt all her time in the said house and dyed within the term the question was whether the term be determined or not and whether the words make a condition or limitation Morgan It is no condition and cited Colthursts case but if it were a condition here is no breach alleged for the death is the Act of God which no man may resist and the Act of God may not prejudice any man Bromly I think the word makes a Limitation and not a Condition and he tited the Lord Barkly's case Gawdie If a Lease be made to a feme sole if she so long live sole and continue unmarried now if she dye the Lease is determined Differences between conditions and limitations and per Litl If an Abbot make a lease for 40. yeers if he so long be Abbot if he after be deposed or dye the lease is determined So is it of a lease made by the Husband if he so long continue Husband of such a woman but in this case the words are insensible and for that it is neither condition nor Limitation vide 3. E. 6. Dyer 65. 66. Popham Clinch It is neither Condition nor limitation but if this word si had been omitted it would have been a condition Or if the words sub conditioâ—â— quod had been omitted it would have been a limitation And if I make a Lease for 40. yeers if the Lessee dwell upon the thing let during the term there if the Lesse dye the Lease is determined for that the point of limitation goeth to all the term but if it be a lease for 40. yeers if the Lessee dwell upon that during his life there if he dye the Lease continueth So they all concluded that the terme yet continueth per quod judicium intretur pro quer 113. IN the case between Walter and Walter for 20. l. per annum to be paid to a Justice of Wales for the Office of the Clerk of Fines Assumpsit in consideration of an Office sold For a Justice of Wales may by Prescription take notice of Fines of Land lying in certain Shires in Wales and this 20 l. per annum was to be payd by the Servant to the Master for the sayd Office for the Clerks Fee was v. s iiij d. of every Fine The Action for not paying the xx l. Mistrâ—all was brought and tried in comitatu Gloucest And therefore Mr. Attorney said it was mis-tryed for properly it ought to be tryed in one of the three Shires in Wales John Walter I think the Tryall good for 30 Eliz. there was a Case in this Court between Beveridge and Conney Reveridge against Conney And the case was that a Lease was made in the County of Northampton of lands in the County of Cambridge and the Lessee was bound by Obligation to pay his rent in the County of Northhampton The Defendant pleaded payment in the County of Cambridge and this was found in the County of Northampton Gawdy This is a good Case let us see the Record Walter You shall Sir But the Court seemed to incline against Walter Cook said that in this case the Assumption is voyd per le Statute de 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. For it is not
REPORTS Of that Learned and Judicious Clerk J. Gouldsborough Esq Sometimes one of the Protonotaries of the Court of COMMON PLEAS OR His Collection of choice Cases and matters agitated in all the Courts at Westminster in the latter yeares of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth With Learned arguments at the Barr and on the Bench and the grave Resolutions and Judgements thereupon of the Chief Justices ANDERSON and POPHAM and the rest of the Judges of those times Never before Published And now Printed by his Original Copy With short Notes in the Margent of the chief matters therein contained with the yeare Terme and Number Roll of many of the Cases And Two Exact Tables viz. A Briefer of the Names of the severall Cases with the Nature of the Actions on which they are founded and a Lâ—rger of all the remarkable things contained in the whole Book By W. S. of the Inner Temple Esq Ubi est nulla Lex ibi est nulla transgressio Sed ubi lex est nullum ibi abundat Iniquitas LONDON Printed by W. W. for Charles Adams and are to be sold at his Shop at the Signe of the Marygold over against Fetter Lane in Fleetstreet Anno Dom. 1653. TO THE Studious and Ingenious READER TWO things usually make new Books famous the Name of the Authour and the Approbation of the Judicious neither of these are here wanting for thou seest that this Book as part of its Title challengeth the Name of that Learned and Judicious Clerk John Gouldsborough A Name so well known even in this our Age that I should but trifle away time in multiplying words to tell thee what he was and to inlarge upon his worth and allso discover too much mine own weakness by endeavouring to prove so known a Truth that it is by all allready taken for grantld For the second I am assured that the Copy hath been communicated to the view of many knowing men in the profession of the Common Law whose unanimous consent in a fair Testimony of the excellency thereof hath been not only a chief cause of the now making it publique but allso of heigthning the Publishers hopes that this Book will be perused with as much content and received with as generall an Applause as any thing of the like nature that these latter yeares have afforded And that his great care and hazard in this his Edition may receive thy candid construction and himself reap if not a fruitfull yet at least a saving return for his better encouragement to adventure further hereafter in this kind for thine and the publique good For thy further satisfaction know that thou hast not here a spurious deformed Brat falsly fathered upon the name of a dead man too too usuall a trick played by the subtile Gamesters of this Serpentine Age but thou hast presented to thee though I cannot say the Issue of the Learned Gouldsborough's own Brain yet I dare say the Work of his own Hand and that which were he living he would not blush to own A Work I say not roughly drawn and cast by in neglected Sheets till time should give leave for the perfecting thereof but carefully transcribed by himself in a fair Manuscript destined as it should seem either for the Press and publique view or to be preserved as a pretious Jewell to be privately made use of in succeeding Ages That this is true there want not many living Testimonies of persons of worth who doe and have very good reason to know his Hand-writing that if need required might be produced to say as much I shall adde but one thing more and that in brief is this As the Authour was very careful in Transcribing and Correcting his Copy that he might leave it fair and entire to Posterity so hath the Publisher spared neither pains nor cost in the Printing thereof that the Book may not come foul and imperfect to the hands of thee it 's courteous and ingenious Reader W. S. A Table of the Names of the severall Cases with the Nature of the Actions on which they are founded  pag. pl. Wast COnstance Fosters case 1 1 Return of a Writ 1 2 Wast 1 3 Devise 2 4 Battery Webster against Payn 2 5 Trespass Nelsons case 3 6 Quare impedit Moores case 3 7 Dower Tristram Ascough and Eulalia his wife 4 8 Quid juris clamat Justice Windham against the Lady Gresham 4 9 Verdict in an Ejectione firme 5 10 Avowry Capel against Capel 5 11 Trespass Baintons case 6 12 Replevin Colgate against Blith 12 13 Ejectione firme Knight against Brech 15 1 Writ of Right Heydon against Ibgrave 23 2 Debt upon the Stat. of Winchester Tyrrels case 24 3 Quare impedit Mores case 24 4 Action on the Case for words 25 5 Trespass Leonards case 25 6 Scire facias Owens case 26 7 Dower 27 8 Arrest of Judgement in an Action for words 28 1 Partition by word 28 2 Debt for Rent 29 3 Lands purchased by an Alien 29 4 Misdemeanours of an Attorney 30 5 Annuity Sellengers case 29 1 Plea by an Executor 31 2 Râ—plevin Boss against Huntley 31 3 Trespass VVilgus against VVelch 31 4 Ejectione firme 31 5 Action upon the case Fulwood against Fulwood 32 6 Replevin Gibson against Platless 32 7 Battery Lees case 33 8 Copyhold Smith against Lane 34 9 Quare impedit Specot against the Bishop of Exeter 35 10 Replevin Brooks case 37 11 Replevin Knights case 37 12 Replevin Wakefield against Cossard 38 13 Debt The Earl of Kents case 39 14 Debt Mounsay against Hylyard 39 15 Debt The Purveyors case 39 16 Trespass Justice Anderson against VVild 40 17 Error in debt Sir Wolstan Dixy against Spencer 40 18 Attaint Husseys case 42 19 Quare impedit 42 10 Pleading in Battery 43 21 Ejectione firme Clayton against Rawson 43 22 View Hoo against Hoo 44 23 Debt Wiseman against VVallinger 44 24 Quare impedit Beverley against Cornwall 44 25 Quare impedit Gerrards case 45 26 Debt Bingham against Squire 45 27 Lords Chancellors solemnity 46 1 Quare impedit The Queens case 46 2 Ejectione firme Kent against King 47 3 Ejectione firme Hurlestones case 47 4 Assumpsit 47 5 Action on the case VVhorwood against Gibbons 48 6 for words Action for words 48 7 Action upon a promise Bodyes case 49 8 Assault and Battery 49 9 Action of covenant 49 10 Debt upon a bond Sir Will. Druries case 50 11 Estrepment 50 12 Perjury 51 13 Conspiracy Hurlstone against Glascour 51 14 Quare impedit Specots case 52 1 Replevin Board against Henley 52 2 Quare impedit The Queen against Lee 53 3 Kimptons case 53 4 Estopple 53 5 Debt upon a bond Hasels case 54 6 Trover and Conversion 54 7 Vtlary Beverleys case 55 8 Hue and Cry Comberfords case 55 9 Hue and Cry Ashpools case 55 10 Action for words Normans case 56 11 Debt upon a bond Hayles case 57 12 Attornment Moore against Hills 57 13 Wager of Law 57 14 Prohibition Pierce
Brough against Devison 143 58 Forfeiture of Copyhold 143 59 Lease for years Knevit against Poole 143 60 Prohibition Rame against Patison 145 61 Partridge against Nayler 145 62 Forfeiture 146 63 Quare impedit Lord Zouches case 146 64 Assumpsit Thornton against Kemp. 146 65 Prohibition Sherington against Fleetwood 147 66 Trust VVildgoose against VVayland 147 67 Reservation of Rent 148 68 Action for a Robbery 148 69 Outlary reversed 148 70 Fine with proclamation 148 71 Feoffment to a use 148 72 Tenure and Wardship 149 73 Devise 149 74 Prohibition Benefield against Finch 149 75 Oyer of a bond 150 76 Ejectione firme Beckford against Parnecole 150 77 Writ of Error Harecourts case 151 78 Trover Easts case 152 79 Writ of Error Wiseman against Baldwin 152 80 Assumpsit Pine against Hide 154 81 Prohibition Jacksons case 154 82 Trover and conversion 155 83 Assumpsit Chessins case 155 84 Assumpsit Dixon against Adams 156 85 Ejectione firme Ross against Ardwick 157 86 Trover Harding against Sherman 158 87 Debt upon a bond Paytons case 158 159 88 Trespass quare clausum fregit 159 89 Debt upon a bond Allen against Abraham 159 90 Account Huntly against Griffith 159 91 Scire Facias Lady Gresham against Man 160 92 Prohibition Ramsies case 161 93 Account 161 94 Indictment Hom's his case 162 95 Fine of Lands 162 96 Ejectione firme Robins against Prince 162 163 97 Scire facias Hoo against Hoo 166 98 Mackerell against Bachelor 168 99 Information Goodale against Butler 169 170 100 Scire facias Foe against Balton 170 101 Contra formam Collationis 111 102 Ejectione firme Cootes against Atkinson 171 103 Action for words Pollard against Armeshaw 172 104 Elegit Palmer against Humphrey 172 105 Covenant 173 174 106 Debt upon a bond Robinson against May 174 107 Audita querela Hobs against Tedcastle 174 175 108 Covenant Matures against Westwood 175 109 Assault and battery Sims his case 176 110 Trespass Goodale against Wyat 176 111 Ejectione firme Sayer against Hardy 179 112 Rent Walter against Walter 180 113 Debt upon an Escape 108 114 Vtlary after Judgement 108 115 Fine levied Sir Henry Jones case 181 116 Evidence Tutball against Smote 181 117 Debt Richard Thornes case 182 118 Debt Humble against Glover 182 119 Evidence Maidstone against Hall 182 120 Speciall Verdict Dickins against Marsh 182 183 121 Covenant Cole against Taunton 184 122 Grant 184 123 Error Brewster against Bewty 187 124 Trespass Pannell against Fen 185 125 Repleuin Second deliverance 185 126 Action for words Stitch against VVisedom 185 127 Accessary to Felony 185 128 Debt Thin against Chomley 186 129 Lease Harbin against Barton 185 103 Action for words Baddocks case 186 131 Debt upon a bond Staples against Hankinson 187 132 Error Boyer against Jenkins 187 133 Grant over 187 134 Ejectione firme Thomas against King 187 135 Trespass Oland against Bardwick 188 136 Error Ascough against Hollingworth 188 137 Trespass Bodeam against Smith 189 138 Name of purchase 189 139 Perjury 189 140 Obligation 190 141 De Term. Pasch Anno Elizab. Reg. xxviij 1. WAst war brought by Constance Foster Wast and another against Lessee for years in effect the case was such A man makes a Lease of certain Lands 44 Ed. 3. 34. b. 46 Ed. 3. 22. 28 Hen. 8. 19. a. excepting all manner of Woods the Lessee cuts down Trees and he in Reversion brings an Action of Wast and by the opinion of the Court the Lessee is not punishable in Wast for they were never let and therefore the Plaintif is driven to his Action of Trespass at the Common Law 2. THe Sherif returneth in a Writ of Right four Esquires to make the pannel Return and doth not say that there be any Knights it was sayd by the Court that he ought to return them which be and that there be no more 3. WAst was brought for digging in Land Wast and taking away Okes the Defendant pleaded in bar That the Queen by her Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England granted unto him that he might dig for Mines of Cole in the Land and prayed that it might be entred verbatim and a Grant under the Seal of the Exchequor was entred whereupon the Plaintif Demurred Now came Walmisley and would have amended it and by the opinion of the Court he cannot amend it after the Demurrer be entred Demurrer but Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif if he shew no other matter 4. A Man seised of Lands in Fee Devise and sale by Executors Deviseth to his Wife for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl and if his Son dye without issue of his body that then the Land shall be sold by his Executors and maketh two Executors and dyeth the Wife dyeth one Executor dyeth the Sonne dyeth without issue the other Executor selleth the Land and Gawdy the Queens Serjeant moved whether the sale be good or no and it seemeth to him that the sale is good and vouched the Case in 30 Hen. 8. Brook Devise 31. And now lately it was adjudged in the Kings-bench where a man did Devise his Lands in tayl and for default of such issue that the Land shall be sold by his Sonnes-in-law and dieth having five Sonnes-in-law the one dyed the others sold the Land and this was adjudged a good sale Anderson It seemeth the sale is not good for if one make a Letter of Attorney to two to make Livery and Seisin Livery if the one dye the other cannot doe it So if one grant the Office of Stewardship to two the one of them cannot hold Court alone Stewardship And if one of them may sell to what intent was the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. cap. 4. that those which take the Administration may sell Windham The Statute will not prove the case but it seemeth the sale to be naught And there is a difference where one giveth an interest to two and when he giveth but an authority Interest for an interest may survive but an authority cannot Authority Rodes to the same intent and cited M. 4 Eliz. fol. 219. a. 177. 210. 371. 5. BAttery Battery by Webster against Pain the Action was layd in London and in truth the Battery was committed at Uxbridge in Midlesex the Defendant pleaded that such a day and year at A. in the County of Huntington 11 H. 4. f. 3. 11 H. 4. f. 61. 22 H. 6. f. 33. 21 H. 6. f. 9. 9 E. 4. f. 46. 43 E. 3. 23. the Plaintif made an assault upon him and the hurt c. absque hoc that he is guilty in London Snag moved that the Traverse should not be good Anderson Will you have him to say absque hoc that he is guilty that he ought not for by the speciall matter he hath confessed the Battery and you will not deny but that if his Plea be true he hath good cause to bar the
6. the Priors case Note that Puckering then said privily to Shuttelworth is not the book contrary to that which he hath vouched for he vouched the Book contrary to that which Puckering had done before Shuttelworth No Sir but the record is contrary to the Book quod nota and when she granteth ex certa scientia it shall be taken beneficial for the party 1 H. 7. 13. omnia debita released to the Sherif and 29 Ed. 3. the King seised the lands of a Prior alien c. Difference per enter interest prerogative Touts droits poss per fine Fine puis disseisin ou discont alit de recovery and there is a difference between the cases put and this case for when the Queen makes a Grant all matters of interests may pass by the words but matters of prerogative as in the cases put by my brother Puckering cannot pass for they are not within the words but interests are To that which hath been sayd that he was not seised of any estate tayl this is not any argument for if he had three rights by the Fine all are gone and passed to the Conisee for if he be disseised or discontinue and then levy a Fine this is a bar but otherwise it is of a recovery Lessee purâ—ans en reversion poss diversity for that is no bar but of an estate tayl And as to the case of Saunders that lessee for years need not to make claim the case was not so but the case was of a lease inreversion and he had never entred and therefore it was but as a common or a rent but if it be a lease in possession he is bound as in Zouches case Then because the King is in possession it hath been sayd that it is no bar but this seemeth to be no reason for the Statute began with the King and the Preamble seemeth to induce it and the third saving of the Statute is by force of any gift in tayl so this is generall And because he cannot discontinue therefore can he not make a bar Non sequitur For he cannot discontinue and yet a Fine levyed is a good bar and the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. doth not impair this opinion but it was to take away the doubt moved in 29 Hen. 8. Allthough indeed the Law was all wayes clear in the case as it was agreed by all the Judges in Stowels case and the words of the Statute of 34 Hen. 8. that the recoveries shall be no bar doth not extend but to the words going before as in the case in Dyer that a man had not done any act but that c. And the Queen in this case hath not any prejudice for she shall have the rent with the reversion And as for Jacksons case that maketh for me for the question of the case there was that the remainder shall be gone and we ought not to take regard to that which is sayd indirectly in the case but the point of the Judgement is the matter and for authority it is direct in Dyer fol. 26. pl. 1. and therefore it seemeth that the entayl is barred and so the action maintainable Anderson You have well argued but for any thing that I see none of you shall have the Land Grant for the Queen is deceived in her grant and therefore the Patent is voyd and then it shall be seised into the Queens hands And therefore you had best to be advised and we will hear what can be sayd for this point at another day And note that it was sayd by the Justices 3 Costs in forcible entry that if a man recover in a Writ of forcible entry upon the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. by confession or by default he shall recover his treble costs 22 Hen. 6. 57. 13. ONe Colgate brought a Replevin against Blyth who avowed the taking Replevin and thereupon they were at Issue in Kent and the Jury found a speciall Verdict The case in effect was this Husband and Wife are seised of Lands in right of the Wife And she by Indenture in her own name agrees that a Fine shall be levyed and limits the uses by Indenture After the Husband by another Indenture agrees that a Fine shall be levied and limits other uses and afterwards a Fine is levied by them both now whether the uses limited by the Husband shall bind the Land of the Wife in Perpetuity The Jury prayed the advise of the Court c. For if they be good they found for the Plantif if not then they found for the Defendant Shuttleworth Serjeant It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plantif For the use limited by the Husband shall be a good limitation in Perpetuity Rent ch ou Lease per feme covert and first the Wife only cannot limit any use for her Acts are of no Validity And therefore if a Wife grant a Rent charge or make a Lease and the Grantee enter this is a Disseisin 43. Ed. 3. Deeds given by a Feme Covert are void 17. lib. Ass a VVife levies a Fine Executory Fine executory executed per feme covert sur grant render as a sole Woman and after a Scire fac Is brought to Execute this Fine the Husband shall extort the Execution and if it were a Fine Executed then it is a Disseisin to the Husband Vse quod For an use is a Declaration how the Land shall continue in Perpetuity and the Feoffees are nothing but Instruments or Organs to convey the use for the Land yields the use and not the Feoffees then when the Wife which is under the Power of her Husband Limitation per infant quaere limits an use this is void for I hold for Law if an Infant limit uses and after levy a Fine and do not Reverse it during his Nonage yet the limitation shall not bind him and so of a man non compos mentis Non compos mentis And so it was ruled in the Court of Wards where a naturall Ideot made a Declaration of uses and levied a Fine accordingly Ideot naturall that yet it shall be to the use of himself And then in our case the Limitation by the Wife cannot be good but her Will depends upon the Will of her Husband and the expressing of the use by the Husband shall be good Estate disseisin assumsit al feme For if an Estate be made to a Wife if the Husband seaven years after agree it is good and so it is of a Disseisin to a use so ofan Assumpsit to the Wife 27 Hen. 8. in Jordans case 1 Hen. 7. in Doves case and in a Praâ—cipe quod reddat the default of the Wife shall be the default of the Husband Default del feme because she is Compellable to the Will of her Husband by the Intendment of the Law 21. lib. Ass A man seised of Land in Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee
Item that when concourse and equality of titles come together 4 Principles for the King that King shall be preferred 3. Item in entire things he shall have all 4. Item that his grant shall not extend to severall intents or purposes For the first if the King be deceived in the operation of the Law his grant shall be voyd as where he grants to a man and his heirs males Release several this shall be voyd 6 Hen. 7. release of all demands 11 H. 7. 10. release of all action and yet in those cases there is matter of interest and not prerogative and yet nothlng passeth if she be deceived For the concourse of title 4 Ed. 6. a man makes a feoffment in fee upon condition that the feoffee shall not commit treason after the feoffee commits treason the King shall have the land Treason 44 Ed. 3. per Thorp tenant of the King c. he shall have the rent again And for the case of the Lady Hales in the Comentaries where lands descend to a villain For entireties 44 Ed. 3. the King and others give lands to a Monastery the King shall be sole Founder The. King sole founder 19 Hen. 6. he shall have the intire obligation where the one obligee is outlawed Obligation and in 11 Hen. 7. 2 R. 3. two are indebted to the King Release to the oblige and he releaseth to one of them then his grant shall not inure to two purposes Baggâ—ts Ass And so if the King give lands to his villain this shall be no enfranchisment to him So for all those reasons I hold the condition may well enough be apportioned Villâ—in Then for the third matter when the commission issueth to enquire of all covenants and provisoes if the condition be within those words and for that point I think that the Plaintif shall recover for allthough it be not within the words yet the commission is generall after but yet I hold that is within the words 21 Hen. 7. fol. 37. per Fineux If I let land for term of years rendring c. I shall have debt or covenant at my election and Dokerayes case 27 Hen. 8. Proviso is a condition and so it was held here in the case of the Lord Cromwell and Andrews Then when the Jury found that 37 s 5 d. ob were behind if this office be good or no and in my conscience that which is good shall be taken for the Queen and the rest shall be voyd for offices between party and party may be voyd for uncertainty as the case is in Dyer 3 4 Eliz. Office in Beverley c. fol. 209. Or they may be avoyded for falsity Proviso is a condition 1 M. Culpepper fol. 100. b. Or for insufficiency as in my Lord of Leicesters case in the Comentaries Offices voyd but this is only for the Queen and therefore shall be taken favourably and therefore I will â—ompare it to a verdict where surplusage is found 3 Hen. 6. Plene administravit Superplusage in a â—erdict and the Jury found that they have more than Assets 47 Ed. 3. the Jury found that he which prayed to be received had nothing in the land where the issue was joyned whether the particular tenant had a fee. And 39 Hen. 6. 9. surplusage in an Inquisition 5 Hen. 5. fol. 2. Resceit Cobhams case where they found a Divorce in Kent c. Inquisition Allso Sir Offices may be good for that which is certain and voyd for that which is uncertain and good for the King and not for a subject Strenes case in 15 Edw. 4. 14 El. Office found after the death of the tenant by the curtefie 29 H. 8. Br. tit Office devant Escheetr 58. Dyer And if a commission be awarded and the lury say that dâ— quo tenetur ignorant then a melius inquirend shall goe forth but if they say per quae servicia ignorant then nothing shall be done but it shall be intended Knights service and so is the experience of the Exchequer And here they have found that more was behind ergo they have found that so much was behind Quia omne majus continet in se minus Then if this be within the Statute of 18 H. 6. c. 16. And it seemeth that it is not for that Statute as I think is but an exposition of 8 H. 6. and that speaketh of Leases by Treasurer and Chancellor and for that see the case of the Duke of Suffolk 3 4 Ph. Mar. Dyer fol. 145. And so I think for all these causes judgement shall be given for the Plaintif Peryam Justice to the contrary For the first matter I agree that they be several rents for the viz. here doth expound the matter and when the viz. may stand with the premises Videliceâ— then it is good and otherwise not and for that the case in 17 lib. Ass which hath been vouched Difference between an annuity and a rent charge and disseisin of one is not disseisin of the other rent And there is a plain difference between an annuity and a rent service because for an annuity it is the book in 29 Edw. 3. fol. 51. 29. lib. Ass 3 Parceners and rent reserved for equality of partition c. vouched by Rodes but if I grant you xl s out of my Mannor viz. x s out of parcel in the tenure of A. and x s out of another parcell Rent limited out of an intire mannor this is voyd for first there was a grant out of the entire Mannor 9 lib. Ass yet this is one lease but one reversion but one condition the condition is entire and that is wel proved by the express words of the condition totaliter reentrare and this proved by Winters case in 14 El. and Rawlins case adjudged Totaliter where the sum in gross was behind Dyer the case vouched by Rodes Cond is undevidable 33 Hen. 8. in a common persons case it cannot be divided neither by title nor by the act of the party If surrender be made of parcell Surrender of parcel the rent shall be apportioned but the condition is utterly gone Dyer But peradventure it will be objected that in 17 Eliz. the condition there was divided where he aliened parcell with the consent of the Lessor and the other parcell without consent and in that the Lessor entred for the condition broken Cond â—pportioned I grant this case and yet this doth not prove that a condition may be apportioned for the reason in that case is when he made such a condition the condition extended but to that which he aliened without license and to no more and so I hold the Law where a lease is made of twenty Acres with condition Eviction c. and parcell is evicted And warranty at the Common Law cannot be divided for if two Coparceners were who
that he was robbed and made hue and cry according to the Statute of Winchester the. Defendant pleaded that he was not robbed and a full Jury appeared at this day and upon the giving of the evidence Shuttleworth moved for the Defendant that it appeared by the Plantifs own evidence that the money was my Lady Riches and that the Plantif was but her receiver and then as he thought the Action should have been brought by the Lady and not by Tirrell Anderson in my opinion without question the Action is well brought for when he had the money and was robbed the money was taken from him Receiver and he was her receiver and Vouched a case in 3 Ed. 3. where a man takes my Corn from me and after c. the King shall have it and so of money for it cannot be known from other money Rodes to the same intent for if my servant be possessed of my goods and be thereof robbed Appeal he shall have an appeal Windham I have seen that a man sent his servant to London with money and he was robbed coming from thence and the opinion of the Court was that the servant should have an Action against the Hundred Peryam So I think clearly whereby the Jury found for the Plantif 4. THe Quare impedit by Moor was moved again and the opinion of the Court was Quare impedit that the Bishop as well for his contempt in not retournig the first VVrit as for his evill retourn made upon the second Writ for it appeared that he which he said was inducted of the presentation of the Queen was Defendant in this Action should be amerced and so he was amerced at x. l. and a new Writ awarded to admit the Clerk of Moor. 5. AN Action upon the case was brought in the King Benchs for saying that the Plantif was a forging knave Slander and a Verdict given for Plaintif And it was spoken in arrest of Judgement Gawdy Justice inchit capiat per billam for the Action is not maintenable 6. WAlmysley came to the Bar shewed how Lennard Custâ—s bâ—evium had brought an Action of Trespass against another the Defendant justified by reason that Sir Christo Heydon was seised in Fee and infeoffed him Feoffment gave a colour to the Plaintif The Plaintif replied that Sir Christofer Heydon died seised and it descended to his Son who enfeoffed the Plaintif Absque hoc that C. H. enfeoffed the Defendant And the Iury found a speciall Verdict viz. That C. H. was seised and made a lease for years to the Defendant and afterwards by his Deed conteyning dedi concessi confirmavi gave it to the Defendant and his Heirs with Letters of Attorny to make livery if this were a Feoffment or but a confimation was the doubt Feoffment Walmysley It is but a confirmation when it is by deed and hath words of confimation Anderson Then by your reason he in Reversion cannot enfeoffee his Lessee for years by deed as he may without deed but I think the Lessee is at liberty to take it as a Feoffment or as a confirmation Walmysley Sir I think that when the Lessee takes the deed immediately this is a declaration of his meaning to have it as a confirmation by your favour Anderson And by your favour when the Lessor sheweth his meaning to make livery and the Lessee his meaning to accept livery and livery is made accordingly is not this an express declaration that he will take it by the livery and shall this livery be idle no Sir and see Bracebridges case in the Commentaries where Tenant in tail makes a bargain and sale and makes livery and within six months Enrolls it this is adjudged a discontinuance and yet the bargain and sale is not any discontinuance and if you well mark the cases you shall find but little difference Disseisin Walmysley If Tenant in tail bee disseised and it is agreed between the disseisor and the disseisie that the disseisee shall make a Feoffment to the disseisor and make such a deed as this the disseisor shall not have election to take it as a Feoffment Anderson tota Curia the cases differ for thedisseisee hath not any power to make a Feoffment Walmysley Well will you give us a day to argue this matter and the other Feryam For the other if you will Walmysley No Sir if this point be no hotter than the other Peryam The other is cold enough And so the Court held the Feoffment good clearly And they laughed upon Lennard because he had profited so well by his action 7. LAnds were given by fine to one Jones and his Wife and to the Heirs of Jones upon his Wife ingendred the Remainder to one Owen in Fee Scire facias Afterwards Jones only without his Wife suffers a Common Recovery with Voucher Recovery the Wife dies Jones dies without Issue and Owen brought a Scire facias to execute this fine and the Tenant pleaded the Recovery in Bar. Snagg the Recovery is good to Bar Owen For if there be a sufficient Tenant against whom the Praecipe is brought then is it good And as I think here the Husband is a sufficient Tenant The case in 16 Hen. 6. in a purchase to the Husband and Wife during the Coverture there are no Moities and the case in 23 Hen. 8. Meuies Recovery against Husband and Wife where the Wife is Tenant in tail and they Vouch over it shall be a Bar to the intail vide Bro. titulo Recoverie in value 27. and yet the Husband had nothing but in right of his Wife so in this case Walmysley to the contrary For if the recompence here doth not go to the Estate of him which brought the Scire facias then it shall be no Bar in 9 Edw. 4. an Action was brought against two Executors when there were four and a Recovery had against them two the other shall falsifie for that they had equall Authority Falsifying of recovery per executors and here the Husband and Wife have equall Authority 10 Ed. 4. the Wife shall have an Assise if a Recovery be had only against the Husband 2 Ed. 4. he in Reversion prayed to be received Resceit per def de un Joynt he shall plead that the Tenant held joyntly with another and the reason is if he should be received only upon the default of one of them then he cannot have his recompence over Paramount Grant de reversion de un Joynt 18 Hen. 6. 1. 13 Edw. 3. Husband and Wife Ioyntenants for life and he in Reversion will grant the Reversion of the Husband only this is void for he hath not any such Reversion And here the Estate of Husband and Wife and he in Remainder is all but one and then the Estate of the Husband only is not the same Estate and the case in 23 Hen 8. vouched by Snagg seemeth to make for
of the wife For if the Husband have an Advowson in right of his Wife and the Church become voyd and the Husband dye the Executors shall have the presentation and the Serjeant sayd that there be many Books in that point Anderson I know it well but I doubt of the Law in the case Allso I would have you to argue if this be within the Statute of Demurrers in 27 Eliz. For if this be not matter of substance then it shall goe hard with the Plaintif therefore let it be argued again another time 11. ONe Brook was Plaintif in a Replevin Copyhold the Case was such Tho. Speek was seised of a Mannor in which were Copyholds according to the Custom and the place in which the taking was supposed was a Copyhold and the sayd Tho. Speek being so seised took to wife one Anne B. and died seised after whose death the sayd A. in the time of King Edw. 6. demanded the third part of the Mannor for her Dower by the name of Cent. Messuagiorum Cent. Gardinorum tot acr terrae tot acr prati c. and was endowed accordingly of parcel of the Demesns and parcel of the services of the Copyholds and after she granted a Copyhold and if this be good was the question for if she had a Mannor the Grant was good and otherwise not And the opinion of all the Court clearly was against the Grant for when she demanded her Dower she was at liberty to demand the third part of the Mannor or the third part of Cent. Mes Cent. Gard. Cent. acr c. and when she demanded it per nomen Cent. Mes c. Mannor a corporation she could have no Mannor For a Mannor cannot be claimed except by his name of Corporation as Anderson termed it and not otherwise and then Cent. Mes and Cent. acr c. cannot be sayd a Mannor and then the Grant of a Copyhold by her which had no Mannor was utterly voyd and this was the opinion of the Court clearly Quod not a. 12. SHuttelworth shewed how one Knight was Plaintif in a Replevin Visne 〈◊〉 Ass pl. 42. and they were at issue upon a prescription for Common in Newton appendant to land in another place and the venue was of Newton onely and it was found for the Plaintif and he prayed his judgment for the tryall may be in the one place as well as in the other as in annuity where the seisin is alleged in one County Annuity and the Church in another it may be tryed in any of the Counties Anderson But we think otherwise for it ought to be of both places when the matter ariseth in both and if they had been in severall Counties Counties joyn the Counties ought to have joyned Shuttelworth So is 10 Ed. 4. fol. 10. But our case being after a verdict I think we ought to have judgement Anderson and Windham The verdictdoth not amend the matter if it be mis-tried as this case is Rodes agreed that it was a mis-triall Mis-trial and therefore evill and that mis-trialls are not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles Shuttelworth I agree to that if you say that the triall is not good Windham So we say New Venire facias Then Shuttelworth advised his Client to take a new Venire facias 13. WAkefield brought a Replevin against Costard The Lord. who avowed for damage fesaunt Comptons case and the Plaintif prescribed for Common that all the inhabitants of Dale except the Parson and infants and such a house Prescription for Common have used to have Common in the place The Avowant sayd that the house whereunto the Plaintif claimed Common was built within thirty yeares last past and if he may have Common to this new house by prescription or no was demurred in judgement in Michaelmas Term and then Shuttelworth argued for the Plaintif that he should have his Common by prescription but not of common right And Gawdy argued for the Avowant that the Plaintif shall not have Common because the prescription is against all reason that he should have Common time out of mind to that which is but of thirty years continuance And allso he excepteth the Parson and infants and such a house and by the same reason he may except all which is not good Then one of the Judges sayd that if this be good Antient inhabitants hereafter there shall be no Common for the ancient inhabitants Improvement Peryam By such a prescription he shall for ever barre the Lord from improving any Common Common entire which is no reason Anderson All Common is intire for if a man have Common to three Mesuages and he infeoffee one man of one Mesuage and another of the second and another of the third the Common is gone And by this reason allso the new house cannot have Common And now this Term Gawdy demanded of the Court if they were resolved in the poynt Anderson We are all agreed that the prescription is utterâ—y voyd for it is impossible to have Common time out of mind for a house which was built within thirty yeares and then he commanded to enter judgement if nothing were sayd to the contrary by the next day Shuttelworth We have sayd all that we can say my Lord. Anderson Then let judgment be entred against the Plaintif 14. SNagg shewed how the Earl of â—Kent had brought an action of debt against a Londoner for rent behind Grant and shewed how the Countesâ— of Derby was tenant in Dower of this land and took to husband the Earl of Kent and that Henry Earl of Derby had granted it to the Earl of Kent habendum after the death of the Countess for certain yeares and he shewed how the grant was made by the name of a reversion also Lease in reversion Grant in reversion difference and that the Tenant had attorned and alleged the death of the Countess And the Court said that the Attornment is not necessary for it is but a lease in reversion and then no rent passeth thereby Anderson If you had been privy to the case of Talboys in the Kings-bench you would not have moved this doubt Peryam It is allso the very case of Throckmorton in the Commentaries Snagge But here in my case he hath granted it by the name of the reversion allso and then the reversion will carry the rent Curia Then is your grant voyd for a man cannot grant his reversion habend after the death of another and therefore quacunque via data you shall have no rent And thereupon Snagge conticuit cum rubore 15. MOunsay was Plaintif in debt upon an obligation against Hylyard Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Usury because it was made for the sale of certain Copperas and he took more than was limited by the Statute and that it was made by shift and chevisance and other matter he alleged to prove it within the Statute the
Plaintif replyed that it was made upon good consideration and traversed the delivery of the Copperas which was an evill issue clearly Issue misâ—oyned and it was found for the Plaintif and this was alleged in arrest of judgement and yet for that there was an issue tryed allthough it was mis-joyned the exception was disallowed and judgement was given for the Plaintif 16. AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of Purveyors Issue because he had cut down Trees against the form of the Statute of 5 Eliz. The Defendant pleaded not guilty and it was moved that this was an evill issue for he ought to have pleaded nil debet and the Court commanded him to plead nil debet 17. WAlmisley shewed how the Lord Anderson is Plaintif in an Action of Trespass against Wild Ayd prier who was Tenant for life and they were at issue and the Venire fac issued in Michaelmas Term and now this Term the Defendant prayed in ayd which he sayd he ought not to doe beâ—â—use they have furceased their time for they ought to pray it when the Venire facias is awarded or otherwise they shall not have it and he cited for that purpose 15 Edw. 3. And the Court was of the same opinion that he ought then to pray it or not at all 18. A Writ of Error was brought upon a judgement given in London â—orfeiture and this was the case Sir Wolstan Dicksey Alderman brought an Action of Debt in London against Alderman Spenser for rent behind upon a Lease for years made to Spenser by one Bacchus who afterwards granted the reversion to Dicksey and the Tenant attorned and the rent was behind c. Spenser pleaded in bar that before the grant of the reversion to Dicksey Bacchus was seised and shewed the custom of London to make inrolments of deeds indented and then shewed that before the bargain to Dicksey he bargained the reversion to him by paroll and so demanded judgement si actio c. and this plea was entered upon record and hanging this suit Dicksey entred into the Land for a forefeiture of the term because he had claimed a Fee simple and Spenser re-entered with force and his servant with him but not with force and thereupon Dicksey brought an Assisse of fresâ— force against them in London and all this matter was there pleaded adjudged that it was a forfeiture of the term the Jury gave damages and the Court increased them and the judgement trebled as wel the damages increased as the others and allso the Iudgement was quod praedicti defendentes capiantur c. Increase of damages and thereupon Spenser brought a Writ of Error and assigned Error in the point of the Judgment because it was no forfeyture And allso because the Damages increased by the Court were trebled And allso because the judgment was Capiantur where but one was a Disseisor with force therfore it should be Capiatur Shuttleworth There is no forfeyture made by this Plea before triall had thereof Wast For if in Wast the Defendant say that the Plaintif hath granted over his Estate to another this is no forfeyture so in Cleres case if he say that another is next Heir this is no forfeyture Quid juris clam And in 26 Eliz. here was a case in a quod jurâ—s clamat the Defendant pleaded an Estate tayl and after at the Assises he confessed but an Estate for Life and yet this was no forfeiture Curia None of us do rememember any such case here Walmisley Surely the case is so and I can shew you the names of the parties Anderson I will not believe you before my self and I am sure that I never heard of any such case Peryam If any such case had been here we would have made a doubt therof for ther are Authorities against it as in 8 Eliz. 6. R. 2. Plesingtons case Shuttleworth Allso theyhave said that the fresh force was brought infra quarentenam silicit quadraginta septimanas Quarentenae Scilicet a surplusage and the quarentena is but 40 dayes Curia That is no matter for the silicet is but surplusage and so no cause of Error Shuttleworth If a man disseise another without force he shall not be taken and imprisoned and therefore for this cause the Judgement is erroneous and allso the costs encreased are trebled and therefore erroneous Aydin Trespass and cited 22. Hen. 6. 57. Anderson In an Action of Trespass If the Defendant pray aid of a stranger this is a forfeiture and if it be counterpleaded yet it is a forfeiture then shall the deniall thereof make any change in the case surely no Proper acts in my opion And I say that Acts which come from himself are forfeitures Collaterall but Collaterall Acts Difference as in the case of Wast are not Walmisley In 22 Ed. 3. 13. the Tenant said that the Grantor hath released unto him the Judgement shall be but that he shall Attourn And allso he cited 3 Ed. 3. 33 Ed. 3. 18 Ed. 3. 36 Hen. 6. 34 Hen. 6. fol 24. to prove that it shall not be a forfeiture before triall Quid juris clamat Anderson If one who hath no Reversion bring a quid juris clamat against Tenant for life this is a forfeiture of his Estate and as you have said if in VVast the Tenant plead the Feoffment of the Plaintif or non dimisit true it is that these are no forfeitures for you know well enough that a Feoffment is no Plea and then it is void and to say non dimisit is no forfeiture Peryam The Judgement given in Plesingtons case is not well given for it ought to have been quod pro seisina sequatur si volunt as in the case of Saunders against Freeman and he cited 10 Edw. 3. fol. 32. to that intent Wyndam The doubt which I conceive is for that he pleads a custom in London for the inrollment of Deeds indented and he sheweth that his bargain was by parol and therefore void and then no forfeiture as if in Trespass a man prays ayd as by the Lease of I. S. and in the conclusion prayes aid of I. N. this is void Praying in ayd Anderson Allthough that it be so yet the pleading is that he bargained the Reversion and then this is good by parol in London therefore there is no doubt in that point Walmisley The Books in 15 Ed. 2. 25 Ed. 3. Importâ— that Judgement ought to be given before any forfeiture can be Forfeiture before Judgement Curia Without doubt he may take advantage thereof before Judgement as well as after if the plea be entred upon record Wyndam For the point of capiantur the Book is in 2. lib. Ass Pl. 8. Br. imprison 30. in 9. lib. Ass 12. lib. Ass Pl. 33 Br. imprison 40. Anderson Two may be Disseisors Present Disseisor absent Differance
against the next Term. adjornatur but the Plaintif said then to divers Barresters that such a case was adjudged with him in the Kings Bench. Pasch xxviij Eliz. Rot. 341. between Wiseman and Brewer and another case in the Common place London Rogers versus Hunt Pasch 16 Eliz. Rot. 1544. 25. A Quare impedit was brought by Beverley against Cornwall Vtlary which was the Presentee of the Queen and the Plaintif had Judgement to recover and now the Queens Serjeant shewed that the Plaintif is outlawed and prayed that he Writ to the Bishop might be stayed and that they may have a scire facias for the Queen to shew wherefore she shall not have Execution of this Judgement Walmysley This cannot be debated now for the Plaintif hath no day in Court after Judgement and this is but a surmise Curia The Record here before us testifies that he is outlawed VValmysley Yet it is but their surmise that he is the same person VVyndam In debt upon an Oblig If the Plantif be outlawed the Queens Serjeants may pray the debt for the Queen and yet this is but a surmise And the opinion of three Justices was for Anderson was absent that they ought to stay Execution but how Processe shall be awarded or if a Scire sacias shall issue against the Plaintif or no they would be advised for the course thereof but Peryam thought that they might have a Scire facias against the antient Incumbent 4. A Quare impedit was brought by Gerard Travers and declared that his Ancestor was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson is appendent and presented and died seised and the Mannor descended to him and so he ought to present the Defendant pleaded in Bar that the Ancestor of the Plaintif was joynt ly seised with his Wife and that she survived for default of her Presentation thâ— Lapse accrued to the Bishop who did collate Absque hoc that he died sole seised and it was moved by Gawdy that the Traverse shall be naught for he â—ad sufficiently answered to him before And the opinion of the Court Anderson being absent was that the Traverse is void because he had confessed and avowed him before and cited 5 Hen. 7. 11. 12. Bro. tit Traverse sans ceo 13. 27. BYngham brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation against Doctor Squire Cond impossible and the Condition was that if the Defendant did obtein a good grant of the next avoydance of the. Archdeaconry of Stafford so that the Plaintif might enjoy it that then c. and the Defendant pleaded that he had obteined a good grant of the next avoydance and in truth so he had but the antient Incumbent was created a Bishop whereby it perteined to the Queen to Present so that the Plaintif could not enjoy it and therefore the Plaintif moved the Court that the Defendant should amend his plea and the Court Anderson absente commanded him to do so for it seemed unto them that the Obligation was forfeit Gawdy moved for the Defendant that when the Archdeacon was made a Bishop the avoidance perteined to the Queen by her Prerogative so that it was become impossible but nevertheless he took day to amend his Plea De Term. Pasch Anno Eliz. xxix 1. THE First day of this Easter Term Sir Christopher Hatton Knight late Vicechamberleyn to the Queen and Captain of the Guard rode from his house in Holborn the Lord Burghley Lord Treasurer being on his right hand and the Earl of Leicester on his left hand and the Gentlemen Students of the Inner Temple attending upon him because he was one of the same House and with great Honor he was brought to VVestminster Hall and there in the Chancery sworn Lord Chancellor of England according to the Patent and Seal delivered unto him the Sunday before 2. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Incumbent and the Bishop Abatement the Bishop pleaded that he claimed nothing but as Ordinary and thereupon Judgement Formall was given against him The incumbent dyeth sed cesset executio c. the Incumbent pleaded in bar whereupon they were at issue and this issue depending the Incumbent died and now Gawdy moved if the Writ should abate against the Bishop or no and VVyndam and Peryam clearly that it shall abate but if the Plaintif had averred the Ordinary to be a disturber then Judgement should have been executed but now he claiming nothing but as Ordinary and thereupon Iudgement given which is but conditionall upon the Plea of the Incumbent it seemeth that the Writ shall abate for there is none now to plead against the Queen But if the Bishop had been averred to be a disturber Patron then it had been otheâ—wise and Peryam resembled it to the case of 9 Hen. 6. where it is brought against the Patron and the Incumbent and the Patron dieth or the Incumbent the Writ shall not abate against the other But they commanded him to move it again when the Lord Anderson was present 3. EJectione Firme was brought by King against King and others Surrender who pleaded not guilty and now the Jury appeared and the Plaintif declared upon the Lease of one West Gawdy for the Defendant shewed that before the said Lease VVest had made a Lease for six yeares so that during that time this Lease could not be good the Counsell of the Plaintif confessed the said Lease for six years but said further that it was surrendred VVyndam demanded where that surrender was made and it was answered in London and the Land lay in Essex Was the surrender said VVyndam made in London Out of possession and he out of possession and the Land in Essex What surrender call you this And the Justices laughed at this evidence and so did the Serjeants for the Defendant concluding that it was not good without question And so the Plaintif was Nonsuite and the Iury discharged incontinently 4. SHuttleworth shewed how Hurleston was Plaintif in an Ejectione Firme Traveâ—s and declared upon the Lease of one Pinchine to which the Defendant said that before P. had any thing c. one E. Roberts was seised in Fee in right of Fayth his Wife and so being seised made a Lease to the said P. If the said E. R. so long should live whereby P. being possessed made a Lease to the Plaintif and shewed that the said Roberts was dead and the Defendant as servant to the said Fayth entred and Ejected him now he demanded what he should Traâ—erse in this Plea VVyndam This is a shifting Plea Peryam Is this Plea true Shuttleworth No Sir Peryam Then you may trice him upon this Plea for you may Traverse the seisin in the right of his Wife without doubt or you may Traverse any other part thereof and VVyndam and Rodes agreed clearly thereunto for the seisin Anderson absente 5. AN Action of the case was brought upon an Assumpsit Jeofayl the
Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit and the issue was found for the Plaintif and now Gawdy spoke iâ— arrest of Judgement because the Plaintif had alledged no place of the Assumpsion No Place of the assumpsion and he said that when an Issue is mis-tried it hath been adjudged here that it is not helped by the Statute and here is no place alledged whereupon the Tryall may be Peryam The opinion of many hath been that the Statute shall be taken most strictly but in my opinion it shall be taken most liberally so that if a verdict be once given it shall be a great cause that shall hinder judgement wherefore allthough no place be shewen yet when it is tryed and found it seemeth that he ought to have judgement and so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 6. AN Action upon the case was brought in Staffordshire by Whorwood against Gybbons Consideration how in an account between them the Defendant was found in Arrerages and in consideration that the Plaintif differreret deem solutionis debiti praedicti per parvum tempus the Defendant did assume to pay it and upon Non assumpsit pleaded it was found with the Plaintif and it was alleged in arrest of judgement that this was no consideration And the opinion of the whole Court Absente Anderson was that insomuch as the Proviso was made by him by whom the debt was due that it is a good consideration and that it is a common course in Actions upon the case against him by whom the debt is due to declare without any words in consideratione And allthough that Gawdy moved that parvum tempus may be three or four hours or dayes which is no consideration yet for the cause alleged the Court sayd that they saw no cause to stay judgement 7. AN Action upon the case was brought for these words Scandal Thou dost harbour and maintain Rebels and Traitors and the issue was found for the Plaintif and the judgement was entred by the Pregnotary yet notwithstanding Walmisley moved the Court to have regard unto it for the Action was not maintainable for if a man keâ—p Theeves and do not know them to be Theeves he is in no fault and an Action for these words will not lye and the Plaintif hath not averred that the Defendant sayd that the Plaintif knew them to be Traytors Peryam The Action in the Kings-bench was that the Plaintif kept Theeves and there if there be no such averment the Action is not maintainable Maintain but here is the word Maintain and that word implyeth a thing prohibited and therefore not sufferable and therefore I think the Action is maintainable and by the opinion of VVindham Peryam and Rodes the Action was well brought Anderson absente propter agritudinem 8. AN Action upon the case was brought by Richard Body against A. Consideration and declared that whereas Kary Raleigh was indebted to Body in 14l and the said A. was indebted to Raleigh in 50l in consideration that the said K. R. allocavit eidem A. 14l promisit ei ad exonerandum eâ—ndem A. de 14l parcell praedict 50l the Defendant did assume to pay to the said Plaintif the said 14l and the Court was moved if this were a good consideration to bind the Defendant And the opinion of all the Court Anderson absente was that the Consideration was good for that he was discharged of so much against Raleigh and Raleigh might also plead payment of the 14l by the hands of the Defendant 9 AN Action of Assault and Battery was brought Assault and the Defendant was condemned by nihil dicit and a Writ to enquire of damages went forth and then the Attourney of the Plaintif died and another Attourney without Warrant prayed the second Judgement and Execution Warrant if this shall be error or no it was moved by Fenner And the Court gave their opinion that if in an action after Judgment the Attourney dye a new Attourney may pray Execution without Warrant but in this case because that he died before the second Judgement it seemeth that he ought to have a Warrant of Attourney for the first Judgment is no finall Judgement And the Pregnotaries said that if after the first Judgement one of the parties had died the Writ should abate quod fuit concessum per curiam And also Fenner moved that this shall not be within the intent of the Statute of Jeofayles which speaketh of Verdicâ—â— Verdict for this shall not be said a Verdict whereto the Court agreed for a Verdict is that which is put in issue by the joyning of the parties 10 A Woman brought an action Covenant and she Covenanteth that she shall not do any act to repeal to discontinue to be nonsuit or countermand this action and hanging the Writ she takes a husband whereby the Writ abateth Now Fenner moved if she had broken the Covenant VVindam If one be bound that he shall not attorn and he make an Attornment in Law Attornment the Obligation is forfeit without question Assignment Rodes If I be bound not to make in Assigâ—ment of such a thing and I devise it by my will this is a forfeiture as it is in 31. H. 8. Fenner there is a case in Long 5. E. 4. If one be bound to appear at the Sessions c. and. I am to make a plea in this case and I would know your opinions VVindham You may plead according to the truth of your cause for that shall not change the Law therefore plead what you list 11. DEbt was brought upon an Obligation Condition the Condition was to perform Articles contained in an Indenture and one Article was that the Defendant Sir William Drury should plead the generall Issue or aâ—issuable Plea or such a Plea in quo staret aut persisteret within seven dayes next ensuing The Defendant sayd that he pleaded such a Plea and shewed what and averred that it was sufficient and issuable within seven dayes The Plaintif demanded judgement if to this Plea he shall be received for he appeared in Michaelmas Term in which he ought to have pleaded and took imperlance over unto Hill Term And Fenner shewed that in truth an issuable Plea was pleaded and drawn in paper in Mich. Term and the Plaintif replyed and the Defendant rejoyned and the Plaintif surrejoyned and theâ— by assâ—â—t in Hill Term all this was waved and an imperlance of the other Term entered forfear of a discontinuance and now he would have the Obligation of five hundred pound forfeited by this And the opinion of the Court Anderson absente was that the Obligation 〈◊〉 was forfeit for the Plea ought to have been entred of Recordâ—◠〈…〉 be bound in an Obligation to appear here at a certain day Appearance entred allthough he do appear at the same day yet if his appearance be not entred upon Record his Obligation is forfeit Peryam If the Plaintif deny that
he did not plead a sufficient Plea this shall be trued by the Record and how can that be when it is not entred of Record But the Court sayd further that it was hard that he should have the forfeiture and sayd that there was great negligence and oversight in the matter Peryam You may plead all this matter specially and how by his assent the Plea was waved and peradventure his assent if any thing will help you 12. PArtition was brought between Coparceners Estrepment and hanging the Writ the Tenant made Wast and Gawdy moved the Court for a Writ of Estrepment Peryam Where you are to disprove the interest of the Tenant Estrepment will lye but here you confess an equall interest in him how then can you have it Whereunto VVindham agreed and after it was shewen how they were Tenants in common whereby his motion was at an end 13. NOte that in the Starchamber this Perjury Term it was over-â—uled by the Lords that if in an Action at the Common Law a man wage his Law allthough that he make a false Oath yet he shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Starchamber and the reason was because it is as strong as a Tryall And the Lord Chancellor demanded of the Judges if he were discharged of the debt by waging of his Law and they answered yea But 〈…〉 said that it was the folly of the Plaintif because that he may 〈◊〉 his Action into an Action of the case upon an Assumpsit whâ—â— in 〈◊〉 Defendant cannot wage his Law 14. AT another day in the Starchamber between Hurlestom and Glaseour Conspiracy it was over-ruled by the Lords that if a Jury at the Common Law give their verdict Perjury allthough that they make a false Oath yet they shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Star-chamber But if any collaterall corruption be alleged in them as that they took Money or Bribes a Bill shall lye thereof well enough And allso in the same case it was ruled that where Glaseour had brought a Bill of Conspirary against Harlestone and others and divers of the Jury for that they had indicted him of Perjury that before the Indictment be traversed or otherwise avoyded by Error he cannot have a Bill of Conspiracy because this shall quash the tryal at the Common Law and shall prevent it And allso before a man be acquitted a Writ of Conspiracy doth not lye for him by the Law De Term. Trinitat Anno xxix Eliz. Reg. 1. THe Quare impedit brought by Specot and his Wife was moved again by Gawdy Quare imp and it seemed to him that because the Bishop did not shew in what thing he was a Schismatick the Plea was therefore uncertain and so insufficient and he cited 33 Edw. 3. 2. 9 Eliz. Dyer 254 b. Anderson If he had certainly shewed in what thing he was Schismaticus inveteratus ut ea occasione inidoneus sit inhabilis c. This had been a good Plea without doubt but as it is here sure it is no Plea for it is even as if he had sayd that he was criminosus whereunto all the other Judges agreed Anderson All that I doubt is whether this be helped by the Statute of Demurrers 27 Eliz. For otherwise the Plea is insufficient without doubt Gawdy The Statute helpeth onely matters of form and this is the substance of his Plea that he is a Schismatick Anderson Allthough it be the substance of his Plea yet it is but form to plead it certainly And if one demur generally to a double Plea Double plea. it is not good at this day and so here And so was the opinion of Peryam and the other Justices by their silence seemed to agree thereunto yet they gave day to the Serjeants to argue this matter And Peryam sayd that he would help the Plaintif in the best sort that the Law would suffer him for the Bishops are grown so presumptuous at this day that they will make question of all the patronages in the Realm and if it be against their pleasure none shall have his Presentation And allso now Anderson was agreed that the Action was well brought in the name of the Husband and Wife allthough he had once moved to the contrary Allso in this case it was moved Demurrer is a confession but of things sufficiently alleged that by the Demurrer it shall be confessed that the Plaintif Clerk was a Schismatick Whereunto Anderson said that if a thing be sufficiently alleged it is confessed by the Demurrer but otherwise not 2. A Replevin was brought by Brode against Hendy Replevin of his own wrong the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to the Queen for Rent behind wherunto the Plaintif sayd De son tort demeasne sans tiel cause and the Court was moved whether this be a good Plea and by the opinion of three Judges it is no Plea in a Replevin Anderson absente but in Trespass it is good notwithstanding that it was objected at the Bar that there is a diversity in our books taken that when the Action is brought against the Baylif there it shall be a good Plea but not against the Master But the Court over-ruled it for in a Replevin he ought to make a title 3. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop and Themas Leigh Incumbent Discontinuance and they both pleaded severally speciall Pleaâ— and so it depended whereupon Fenner shewed the Court that the Queen did not prosecute the Suit but let it depend still and therefore he prayed that she might be called Nonsuit But all the Court The Queen cannot be Nonsuit and the Pregnotaries said that the Queen cannot be Nonsuit Fenner Shall we then which are Defendants always be delayd Peryam After a year passed you may have it discontinued but she shall not be Nonsuit And in the case of a common person the Plaintif may discontinue it within a year but the Defendant cannot discontinue it untill after a year 4. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Kimpton Common extinct by purchase Rodes We have given Judgement allready Walmisley No Sir I have not heard of it Peryam What is the case Rodes The case is this a man was seised of a 140 acres of land and had Common appurtenant to them in 46 acres of land and the 46 acres of land were in the occupation of severall men viz. two in the occupation of A. and the rest in the occupation of B. and he which had Common purchased the sayd two acres now if this entire Common be extinct or no so that they which were Tenants of the residue of the 46. acres shall take advantage thereby was the question And all the Justices sayd that they were agreed of this case long agoe For allthough that the acres be severall and in severall occupations yet the Common concerning that is intire and so by purchase of parcell it is extinct
charges except Rents and Services which shall be due after c. to the chief Lord And afterward he made and levyed a fine And after the Wife maried and then the Son entred and the Administrator of the Wife brought debt upon the Obligation against the Administrators of him in Reversion and averred that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was charged with the said Lease of 31 yeares Walmisley It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif because it was not discharged at the time of the Feoffment For in the Commentaries a man Deviseth his Term to his Wife until his Son come to full age Com. fo 539. after at his full age the Son shall have it so that there it was chargable to the Entry of the Son hereafter And here allthough that it be not presently charged yet when there is a charge arise the Covenant is broken And for that in 8 Eliz. a man bargains and sells Land Rent charge future and Covenants that it shall be discharged of all charges and he had granted a Rent before to begin twenty years after when the Rent begins it shall be said a breach And this is not like the case in 3 Hen. 7. 12. b. Where Tenant in Tayl disseiseth the Tenant of the Land c. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif Fenner to the contrary and here the Term was extinct by the grant end sale and then the Feoffment void and therefore no charge and thereupon no charge at the time of the Feoffment and for that he cited 42 Ed. 3. 11 Hen. 7. 20. where Tenant in Dower infeoffs the Heir without deed c. so here in that she took nothing by the Feoffment there was no charge at the time of the Feoffment And this possibility of a remainder doth not make an interest and thereupon he cited 8 Ed. 3. 3. Fitz. resceipt 35 Resceit upon Cond where Tenant for life lets the Land to one upon condition that if he dye in the life of the Lessor that it shall retourn to the Lessor c. upon such a matter he may be received and he cited for that the case of Wheler 14 Hen. â— fol. 17. and a title suspended is no title 3 Hen. 7. 12. 30 Ed. 3. Lease for life upon condition that if the Rent be behind then he shall retain the Land c. and he said that the opinion of Bâ—omley in Fulmerstons case was contrary thereunto but yet he said in 3 Eliz. he hath a report which was adjudged contrary to the opinion of Bromley And allso he cited 50 Ed. 3. that a man shall not have the Rent and the Tenancy of the Land allso And so it seemed to him that the Plaintif shall be barred 18. THE case of Fr. Ashpool was moved again by Fenner Hue and cry and it seemed to him that the Plaintif ought to make Hue and cry for as he said it hath allwaies been the manner of pleading and allso it hath been allwaies parcell of his issue to prove Allso he argued that he should not have remedy by the Statute post occasum solis For Stamford saith expresly that if a man be robbed in the day that he shall have remedy and the day shall be said but from the rising of the Sun to the fall thereof for the words of the Statute are that the Gates of the walled Towns shall be shut ab occasu usque ad ortum solis and then if the Gates be shut and that walled Town be within a Hundred how can they make Hue and cry And the case in 3 Ed. 3. is not like to this case Fresh suit by the Hundreders for there it was enquired and found of the Dozen Anderson The fresh suit mentioned in the Statute ought to be made by the Inhabitants and not by the parties and I am of your opinion that Hue and cry was at the Common Law but what of that But look the Statute and there is no word of Hue and cry And the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. is an exposition of that Statute and there is no mention thereof but Fresh suit is there mentioned which ought to be made by the Inhabitants And by those Statutes it seemeth clearly that the Inhabitants ought to guard the Country in such sort as men may safely travell without robbing And for the night Sir wee ought to construe it as it is most reasonable and about the setting of the Sun is the common time of robbing and therefore if this shall not be intended by the Statute nothing shall be intended and allthough the walled Towns cannot persue Walled Towns may keep the waies yet they may keep the waies so that no robberies shall be committed and this is both day and night as I think And if a man be slain in the robbery so that no Hue and cry can be made I doubt not but the Country shall answer for the robbery A man is robbed slain and bound and so if he be bound And if Hue and Cry ought to be when ought it to be For if a man be bound two dayes together he had as good make no Hue and cry as make Hue and cry afterwards and yet I hope you will agree that this man shall be relieved by the Statute which case was agreed by all the Court. Peryam The day without doubt is after the Sun-set Day after Sun-set Rodes cited the case of waging Battail in an Appeal in Stamford And so by agreement of all the Justices Judgement was entred for the Plaintif but Fenner sayd privately that in his conscience it was against the Law yet notwithstanding all the Judges were clear in opinion and the Serjeants of the other part allso So that it seemed to the Judges that no Hue and Cry is necessary by the party for they all agreed that the Country ought to be kept so that no Robberies be committed And Anderson and Rodes affirmed precisely that it is not necessary and the other agreed in the reason thereof and sayd that it is not mentioned in the Statute but sayd that the waies ought to be kept so that men may travell safely or otherwise it is against the Statute 19. IN a Writ of False Judgement brought against the Mayor Tryall Sherifs Citizens and Commonalty of Norwich it was moved where the Issue shall be tryed and per Curiam it shall not be tryed there but yet the Action may be used there And in the same case it was demanded Summons if the Sherif may summon himself and the Court answered that he could not and Peryam sayd that so it hath been adjudged here many times 20. THe â—ast day of the Term the matter of Lassels was moved again and it seemed to Anderson that the Obligation is voyd in that there is an express form limited by the Statute and this varying from the form in substance is voyd for in his opinion he excludes the
party from his advantage given him by the Statute But all the other Justices held opinion against him for they sayd that a man ought to appear in proper person upon a Latitat which Anderson denyed and sayd that the Latitats are not but of threescore yeares continuance which the other day Peryam had affirmed and he seemed to mislike with the Latitats And the Serjeant moved for their resolution in the case Anderson All my Brethren are of opinion against me wherefore take your judgement accordingly And so judgement was entred for the Plaintif 21. GAwon brought Debt upon an Obligation against White Traverse with condition that if the Defendant suffer the Plaintif his Tenants and Farmers to enjoy such a Common that then c. And the Defendant pleaded conditions performed and the Plaintif assigned for breach that he did not suffer A. B. his Tenant to enjoy c. Absque hoc that he performed the condition And it was sayd by the Court that this Traverse was not good no more than if one be bound to perform the covenants in an Indenture and the Defendant pleads that he hath performed all generally if the Plaintif assign his breach he shall not say further Absque that the Defendant hath performed the covenants for so much he had sayd before But Walmisley would have put a difference between the cases because in the one there were divers covenants to be performed but not so here Anderson If a man plead a Plea which is sufficient of it self and take a traverse allso you will grant that this Plea is not good quod fuit concessum and this Plea had been sufficient of it self onely quod fuit concessum ergo the traverse was not good without question Et sic opinio totius Curiae 22. GOverstone brought a Replevin against B. Rent charge who avowed the taking for a Rent charge granted to him by the Duke of Suffolk And this was the case The Duke was seised of three parts of a Mannor and granted a Rent charge to the Avowant And one Pole was seised of the fourth part and Hatcher purchased the Dukes three parts and the part of Pole allso and demised a fourth part to the Plaintif but the Serjeants could not agree whether it was Poles fourth part or otherwise the fourth part generally and as it seemed to the Court if it were the fourth part of Pole then the Avowry is not maintainable but otherwise if it were the fourth part generally And after in Michaelmas Term the case was rehearsed again and it was that he demised eandem quartam partem to hold at will And all the Justices agreed that it shall be discharged because it was never charged allthough once he might have distreined in all the Mannor Vnion of possession for that then there was no fourth part for all was alike in the hands of the purchaser but now when the fourth part is in the hands of a stranger it is no reason that it shall be charged Walmisley But the Tenant at will hath nothing but the profits by the way of taking Tenant at wil. and not any land but if Hatcher had made a Feoffment then I agree that it shall be discharged â—eryam And as well shall Tenant at will take the profits in his own right as long as the will doth continue wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintif 23. LEssee for years Wast the reversion in fee to Constance Foster and the Lessee granted over all his term and interest to A. B. Pasch 18 El. reserving and excepting all trees growing in and upon the premisses Rot. 420. the Lessee makes wast and destruction in the trees and C. F. brought Wast against the assignee and if this action will lye or no was the question wherein it was disputed whether this exception and reservation made by the Lessee be good or no for if the reservation be voyd then the action will lye well against the Assignee and thereupon these cases were put to shew both what interest the Lessor and Lessee have in the Trees viz. 33 Hen. 8. 2 Hen. 7. 42 Ed. 3. 21 Hen. 6. 46. 27 Hen. 6. Wast in Slatham 2 Eliz. fol. Danseyes case 7 Hen. 6. 12 Ed. 4. but to prove the reservation voyd Fenner took this ground That thing which a man cannot grant he cannot reserve and the Lessee cannot grant the Trees ergo he cannot reserve them And afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintif for default of pleading on the part of the Defendant but for the matter in Law two Judges were against the other two so that they could not agree De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxix xxx 1. AN action of Debt was brought by Bret against Andrews upon an Obligation indorced with condition to stand to the arbitrement of A. B. Request who did arbitrate that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintif xxâ—l and appointed no certain day of payment and the Defendant in pleading confessed the arbitrement but he sayd further that the Plaintif did never require him to pay it and thereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and upon reading of the Record the Court held clearly that it was no plea because the Defendant at his peril ought to make payment within convenient time and the Plaintif needeth not to make any request And Anderson commanded to enter judgment accordingly 2. FEnner moved this case Possibility of Interest a man deviseth lands to his Wife for term of her life and if she live untill his sonne come to the age of 24 yeares that then he shall have the lands and if she dye before he come to that age that then I. S. shall have it untill his sonne come to that age and dyed then I. S. dyed before the wife and after she dyed before the sonne came to 24 years if the Executors of I. S. shall have the land untill the sonne come to that age or no was the question And the opinion of all the Court was that they shall not have it because their Testator had never any interest vested in him Fenner But here was a possiblity of an interest Curia But that is not sufficient Rodes cited the case of Bret and Rigden in the Commentaries Grant Anderson If I grant you that if you pay me xxl. at Easter then you shall have an Annuity of xl s to you and your heirs if you dye before Easter now your Heir shall never have it and so in this case 3. THatcher recovered in an Assise of Novel disseisin against Elmer for Lands in Hackney in Middlesex Redisseisin and after Elmer re-disseised him and Thatcher re-entred and Elmer disseised him again And Fleetwood moved the Court if Thatcher may have re-disseisin because that after action accrued to him he had re-entred Anderson What is the Judgement in this Action Judgement Surely it is not that he shall recover any land but double damages and that the
possession of the land 11. BRet Plaintif against Shepheard Apparaâ—ce the Condition of the Obligation was to appear at his Suit in the Kings-bench and upon Condition performed pleaded Triall by the Record the issue was found for the Plaintif And now he spake in arrest of judgement for that the triall ought to have been by the Record and not by the Country And so was the opinion of the Court But Radford Pregnotary said that the triall was good enough for it may be that he appeared there and yet there is no Record made thereof to whom it was answered that then it is no appearance if it be not recorded and Radford replied suppose that there is not any such suit there how then can it be recorded but the rule of the Court was ut supra for then the Obligation seemeth to be single 13. THe case of Calgate against Blyth was now again argued by Fletewood for the Plaintif And first he said that the limitation by the Wife is not good for which he took this ground that alwaies when a man shall gain a fee simple by matter of conclusion of Record that he shall be seised to his own use And here the Husband had a fee by conclusion by the fine and therefore his limitation good only Carill And there upon he put a case reported by Carill who was a grave man Fine levied and very learned in the law That if Husband and Wife levy a fine to B. who rendereth to them again for life the reversion shall remain in the Conisor to his own use Also he put another case put by Baldwin in the time of H. 8. Grant of all Estate that a man seised in right of his Wife grants totum statum suum to another the grantee shall have it no longer than during the life of the Husband if his Wife overlive him but if she have issue by him then he shall have it during the life of the Husband absolutely Fine And if two tenants in common inâ—eoff B. Feâ—ffâ—â—ent in see to their use they are then tenants in common of this use Diffâ—â—â—nâ—â— per Tenants â—n common but if they levy a fine to B. to their use then they are Joyntenants And in Queen Maries time a parson of a Church by licence of his patron and ordinary levied fi Parson levies a Fâ—e a fine of a portion of his Rectory and it was adjudged that it shall be to his own use in his naturall capacity Bishops the same law is if a Bishop levy a fine and he cited 1â— H. 4. 1. the first case and so he prayed judgment for the plaintif Anderson chief justice rehearsed the case and first he said that the Wife without her Husband cannot limit the use without doubt And here the case is no more but whether the husband may limit the use without the privity of his Wife and I think it a strong case that he cannot Notice of a use If Husband and Wife have an use and they grant it over to one who hath notice of the Use this shall be to the use of the Wife again What a use is and he defined an Use to be an intent and trust to convey lands and cited 6. H. 7. and that when the interest of the inheritance is in the Wife Fine if Husband and Wife levy a fine this shall be to to the use of the Wife for the use ariseth out of them which give the land and not by the Conises or Feoffees for they neither grant nor give the use Feoffment by he Husband alone and then it shal be to the use of the Wife again But if the Husband alone make a Feoffment this shall be to his own use and the Wife after his death shall be driven to her action And if the wife had been privy or assenting to the limitation Assent without naming although she had not been named yet it should be a good limitation but the Jury have found that she was not privy And a case was here adjudged Indenture after a fine levied that where a fine was levied and the limitation made after by Indenture that this shall be to the use of the Indenture if there be no other against it but in this case it is found expresly by the Jury that shee never agreed which doth impugn that which otherwise should be intended then now the case is no otherwise but that a fine is levyed and no use is limited but if the fine had been levied Silence is an agreemâ—ni the Husband only limited the use and nothing els had been done against it then it should have been to the use limited by the Husband because it should have been intended that the Wife had consented thereunto and so I think judgment shal be given against the Plaintif Windham I am of the same opinion and it seemeth that their difference and disagreement in the limitation is the cause that both the limitations are void First let us see who hath auctority to limit the use surely the principall owner of the land hath the principall auctority to limit the use and here the Wife is the principall owner What a use is and therefore hath chief power to dispose of the use And Sr. the use is the chief profit and commodity of the land and cannot be severed from the land no more than the shadow from the body and this was the reason of the Statute of 27. H. 8. which draweth the possession to the use and not the use to the possession for the use is the principall for by the common law by bargain sale enrolled the land shall pass without livery Bargain and sale for this was a contract for the use and then the law shall make the land to pass The Law erects the use and whithersoever the use is now carried the land and possession shall follow but when the Law carrieth the use it is to the owner and proprietary of the Land The mothers heir For if a man seised of Lands on the part of his Mother levy a fine thereof the use shall pass according as the land shall because the law carrieth the use And here the Wife cannot limit the use without her Husband and therefore that is void but yet it is good to this intent to shew her disagreement Silence Consent And if the Husband limit the use and she doth not disagree the law intendeth that she consenteth thereunto because she hath joined in the fine Sale in London by Husband and Wife And therefore in London sale of the lands of the Wife by deed enrolled by the Husband only is good if she assent or if she do not disagree And although that she shall not be examined concerning the use yet the Law will not have her defrauded of her land by joyning in the fine without her consent to the use for by that meanes
Wast and the Defendant demurred in law whether such an action will lie against him or no it was for cutting down of trees And at this day Anderson rehearsed the case and said that they were all agreed that the action will lye well enough vi armis for otherwise he shall have no action for wast is not maintainable and Littleton saith that Trespass lyeth so seemeth the better opinion in 2 E. 4. 33. for otherwise this being a common case it shall be a common mischief And he commanded the Pregnotary to enter judgement for the Plaintif 18. Snagg moved to stay Judgdment in the case of Blosse Property and he cited 2 Ed. 4. 4. If the servant of a Mercer take his goods Trespass will not lie sed vide librum and he cited 3 Hen. 7. 12. that it shall not be Felony in a Shepherd or a Butler Windam If he had imbezeled the goods it is Felony and for the case of 3 Hen. 7. it is Felony without question Property quod fuit concessum Anderson The servant hath neither generall nor speciall property in the goods Taking Embezeling and he shall have no Action of Trespass if they be taken away and therefore if he take them Difference Trespass lieth against him and if he imbezell them it is Felony wherefore he commanded to enter Judgement for the Plaintif 19. THomas Taire and Joane his Wife brought an Action of Wast against Pepyat Pas 25. Eliz. and declared how that the Defendant was seised in Fee Rot. 602. and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life Wast and after to the use of the Mother of Joane in Fee who died and it descended to her and after the Defendant made Wast c. The Defendant pleaded that he was and yet is seised in Fee Absque hoc that he made the Feoffment in manner and form pro ut c. And the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Defendant made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life but that was without impeachment of Wast the Remainder in Fee as before And the Plaintif prayed Judgement and the doubt was because they have found their issue and more viz. that it was was without impeachment of Wast Anderson Whether it were without impeachment of Wast or no was no part of their issue and then the Verdict for that point is void and the Plaintif shall have Judgement VVindham The doubt is for that they have found that the Defendant is not punishable and where a Verdict discloseth any thing whereby it appeareth that the Plaintif ought not to Recover Judgement thereupon ought to be given against him As in detinue the Plaintif counts upon a Bailment by himself Bailment and the Jury findeth that another Bailed to his use the Plaintif shall not Recover And a Serjeant at the Bar said that the issue is not found Anderson That which is found more than their issue is void Assise and therefore in 33 Hen. 6. where the Tenant in Assise pleades nul Tenant de franktenement nosme en lasise â—i troâ—â— ne so it c. and the Jury found that he was Tenant but that he held jointly with another and there the Plaintif Recovered and so he shall here And at length by the opinion of all the Court Judgement was entred for the Plaintif for he might have helped the matter by pleading 16. IN debt by May against Johnson Payment the Condition was to pay a 100. l. to Cowper and his Wife and by all the Court if he plead payment to Cowper alone it sufficeth for payment to him alone sufficeth without naming the Wife 15. IN a Quare impedit by Sir Thomas Gorge Avoydance against the B. of Lincoln and Dalton Incumbent the case was that a Mannor with an advowson appendant was in the hands of the King then the Church becoms void and after the King grants the Mannor with the advowson now the question was if the Patentee shall have this presentation or the King And all the Judges held clearly that the avoydance doth not pass for it was a Chattell vested in the King and they cited 9 Edward 3. 26. and Dyer fol. 300. but Fitzh nat br is contrary fol. 33. 11. 22. DEbt was brought by Goore Plaintif for 200. l. Bailiwick upon such a Bill Be it known unto all men by these presents that I Ed. Wingfield of H. in the County of Midd. Esq do acknowledge my self to be indebted to William Goore in 200. l. for the payment whereof I mine Heirs and Assigns do licence the said G. to have and use the Baliwick of Dale to the use c. untill c. the Defendant pleaded in bar that the Plaintif had used the said Bailiwick and said no more nor at what place he had received the money and Suagg moved that the Plea was not good because he had not shewed the value which he ought to have done Value and the Judges were of the same opinion and they said moreover that this Plea is not good in bar of this specialty for payment is no plea upon a single Bill Licence and he might have brought his Action upon this Bill without using the Bailiwick for this Licence is no Condition 〈◊〉 De Term. Hill Anno Eliz. xxx 1. AN Ejectione Firme was brought by Dorothy Michell against Edmund Dunton Covenant and the case was this A man maketh a Lease for years rendring Bent upon Condition with a Covenant that the Lessee shall repair the Houses with other Covenants And after he deviseth the same Lands to the same Lessee for more years rendring the like Rent and under the like Covenants as in the first Lease the remainder over to another in Fee and dyeth Then the first Lease expires and the Lessee held in by force of the Devise aâ—d did not repair the Houses so that if the first Lease had been in esse Condition he had broken a Covenant now if this shall be a Condition so that he in Remainder may enter was the question Shuttleworth This is a Condition for he cannot have an Action of Covenant and then the intent was that it shall be a Condition But all the Court was against him and that the intent was not so for the words are under like Covenants which words do not make a Condition allthough they be in a Will Anderson The nature of a Covenant is 〈◊〉 to have an Action and not to enter and so all the Court held it no Condition And Perâ—â—â— said that under like Covenants were void words and therefore Judgement shall be given against you 2. PUckering the Queens Serjeant moved Fee determinable that one Adams was indebted to the Queen in a great sum which was stalled to pay yearly so much untill all werere paid And for security he levied a a fine to William Lord Burghley Lord Treasurer and others that they should
conjunction 4. WAlmisley moved concerning the Quare impedit brought by the Queen And he thought that she shall recover Avoidance for the avoidance is by Privation and the same party is presented again and and if these shifts may be used the Queen shall never have a Lapse for then the Incumbent shall be deprived and the same Incumbent presented Fenner to the contrary and said that where her title is restrained to a time there she shall have no Prerogative to the prejudice of a third person nor to alter their Estates And for that in 1 Ed. 3. if the King have a Lordship and Rent and he grant the Lordship over and retain the Rent and after the Land escheats the Rent is gone The year day and Waâ—t as in the case of a common person and the Queen shall have the year day and Wast but if Tenant for life dy she shall not have it Dower against Guardian And in Dower against the Guardian if the Heir come to full age the Writ shall abate 5. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif Bankrupt Bankrupt and a Verdict passed for the Paintif And now Shutleworth shewed in arrest of Judgement that the Plaintif had not declared that he was a Merchant or of any Mystery or trade And the Court held the Declaration insufficient for the same cause and made a rule for stay of the Judgement accordingly 6. IN a Replevin brought by Mary Colthirst against Thomas Delves Discent of a third part it was agreed by three Justices Anderson being in the Starchamber that if a man have Lands held in chief to the value of 60 l. that he may Devise Lands to the value of 40. l. if he suffer the rest to the value of 20. l. to descend to his Heir And therefore they overruled it upon evidence to the Jury that where one Barners was seised of the Mannor of Toby in the County of Essex and was allso seised of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Gloucester Entire Mannor and all those were held by Knights service in chief and deviseth the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life that his Heir at the Common Law shall have no part thereof if the Mannor of Hinton amounteth to the third part of all his Lands Allso they overruled that if a man after Mariage convey a Joynture to his Wife and dy that after the Wife may refuse the Joynture Refusall of Joynture and demand her Dower at the Common Law Allso that by refusall in the Country she may wave her Joynture and hold her to her Dower and that this is a sufficient Election Allso they held that if a man makes a Joynture to his Wife during the Coverture Devise for Joynture and after by his Testament deviseth other Lands to her in stead of her Joynture that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Devise and that this shall be good by the Statute and yet Gawdy moved to the contrary because the Statute is that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Dower but the three Justices overruled it clearly and said that such was the meaning of the Statute No wayving after agreement but they agreed that if she have once agreed to the Joynture that she cannot waive it afterwards Allso they agreed that if a Wife do once refuse her Joynture in her own house amongst her servants and not to the Heir that yet this is a good Refusall And Peryam said for Law that where a Joynture is conveyed to the Wife during the Coverture Refusall by bringing Dower and after the death of her Husband she say nothing but bringeth a Writ of Dower that this is a good Refusall aud so he hath seen in experience 7. AN Action upon the case was brought by John Cuttes against an antient Attourney of the Court Slander for these words viz. John Cutts was one of those which robbed Humphrey Robbins And they were at issue and it was found for the Plaintif And it was alleged in arrest of Judgement that the words were spoken in Queen Maries time as appeareth by the Declaration And yet the opinion of the Court was that he should have his Judgement allthough peradventure robberies were pardoned by Parliament after that time 8. CArleton brought Entry sur disseisin against Carre Abatement for part who for part pleaded that he had nothing but in Right of his Wife not named c. and so demanded Judgement of the Writ and for the rest he pleaded in bar and they joyned issue for both and the Jury appeared at the bar and found both the issues for the Defendant And now the question was whether the Writ shall abate for all or no because for part it was found that the Defendant had nothing but in right of his Wife or whether it shall abate but for this part onely And Shuttleworth argued that it should abate for part onely and he resembled it to Joyntenancy in which case it shall abate but in part and he cited Dier 291. 7 R. 2. titulo joint 8. E. 1. titulo breif 860. Severall Tenancy And VValmisley said that it was more like to a severall Tenancy in which case all shall abate as in non tenure but Peryam said to him put a case where severall Tenancy shall abate all the Writ Anderson Joyntenancy and seised in right of his Wife is all one to this effect and intent Joyntenancy for in Joyntenancy he confesseth that he is sufficient enough but that another hath right as well as himself allso And so where he confesseth that he is seised in right of his Wife he confesseth that he is Tenant but that another ought to be named with him Peryam True it is that there is no difference concerning this purpose and intent and if the Recovery be had against the Husband sole he shall be bound And at length all the Iustices agreed that the Writ shall abate but in part and that Judgement shall be given for the rest and so for that residue the Judgement was nihil capiat per breve vide 3 Hen. 4. 2. 13 Eliz. fol. 301. 9. AT this day Walmisley prayed Judgement in the Quare impedit for the Queen Lapse Anderson we are all agreed that the Queen shall have Judgement for the reason of the mischief For otherwise when the Queen hath a Lapse divolved unto her one shall be Presented and afterwards deprived so that the Queen shall never have her Lapse And it differeth much from the case of that avoidance which cometh by the Act of God for this is by the Act of the party and the refore Covenous And so let Judgement be entred for the Queen 10. A Writ was ad respondendum I. S. Fidei uxori ejus and the Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ because the name of the Wife was Faith in English therefore they pretended that it should
and did not say praedict Edward Seymour And all the Justices agreed that this was amendable And so the first judgement was affirmed 18. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgement which Rawlyns had to recover lands in the Kings bench Rent suspenpended and the Case was such A man makes a lease of ten acres for ten yeares rendring rent upon a Condition the Lessee grants 5. acres thereof to a stranger for five years and after grants the residue of the years in the five acres to the Lessor And after the Lessee broke the Condition whereby the Lessor re-entred and if he may do so or if the Condition was suspended or no was the question because he accepted a future interest in parcell Future interest Tenant wayves for it was adjudged in the Kings bench that the Condition was not suspended and now this was assigned for error And all the Justices except Anderson and Peryam held that it is not suspended before he had entred by force of his lease Anderson If I make a lease as here upon Condition and waive the possession this may be suspended before his entrie Cook This is another case Peryam But the reason thereof commeth well to this case And afterwards because the said two Justices dis-assented from the rest it was adjourned over 19. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgment given in the Kings bench Trover And Cook the famous Utter-Barrester of the Inner-tem moved this question to the Justices If a man lose his goods which come to the hands of another he converteth them to his own use and after the owner dye Day and place of conversion whether his Executors shall have an action of the Case for this Trover and whether he ought to shew the place and the day of the Conversion or no And the Counsellours at the bar said that he ought to shew both for so it was adjudged where an Alderman of London brought an action upon the Case against oue Staynsham upon Trover of an Obligation and it was found that he had broken the seales c. and because he did not shew the time and place of the Conversion he could never get Judgement And now the Justices were of the same opinion but yet Anderson seemed to doubt Peryam Executors at the Common Law shall not have Trespass for a Trespass done in the life of their Testator and the doubt is if they shall have an Action upon the Case Manwood if a man hath another in Execution for debt and the Gaoler suffer him to escape and after the Recoverer dyes shall his Executors have an action against the Gaoler Cook No. Peryam So it seemeth But Anderson Manwood and VVindam clearly to the contrary and that they shall have debt upon this Escape Cook But not an Action upon the Case at the Common Law and here by his own shewing he might have Trespass vi armis and therefore not this action De Term. Trinitat An. Reg. Eliz. xxx 1. RAlph Heidon brought a Writ of Right against Smethwick and his Wife Droit of two parts of forty Acres of Land in Surret and they pleaded that one Ibgrave was seised and devised it to his Wife now one of the Tenants for term of her life the remainder to Benjamin Ibgrave in fee Praying ayd in an Assise which was his heir and dyed and they prayed in ayd of B. I. who came and joyned to them and thereupon they came and pleaded to the grand Assise and the first day of this term the Assise appeared and sixteen were sworn whereof four were Knights and the residue were Squires and Gentlemen and the title was all one as before in T. 28 Eliz. for this same Ibgrave was Tenant in that other Action for the third part And the opinion of all the Court clearly that it is not ayded by the Statute for there is not any certainty in the Grant Name certain but if he had given it a certain name as green Acre then allthough he had mistaken the Parish yet it had been good enough Peryam The Assise may goe their way and they did so and after they being agreed came again to the Bar and the Demandant was called and did not appear whereby the Tenant prayed the Court to record the Nonsuit and it was done Curia All is one as if he had appeared Non-suits for this Non-suit is peremptory for ever the issue being joyned upon the meer droit aliter if the issue had been joyned upon any collaterall poynt 2. IN Trespass by Blunt and Lister against Delabere they were at Issue ' and now the Inquest appeared ready to pass Challenge VValmisley This Inquest you ought not to take for it is favourably made by the Sherif which is within the distress of one of the Plaintifs and shewed how the Sherif held certain lands of a Mannor now in question whereof Lister hath possession and allso hath certain lands for term of years of him and the Plaintifs moved that he ought to take one cause onely 1 Cause Curia He may allege both for the challenge is that he is within the distress and the allegations are but evidence to prove it and then the Plaintif sayd not within his distress whereupon the Court appointed Tryers and the Defendant sayd that all the Jury are favourable Tryors refused and prayed Tryers de circumstantibus Gawdy That cannot be but onely in an Assise and cited 9 Edw. 4. Curia We cannot appoint other Tryers in this case but only of the Jurors wherefore let the fourth and seventh be Tryers but you may refuse them and take others if you will and thereupon the Defendant refused the fourth whereby the third was appointed and they found the Array favourably made and therefore it was quashed 3. A Recovery was had by Arthur Mills against Sir Owen Hopton of divers lands twelve years passed Amendment and by the negligence of the Attorney Warranty of Attorney no Warrant of Attorney was entred for him and now suit was made to the Justices that it might be entered and they all consented thereunto and so it was entered incontinently but first the party made a corporall Oath that he had retained an Attorney and that this was the negligence of his Attorney 4. IN the Exchequer chamber Cook shewed that a Writ of Error was brought between Bedell and Moor Arbitrement and sayd that there was an Error in the Record Error not assigned which was not assigned and prayed that it might be examined allthough that it was not assigned because that it appeared in the Record which was agreed to by the Court. And then he shewed the case that two had submitted themselves for all quarrels ultimo die Novembris An. 24. to stand to the Arbitrement of two others and they Arbitrated that the Plaintif in this Writ of Error should release to the now Defendant all Actions which he might
have against him untill the 24 of June then next following which was half a year after and because he had not performed this an action upon an Assumpsit was brought and Judgement given for the Plaintif and all the Justices agreed that this was Error because that this thing arbitrated was out of the submission and so voyd for they have no authority to arbitrate that which is not submitted unto them Submission and the submission is onely of things passed and not to come but because that the Defendant had not heard of this Error before therefore they gave him day Afterwards the case was moved again and Anderson sayd that damages recovered doe not lye in arbitrement Damages recovered Peryam Amongst other things they will lye well enough quod Anderson non negavit But they all sayd that they may well assume upon consideration and an Action will be maintainable for it 5. THomas Mounson Esquire Term extinguished sonne and heir apparent to Sir Iohn Mounson Knight brought an Action of Trespass against VVest who pleaded not guilty and upon Evidence it appeared that Sir Iohn Mounson had an estate for years the Remainder in tayl to the Plaintif with divers Remainders over and the Lessee made a Feoffment to divers and a Letter of Attorney to others with commission to enter into the lands and to seal the Feoffment and deliver it in his name to the use of the sayd Thomas and his heirs and another by commandement or Letter of Attorney of the sayd Thomas entred in his name And the Court held this a good Feoffment notwithstanding that both the Lessee and the Attorney were disseisors Disseisors for it is good between the Feoffor and the Feoffee for they sayd that by the Feoffment to the use of him in the remainder and his heirs if he in remainder enter he is remitted and the estate for years is gone implicatively Freehold joyned to the term Morgage for Peryam sayd that in all cases where the Freehold cometh to the term there the term is extinguished And therefore if a man morgage his reversion to the Lessee for years and after perform the condition yet the Lease for years is utterly extinguished And the Evidence on both parts was very long and the chief matter was whether a Deed were forged by Rob. Mounson lately one of the Justices of the Common-pleas by which Devise lands were conveighed to him by William Mounson his Father whose heir at the Common Law Sir John Mounson is viz. the Sonne of Roberts eldest brother and the Deed was shewed by VVest and it was perished with Mice all the Seal and part of every side but yet by the last Will of the sayd VVilliam Mounson and by divers other proofs it was evident that the Deed was good and but little in effect was shewed to prove the Deed forged Misdemenour yet the Jury went together and tarryed there all night and in the mean time some of them had victualls with them for one had Cheese and another had Pruens another had Pippins and another had an Orange but he which had the Orange swore that he brought it onely for the smell and therefore he was excused and he which had Pruens had given half a Pruen to one of his companions which eat it and he which had Cheese had eat thereof therefore all those which had victuals Fine and imprisonment were fined at 40 s and they which had eaten at 5 l. every of them and all committed to the Fleet but because they were agreed therefore the Verdict was taken and the Verdict was given for the Plaintif viz. that the Deed was forged by Justice Mounson and the Verdict taken de bene esse and all this matter commanded to be entred for the Justices doubted whether it were a good Verdict This matter was moved divers Terms afterwards and at the last adjudged a good Verdict 6. IN an Ejectione firme by Ashby against Laver for Lands in Westminster Countermand it was sayd by all the Justices to the Jury that if a man hath a Lease and disposeth of it by his will and after surrenders it and takes a new Lease and after dyeth that the Devisee shall not have this last Lease because this was a plain countermand of his Will 7. IN Trespass by Johnson against Astley it was said by the Justices to the Jury that if there were a Chauntery in reputation allthough it be none in right as if it be gone by disseisin yet the Queen shall have the Lands 8. AT Serjeants-Inne in Fleet-street Rent suspended the Justices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled for divers Errors in the Kings-bench and the case of Rawlins was moved again and Anderson and Peryam retained their former opinions and Peryam sayd that he would differ from all the cases of collaterall conditions Feoffment upon condition which may be put for he sayd that if a man make a Feoffment in fee of 20 Acres of land upon condition that if he pay to the Feoffee xx l. at Easter that then it shall be lawfull for him to re-enter allthough that he be re-enfeoffed of 10 Acres yet he ought to perform the condition because it is collaterall But Cook the famous Utter-barrister sayd Truly it hath been adjudged to the contrary and I was privy to it for when he took as high an estate again as he had before by that the condition is confounded and the case of the Corody in 20 Ed. 4. will prove this case Rodes I see no diversity Peryam It is collaterall there but so it is not here but afterwards those two Judges changed their opinions and so the first Judgement was affirmed 9. BRown recovered against Garbrey in an Assumpsit Consideration and thereupon Garbrey brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that there was no Consideration for the Declaration was that whereas there was a communication between Brown and a woman for Mariage between them that the Father of Brown had promised to the Wife that if she would marry his Son he would make a Feoffment of his land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of them two in tayl the remainder c. and that Garbrey assured to the Wife in consideratione praemissorum that if the Father did not doe so then he would give the Wife a hundred pound ac licet the Father did not give to them in tayl secund agreament praedict yet Garbrey refused c. And Cook moved that this should be no Consideration for the communication of Mariage was not by him but between strangers to him but if the Father had assumed in consideration of Mariage then that should have been good against the Father but against Garbrey it is â—o otherwise than as if one promise to you to Enteoff you and I say that if he doe not so then I will give you a hundred pound this is
without consideration and so here But the Justices held the contrary and that the consideration is good for in considerations praemissorum is in consideration of the Mariage as well as of the refusall of the Father and allso it was alleged that Garbrey was Cosen German to Brown and therefore c. Anderson If a communication be between two and the Father promise to make a Joynture and a stranger say that if the Father will not then he will doe it this is a good consideration and there is no necessity to be so curious in the consideration for that is not traversable Consideration executory traversable But Cook sayd that if it be Executory then it is traversable Another Error Cook assigned because they had not alleged a not performance in the Father for the promise of the Father was to make a Feoffment to the use c. and they averre that allthough that he did not make a gift in tayl which cannot be the same thing which the Father should doe for an estate to use in tayl and a gift in tayl is not all one But the Justices held it good for by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the use is executed and so the estate executed Also the Declaration was that he had not made a gift in tayl secundum agreamentum praedictum But Cook moved that it should not be good for if a man be bound to make an estate to another in the per and he make it in the post this is no performance and here by the Statute he is in in the post and the not performance is alleged to be because he did it not in the per and saith that he which is in by the Statute shall not vouch for he is in in the post and he cited Winters case which was not denyed but Peryam said that considerations in actions upon the Case and Conditions are not all one 9. IN the Kings bench the case was such Coppyhold John Kipping being a Copiholder devised it to his Wife for life the Remainder to VVilliam his son in Fee and made a Surrender to that use and the Wife is admitted generally Generall admittance now if this be an admittance of him in Remainder also was the question And Godfrey argued that it was not for it is not like to the case of descent where the reversion should have descended for in this case VVilliam cannot Surrender before admittance but he agreed that one which hath it by discent may surrender before admittance for in that case it shall be said possessio fratris Surrender but when it is by purchase then that cannot be surrendred whereof admittance ought to be Meseu because the Lord ought to have a fine of him therefore he likened it to the case in 18 E. 4. where the Mesne graunts the Mesnality for life the remainder in fee and the Tenant attornes to the Tenant for life if he had cause of acquittance against the Mesne this shall not be an attornment to him in remainder so here if this shall be good to him in remainder then is the Lord without remedy for his fine Vesting of a remainder But Cooke the famous Utter-Barrister argued to the contrary for the Remainder vested when the particular estate vested or els it shall never vest but it shall not be void ergo it is excuted when the particular estate c. And therefore he said clearly that an admittance of the particular Tenant is an admittance of him in Remainder and that the Lord cannot have his fine if it be agreed that the Heir may surrender before admittance Scire facias upon a fine and yet the Lord ought to have a fine of him And in 7 Ric. 2. Fitzherbert scire facias 3. where Tenant for life sueth execution this is an execution for him in Remainder Audita quaerela And in Fitzherbert Na. Br. fol. 201. where one deviseth for life the Remainder in tayl and an ex gravi querela was sued this shall serve as well for Tenant in Remainder as for Tenant for life Attornment and 18 Ed. 4. 7. and the time of Ed. 4. Fitzherbert Attorn 21. that attornment to the Tenant for life is good to him in Remainder and VVeldons case in the Commentaries Assent to the Devisee that assent to the Devisee for life is an execution of the devise to him in the Remainder 11. THe case of the Resceit was moved again Resceit and Shuttleworth said that he cannot be resceived because he is named in the Writ And said that he had searched all the books and there is not one Case where he which is named in the Writ may be resceived Anderson What of that Reason shall not we give judgement because it is notadjudged in the bookes before wee will give judgement according to reason and if there bee no reason in the bookes I will not regard them Shuttleworth Hee is at no mischief here for in 33 H. 6. the Tenant came at the grand cape and said that he had nothing Nihil habet and the Court said that it was no plea for if he hath nothing he can lose nothing And so here if he be ousted where he hath good right Reentrie he may re-enter and falsify the recoverie Peryam But he shall be put out of possession which is a mischief and remedied by the Statute Shuttleworth I hold clearly that a Termer cannot falsify at the Common Law because a term was not regarded Peryam The books doubt thereof but Anderson seemed to assent to Shuttleworth and that the Covyn shall be traversable which Peryam denyed clearly and said that he ought to averr the Covyn 12. A Man was condemned in an action of Debt and brought an Audita querela upon a release Supersedeas and had a supersedeas Peryam If the Sherif take him before that he hath notice of the Writ although it be after the Teste yet it is well done but otherwise of an Utlary But Fenner and Walmisley held to the contrary and Fenner said that he had seen a President to the contrary 13. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Mathew late Under-Sheriff of Hampshire Declaration double that where an Execution was directed to him by vertue whereof he had taken goods to the value of the execution and sold them for less and that he hath not retorned the Writ and upon this Declaration the Defendant demurred in law because it was alleged to be double But Fenner held the contrary said that an Action upon the Case is like to an Action of Covenant where a man may shew all the covenants broken Curia If the one matter be depending upon the other it shall not be double and here all is Dependance is not double for not retourning of the same Writ Wherefore Fenner said that he would not amend his Declaration let the other Demur if he would sed quaere for
he is Tenant sufficient before Office found Fenner True Sir but when the Office is found by relation thereof the Recovery is avoided Relation Anderson Truely the Office hath relation for the Possession of the Alien but it hath no such relation to say that the Alien never had it for then the Queen shall not have it but if the Alien were Tenant sufficient at the time of the Writ brought against him then the Remainder is utterly gone And all the Justices said that it is a strong case that the Queen shall have it and that the Remainder is gone And Rodes cited 27 Ass fol. 50. 8. PLympton brought an Action of Trespass against Dobynet Copyhold the Defendant pleaded that the place in which c. is Copyhold and pleaded a Grant to Southey which granted it to him c. The Plaintif replyed that long time before the Grant pleaded by the Defendant Alice Gooding was Lessee for life secundum consuetudinem manerii c. and that the Custom is that the Lord may grant Copies as well in Reversion as in Possession And that in 5 Eliz. the Lord Morley being Lord of the Mannor The Lord Morleys case granted to him a Copy in Remainder before the grant made to Southey which now came in Possession and that he entered untill c. The Defendant rejoyned that there is a custom in the Mannor that the Lord may grant Copies in reversion with the agreement and consent of the Tenant in possession and if any Copies be granted without consent of the Tenant in possession that then there is such a custom that such Grants shall be alltogether voyd absque hoc that they are devisable modo forma c. whereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law Walmisley This Plea of the Defendant is repugnant for by these words If any be granted he implyeth that there is such a custom and then when he saith absque hoc that there is such a custom this traverse is voyd and the Plaintif shall have Judgement by 9 H. 6. Allso he argued that this custom shall be voyd and cited 19 Ass the case of the command of St Johns and 2 Hen. 4. 19 Eliz. Custom what it is the Ejectione firme by Bill anu Attorney and he defined usage to be Constitutio ex diversis actionibus saepius iteratis Shuttelworth argued to the contrary and cited 37 Hen. 6. the case of Common and 26 Ed. 3. 9. GAwdy the Queens Serjeant rehearsed the case of Beverley in this manner Utlary Thomas Beverley brought a Quare impedit against the Ordinary and Gabriell Cornewell the Incumbent which was in of the presentation of the Queen and upon pleading there was a Demurrer entred up and before that was discussed Beverley was Outlawed at the suit of another The Case in an Action of Debt then Cornwell resigned his Benefice and the Queen presented him again whereupon he was instituted and inducted Then Beverley brought a Writ of Error in the Kings-bench and reversed the Outlary because that he was named of Hamby where there were two Towns of the same name and neither of them without an addition and now he brought a Scire facias to execute his first judgement against Cornwell who pleaded all the matter in bar and it seemed to him that the Plaintif shall be barred for by the Outlary of the Plaintif the presentation was forfeited to the Queen allthough that it was but a thing in action and thereupon he cited 2 Hen. 5. where a man had a Patronage with his Wife Patronage in right of his wife and was Outlawed c. then if by the reversall of the Outlary he shall be restored to the presentation and he sayd that he shall not for that it was a thing once lawfully executed and vested in the Queen and he cited 4 Hen. 7. where a man is attainted by Act of Parliament c. Allso the opinion of Brian there is a strong proof of this case And further he sayd that he was of counsell with a case in 26 Eliz. Restitution after a Scire faâ—â— where Debt was brought by Hanmer against Luddington and the Defendant was condemned and a Fieri facias issued to the Sherif who by virtue thereof sold a term of the Defendants and levyed the money thereupon and afterward the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and refused the Judgement the question was if he shall be restored to his term and it was adjudged that he shall not but onely to the money for which it was fold because the sale was once good and so he thought that the Plaintif ought to be barred VValmisley to the contrary For in our case Patronage when the Queen presenteth she hath gained a Patronage to her self untill we recover it again and this is the case of Ratcliffe in 35. For so long as the Incumbent which is presented continueth by that Induction in possession so long he which presented him is Patron Possession per Collow in 20 Ed. 4. and by 46 Edw. 3. tit Incumbent 19 Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit If the King bring a Quare impedit and hath title to recover yet the other is Patron untill his Clerk be removed a fortiore where the Writ is brought against the Incumbent of the King he is Patron untill he be removed then if nothing shall be forfeit to the Queen then it is to be considered because the Queen hath presented the same Defendant of new whether he shall be removed or no Acts done hanging the Writ and it seemeth clearly that he shall because he claimeth under this estate and this is done hanging the Writ and no act done hanging the Writ shall extort the Plaintif from his execution and surely the Writ is hanging untill execution be done and he cited 31 Hen. 6. Attorney If one make an Attorney he shall be Attorney untill execution be done and 21 Hen. 7. if the Defendant resign and a stranger is presented hanging the Writ yet the Plaintif shall remove the stranger Presentment and 20 Eliz. in Dyer accordeth with that notwithstanding that some there held the contrary If he come in by title by mony And to the like purpose is the case in 11 Hen. 4. of traverse of an Office Then for the Outlary that was avoydable by Plea Plea by the Statute by the Statute of 2 Hen. 5. per the Books in 22 Hen. 6. and 38 Hen. 6. Then if by the Outlary reversed he shall be restored and it seemeth that he shall for a man shall see a great difference between this case and the cases put For if a man in an Action deny his Deed and therefore pay a Fine to the King if after he reverse the Judgement yet he shall not be restored to the Fine because it is a by-thing and a thing collaterall and therefore he denyed the opinion of Brian Collateral thing in 4 Hen. 7. for it cannot be Law
Will shall be good Rodes If a man make his Will and after do become non compos mentis and then live three or four years after Long life maketh difference it is no reason that such a Will shall be good and he cited 3 Edw. 3. it in Northt for this case Gawdy If the Proviso in the Statute of Wills had not been then every Will made by a Feme-Covert should have been good Tota Curia That is nothing so for allthough the Proviso had not been Reasonable construction yet the Statute should have had a reasonable construction But for the principall case the Court was not yet resolved After at another day Gawdy moved the case again and held strongly that by taking of a Husband this is not Countermanded and cited 2 R. 2. and then during the Coverture she hath sâ—bmitted her Will to her Huâ—band For by 3 Ed. 3. it in Roteland she cannot devise to her Husband whereby he concluded that the VVill is good Shuttleworth to the contrary because she hath no ability at the time when it should take perfection and every Will ought to have three things Inception Progression and Consummation And he cited Bret. and Rigdens case Anderson I am of my first opinion that this VVill is not good for I think this Countermand by the Wife is sufficient â—â—uâ—termand by one not of found mind and if non compos mentis say that he doth revoke his Will this is a sufficient Countermand And whereas it hath been said that a Feme-Covert hath no VVill Sir that is not so for she hath a Will in many cases Wills of feâ—e 〈◊〉 as if she be Executrix she may make a gift c. So if I be bound to do such an Act if such a Feme-Covert will consent in this case if the Husband onely consent it is not sufficient but the Wife ought to assent allso And if this Will shall be good then this mischief will ensue that after a Will is once made the partie shall have no power to controll it Controlement therefore I think the Will is not good Wyndham I am of the same opinion For a Will is not perfect untill after the death of the Devisor No countermand and when she is disabled at the time of her death the Law saith that such a Will is void But I think that a Feme-Covert cannot Countermand her Will for the same reason which doth disable her to make a Will doth allso disable her to Countermand that which is made before for by 3 Edw. 3. Consummation which was cited before she cannot devise to her Husband and by the same reason she cannot Countermand that which is devised to her Husband but because the Wife was not a person able at the time of the Consummation thereof therefore it is not good Marâ—iage no countermand Peryam to the same intent First the Mariage is not any Countermand and for the case in 2 R. 2 I think it good Law And I have allwaies taken this diversity that if a woman grant the Reversion after Tenant for years Reversion and before Attornment had she take a Husband that this is a Countermand but if that it be a Reversion after Tenant for life then it is no Countermand For in the first case his Title of Tenant by the Curtesie begun by the intermariage Allthough that it was not consummate before issue had And it seemeth a clear case that a Feme-Covert cannot Countermand a Will for she cannot make a Will And whereas it hath been said by my Lord that a woman hath a will Will by customâ— or by some by-matter true it is but that is either by custom or by reason of some by-matter as in the cases put But VVills ought to take effect at the time of the death and if then she be disabled it is not good for it is not consummate before as if there be Husband and VVife and the Husband be seised of Lands in Fee and levy a Fine thereof and then dye and after the levying of the Fine five yeares pass yet she shall not be Barred but if after the death of the Husband five yeares pass she is barred by a Fine because her title was not conmsumate untill after the death of the Husband whereby c. Rodes to the same intent for if I devise the Mannor of Dale as it is iu the Com. for c. and then have nothing in it but afterwards purchase it Perfection now it shall pass which proveth that the perfection of a Will is at the time of the death and in 39 H. 6. a man devised lands and before his death was disseised Disseisin after Will nothing passed by the Will because it was no Will untill death and here in our case because she was disabled at the time of her death it is void Anderson Then let judgement be entred accordingly 17. A Proclamation was directed to the Sherif of Cheshire against John Hockenhall Proclamation and the Writ was retorned Tale die ad comitat meum tent in le Shirehall c. Dyer fol. 206. proclamationem feci ac eodem die ad generalem Sessionem c. proclamationem feci c. And now this matter was pleaded in avoidance of the Utlary to reverse it because those proclamations were made one day whereas the Writ was tribus seperalibus diebus c. And the Sherif was amerced to forty shillings for his evill retorn And at another day he was amerced to other forty shillings because he had retorned divers Writs in Secretary hand Secretary hand And commandment was then given to the Custos brevium to receive no Writs retorned in Secretary hand for the Court said that writing in Secretary hand would be so worn in a dozen yeares that no man can read it 18. HOcker brought debt upon an Obligation against Gomersale and his Wife Executrix of the last will of Henry Gooderd â—â—perdict Common intendment Hen. Gooderd de London Tayler Trin. 30. Eliz. And they pleaded in bar a recoverie had against them in the Kings bench as Executor testamenti H. G. nuper dicti H. G de Lond. Rot. 2â—03 Barber Chirurgeon whereupon the Plaintif demurred And the Defendant did not aver that the said G. Tayler G. Barber Chirurgeon was allone person and they also omitted this word praedictum And whether this were good or no was the doubt And it seemed to the Justices that it was not good although it was alleged that it shall be intended all one person and then if a plea in bar be good to common intent it is good enough And therupon John Pastons case was cited in 21 H. 7. Where it was Westmonasteriuâ— doth not say praedictum Common intent what it is yet it shall be intended the same VVestm mentioned before Whereunto the Court answered that here by common intent he shall not be intended the same person but
rather to the contrary For common intent is that which shall be intended more strong than any other and not that which resteth indifferent As if a man Plead a Feoffment in fee it shall be intended that the Feoffer was of full age but here common intent is that he was another person because Barber Chirurgeon and Tayler are divers functions by common intent And as to the case put by common intent it shall be intended the same Westm because the place is so notorious that common intent will nor intend any other But Peryam would not grant that case of 21 H. 7. At another day Gawdy said that they have a President in 16. Eliz. where an action was brought here against the Administrator of Francis Fitzherbert Mercer And they pleaded likewise a Recovery in the Kings bench against them as Administrator of F. F. Grocer and allowed for good and in 10 H. 7. wast is brought and doth not say praedict and yet good Peryam For the cases in 10. H. 7. 21 H. 7. It was all in one Plea but it is not so here And for his President Anderson and Peryam said that they would not regard it if it do not appear that Exception was taken thereunto if the Presidents be shewen for matter Matter 〈◊〉 Form 〈◊〉 Presidents but if they be shewen for form then otherwise it is Anderson If I. S. bring a Praecipe against me and I vouch I. S. it shall not be intended the same person â—oucher if he do not say expresly that he is the same person therefore a Fortiori here it shall not be intended the same person Afterwards the next Term Shuttleworth argued again that it shall be intended the same person but all the Court was against him and so they gave judgement for the Plaintif 19 FEnner shewed how Bartholmew Brooksbie hath brought a Quare impedit A thing in action released and declared how A. was seised of the advowson in fee and graunted to him and another the next avoidance and after the church became void and the other released to him all his right c. and the Defendant disturbed him And after they pleaded to issue which was found with the Plaintif and this matter alleged in arrest of judgement that the Release was void and then he hath no cause of action for when the Church became void then it was a thing in action or actionary and therefore could not be granted over by 28 H. 8. Interest shall survive and by the same reason it cannot be released as 1 and 2 P. and M. and 2 and 3 P. and M. in Dyer Anderson If it be an interest it shall survive and by the same reason it may be released And it shall goe to his Executors wherefore then may it not be released Et adjornatur De Term. Mich. Anno xxxix xl Eliz. Reg. 1. TIsdale Maintainance one of the Attorneyes of the Common pleas brought an Action upon the Statute of Maintainance against John al Tree in Chancery lane for Maintainance in a Spirituall Court and by all the Court an Action is not Maintainable for Maintainance in an inferiour Court for this word alibi being in the Statute was expounded to be meant of the Kings Court onely and in the argument of the same case Drew remembred the Court of a Judgement given there in the like case for one Constantine of Wiltshire 2. BEtween Brown and Lother an Action was brought in the Spiritual Court Consultation for these words Thou art a forsworn Knave for thou madest a false account when thou wert Churchwarden and thereupon the Defendant brought a Prohibition supposing the discussing of Perjury to belong to the Temporall Court and upon the opening of the matter to the Court the Plaintif had a consultation because the Perjury was supposed to be committed about the execution of his Office of Churchwarden which doth belong to the Spirituall jurisdiction But otherwise it had been if the Perjury had been supposed to have been committed concerning a Feoffment or other Temporall act per Walmisley Owen 3. BRoughton against Flood Amendment the originall Writ was returned by Needham Esquire Sherif and his Christian name left out Williams moved the Court to have the Christian name of the Sherif put into the Writ but the Court denyed it because the Record was made up and likewise by this means they should make an Outlary good which was now erroneous 4. IN an Advowry the Defendant saith Venue that locus in quo c. is parcell of the Manner of Dale and avows for suit of Court the Plaintif by replication saith that locus in quo c. is parcell of the Mannor of Sale and maketh to himself a title absque hoc that it is parcell of the Mannor of Dale and the Venire faciaâ— was of Dale onely and upon motion all the Court adjudged that it ought to have been of both Mannors and made a rule for stay of Judgement after Verdict This was the case of Atwood of the Middle-Temple 5. IT was sayd by Anderson and Owen Prohibition that a Prohibition will not lye after a sentence in the Spirituall Court and that if the Libell be for such a matter as may be determined in the Spirituall Court no Prohibition will lye unless some Plea be pleaded by the Defendant in that Court which the Judge will not allow For if a Suit be in the Court of Admiralty upon a contract made upon the Sea and the Defendant pleaded a release or a gift after the coming to Land that Court may enquire and try this issue the like for Tythes 2 Rich. 3. 6. IT was sayd by Drew in the Argument of the case between Râ—theâ—â—â— and Green Common that if a Commoner take a Lease of one Acre out of which his Common is issuing that his whole Common is suspended Rent allso where a Lease for years is rendring Rent and for default of payment a re-entry if the Lessor grant the reversion of one Acre Condition the whole condition is gone Also that an entry by the Lessor into any parcel suspends the whole rent during his occupation and Anderson sayd that there is no Common by common right but Common appendant 7. ADams brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Oglethorp Restitution the Defendant pleaded that after the making of the Obligation Trin. 39 Eliz. 〈◊〉 1803. the Plaintif was attainted of Treason for Coyning and pleads the Attainder at length the Plaintif confesseth the Attainder and saith that afterwards the Queen by Letters Patents did pardon him and did restore unto him omnia bona cattella sua and thereupon the Defendant did demur in Law the question was whether Debts by specialty be included in those words 8. EVeling against Leveson Executor of the Testament of Walton Assets in effect the case was this The Queen was indebted to Walton in a hundred pound for
7. SHerborn against Lewis Trin. 39. Eliz The case was that the Hospitall of Donington was founded by the name of Minister Dei pauperis domus de Donington The name of a Corporation mistaken in a lease And they made a lease in English by these words Minister of the Almes-house of God of Donington besides Newbery And whether there be such variance between the name of the Foundation and this name by which the lease is made to make the lease void or not is the question Cook Attourney generall seemeth that the misnomer in this case makes the lease void for the place of the Foundation is misnamed and the place is the most materiall thing in the Foundation that may be and for that if that be mistaken all is void And yet he agreed that small variances in such Corporations shall not hurt Small variances For Almeshouseand poor-house doth not make any materiall variance for they are all one in substance But it may be that this addition de juxta Newbery is of substance For there may be two Doningtons viz. the one by himself and the other juxta Newbery without averment that it is not another also in the Foundation this word Dei hath relation to Minister and pauperis shall go to domus and that appeareth plainly by the Kings licence of creation and then the Foundation that explaineth it and the ordinances also and if the Corporation be not according to the licence then it is void also it cannot be intended that this word Minister â—hall be referred to domus for the words which give them auctority to elect one that he may be President above the others and he may not precede the others if he shall be a servant And now to prove that a materiall difference in 17 E. 3. Friars Carmelites would have purchased land for that they had no place of Foundation they might not And also the Dean and Chapiter of Chester made a lease and this word Cestria was omitted and for that it was adjudged void and so here Atkinson all coâ—tr For here there is no misnomer of the Corporation but an interposition of words one for another And they ought to be reasonably construed and howbeit they are placed one before another yet they may be construed according to the Foundation having a favourable construction the which ought to be in every grant Gaudie It seemeth that the lease is good for there is no materiall variance for variance in letter and not in substance shall not hurt and here in substance they agree as if one say that one is Bayly of I. S. of the Hundred of D. It may be properly said that he is Bayly of I. S. So here if he be Minister pauperis Dei de Donington he is the Minister of God For if the house be the house of God and he the Minister of that then he is the Minister of God and in the case of the Savoy-after judgement given in the Exchequer Error was brought in the Exchequer chamber according to the Statute of 31 E. 3. ca. 12. And there it was agreed by the Barons before all the Judges of England that the lease was good notwithstanding the misnomer of the Foundation And in some case variance in name of the Corporation should never hurt where such variance in name of Baptism shall hurt And to prove that he cited 11 H. 4. and also he said that the other variance juxta Newbery is not materiall for in 9 E. 4. that warranteth it and it may be Donington is juxta Newbery Fenner I am of the same opinion but yet I will be advised Popham I am resolved and I think that the argument of my brother Gawdie had need to be well answered and after in Termino Mich. 39. 40. Eliz. this case was argued again and it was said that in 24. Eliz. inter Wilgate Hall the case was that the Dean and Chapiter of VVindsor were founded by the name of Decanus Reginae capella de VVindsor And they made a lease by the name Decanus Regina capelle de VVindsor and for that this word Reginae was added to the lease which was not in the Foundation therefore the lease was adjudged void Gawdie It seemeth the lease is good and that the variance shall not hurt for we ought to make suck construction if we may that the lease should be good and for that 11 Eliz. 278. Incorporation per name de Dean Chapter Ecclesiae cathedralis sanctâ—e individue Trinitatis Carlill made a lease for yeares by name Decanus Ecclesiae cathedralis sanctae Trinitatis in Carlill et totum capitalium de Ecclesia praedicta and the better opinion was that the lease was good notwithstanding the variance because it is not in substance of name and 5 Ed. 4. 20. Obligation was made Abbati Monasterii de Mâ— extra murâ—â— Eborum And in debt brought the Writ was quod reddat Abbati Monasterii de M. Ebor. leaving out these words extra muros and holden good notwithstanding the variance and yet then the party might have had a new Writ Et a fotiori in this case for here he can never have a new lease and if a lease agree in effect and Substance with the Foundation albeit there be variance in words between the grant and the Foundation yet the lease is good As if one said that T. K. is Executor of the Testament of I. S. It may be said that that T. K. is I. S. Executor and in this case if it had been Minister Dei pâ—â—peris domus Dei de Donington there the Addition of this word Dei after the word domus shall never hurt Fenner Justice said it should hurt for it cannot be intended the same Corporation and for that it is a materiall variance for there are two Genitive cases the last of them may not be governed by the first Substantive for in construction it may never be so construed And when the King puts a name upon a Corporation this name ought to be strictly observed For they have no other capacity than by this name And every Corporation consisteth of two parts Two parts of every Corporation That is to say of Persons and of the place of their Foundation and here Minister Dei is the Person and pauperis domus de D. is the Foundation by which when part of the name of the Person is omitted viz. this word Dei and added to the Foundation there is a materiall variance Clynch said the Lease was good for sayd he the Minister of God of the poor house of D. and the Minister of Gods poor house of D. are all one for when our Saviour Christ came to Jerusalem and there saw the buying in the Temple he sayd to the buyers you have made the house of God the den of Theeves for the house of God is the place where God is served Popham contra For if the Corporation had been Minister domus Dei
de D. and a Lease had been made by name de Minister domus de D. omitting this word Dei every one will agree that this is voyd but if a further addition be made to the Corporation the Lease is true Addition superfluous shall not hurt allbeit that it be varying as if the Lease had been Minister Dei omnipotentis the addition of this word omnipotent shall not hurt sic de similibus And allbeit that it be not agreeing in words yet if it agree in common understanding Common understanding it is good but if in common understanding the grant may not be taken according to the Foundation if it be not wrested to an unexpected understanding there it is not good and if the Foundation had been in English words Minister of God of the poor house of Donington and the Lease by name of Minister of the poor house of God of Donington every one will agree that this is palpable variance and the Lease not good And I doubt of the case of Everwick for there the Prior beatâ—â— Mariae brought an action by name of Prior beatâ—â— Mariae extramures civitatis Ebor and if this case were now to be adjudged that would be variance as the case of Bristoll Prior beatae Maria de Bristoll made a Lease by name of Prior beatae Maria juxta Bristoll and this Lease was adjudged voyd but if the case had been de Everwick juxta mures civitatis Ebor. this had been no materiall variance for it had been but an explanation which will never hurt and for that the Court was so divided in opinion that is to say two against two and the case concerned a poor house They moved the parties to comprimise 8. RUswell brought disceipt against Vaughan Disceipt and declared that the Defendant sciens that he had no title to the Advowson of D. took upon him to be owner of that and sold the profits of the sayd Advowson to the Plaintif pro quadam pecunia summa And it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintif did not aver ubi revera the Defendant had no title non allocatur 9. THe case was that the Queen made a Lease for years Burrough versus Taylor rendring rent at the receipt of her Exchequer or to the hands of her Baylif upon condition that if the rent be not payd that the estate shall cease Payment of rent the reversion being granted away by the Queen after the Queen granted over the reversion and whether the rent shall be now tendered upon the land or at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the person of the Assignee of the reversion was the question and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the reversion ought to demand the rent upon the Land or otherwise he shall not re-enter for the condition broken that for two causes the one for that that when the reversion was in the Queen Election the Lessee had election to pay it at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the hands of the Queens Baylif and when the Queen had granted over the reversion the election of the Lessee is tolled by which now the rent shall ensue the nature of other rents reserved by common persons The common receipt of the Exchequer and those are payable upon the lands another reason is every rent reserved by the Queen is of common right payable at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the Baylifs of the Queen without words appointing at what place it shall be payd for these are the usuall receipts of the Queen and so the words which appoint that to be payd at the receipt of the Excheq â—r to the hands of the Baylif of the Queen are idle words for that the Law appointeth so much of common right ex praerogativa Regis but when the reversion is transferred into the hands of a common person No prerogative can be granted over there this Prerogative ceaseth for it cannot be granted to a common person and by consequence the rent shall be payd upon the Land 10. THomas VVelcome Error Executor of Anthony VV. Executor of John VVelcome brought a Writ of Debt against S. S. in the Common-place and Judgement was given and entred quod praedictus Johannes VVelcome recuperet where it should have been quod praedictus Thomas VVelcome recuperet No amendment in point of judgement and for that Error was brought and Serjeant Heale moved that the Record might be mended for that it was the mis-entring of the Clerk but adjudged to the contrary for the Judgement is the act of the Court and not of the Clerk 11. EDmund Nevell brought an Action of Trespass against J. Sayle Abuttals and declared Quare clausum fregit in quodam loco vocato Claveringfield abuttan super quoddam molend in tenura J. S. Opinio Curiae If the Plaintif do not prove his Buttals he is gone And for that he could not prove that the Mill was in the tenure of J. S. the Jury being at bar was discharged and howbeit that there be a way between the Close and the Mill yet the Buttall is good 12. RIchard Somerstailes brought an Action upon the case for slanderous words Slanderous words that is to say R. S. is a very bad fellow for he made J. S. drunken in the night and consened him of an hundred Marks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment was stayed for the words are not sufficient to maintain an Action 13. IF the Heir of the Morgagee is in Ward Mortgage and the Morgager payeth the mony his entry is not lawfull upon the King but shall be put to monstrans de droit per Popham chief Justice 14. HAmond brought Debt upon an Obligation against Hatch Award of paâ—t onely and the Condition was That if the Obligor do well and truly perform and keep the Award of J. S. Arbitrator indifferently chosen between the Plaintif and the Defendant for and concerning the matters contained in 9 severall Articles bearing date the day of these presents So that the same be given up under the hand and seal of c. And the Arbitrator made an award of 7 of the sayd Articles omitting the other two and whether the Obligor ought to perform this Award was the question Man I think he ought to perform the Award for that he is bound by Obligation to perform it and to prove that he cited 5 Edw. 4. 19 Hen. 6. 17 Edw. 4. Gawdy The words of the Condition are so that the same Award be given up in writing before such a day and that shall have reference to all the Articles for the Submission was conditionall as 14 Elizab. And after Judgement was given quod quer nihil capiat per billam 15. How against Broom and others A Man leased a House and a Close rendring rent and the Lessor entered into the house and pulled that down and after
in arrest of Judgement after Verdict for the Plaintif and the Court seemed prima facie that they are not But after the case was moved by Harris for the Plaintif and then by the consent of all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif And Popham said that to say that an Attorney will overthrow his Clients cause is an Actionable slander 22. COllet brought a Writ of Error against Marshe Error for non summons upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a praecipe quod reddat And assigned for Error for that by the Statute de 31 Eliz. cap. 13. it is inacted for the avoiding of secret summons in reall Actions without convenient notice of the Tenants of the Freehold that after every summons upon the Land in any reall Action fourteen daies at the least before the Retorn thereof Proclamations of the summons shall be made on a Sunday at or near the most usuall door of the Church or Chapell of that Town or Parish where the Land whereupon the summons were made doth lie and these Proclamations so made as aforesaid c. ut in Statuto And in this case there was not any Proclamation made at the Church door And whether the Plaintif shall have an Averment against the Sherifs Retorn was the question And adjudged that the party shall not have the Averment against the Retorn of the Sherif No averment against a Sherifs retorn For if the Retorn be false the party shall have an Action upon the case against the Sherif 23. POrtman brought an ejectione firme against Willis and a speciall Verdict was founâ— that Roger Hill was possessed of a Lease for years and gave divers personall Legacies to severall persons and gave all his other goods and Chattells to his Wife and whether the Wife shall have this Term being a Chattell reall or not was the question 24. GRay brings Trespass against Trowe Fish in a pond for entring into his Close and taking of Fish out of a Fish-pond with nets and other Engines The defendant pleaded that long time before the Trespass was done one Thomas Grey was seised of the Close and Pond and put the Fishes into the Pond and after the said Thomas Grey made the Defendant his Executor and died And he as Executor took the said Fishes Chattells descendable and upon that the Plaintif demurred and it was adjudged that the Heir shall have the Fishes in the Pond and not the Executors Felony for they are Chattells descendable but by Clinch it is Felony to take them Popham If they be in a Trunck so that they may be taken out by the hands of men without nets or other Engins there it is Fellony but otherwise it is not Fellony 25. THynn brings Debt against Cholmeley for 300. p. of arrerages of a nomine poenae Nomine poenae against an Assignee and declared of a Lease for years made by him to one Agar rendring Rent And if default of payment be made of payment of the said Rent at any day in which it ought to be paid that then so often the said A. his Executor and Assignes shall pay 3. s 4. p. for every day untill the aforesaid Rent so behind shall be satisfied And shewed how the Rent was behind and not payed for two years But doth not say that he demanded the Rent Jackson The sum demanded is by computation more than is due reckoning but iij. s iiij d. for every day that the Rent is arrear And if that be his intent he demands too little for in two years that will be infinite Gawdy It seemeth that he shall not have but onely iij. s iiij d. for every day Fenner I think he ought to make demand of the Rent or otherwise he shall never have the nomine poenae Gawdy No truly no more than in debt upon an Obligation and he cited 21 Hen. 6. 21 Edw. 4. 22 nomine poenae Fenner The cases are not alike In demand for in debt upon an Obligation there is a duty but otherwise it is of Rent And it was agreed that the action well lieth against an Assignee in this case 26. HUmphrey Parlor brought an Action upon the case for words against I. S. And the words were these Slander viz. Parlor was in Prison in a Jail for stealing of Mr. Piggots Beasts and it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the Action doth not lie forasmuch as it is not presciely alleged and affirmed that he stole the Beasts But by Implicatior Nevertheless Judgement was given for the Plaintif for by Fenner if he had said he had been in Prison for suspition of stealing Mr. Piggots Beasts no Action will lie for a treue man may be suspected But here is a direct affirmance of stealing For a man cannot be imprisoned for stealing if he do not steal 27. THe Earl of Pembrâ—ok brought an Action upon the case against Henry Barkley militem Proviso and the case in effect was such that the late Earl of Pembrook Father of the now Plaâ—ntif was seised in Fee of the Mannor of D. in comâ—tatu Somerset and by reason of that he had the Office of Liuetenantship in the Forrest of Cromcelwood and of all the Walks in that And by reason of the said Office had all the commandement of the game within the Forrest and he so seised the Earl granted to Sir Maurice B. Father of the now Defendant and to the Heirs Males of his body the Keepership of a walk called S. in the West part of the Forrest and in the said Deed of grant were such words Provided allwaies and the said Sir Mawrice B. doth Covenant and grant to and with the said Earl of Pembrook that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the Earl his Heirs and Assignes to have the preheminence of the game within the said Walk Provided allso and the said Sir M. B. doth further Covenant and grant to and with the said Earl That neither he the said Sir M. his Heirs or Assignes shall or will cut down any Timbertrees growing within the said Walk And after Sir M. B. died and the said Sir H. was his Son and Heir and cut down Trees within the Walk And the Lord of P. commanded his servants to enter into the said West-walk and there to Walk And Sir H. B. did disturb them and upon that the Action was brought and the point of the case was if the wordes in the second Proviso make a Condition or but a Covenant Gawdy I doubt of the case for all the question of the case is if it be a Condition or but a Covenant And as I am now advised â—â—hit is but a Covenant and no Condition For in all cases where this word Proviso ought to make a Condition there ought to be a perfect sentence to explain the meaning of the parties or otherwise it is no Condition As if the wordes are provided allwaies that if the Rent be behind and
if this deniall was a Conversion they prayed the discretion of the Court. Fenner I think that the deniall is a Conversion Denial is a Conversion for when I lose my goods and they come to your hands by finding and you deny to deliver them to me I shall have an Action of Trespass against you as 33. Hen. 6. is Keeping is an Administration And the very keeping of goods by an Executor shall be counted as an Administration and by the same reason the deniall here shall be counted a Conversion Gawdy I am of the same opinion for by 2 of Hen. 7. If I deliver to you Cloth to keep and you keep it negligently I shall have detinue or an Action upon the case at my pleasure and by 20 Hen. 7. if a Baker contract for Corn and the party do not deliver it at the day the party may have Debt or an Action of the case Tanfield There was a case in this Court 30 Eliz. for the finding and Conversion of a horse But here was no request made by the Plaintif to deliver the horse For which Judgement was given against the Plaintif Curia This is not like our case for the request and deniall makes all the wrong in this case Adjornatur 80. WIseman brought a Writ of Error against Baldwin Limitation upon a Judgement given in Trespass in the Common place upon a speciall Verdict which was that Baldwin was seised of 24 Acres of Land and made his Will and by the same devised his said Land to Henry his youngest Sonne when he should accomplish the age of 24 years upon Condition that he should pay 20. l. to the Daughter of the Devisor And if he shall happen to dye before his age of 24 years then he willed that Richard his eldest Sonne shall have the same Land upon Condition that he should pay to the said Daughter 20. l. And he willed further by the said Will that if both his Sonnes failed of payment of the said 20. l. to his Daughter that the said Land should remain to his Daughter And after this Devisor died and Henry his younger Son entred after the age of 24 years and did not pay the said 20. l. to the Daughter and Richard the eldest Son did enter upon him and whether his entry were lawfull or not was the question Cook Attorney said it was a meer Limitation and no Condition and by consequence the entry of the eldest Sonne is not lawfull and to prove that he cited a Case which he said was in Justice Dallisont reports 9 Eliz. where a man devised Land to his youngest Son upon Condition of payment of a certain sum of money to his Daughter as our case is The Remainder over to another of his youngest Sonns and the first Devisee entred and did not pay the money and he in Remainder took advantage of that and so in our case by the Devise Richard is to have nothing if Henry the youngest Son did not die before 24 yeares and the intent of the Devisor appears that his Daughter shall have the Land for non payment of the money And therefore if the Heir enter for the Condition broken he destroies the whole intent of the Devisor And therefore the entry of the eldest Son is not lawfull Godfery I think it is a meer Condition for so are the words And then when the word subsequent limit a Remainder to the Daughter for default of payment that is not good and he denyed the case cited out of Justice Dallison for he said he was dead long before An. 9 Eliz. Gawdy I take the case of 29 Hen. 8. 33. to be a Limitation and no Condition for there a man devised to the Prior and Covent of St. Bartholomewes Ita quod reddant decano capitulo sancti Pauli 16. l. per An. And if they failed of paiment that their estate should cease and that the Land should Remain to the said Dean and Chapter and their Successors And it seemeth there that the Dean and Chapter for non payment shall not enter But I think the contrary and I think in this case it is a Limitation and no Condition A remainder and a recovery may be created by one deed Fenner If I make a Lease for life upon Condition with Remainder over may my Heir enter for the Condition broken Godfry Yes Sir Fenner Nay truly for then he shall defeat the Remainder which is well limited by me before the which I may not do and this is the reason if I make a Lease for life upon Condition and after grant the Reversion over that before the estate the Condition was gone for that if I re-enter I shall defeat my own grant Gawdy Per 29. Ass If a man devise to one upon Condition that if he shall be a Chaplin to remain over to a Corporation and the Tenant was made Chaplin by which the Heir entred and an Assise was adjudged maintainable against him for his entry was not lawfull Clinch The intent of the Devisor appears that for default of payment the Daughter shall have the Land and therefore the Sonne shall not enter And Wilcocks case in this Court was that a man seised of a Copyhold in the nature of Burrough English surrendred that to the use of his Will and by his Will devised the Land to his eldest Sonne upon Condition that he should pay to the youngest Sonne x. l. And after for non payment the youngest Sonne entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull Gawdy Wee three are agreed that it is a Limitation and no Condition by which the first Judgement was reversed 81. PYne of Lincolns Inne brought an Assumpsit against Widow Hide as Executrix of her Husband Assumpsit of the testator and declared that the Testator in Consideration that the Plaintif had leased to him certain Copyhold-land he assumed to pay to him 100. l. And the Defendant demurred in Law for that the Action is not maintainable against any Executor upon an Assumption of the Testator Popham For the Contrariety of opinion in this Case between the Judges of the Common-place and us we will make it an Exchequer-Chamber case and so try the Law 82. ONe Jackson prayed a Prohibition Prohibition for a Parsons lease and shewed for his Cause thâ— the Parson sued him in the spirituall Court for tithes And ho wt the Statute of 13 El. cap. 20. c. That if any Parson make a Lease for years of his Parsonage and absent himself by the space of 80 daies that the Lease shall be void And the Parson shall forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year and the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. c. That all bonds and Covenants for suffering or permiting any Parson to enjoy any Benefice or to take any Benefice or to take the profits and fruits thereof shall be adjudged of such force and Validity as Leases made by the same persons of benefices and not otherwise and after the
dyed and if the estate of Tho. was determined by the death of Nich. was the question Johnson There are two points in the case the first if by this word Assignee an Occupant shall have the land and I think he shall not And the second point is when a lease is made to one and his Assignees for his own life and the lives of two others if now his own life confound the other two lives for that that it is greater to the Lessee than the other two lives and he said the Lessee hath no estate but for his own life and when he dyed the state is determined and to prove that he cited the opinion of Knightley in 28 Hen. 8. 10. Where he saith if a lease be made to one pur auter vie without impeachment of Wast the remainder to him for his own life that now he is punishable of Wast for that that when the remainder is limited unto him for his own life Wast against the surviving Joyntenant this drowneth the estate pur auter vie which was in him before And by 3 Edw. 3. If a lease be made to two for their lives without impeachment of Wast and one of them purchase the Fee simple and dye now his heir shall have Wast against the Survivor And I have heard that this was the case of the Lord Aburgaveney for a house in Warwick lane Cook è contra And the case is no more but that a lease is made to one and his Assignes for his own life Remainder for years to the tenant for life and for the lives of two others and I think that all may stand together for a man may have an estate for his own life the remainder for yeares and both may stand together in him simul semel for that that albeit that the Lessee may not have that during his own life yet he may dispose of that and by that means shall have the benefit and so in this case and allso an estate pur auter vie shall be in esse in the Lessee for the benefit of the Occupant and the inconveniencies shall be exceeding many in this case if the estate doth not endure for all their lifes for the Statute of 32 H. 8. inableth Tenant in tayl to make leases for 3 lives or 21 years and usually Tenants in tayl make such leases as these be and for that the generality of the case ought greatly to be regarded and there was a case adjudged in the Common place between Chambers and Gostock Chambers against Gostock where a lease was made to two for their lives and the life of a stranger and one of the Lessees dyed and the Survivor granted the land for his life and the life of the stranger Burdels case and it was no forfeiture and allso it was Burdels case in the Common-place 32 Eliz. where a lease was to him for his own life and the lives of two others and a good lease for all their lives Occupant And for the point of the Occupant there is no question but that the state of him that first enters is better than the state of him that enters under the state of the Lessor Gawdy The cases put by Mr. Johnson are not like to the case in question The greater estate preceding the less both may stand and I will agree them for here the greater estate precedeth the lesser I hold that a lease made to one for his life the remainder to him for anothers life is good for he may it grant over and so I think in this case that so long as any of the lives remain living that the estate remains Fenner I am of the same opinion for I think that the state pur auter vies is in the party to dispose at his pleasure so Judgment was given for the Defendant 87. HArding brought an Action of Trover of goods against Shâ—rman Visne and declared of a Trover at D. in the County of Hunt The Defendant pleaded that he bought the goods of one I. S. at Roiston in the County of Hertford in open Market and demanded Judgement The Plaintif replied that the Defendant bought the same goods of the said I. S. at D. aforesaid in the County of Huntington by fraud and Covin And after bought them again at Roiston as the Defendant supposeth the Defendant rejoines that he bought the same goods bona fide at Roiston Absque hoc that he bought them by fraud apud D. in Com. Hunt Glanvile pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the Visne ought to be of both Counties Gawdy seemeth to agree but for that that Clinch and Fenner held strongly that the Visne was well awarded in one of the Counties therefore Gawdy gave Judgement for the Plaintif for by this speciall Traverse the buying at Roiston shall not come in question 88. PAyton being High-Sherif Keep harmless brought Debt upon an Obligation against his under-Sherif and the Condition was to perform all Covenants in a pair of Indentures conteined and one Covenant was that the under-sherif shall keep all the Prisoners committed to him untill they be delivered by the Law and allso to save Mr. Payton harmless of all escapes made by the said Prisoners And the Defendant pleaded performance of all Covenants Godfry The Plea is not good for one part is in the Affirmative and the other in the Negative By which the Defendant ought to plead that the Plaintif non fuit damnifieatus and so was the opinion of the Court by which day was given to the Deâ—endant to amend his plea. 89. A Man brought an Action of Trespass for entring into an house and breaking of his close in Dale Variance between the declaration and the new assignment or the title of the Plaintif The Defendant said that the said house and close in which the Trespass is supposed to be done conteins twenty Acres and is at the time of the Trespass supposed was his Freehold And the Plaintif replyed quod locus clausa in quo supponitur transgressio est anum messuagium and makes him a Title to it To which the Defendant pleaded non Cul. And it was found for the Plaintif and for that that the Plaintif by his Replication made to him Title but to a messuage and doth not maintain his Declaration which was for the messuage and the close therefore it was awarded quod querens nihil capiat per Billam sed quare if this do not amount to a discontinuance of the close onely and so helped by the Verdict 90. THomas Allen brought a Writ of Debt against William Abraham upon an Obligation bearing date in October Counterbond for an Obligation allready forfeited The Condition was that whereas the sayd Thomas Allen at the request of the above bounden William Abraham standeth bound together with the sayd William unto one J. S. in an Obligation for the true payment of 11. l. the 15. day of May the which May was before the
the Kings-bench against one Fuller And the said Felix Marshall became Bail for the said Fuller in the said suit Scilicet That if the said Fuller should be condemned in that Action and did not either pay that condemnation or yield his body to prison that then Felix Marshall should pay the condemnation for him according to the ordinary course of Bailes But yet in pleading of this Recognisance he said further Et si defecerit in solutione tuuc vult concedit quod pradictum debitum levetur de terris et tenementis suis And Gawdy Justice said he did not use any such wordes when he took Bail And after this Bail taken and before Judgement given in the said suit the said Hoo the Testator released to the said Marshall all actions and demands And after Judgement was given for the said Hoo the Testator against Fuller and thereupon the Testator brought a Scire facias against M. as appears before and M. pleaded the said release and hanging this Plea Hoo the Testator dyed and then the Executors brought another Scire facias against the said M. And he pleaded this release again in barr Learning for releases Gawdy I doubt of the case for 5 Eliz. 217. the Covenantee released all actions suits quarrels debts executions and trespasses and this was before any Covenant broken And it is there holden that it is no barr to an action of Covenant afterwards brought upon a Covenant after broken Annuity And per. 4. Ed. 4. 40. If a Grantee of an Annuity release all actions to the Grantor before the day of payment Read against Bullock this will discharge the arrearages before accrued but not those payments after And by Read and Bullocks Case a release is not available to any other right or action than such as a man hath at the time of the release for it is against the nature of a release to take effect in tempore futuro and in the case in question there was no action nor demand before judgement given against Fuller Difference where the first delivery is void and where not And I doubt of the case cited in 27 H. 6. 7. where an Obligation is delivered as an escrowl and the Obligee release to the Obligor all actions after the Obligation is delivered as the deed of the party whether this release do that discharge or not it shall not by P. 5. H. 7. fo 27. Infant So there are many other cases there put as if an Infant deliver a deed as an Escrowl to be delivered as his deed when he comes of full age There I take the Law clear that if the condition be performed at ful age of the Infant yet this is not his deed And so of a Feme Covert which delivers a deed as an Escrowl to be delivered upon Condition when she is sole Feme â—oveâ—t if after the deed be delivered when the Woman is sole yet this is not her deed for in these two last cases the first act which was the delivery as an Escrowl was meerly void And if a man be indicted by conspiracy and after release to the conspirators all actions and after that the party indicted is arraigned upon this Indictment and by Triall is acquitted I doubt whether this release shall barr him in an action of conspiracy or not Fenner said that the Recognisance is immediatly a Debt and for that this release shall be a Barr for by Lytt a release of all actions is no bar in a fieri fac to have execution within the year but in a Scire fac after the year it is a good bar Release after delivery is an Escrowl and so in this case it is a barr which was not a bar at the first And I see not any reason forwhich if the King release a Recognisance which is not yet broken it should not be a discharge of the Recognisance Except it be for that that the generall words in the Kings grant shall not extend to discharge such a Recognisance without speciall words And I think that a deed which is delivered as an Escrowl is not a deed but onely after the delivery of that as a deed and shall not relate to be a deed ab initio And for that a release made before the delivery as a deed albeit that after that it is delivered as an Escrowl shall not discharge it Pas 5. H. 7. 27. Clinch I think that this release shall be a good barr for if the Defendant at the time when he entered bail had had his land and had sold it afore the Judgement given against Fuller for whom he was bâ—il none will deny but that this land shall be lyable which proves that this is a Recognisance and a Debt immediately Popham This is aprettie case but there will be a difference between a duty upon a contingent and a duty absolute for if I covenant to â—ufeoff you of the mannor of Dale before such a day Duties absolute contingent differece and bind my self by Obligation to perform the covenants and before the day you release to me all actions there the Obligation is discharged but not the Covenant for the Obligation was an absolute duty and the Covenant but contingent Obligation to perform covenants discharged but not the covenant and it seemeth that a deed delivered as an Escrowl may not be discharged by release made before that the Escrowl be delivered as a deed And in the case at bar there is no duty but upon a Contingent that is to say if the party be condemned and do not satisfie the Debt nor render his body to prison And for that before that it become a duty such a release will never be a discharge being but a possibility for it hath been adjudged that where a lease hath been made to two for their lives A possibility cannot be discharged or surrendred the Remainder which shall first happen to dye for forty yeares that neither the one nor the other nor both together may grant this term of 40. yeares before it be setled if I release all demands before that the rent is due the rent is gone But it is otherwise of a release of all actions Gawdie I agree that a release of all demands will discharge rent due Release of demands actions difference Popham If I make a lease to I. S. for so many yeares as I. K. shall name this I. S. may not surrender his term before that I. K. name the yeares And he denyed that the land of Marshall the manucaptor which he had at the time of the Bayl should be bound being sold before the Judgement against Fuller as Justice Clinch did affirm in his argument Fenner There is a difference between an Action and an Interest And after Judgement was given that the release was no bar 99. MAckerell brought an Assumpsit against Bachelor Necessary apparell and declared that in consideration that the Plaintif did deliver unto
as primo Mar. 100 is Then if the Sherif inquire of one term and sell another as our case is the term sold was never found by our Inquisition and for that the sale not good quod Fenner concessit yet the Lord Popham sayd that if it had been found by the Inquistion generally that he is possessed of such land for term of divers years adhuc ventur which they have prised to such a sum this had been good insomuch as they have not any means to come to the knowledge of the certainty of the term But when by Inquiry a Term in particular is found Que estate refers as well to the estate as to the person they may not vary from that and sell another and he sayd that these words Cujus statum Henrici Fry shall be referred as well to the state precedent found as to the person of Fry And so is the common intendment in pleading of a que estate And he said to Mr. Tanfield that if he had taken any note of their first opinions that he should raze that out of his Book again and after the parties agreed in Court that Hauger should give to Fry 200 Marks more for his term and then Fry should make assurance to him of the term for confirmation of the sale 106. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Difference between Feoffmenâ— to an use and covenant to raise an use If a man Covenant in consideration of naturall love to his son to stand seised of certain Land to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the same son in Fee with a Proviso that it shall be lawfull for himself to make Leases for 21 years or three lives Now he may not make such Leases notwithstanding this Proviso being by way of Covenant to raise the use And so it hath been resolved Contra Peradventure if it were by way of Feoffment to uses After Mr. Walter said that now lately in one Sharingtons case it was adjudged in this Court upon a Writ of Error That if a man Covenant with his Eldest son in consideration of naturall love A proviso with speciall limitaâ—n good to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Eldest Son in tail with Proviso that he himself might make Leases to his second son or to any other of his kindred for 21 years or 3 lives and he made Leases to him accordingly this was holden good for they to whom the Leases are made are within the consideration to wit of the blood and for that the use may well rise to maintain those Leases But if the Proviso had been to make Leases to any man howbeit that after he made Leases by force of that to his second son These Leases are void for they are not within the consideration of the Covenant by Intendment of Law at the first for the Law at the beginning adjudged the Proviso meerly void quod nota 107. RObinson brought Debt upon an Obligation against May Counterbond the Condition was that the Defendant should discharge or save harmless the Plaintif of an Obligation for which the Plaintif as surety with the now Defendant was bound to I. S. The Defendant by way of bar pleaded Vsury that the Obligation made to I. S. by him and the Plaintif was upon a corrupt and usurious bargain and pleaded the Statute of Usury and concluded sic non daâ—â—ificatus It was moved at the bar that this was no plea for the Condition is that the Defendant shall discharge or save harmless c. And the Plaintif was impleaded by I. S. for that debt and hath paid the condemnation Tanfield Contra For if this shall not be allowed for a good plea the Statute of usury will be utterly defeated For by a compact between the surety and the Usurer the surety shall pay the usurer and the surety by that counterbond shall have double recompence against the Principall which will be mischievous But the whole Court held the plea not good sed quare 108. HObbs sued an Audita querela in the Kings Bench against Tedcastle Audita querela for a speciall bail and upon a demurer the case was recited by Moor of the Temple to be this Tedcastle sued a bill of debt in this Court against one Hallaway in Custodia Marescali which found bail the said Hobbs and an another which entred bail according to the common course of bail And after Hallaway was condemned in the said Action and then the said Hallaway died without paying the condemnation or rendring his body to Prison for which a scire facias was sued against the bail and upon two nihils retorned Execution was awarded against them Whereupon they sued this Audita querela supposing that the death of Hallaway hath discharged the bail Moor argued for the Plaintif that the bail ought to be discharged upon the matter for Hallaway had Election to discharge the bail by paying the condemnation or rendring of his body to Prison Now by the Act of God it becomes impossible to perform the one to wit to yield his body to prison And therefore the Law will discharge him of the other and by consequence his bail And that he proved by Arundells case 9 Eliz. 262. 6. 7 Eliz. 231. Sir Edw. Walgraves case Popham Quemodo constat here but that there was convenient time after the Judgement to perform the one or the other Kemp Secondary The course is allwaies here after Judgement to award a Capias against the Defendant and if upon that he do not render himself or pay the condemnation then to sue Execution against the bail and not before but here there was never any Capias awarded against Hallaway the Defendant in his life time Popham Gawdy Fenner This seemeth very reasonable not to sue Execution against the bail untill a default be retorned against the Principall and the recognisance of the bail which is that the Principall shall yield himself c. is intended to be upon Process awarded against him But no Process was awarded against him in his life and now it is impossible that he should yield himself to Prison being dead Iudgement and therefore the bail is discharged And so they awarded Judgement for the Plaintif in the Audita querela 109. MAtures brought an Action of Covenant against Westwood And the case was such Covenant for an assignee of a reversion for years Adams Lessee for 20 years made a Lease for 10 years of the same Land to Bowes by indenture whereby Bowes did Covenant at the end of his Term of ten years to avoid and to leave peaceable possession to Adams his Executors or Assignes Adams granted over his Reversion to Matures the now Plaintif The question is if the Plaintif by the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. cap 34. as Assignee may maintain an Action of Covenant for his Covenant broken or not Nota that this case was moved divers times And first it was moved if
a Grantee of a Reversion for years be within the Statute or not Gawdy Well enough For the words of the Statute extend to that quod fuit concessum Then it was moved that this was a meer collaterall Covenant between the persons and not concerning the estate of the land and for that not within the Statute Popham sayd Covenant reall which concerneth the estate If nothing be sayd to the contrary intretur Judicium for the Plaintiff afterwards the case was moved again Gawdie It seems the case is Assigne which in regard of his reversion as of a Covenant may well maintain this action by the Statute of 32. Fenner This Covenant is not any Covenant to be performed during the estate or terme of the Defendant but it is a Covenant to doe a thing in the end of his term and for that is not a Covenant of which the Assignee of the reversion shall have benefit by the Statute for that he hath not any reversion depending upon any estate when the Covenant is alledged to be broken for the Defendant when he breaks that Covenant is but Tenant at sufferance Gawdie contra the Covenant is not to doe a thing after the terme determined but at the instant of the determination of the term and therfore it is a Covenant annexed to the State and runnes with the Land and therefore the Plaintiff shall have advantage over it 110. TRespasse and assault was brought against one Sims by the Husband and the Wife for beating of the woman A Child born living but bruised Cook the case is such as appears by examination A man beats a woman which is great with child and after the child is born living but hath signes and bruises in his body received by the said batterie and after dyed thereof I say that this is murder Fenner Popham absentibus cateris cleerly of the same opinion and the difference is where the child is born dead and where it is born living for if it be dead born it is no murder for non constat whether the child were living at the time of the batterie or not or if the batterie was the cause of the death but when it is born living and the wounds appeare in his body and then he dye the Batteror shal be arraigned of murder for now it may be proved whether these wounds were the cause of the death or not and for that if it be found he shall be condemned 111. GOodale against Wyat in trepasse The speciall verdict found that Sr John Pagginton was seised of the land in question in Fee Mortgage and morgaged it to one Woodliff upon condition that if he or his Heires did pay to the Heires Executors or Administrators of the said W. within one yeer after the death of the said Woodliff 50 l. That then the said deed of Feoffment and the Seisin thereupon given should be void and afterwards Woodliff infeoffed Goodale of the same land and gave notice of the said Feoffment to Sr J. P. and after Woodliff dyed and Sir J. agreed with the heir of W. to wit one Drew Woodliff to take 30 l. for the said 50 l. but when the 30 l. was to be paid Sir J. paid to the said Drew VV. all the fifty pounds and after such payment made Drew VV. gave back to the said Sr. J. 20 l. parcel of the 50 l. Altam 2. points are in the case The first is to whom the payment of the money as this case is ought to be made and I think to the Feoffee because the Heir hath nothing to do in the land and to prove that he cited fundamenta legum 17. Ass 2. 6. R. 2. Plesingtons case and the case of one Ramsey 19. Eliz. was such a man infeoffed three Ramseys case upon condition that if the Feoffor paid to them or their heires 100 l. that then he might re-enter and after one of the Feoffees dyed and the Feoffor tendred the money to his Heir and adjudged a void tender And also Littleton proves that but tif the condition might be performed to the Heirby payment that ought to be precisely performed for he is now as a stranger having nothing in the land and the Covin between the Feoffor and the Heir must not hurt my Olient for by 4. E. 2. câ—i in vita 22. If cui in vita be brought against a Prior and hanging the action he is deposed by Covin this shal not abate the Writ and it was adjudged in this Court where a man was bound by Obligation to deliver a bond and after he got a judgement upon it and then delivered the bond and holden no performance of the condition because the intent was not performed and 20. E. 3. accompt 29. in accompt the Defendant pleaded a Deed whereby the Plaintiff granted that if the Defendant made a Recognisance to him that then the Writ of accompt shall be made void and he shewed how he made a Recognisance But the Plaintiff said that after the making and before deliverie of that to him Composition by Executors the Defendant took it from the Clerk and therefore was adjudged to accompt Precisely named and by 18. E. 4. 20. If a man be bound to license another to carrie a 100. Oakes if he do license him and then disturb him the condition is broken and the common case of Executors will prove this for if an Executor have but 20 l. assets in his hands and is in debt to two men in 20. l. to either of them if he pay but 10 l. to the one and have an acquittance of him for the whole debt of 20 l. yet the other 10. l. that remains in his hands shall be assets to the other for no compacting between strangers shall prejudice my right per quo c. Payment upon a mâ—rgage good to the Executorrs cleelry Gawdy I think cleerly if the payment had been intirely made to the Heir without collusion it had been good for that he is preisely named for none will deny but that if the payment had been made to the Executors it had been good but the Covin between the Heir and the Feoffor peradventure will make no payment Father enfeoff the son and for that 34. E. 1. Warrantie 88. If the father infeoff the Son to the intent that this land shall not be assets to the Sonne to bar him in a Formdone this Covin will not serve to aid him Covin by administration and 2 3 Mar. the Husband dyed intestate and administration was committed to the wife which tooke another husband and the second husband and his wife as Administrators brought an action of Debt hanging which suit the Sonne of the intestate by fraud and covin between him and a Debtor obtained other letters of Administration to him and the woman joyntly and after judgement the sonne by covin to defeat the execution released to the Debtor all demands and executions and after the Husband and
lawfull to sell such an Office 114. IN an Action of Debt upon an Escape Escape Popham Clinch and Gawdy sayd P. 36. Eliz. if a Prisoner in Execution escape and the Jaylor make fresh suit and before the re-taking the party bring his Action against the Jaylor now the Jaylor may not re-take the Prisoner as to be in execution for the Plaintif again but onely for his own indempnity but if the party doe not bring his Action then the Jaylor may re-take his Prisoner and he shall be in Execution again for the Plaintif Wast For by Popham this Case is like to Wast the which if it be repaired before the Action brought the party shall not have an Action 115. A. B. was Utlawed after Judgement Elegit after Vâ—lary and an Elegit was awarded against the Defendant Mr. Godfrey prayed a Supersedeas quia erronice emanavit for the party may not have any other manner of Execution but a Capias for a Fieri fac he may not have for the Queen is intituled to all his goods and an Elegit he may not have for by the Utlawry the Queen is intituled to all the profits of his Lands Feoffment by an outlaw Gawdy It appeares by 21 Hen. 7. 7. a. That the party Outlawed may make a Feoffment and so out the King of the Profits and so it seemeth in this Case But it is good to be advised 116. SR Henry Jones Knight Error in fine and remedy and I. his Wife the Wife being then within age levied a Fine of the lands of the Wife and a precipe quod reddat was brought against the Conusee which vouched the Husband and the Wife and they appeared in person and vouched over the common Vouchee which appeared and after made default whereby a Recovery was had and now the said Wife and her second Husband brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and another Writ of Error to reverse the Recovery by reason of the nonage of the woman and the court was of opinion to reverse the Fine but they would advise upon the Recovery for that the said Henry Jones Knight and his Wife appeared in person and vouched over and so the Recovery was had against them by their appearance and not by default and so it seemeth no Error Generall warranty destroieth titles and conditions and to prove that Gawdy cited 1 and 2 Mar. Dyer 104 and 6 H. 8. 61. Saver default 50. Also as this case is it seemeth that by generall entry into warranty the Error upon the Fine is gone as where a man hath cause to have a Writ of right or title to enter for a Condition broken or any other title to land and in a praecipe quod reddat of the same land is vouched and entreth generally into warranty by that the condition or other title is gone but upon examination it was found that the Recovery was before the Fine for the Recovery was Quindena Trin. and the Fine was tres Trin. And so the Recovery doth not give away the Error in the Fine 117. IN Evidence between Tutball and Smote the case was such Condition extinguished P. 36 Eliz. that a Termor for years granted his Term to I. S. upon condition that if the Grantee did not yearly pay x l. to Q. R. that the grant should be void after the Grantor died and made the Grantee his Executor and whether the Condition be extinguished or not was the question Popham and Gawdy said the Condition is extinguished for it is impossible for the Executor to enter upon himself Clinch Fenner è contra The debtor marrieth the Executor for he hath the Term jure proprio and the Condition as Executor and so he hath them as in severall capacities Cook It hath been adjudged where a man is indebted and marryeth with the Excutor and the Executor dyes yet this is no devastavit for the Husband hath been charged 118. RIchard Thorn Administrator of an Administrator and Jane his Wife as Administratrix of one I. Gime brought Debt of xx l. against I. S. And alleged that the Testator was Administrator of one Mary Gime which Mary Gime lent the money to the now Defendant Trin. 36. Eliz. and Judgement was given in the Common place against I. S. And upon the Writ of Error Error was assigned for that that the now Plaintif as Administrator of an Administrator brought this Action where the Administration of the first Testatators goods ought newly to have been committed by the Ordinary to the next of Kin and he to whom the Administration of the goods of the first Administrator is committed hath nothing to doe with them And so the Iudgement was Reversed 119. HUmble brought Debt against Glover for arrearages of rent Privity determined of both parts and the case was this that a man made a lease for term of years and after granted the Reversion to the Plaintif and after the Lessee for yeares assigned over his whole estate and interest and after this assignment rent was behind and the Grantee of the Reversion brought Debt against the first Lessee for rent due after his estate assigned over and whether Debt will lye against the Lessee after the assignment was the question and the opinion of all the Judges was that no Debt lyeth for the Grantee of the Reversion against the first Lessee after the assignment of his term for when the privily of the estate is determined of both parts no Debt lyeth and so the Plaintif was barred 120. IN Evidence between Maidston and Hall Maintenance Popham said that it was agreed in the Star Chamber if two are at issue in any Action It is not lawfull for any stranger to labour the Jury to appear for for such an Act one Gifford was fined in the Star-Chamber Giffords case Gawdy Truly the Law is so for labouring of Juries is maintenance 121. DIckâ—ns brought an action of trespass against Marsh Estaâ—e by Devise and a speciciall Verdict was found that R. D. being seised of certain lands in Fee had issue three children to wit John Toby and Mary and by his Will devised that after his debts paid he giveth all his goods lands and moveables unto his three children equally between them Altam There are two matters to be considered in the case the first is what estate the children have by this devise whether Fee simple or but for life the second is whether Joyntenants or Tenants in commn and as to the first point I think they have but an estate for life for it appeares 22 H. 6. 16. If I devise land to one without expressing what estate he shall have Dyer 23 Eliz. 371. he is but Tenant for life but if it be expressed in the devise No estate expressed that the Devisee shall pay 20. s to John S. there as the book is 24 H. 8. R. 125. the Devisee shall have Fee simple For the
second point he said they were Joyntenants and not Tenants in common Consideration but if the wordes of the Will had been Part and part like that they shall have part and part alike there they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants Tanfield è contra For if they were Joyntenants for life Reversion descendeth to a Joyntenant and the reversion descend to one of them that will never drown the estate for life for the benefit of the Survivor And if a man give land to two men for their lives the Remainder to the right heires of one of them yet they are Joyntenants and the Survivor shall hold place and albeit the words are equally between them yet this shall be intended equally during their estate and it hath been taken for a difference if I devise my land to two equally divided between them there they are immediately Tenants in common and not Joyntenants but if the words had been equally to be divided between them there they are Joyntenants untill division be made for that that it is referred to a future time Gawdy Justice I think they have but estates for life for consideration of blood is not so effectuall as consideration of money Blood Money Difference for if I bargain and sell my land for money without expressing any estate the Bargainee hath a Fee simple but if in consideration of naturall affection I covenant to stand seised to the use of my son and do not express any estate there my son is but Tenant for life and for the second point I think they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants for the case is no other but as if he had said I give my land to my children by moities amongst them By moities and then there had been no question but that they had been Tenants in common Popham Clinch For the first point no estate but for life passeth if any estate pass for it is doubtfull if any estate pass or not for the Will is that after his debts paid Only Lands lyable he giveth all his lands goods and moveables c. And therefore Popham thought that such Lands which were liable to Debts should pass A Term. and no other For if the Devisor had had a Term then it seemeth no Land should pass But admit the Land do pass then if I devise Land to two equally divided between them they are Tenants in Common But if I devise Land to two equally to be divided between them by I. S. now untill Division they are Joyntenants So I think where the Devise is equally to be divided between them that they are Joyntenants quousque Division because of the reference future 142. IOhn Cole made a Lease for years to one Taunton Devise is a demise Hil. 36 â—liz rot 376. upon Condition that if the Lessee shall demise the Premises or any part of it other than for a year to any person or persons then the Lessor and his Heirs may re-enter the Lessee after devised it by his Will to his son Popham Gawdy Fenner It is a breach of the Condition and the case of 31 Hen. 8. 45. ruleth the Law in this case for a Devise is taken for a breach of the Condition v. 27 Hen. 8. 10. Quaere if he might not have suffered it to come to his son as Executor 123. A Man seised of a Wood granted to another a Hundred Cords of Wood to be taken by Assignment of the Grantor Grant before property vested and before Assignment the Grantee granted that over and whether this Grant be good or not being before Election was the question And the better opinion was that it is not grantable over for no property was Vested in him before the Assignment and if the Grantor die before Assignment the Grant is void and his Executors if he die shall not have it 124. BRewster brought Error against Bewty upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Replevin A Jurâ—rs name in the distringing mistaken and it was Assigned for Error for that that Kidman was retorned in the Venire fac and Bidman was retorned in the Distringas habeas corpora Tanfield said it was apparent Error and to prove that he cited Parkers case where in an appeal Palus was retorned in the Venire fac and Faulus was in the Habeas corpora and Paulus was sworn and therefore Error And between Cobb and Paston a Juror was named Hantstrong in the Venire fac and Hartstrong in the Distr and adjudged ill Cook said that it might not be amended And to prove that he cited 9 Edw. 4. 14. 27 Hen. 65. where it is said no Amendment after Judgement for thereby the Attaint of the party shall be tolled and in a case between Crosby and Wilbet George Thompson was retorned in the Venire fac and Gregory Thomson was in the Distr and could not be amended after Judgement Gawdy It is hard to amend the Distr for the Book of 27. Hen. 6. is that it shall not be amended for the Distr is the Awarding of the Court and for that he cited 14 Hen. 6. 39. where a Juror was retorned by the name of Hodd and in the Habeas Corpora was named Lord and when the default was espied they awarded a new Habeas Corpora But in the Book of 22. Hen. 6. 12. the Sherifs retorn was amended but not the Writ And 34 Hen. 6. 20. The Prior of St. Bartholomews case where in the Fenire fac there were 24 retorned and in the Habeas Corpora but 23. and so a Juror omited and holden that it could not be amended But after the opinion of the Justices of England was that it should be amended insomuch that it appears by examination the same party in the Venire was sworn and so no damages to any 125. PAnnell brought Trespass against Fenn Devise to execute And the case was such that a man was Possessed of a Term and made M. his Wife and G. Fenn his Executors and devised all his Term to them and that they shall have the Term untill all his Debts and Legacies were paid and all such charges in suit of Law as they should expend the Remainder to John Fenn in tail the question was whether the Executors take as Devisees or as Executors Gawdy said if they take as Devisees then if the one of them grant all the Term no more but the Moity passeth and then the Grantee and the other Executors shall be Tenants in Common But if they take as Executors then when one Granteth the Term all passeth as 29 Hen. 8. is Clinch Fenner said they shall take as Executors for it is the proper function of an Executor to entermedle with the Will Gawdy If I make two my Executors Proper benefit and devise the profits of my Land to them untill my Debts and Legacies be paid and untill they have levyed 100. l. after that to their own use I
Rodes Surely I have noted my book that Judgement is given and so I supposed that it had been 5. SHuttelworth moved that whether a Lease is made to a man oâ— his own Land by Deed indented Estopple this is an Estopple whereto the Court agreed But VVindham and Peryam sayd if the Lease be made for life by Indenture Livâ—ry that yet this shall be no Estopple because the Lease takes effect by the Livery and not by the Deed but Rodes did not fully assent to that Anderson was absent in the Staâ—â— chamber 6. DEbt was brought by Lassels upon an Obligation Hill 1â— Eliz. tot 1 511. with condition that if the Defendant did personally appear in the Kings-bench such day Stat. 23 Hen. 6 that then c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. said that he was taken by the Plaintif being Sherif then by force of a Latitat and that the Bond was not made according to the Statute For being made for his deliverance this word personally was inserted in the condition more than is in the Statute And it seemed by three Justices Anderson absente that if it were in such an Action where a man may appear by Attourney that then it shall be voyd but now the question is whether the party ought to appear in proper person by force of a Latitat or no And some said yea and some said no. And the Plaintif shewed a Judgement given in the Kings bench for Sackford against Cutt. where Cutt. was taken by a Latitat and made such an Obligation as this is for his deliverance Sackford being Ballivus sanct Etheldredâ—e in Suff. and adjudged for the Plaintif that the Obligation was good And this was in the Kings-bench Mic. 27 28 Eliz. Rot. 575. but Peryam doubted of that judgement for peradventure he might appear by Attourney Ideo quare for that was the reason of the judgement given in the Kings-bench as it was sayd because he could not appear but in proper person 7. AN Action of Trover was brought for Goods Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded a bargain and sale in open Market thereupon they were at issue and found for the Plaintif and now the Defendant spake in arrest of judgement because the Plaintif had shewed no place of conversion No place of conversion yet notwithstanding by the opinion of the Court the Plaintif shall have his judgement by the Statute Peryam If in Debt upon an Obligation he doe not shew the place 36 El. rot 266. yet if the Defendant plead a collaterall bar as a release or such like judgement shall be given for the Plaintif notwithstanding by the Statute if it be found for him by Verdict 8. THe case of Beverley was moved again at this day Utlary how the Queen had brought a Scire facias against him to shew wherefore she should not have the Presentation Walmisley It seemeth that she shall not have the Presentation for allthough we have recovered our Presentation Disseiser outlawed yet before execution we have but a right As if a man be disseised and after outlawed he shall not forfeit the profits of the land And allso she hath brought a Scire facias and this will not lie except for him which is party or privy Peryam After that you have recovered it is a chattle and then forfeited by the Utlary Anderson The judgment that he shall recover doth not remove the Incumbent and as long as he remains Incumbent the Plaintif hath nothing but a right Then Peryam sayd to Walmisley argue to that point whether he hath but a right or no but for the other point that she shall not have a Scire facias for want of privity that is no reason Recoverer in debt outlawed for in many cases she shall have a Scire facias upon a Record between strangers Anderson If I recover in debt and after am Outlawed Recovery in quare impedit shall the Queen have this debt Windham If I recover in a Quare impedit and dye who shall have the presentation my Executor or my Heir Sed nemo respondit Curia It is a new and a rare case and therefore it is good to be advised VValmisley Whatshall we in the mean time plead in bar to the Scire facias Curia Demur in Law if you hold the matter insufficient VValmisley Sowe will 9. ONe Combford was robbed within the Hundred of Offlay in Stafford-shire Hue Cry and he and his servant pursued the Felons into another County and there one of the Felons was taken and the Hundreds did nothing And now Puckering moved that he might have an Action against the Hundred Plaintif a Hundreder allthough that he himself was resiant within the same Hundred Hue and Cry by strangers but the opinion of the Court was against him for they sayd that if a stranger make Hue and Cry so that the Felons be taken the Hundreds are discharged Another question he moved because that but one of the Felons was taken Quaâ—re But quâ—re what was sayd to that for I heard not 10. FRancis Ashpool brought an Action against the Hundred of Evenger in Hampshire Hue Cry for that he was robbed there And the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that he was robbed after the setting of the Sun per diurnam lucem and that afterwards the same night he came to Andever which is in another Hundred and there gave notice of the robbery and the morning following the men of Andever came into the Hundred of Evenger and there made Hue and cry about ten a clock in the morning and that there were many Towns nearer to the place where he was robbed than Andever was and allso within the same Hundred of Evenger and that the Melafacters escaped and they prayed the advise of the Court. Now this matter rested on two points Robbery after Sunset the first was if he which is robbed after the Sun-set shall have the benefit of the Statute and the other was if he had made Hue and cry accordingly Hue and cry or whether any Hue and cry be needfull And Walmisley argued that he which is robbed after the Sun-set shall be helped by the Statute for they are bound to keep watches in their Towns to take night-walkers And to the second he said that the Statute doth not speak of any Hue and cry but only recens insecutio and that ought to be done by the Hundreders Shuttleworth to the contrary No distcess and that it ought to be in the day and cited Stamf. fol. 35. and after the Sun-set it cannot be said to be day For the Lord cannot then distreyn for his Rent per 11 Hen. 7. 4. nor demand Rent for he is not bound to be there after the Sun-set and he vouched Fitz. titulo core 302. but at this time the Judges seemed to hold for the Plaintif Anderson The Countries are bound by the Statute to
it appeareth to us that Executor or Administrator cannot be charged upon a simple contract and the Court ex officio ought to stay the Judgement and the VVrit at the first ought to have been abated and this is reason and so is the Book in 15 Edw. 4. and then by the assent of the other Judges he gave Judgement accordingly 12. RObert Johnson is Plaintif against Jonathan Carlile in an Ejectione firme Fine and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found a speciall Verdict Hil. 29 El. rot 824. that William Grant was seised in fee of the Lands now in question being held in Socage and devised them to his Wife for term of her life and when John his sonne came to the age of 25 years then he shoâ—ld have those Lands to him and to his heirs of his body ingendred and dyed afterwards the sayd John before that he came to the age of 25 years levyed a Fine thereof in fee and after came to 25 years and had issue a Daughter and dyed and after the Wife dyed then the Daughter entered and made a Lease to the Plaintif the question was no more but whether this Fine levyed by the Father before any thing was in him shall be a bar to the Daughter Rodes The question is if the Daughter may say that her Father had nothing in the Land at the time of the Fine levyed and so by this means Fines shall be of small force Windham and Peryam We have adjudged it lately in Zouches case that the Issue shall not have this averment Parties and privies shall have no averment Shuttelworth for the Plaintif If it were in Pleading I grant it well but here it is found by Verdict Curia This will not help you for by the Fine the Right is extinct Windham When my Lord Anderson cometh you shall have a short rule in the case Shuttelworth Too short I doubt for us After at another day Shuttelworth moved the case again Anderson May he which levyed this Fine avoyd it by this way Shuttelworth No Sir Anderson How then can he which is privy avoyd it Shuttelworth By Plea he cannot Anderson The Verdict will not amend the matter Fenner If I make a Feoffment upon condition Feoffment upon condition and after levy a Fine of the same land to a stranger and after I re-enter for the condition broken the stranger shall not have the land Curia VVe have given Judgement clearly to the contrary in the case of Zouch And your opinion is no authority 13. A Writ of Dower was brought by John Hunt and Ioan his Wife late the Wife of Austin Dower for the third part of Lands in Wolwich the Defendant pleaded that the Lands are Gavelkind Trin. 30. Eliz rot 156. And that the Custom of Gavelkind within the County of Kent is that the Wife shall have the Moity during her Widowhood according to the Custom and not any third part according to the Common Law upon which Plea the Defendant demurred in Law Negative preâ—cription And one question was whether this Prescription in the Negative be good with the Affirmative And the other doubt was if the Wife may wave her Dower by the Custom and take it according to the Common Law And the Justices held the Prescription good enough being in the Negative with the Affirmative Iâ—â—eritance Windham This Custom shall bind the Heir and his Inheritance and by the same reason it shall bind the Wife and her Dower which Peryam granted expresly Rodes was absent and Anderson spake not to that second point But all the Court agreed clearly that as this Custom is alleged she shall be barred of her Dower And so they commanded to enter Judgement accordingly but if the pleading had been in the Affirmative onely without the Negative then the second point had come in question 14. WAlmisley prayed the opinion of the Court in this case Extent The Sherif extendeth Lands upon a Statute Staple and whether the Conusee shall bâ— said to be in Possession thereof before they be delivered to him or no Anderson Allthough that they be extended Refusall yet the Conusee may refuse to receive them Walmisley True Sir Anderson Then hath he nothing in them before he have received them for he may pray that the Lands may be delivered to the Praisors according to the Statute of Acton Burnell Windham Your meaning is to know if the Rent incurres when the Land is in the Sherifs hands if you shall have it Walmisley True Sir that is our very case Anderson Then this is the matter whether you shall have the Rent or the Conusor or the Queen but how can you claim it Windham The Lands are in the Queens hands Peryam The Writ is Cape in manum nostram Rodes This is like to the case of disceit where he shall not have the mean issues So as it seemed to them Disceit the Conusee shall not have it but they did not say expressly who should have it 15. TRespass quare clausum fregit was brougâ—t ' against two the one appeared Simul cum Dyer 239. and the other was outlawed and the Plaintif declared against the one onely who by Verdict was found guilty and now Walmisley spake in arrest of Judgement that he should have declared against them both or against the one simuleum c. But the Court thought that this was helped by the Statute of Jeofailes but at this time they were not resolved 16. A Speciall Verdict was found Disability of the Devisor at the time of his death that a Woman sole was seised of certain Lands held in Socage and by her last Will devised them to I. S. in Fee and after she did take the devisee to Husband and during the Coverture she Countermanded her Will saying that her Husband should not have the Land nor any other advantage by her Will and then died Now whether this be a sufficient Countermand so that the Husband shall not have the Land was the question Shuttleworth For as much as she was Covert-Baron at the time of her death therefore the Will was void for a Feme-Covert cannot make a Will and a Will hath no perfection untill after the death of the Devisor Gawdy In Wills the time of the making is as weâ—l to be respected Taking a Husband is no Countermand of the Wife as the death of the Devisor And then she being sole at the time of the making allthough that afterwards she took a Husband yet this is no Countermand and so is Bret. and Rigdens case in the Commentaries Anderson If a man make his Will and then become non compos mentis Not of sound mind yet the Will is good for it is Common that a man a little before his death hath no good memory Shuttleworth I do not agree the Law to be so and so Rodes seemed to agree but Anderson affirmed as before Windam I doe not doubt but such a