pray'd 91 594. in not certifying Pledges on Diminution alledged in a Writ of Error for that Cause per Cur ' Omission of Pledges or of one is Error tho' after a Verdict and the Defendant after in nullo est erratum pleaded may pray Diminution which cannot be granted but on Motion and then only to affirm the Judgment yet when the Record is come in it may be made use of to avoid the Judgment and because Diminution was not prayed the Court conceived it cannot be assigned for Error 1 Keb. 278 281. Hodges's Case Bail In Ejectment against Two one does not put in Bail it is Error 2 Rolls Abr. 46. Dennis Case In Ejectment on Non Culp pleaded by the Attorney for the Defendant Common Bail entred after the Attorney was dead Verdict was for the Plaintiff who had Judgment and Error was brought to reverse it because no Bail was put in for the Defendant yet the Attorney being once retained by Warrant to put in Bail and took his Fee and being but common Bail tho' the Attorney was dead yet the Bail was then entred as of the same Term it ought to have been done 3 Bulstr 181. Denham and Comber Trespass is within the Act of 21 Jac. which names Trespass generally Stat. 13 Car. c. 2. but Ejectment is not within that Act. Stat. 13 Car. 2. c. 2. orders Bail on Error in Trespass 1 Keb. 295. Power 's Case Note Error without Bail is a Supersedeas in Ejectment notwithstanding the new Act 13 Car. 2. c. 2. it being not within the general Word Trespass Id. p. 308. Lufton and Johnson Tr. When common Bail to be filed 14 Car. 2. B. R. ordered that Common Bail shall be filed for the Defendant before any Declaration by Bill in such Action shall be delivered to the Tenant in Possession of the Lands in such Declaration contained and that if the Attorney for the Plaintiff in B. R. shall fail thereof then no Judgment for the Plaintiff shall be entred against the casual Ejector nor shall the Tenant in Possession confess Lease-entry and Ouster at the Trial. Attorney was made Lessee in Ejectment Imparlance and he would not grant an Imparlance to the Defendant as the Course is because he is Attorney of this Court B. R. and so claims Priviledge that the Defendant may answer him this Term or else he will enter up Judgment against him for want of a Plea Quaere Stiles Rep. 367. CHAP. IV. Against whom Ejectione Firme lies or not and of the casual Ejector Of the old way of Sealing Leases of Ejectment by Corporations by Baron and Feme in what Cases now to be used EJectione Firme against one Simul cum had been ruled to be good and so used in the Common Pleas tho' heretofore it was adjudged to the contrary Stiles Rep. 15. It lies against Baron and Feme Lib. Intr. 253. 9. Rep. 77. e. Peytoe's Case Plo. 187. It lies against the Ejector or wrong Doer be who he will When the Course was to seal an Ejectment to try a Title of Land Who was accounted an Ejector formerly the Ejector in Law was any Person that comes upon any part of the Land c. in the Ejectment-Lease tho' it be by chance and with no intent to disturb the Lessee of Possession next after the Sealing and Delivery of the Ejectment-Lease and such an Ejector was a good Ejector against whom an Action of Ejectione Firme may be brought to try the Title of the Land in Question But he that was to try a Title of Land in Ejectment ought not to have made an Ejector of his own against whom he might bring his Action or to consent or agree with one to come upon the Land let in the Ejectment-Lease with an Intent to make him an Ector and to bring his Action against him for by that means the Tenant in Possession of the Land was after put out of Possession by a Writ of Habere fac ' possessionem without any Notice given to him or his Lessor of the Suit but now the Law is otherwise and altered by the new way of Practice The new course in Ejectments For now it is not usual to seal any Lease of Ejectment at all in this Action but the Plaintiff that intends to try the Title feigns a Lease of Ejectment in his Declaration and an Ejector and draws a Declaration against his own Ejector who sends or delivers a Copy thereof to the Tenant in Possession giving him Notice to appear and defend his Title or else the Ejector will confess or suffer Judgment by Default But if the Tenant or the Lessor will defend the Title then it is usual for them to move the Court that they may be made Ejector to defend the Title that is the Tenant appears and consents to a Rule with the Plaintiff's Attorney to make himself Defendant in the room of the casual Ejector and this the Court will grant if he will confess Lease Entry and Ouster and at the Trial stand meerly upon the Title but if they do not at the Trial confess Lease Entry and Ouster then the Judgment shall be entred against the casual viz. the Plaintiff's own Ejector Note The Court said in Addison's Case Mod. Rep. 252. That they take no Notice judicially that the Lessor of the Plaintiff is the Party interested therefore they punish the Plaintiff if he release the Damages but in point of Costs they take notice of him But before I proceed further The old way of Sealing Leases of Ejectment I hope it will not be tedious a little to shew how the Law and Practice was taken when Ejectment-Leases were sealed and Entries to be duly made and Warrants of Attorney made to deliver the Lease upon the Land by a Corporation Baron and Feme c. especially considering that in Inferiour Courts the old way of actual sealing Leases is continued Winch 50. 1 Brow nl 129. Godb. 72. Earl of Kent's Case And first The way to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many Men's Hands was to enter into one of the Parcels and leave one in that place and then he must go into another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he had made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those Men that were left there must come out of the Land But when a Title was to be tryed by Ejectment and a Lease to be executed by a Letter of Attorney the Course was That the Lessor do seal the Lease only and deliver it as an Escrow and the Letter of Attorney and deliver the Letter of Attorney but not the Lease for the Attorney must deliver that upon the Land And upon Ejectment brought of Land in Two Villages as of an House and Forty Acres of Land in A. and B. and a special Entry in the Land adjoyning to the House viz. the putting in of an Horse which was drove out
Cost 1 Ventr 124. Adminstrator brought a Writ of Errorupon a Judgment given in Ejectment against the Intestate Per Cur ' he shall pay no Costs tho' the Judgment was affirmed and the Writ brought in Dilatione executionis 1 Ventr Writ of Inquiry It was assigned for Error That a Writ of Enquiry of Damages was awarded and no day given to any of the Parties to be there at the time of the Retorn The Entry for the Entry ought to be Ideo dies datus partibus praedictis or at least to the Plaintiff that so he might then pray his Judgment sed non allocat ' for the Defendant is not to have day and the Plaintiff is to attend at his Peril and so is the Course of the Common Pleas aliter in the King's Bench Cro. El. p. 144. Mathew and Hassel E. in Ejectione Firme had Judgment by Default against the Defendant whereupon a Writ of Enquiry issues out to enquire of the Damages and before the Retorn thereof the Defendant brought a Writ of Error the Question was Whether the Writ of Error were well brought in regard the Course of the Common Pleas is not to make up the Judgment until the Writ of Enquiry be retorned Rolls said A Writ of Error may be brought before the Writ of Enquiry be retorned in Ejectione Firme for in that Action the Judgment is compleat at the Common Law before it be retorned for the Judgment is but to gain Possession and so it is in a Writ of Dower But in an Action of Trespass where Damages are only to be recovered there the Judgment is not perfect till the Writ of Enquiry be retorned nor can be made up as in this Case it may But in regard that here is no compleat Judgment for there is no Capias which ought to be in all Actions Quare vi armis that the King may have his Fine which else he cannot have if the Party do not proceed in his Writ of Enquiry the Writ of Error is brought too soon and you may proceed to Execution in the Common Pleas for the compleat Record is not here Afterwards in another Case Rolls was of Opinion That it was a perfect Judgment and it is in your Power said he to the Defendant's Council whether you will have a Writ of Enquiry or not and if the Judgment be affirmed here upon the Writ of Error brought you may have a Writ of Enquiry in B. R. the Council therefore moved for a Certiorari Rolls take it but it will do you no good for the Judgment is well Stiles Rep. Glide and Dudenu's Case p. 122. Crook and Sanny Stiles 127. The Writ of Error lies upon the Judgment before the Retorn of the Writ of Enquiry and why This Point is setled now in both Courts In Ejectione Firme if the Plaintiff recover by Nihil dicit in which Judgment is given that the Plaintiff shall recover his Term and a Writ is awarded to enquire of Damages a Writ of Error lies upon this Judgment before the Retorn of the Writ of Enquiry of Damages and Judgment upon it for the Judgment is perfect as to the Recovery of the Term before by the first Judgment and the Plaintiff may presently have Execution for the Possession and peradventure he never will have Judgment for the Damages and so the Defendant shall be ousted of his Possession sans Remedy So it is if a Man recover in Ejectione Firme by Confession or non sum informatus or Demurrer a Writ of Error lies before the Damages taxed by Writ of Enquiry 1 Rolls p. 750 751. Newton and Terry Taverner and Fawcet Booth and Errington 5 Rep. Wymarth and House and Layton Latch p. 212. Council prayed Abatement of a Writ of Enquiry on 16 and 17 Car. Abatement by Death after Judgment or pendant Error but not after Affirmance 2. c. 8. by Affidavit of Cesty que vie's Death after the Judgment two days and by the Act from the Judgment affirmed in Error which was a Term after which the Court granted But it were better the mean Profits were recoverable in Ejectment by the same Verdict Wild held this should be given in Evidence on the Writ of Enquiry but being no Bar but in mitigation that is not sufficient and it was staid Warren and Orpwood M. 25 Car. 2. B. R. 3 Keb. p. 218. CHAP. XIV Of Judgment in Ejectment and Execution The Form of entring Judgment in this Action How the Entry is when part is for the Plaintiff and part against him How against several Ejectors The Form of the Entry in case of Death of the Plaintiff or Defendant After Verdict and before Judgment the Plaintiff dies Ejectment for the whole and no Title but to a Moiety For what Causes Judgments in Ejectment are arrestable or erroneous In what Cases Judgment shall be amended Of Judgment against ones own Ejector NO Judgment in Ejectment till Latitat filed Note and Bail 2 Keb. 743. The Form of entring Judgments in this Action In Cr. Quod recuperet possessionem termini El. 144. Matthew and Hassel's Case It was assigned for Error That the Judgment was Quod recuperet possessionem termini praedict ' where it should be Quod recuperet terminum for as in a Real Action he is to recover Seisin so in a Personal he is to recover Possession and the Writ is habere fac ' possessionem 1 Leon. p. 175. mesme Case All the Course of Entries How the Entry is when part is made pro Quer ' and part against when part is found for the Plaintiff and part against him is to enter only Quod Def. eat inde sine die quoad c. whereof he is acquitted It was Taylor and Woldboro's Case Cr. El. 768. Error of a Judgment in Ejectment was brought because the Defendant was found Not guilty quoad a third part and the Judgment is entred thereupon Quod Def. eat inde sine die quer ' in misericordia c. whereas it ought to have been Quod le Plaintiff nil capiat per Billam for that third part sed non allocatâ—r causa qua supra Cro. El. 768. and the Court would have affirmed the Judgment but because the Plaintiff had not appeared that Term they caused him to be nonsuited In 1 Rolls Rep. Quod Def. sit quietus 51. Error was assigned because the Judgment in Ejectione Firme in Wales was Quod Def. sit quietus such Judgment being only given in a Writ of Right and such Actions which are final but this Action is not final and the Judgment should be Quod Def. eat inde sine die Sir William Morris and Cadwallader's Case In Ejectione Firme Quod Def. remaneat indefens ' if upon Non sum informatus pleaded Judgment be given Quod Def. remaneat indefensus without saying versus querent ' yet its good 1 Rolls Abr. 772. Fiegot and Mallory Ejectment was against several Defendants Against several Ejectors c.
Names of Baptism and cannot be amended but Curia advisare from Hillary Term till Pasche in the mean time the Defendant in the Writ of Error obtained a Release of all Errors from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error and the first day of Term Pasch pleaded it in Bar as a Plea puis darrein Continuance and thereupon a Demurer was entred in the Names of both the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error Release from one of the Plaintiffs in Error shall bar only him that released it and why for in nullo est erratum being pleaded before there could not now be any Summons and Severance Per Curiam this Release shall bar him only that released it and not the other Plaintiff though the Action was in the personalty For the Plea being by way of Action to discharge themselves of Damages which were recovered against them and to be restored to the possession which was lost by the first Judgment and they being joyned in the first Action by the Act of the Plaintiff and their own voluntary Act it is not reason that the Act of one shall charge or prejudice the other But otherwise if they had been Plaintiffs in the Record by their own Act Cro. Jac. 116. Blewit and Snedstow Verdict was pro Quer ' for 10 Messuages 15 Acres of Land 15 Acres of Meadow and 20 Acres of Pasture and as to the Residue Non Culp And the Judgment was That the Plaintiff should recover the Messuages and the greater Quantity of Acres which were in the Verdict Upon which the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error and assigned Errors and had a Scire fac and before the Defendant in the Writ of Error joyned in nullo est erratum it was moved in Common Bench for amendment of the Judgment It was objected 1. That the time after the Assignment of the Error was past for the amendment Amendment of the Judgment before a Certiorari awarded in Error Per Cur. The time is not past so long as a Diminution may be alledged or a Certiorari awarded it may be amended 2. The Judgment is the Act of the Court and therefore may not be amended Per Cur. It is the default of the Clerk who did not enter the Judgment according to the Verdict Jones Rep. p. 9. Ejectione Firme by two against one Defendant And on Not guilty Verdict for the Plaintiff The Error assigned was because Constantinus Callard was returned and so named in the Distringas but in the Pannel annext thereto by the Sheriff Constantius Callard was Returned and Sworn Release of Errors from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error pleaded shall bar only him that Released it and why and so was returned by that name on the back of the Postea It s manifest Error for they be distinct names of Baptism and not amendable But Curia advisare In the mean time the Defendant in the Writ of Error obtained a Release of all Errors from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error Ejectment against the Release of one shall not bar the other of a Writ of Error because this is to recover nothing but to have restitution of that which he lost by the Judgment And the first day of Easter Term pleaded it in Bar as a Plea puis darraine Continuance and thereon a Demur entred in the name of both the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error For in nullo est erratum being pleaded before there could not be any Summons and Severance Per Cur. This Release shall bar only him that Released it for the Plea being by way of Action to discharge themselves of Damages which were recovered against them and to be restored to the Possession which was lost by the first Judgment and they being joyned in the first Action by the Act of the Plaintiff and not by their own voluntary Act it is not Reason that the Act of one should charge or prejudice the other for then by such practice any one might be charged and should have no remedy to discharge himself And the Judgment was reversed quoad him that did not Release and that he should be restored to all what he lost and quoad the other who released that he should be barred in his Writ of Error Cro. Jac. 116. Bluit and Snedstow 2 Rolls Ab. 411. Mesme Case So the Defendant in the Writ of Error Pleads Outlawry in one of the Plaintiffs Outlawry in one of the Plaintiffs pleaded in Error Per Cur. It s no Bar because this is an Action not to recover any thing but to restore them to what they had lost and to discharge them of Damages and Fines and they are forced to joyn because one of the Plaintiffs was a Defendant in the former Action Cro. Jac. 616. Bythell and Harrts Error without Bail is a Supersedeas in Ejectment Error without Bail a supersedeas 13 Car. 2. c. 2. notwithstanding the Act of 13 Car. 2. c. 2. being not within the general word Trespass 1 Keb. 308. Lufton's Case And unless all the Defendants in Ejectment do give Recognizance it s no Supersedeas for as to the Land its intire 3 Keb. 138. Cole and Levingstone Baron and Feme Lessors it s no Error to alledge the the death of the Wife before â—udgment Baron seised in the Right of the Feme makes an Ejectment Lease and the Lessee brings an Action upon it and hath a Verdict and Judgment it s not Error to alledge the death of the Wife before Judgment by which the interest of the Husband and Lease by him made to the Plaintiff determines because neither the Wife nor the Husband are Parties to the Action and this determins upon the Title to the Land for the Plaintiff may say That the Husband was seised in his own right 1 Rolls Abr. 768. Wilks and Jordan Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment in Ejectione Firme The Plaintiff in Ejectment dead before Judgment and Error in Fact assigned viz. That the Plaintiff in the Ejectment was dead before Judgment To which he that was Attorney for the Plaintiff pleaded That he was alive at such a place and upon this Issue joyned and found that he was dead Per Cur. The Issue is well joyned and the Judgment shall be reversed for this Error without Scirc fac against the Executors for until the Issue tried none can deny but that the appearance was good But the surer way had been for the Attorney to have pleaded quod venit pro magistro suo D. and not qd D. venit per Attornat Siderf p. 93. Dove and Darcen If a Man recover in Ejectione Firme The Plaintiff dies between Verdict and Judgment the Judgment is voidable by Error and after his Executor Sues Execution by Scire fac ' against the Recoveree the Recoveree may not avoid the Judgment nor stay Execution by saying That the Plaintiff died between the Verdict and Judgment or such like But he is put to his
Writ of Error for the Judgment is only voidable 1 Rolls Abr. 742. Hide and Markham But in 1 Rolls Abr. 768. If a Man brings Ejectione Firme in B. R. and there he hath a Verdict on Tryal at the Bar and after and before Judgment he dies The Plaintiff dies after Trial Judgment may be given and after Judgment is given against him the same Term. This is not Error because the Judgment relates to the Verdict Hide and Mark 's Case Lessor of the Plaintiff in Ejectment Lessor of the Plaintiffmay may have 〈◊〉 Writ of Error may have a Writ of Error upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firme Siderf 317. Cole's Case Release of Error vid. supra The Issue was that H. who was casual Ejector and gave Release of Errors was not the same Person Being tried The Court would not suffer the Defendant to Assign Error but conceived he was barred now 1 Keb. 755. Keyes and Bredon The Defendant obtains a Release of his casual Ejector Issue that he that made the Release was not the same person and pleads it to a Writ of Error of a Judgment by defalt of Ejectment in Ireland altho' the Issue was that he that made the Release was not the same Person as was casual Ejector Yet per Cur. It ought to be set aside and the Error Assigned 1 Keb. 705. vid. 7. Release by Casual Ejector is a fraud The Court conceived a Release of Errors Release by Casual Ejector a fraud obtained of the Casual Ejector by the Lessor being but Fictitious is void And the Court made a Rule That no such Release be accepted without Leave of the Court 1 Keb. 740. Keys and Bredon The Case was As it is Reported in Raymond 93 Keyes and Bredon The Plaintiff obtains a Judgment against his own Ejector in a Case where an Infant was in Possession and the Party concerned in the Lands Release by Casual Ejector a fraud brings a Writ of Error in the name of the feigned Defendant The Plaintiff in the Writ Pleads the Release of the Defendant Per Cur. Such Release shall not be allowed And the Court will not permit the Party to proceed to try the Issue if the Release be good or not because it is to Bar the Right of a third person On Ejectment after Judgment against Casual Ejector for not confessing Lease Entry and Ouster the Defendant in the Ejector's name brought a Writ of Error Ejector disavows the Suit and now the Ejector was brought to the Clerk of the Errors and disavowed the Suit and thereupon it was prayed by Council that a non Pros may be entred as is the usual Course in such Case 2 Keb. 579. M. 21. Car. 2. VVats and Loyd In the Lord Byron and Sir VVilliam Juxon's Case Council prayed leave to discontinue a Writ of Error brought in the Ejector's name of Judgment in the County Palatine of Lancaster against him by default shewing a Release of Errors by the Casual Ejector But the Court denied it but left them to Non suit the Plaintiff in Error 2 Keb. 853. A Release of Error by the Causual Ejector no Discontinuance in Error 2 Keb. 853. Ejectment was brought against eight Defendants in B. C. Error was brought grounded upon the Judgment and the Writ was ad grave damnum ipsorum and the Judgment was only against three and other five were acquitted The Error was assigned in the Non-age of the three Per Cur. The Writ of Error was good tho' it might be also ad damnum of those convicted But being only in the nature of a Commission whereby the King Commands the Errors to be examined this matter is not material Hob. 70. Yelv. 209. By Twisden The constant practice is for all to joyn and per tot Cur. Judgment ought to be reversed against all Error of a Judgment in Ejectione Firme and in the Record a space was left to insert the Costs which had not been taxed if such an imperfect Record be certified yet it might be amended by Rule of Court there and then if it be removed by Error the Court there must amend it For it is the constant practice That if a Record be removed into the King's Bench out of the Court of Common Pleas by Writ of Error and afterwards amended by Rule of Court in the Common Pleas The Court of King's Bench must amend it accordingly vid. Hard. p. 905. 1 Ventr 165. Bell and Richards Ejectment was brought in C. B. in Ireland and declares against Commyn de Castrovilla Terris de Kilborough in such a County The Plaintiff had Verdict and Judgment Commyn brought a Writ of Error in B. R. in Ireland Error in Irel. and Assigns for Error the want of an Oiginal The Plaintiff rejoyns that such a Day an Original Writ was delivered to such a one and concludes to the Country And the Judgment was reversed there for want of an Original on which the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error for reversal in B. R. in England And the Judgment given in B. R. in Ireland was reversed here for the matter was discontinued Because the Defendant in Ireland concludes al pais where in truth the matter of his Plea should be tried by the Record and the Plaintiff in Error doth not Reply or Demurr upon the Plea of the Defendant and so all is discontinued Also there was another apparent Error in the Declaration viz. the Action brought de castro villa terris in Kilborough without expressing the number and certainty of Acres and upon such general demand no Habere fac ' Possessionem can be awarded and executed Yelv. 117. St. John vers Commyn THE TABLE A. WHat shall be a good Plea in Abatement 110 After Imparlance no Pleading in Abatement and why 111 Where a Man Pleads in Abatement he ought to give the Plaintiff a better Writ ibid. Where the Plaintiff by his Demand confesseth the Writ abateable 112 Actions real changed in Ejectments and why 2 Acres according to the Statute Measure Accord and Satisfaction a good Plea in Ejectment 122 Declaration in Ejectment by Administrators 78 79 Amendment of Original Writs in Ejectment 27 Where and in what Cases Special Verdicts shall be amended Record of Nisi prius variant from the Roll not amendable 217 Affidavit in Ejectment to move for Judgment against the Casual Ejector Where an Answer in Chancery shall be good Evidence at a Tryal 161 Judgment against the Casual Ejector for want of Appearance 29 Appropriation Evidence 168 How Ejectment lies in Ancient Demesne 10 Ancient Demesne pleaded in Ejectment 116 Whether it may be pleaded after Imparlance 116 117 118 Plea of Ancient Demesne allowed the same Term and how 118 Aid Prier where it shall be granted in this Action and where not 122 B. The Bail Lets Lands to B. Judgment is against the Principal and extent on the Lands Leased B. brings Ejectment 21 Common Bail entered after the Attorney was dead 31 When Common Bail to
or Will and so the Jury may find them the Deed or Will not being found in haec verba Stiles p. 34. Wright and Pindar A Deed made before the time of Memory A Deed made before time of Memory Ancient Deed. may be given in Evidence tho' it cannot be pleaded An ancient Deed is good Evidence without proving or Seal to it P. 17 Car. 2. B. R. Wright and Sherrard A Will Will. Probate under which a Title of Land is made must be shewed it self and the Probate is not sufficient Contra if it were on a Circumstance or as Inducement or that the Will remain in Chancery or other Court by Special Order of such Court 1 Keb. 117. Eden and Thalkill 2 Rolls 678. So is Brett's A Probate of a Will by Witnesses for Lands is not Evidence at Common Law And nothing can be given in Evidence against the Probate of a Will but Forgery of it or its being obtained by Surprize and so it 's conclusive Raym. 405. Error was brought of a Judgment in C. B. in Ireland in Ejectment The Question was upon a Bill of Exception for that the Justices of the Bench there would not direct the Jury Bill of Exceptions on the Probate of a Will that the Probate of a Will before the Archbishop of Canterbury the Testator dying in his Province and also the Bishop of Fernes were sufficient and conclusive Evidence but only affirmed it was good Evidence leaving it to the Jury To which the other Party shews in Evidence Letters of Administration of the Goods under Seal of the Primate of Ireland The Title was for a Lease for years in Ireland claimed by the Lessor of the Plaintiff under the said Administrator And Judgment was affirmed Per Curiam Where Bills Answers Depositions c. in Chancery shall be good Evidence in this Action or not In Ejectment the Defendant that made Title as a Purchasor under a Devisee Bill preferred by the Heir against the Devisee setting forth the Will and shewed only a Bill in Chancery preferred by the Heir under whom the Lessor of the Plaintiff claims against the Devisee whereby the Will was set forth and confessed in the Answer But per Curiam it is no Evidence tho' a Possession were proved accordingly in the Devisee and that this had been confessed by the Plaintiff in a former Tryal 2 Keb. 35. Evans and Herbert And yet in 1 Ventr p. 66. A Bill in Chancery was said to be given in Evidence against the Complainant On a Tryal in Ejectment it was shewed for Evidence That the Defendant P. was guilty of Simony for giving 100 l. per Annum to M. the Patron and to prove this they shewed a Bond conditioned to pay 100 l. per Annum generally And they say That an Action of Debt was brought against P. and P. had preferred his Bill in Chancery to be relieved against this Bond and by it disclosed that it was entred into for the Cause aforesaid But to that it was Answered That P. was presented by G. but it appeared that G. acted as a Servant to M. the Patron and it was opposed Where a Copy of a Bill shall be read as Evidence That this Bill is no Evidence because it only contains Matter suggested perhaps by the Council or Sollicitor without the Privity of the Party But per Curiam the Copy of the Bill shall be read as Evidence for it shall not be intended it was preferred without the Privity of the Party and it being disclosed by the Party himself otherwise they would not allow a Bill in Evidence if there be not Answer and other Proceedings upon it Siderf p. 220. Dr. Crawley's Case But at a Tryal the Plaintiff to prove his Bond offered a Bill by the Defendant in Chancery which Keeling Chief Justice held good Evidence as in the Parson of Amersham's Case Dr. Crawley where a Bill by P. a Simoniac to be relieved against his Bond was admitted against himself this being the Drift of the Bill and not any particular Allegation But the Court would not allow it Where an Answer in Chancery shall be good Evidence at a Tryal or not In a Tryal at Bar between Mills and Bernardiston an Answer of L. M. surviving Trustee under whom the Plaintiff claimed was offered for Evidence but being after a Conveyance by him the Court refused but had it been before it would be good against all claiming under him Answer ' good Evidence against the Defendant himself but not against other Parties But Twisden denied it because an Answer does not discover the whole Truth and therefore shall be only admitted against the Party himself that made it and not of one Defendant against another much less against a Stranger 2 Car. 2. B. R. And by Ley Chamberlain and Dodderidge a Defendant's Answer in an English Court is a good Evidence to be given to a Jury against the Defendant himself but it is no good Evidence against other Parties Godb. Case 418. 2 Rolls Rep. 311. Berisford and Phillips And if the Defendant's Answer be read to the Jury it is not binding to the Jury and it may be read to them by the Assent of the Parties Godb. 326. An Infant answered a Bill in Chancery by his Guardian Infant 's Answer by Guardian not to be read in Evidence against the Infant and it was a Question in Leigh and Ward 's Case in a Tryal at Bar in Ejectment where the Infant was Party whether that Answer could be read in Evidence against the Infant This Question was sent from the King's Bench by Justice Eyres to the Common Pleas to know their Opinion and per totam Curiam it could not be read for there is no Reason that what the Guardian swears in his Answer should affect the Infant 2 Ventr 1 William and Mary Where and in what Cases Depositions shall be read at a Tryal and where not Regularly the Depositions in Chancery or Exchequer Depositions no Evidence if the Party be alive of a Witness shall not be given in Evidence if he be alive But if Affidavit be made that he is dead they shall in a Cause between the same Parties Plaintiffs and Defendants Godb. p. 193. Sir Francis Fortescue Depositions taken in Chancery in perpetuam rei memoriam Depositions no Evidence without an Answer put in upon a Bill for that purpose exhibited cannot be given in Evidence in a Tryal at Law unless there be an Answer put in and produced Hardr. 336. Raymund Watts's Case Depositions taken before Commissioners of Bankrupts Depositions before Commissioners of Bankrupts no Evidence at a Tryal shall not be used as Evidence at a Tryal altho' the Witnesses be dead but Depositions taken before the Coroner with Proof that the Party made them if dead shall be good Evidence P. 18 Car. 2. Bick and Browning Exemplification of Depositions under the Great Seal Exemplificat ' 〈◊〉 Depositioâ—â— 988. whereby a Conveyance made
in Common by Baron and Feme By Joynt-tenants by a Corporation by Copyholder by Administrator CHAP. VII Where in the Declaration a Life must be averred and where it need not Of Delivery of Declarations at or after the Essoyn-day Declations when to be entred as of the same Term where the Copies need not to be paid for Declarations when amendable or not Of expressing the Vills where the Lands lie Of the Pernomen If it need to be of more Acres than the Plaintiff was ejected out of Of the Forms of the Declaration Vi Armis omitted Extr. tenet omitted The President of Declarations in B. C. in B. R. and in the Excheq The Indorsment of the Copy left with the Tenant and what the Tenant is to do thereupon The Rule of confessing Lease Entry and Ouster in C. B. and B. R. Affidavit in Ejectment to move for Judgment against the Casual Ejector CHAP. VIII What shall be a good Plea in Abatement in this Action Of Entry of the Plaintiff hanging the Writ Entry after Verdict and before the day in Bank After Imparlance no Pleading in Abatement and why Abatement because the Plaintiff shews not in which of the Vills the Land lies Ejectment against Baron and Feme Baron dies since the Nisi prius and before the day in Bank Of pleading to the Jurisdiction Conisance not allowable on Suggestion but it must be averred or pleaded How Prescription to the Cinque Ports to be made Ancient Demesne a good Plea in Ejectment and why It s a good Plea after Imparlance and why Of Plea of Ancient Demesne allowed the same Term and how Of Pleas puis darrein Continuance Entry puis darrein Continuance pleaded at the Assizes is resceivable and the Consequence of a Demurrer to this Plea Release of one of the Plaintiffs in a Writ of Error whom it shall bar Of Release puis darrein Continuance Plaintiff demurs to Plea of Entry puis darrein Continuance Quid Sequitur Accord and Satisfaction pleaded Aid prier and why the Defendant shall not have Aid pryer of the King aliter of a common Person A Writ not to proceed Rege inconsulto allowed Recovery and Execution in a former Action pleaded in Bar. Bar in one Ejectione Firme how a Bar in another CHAP. IX Of Challenge What is principal Challenge or not Of Elisors Of Venue VVhere the Parish and Vill shall be intended all one VVhere it shall not be de Corpore Comitatus VVhere the Venire fac ' is amendable Venire fac ' to the Coroners because the Sheriff was Cousen to one of the Defendants A Venire de Foresta Venire de Novo for Baron and Feme CHAP. X. XI Of Joyning Issue and Tryal In what Case no Verdict shall be Entred One Defendant Pleads Not guilty the other Demurs no Judgment upon the Demurrer till the Issue be tried Writ to Prohibit the Tryal Rege inconsulto Tryal in the Marches Consent to alter the Tryal New Tryal denied Of consent to a Tryal in a Foreign County Of Tryal in other County than where the Land lies Of Tryal by Mittimus in the County Palatine Who shall be good Witnesses in this Action or not Copy of a Deed. Deed cancelled Conditions Collateral Warrants found by a Jury What is good Evidence in Reference to a former Mortgage Where the probate of a Will is sufficient Evidence or not In Case of a Rectory what is good Evidence and what things the PaRson must prove Ancient Deeds Scirograph of a Fine Constant Enjoyment Evidence as to an Appropriation Deposition of Bankrupts Depositions in Chancery Transcript of a Record Inrolment of a Deed. Doomsday Book Of variance between the Declaration and the Evidence Of Demurrer to an Evidence ExEmplification of a Verdict Verdict Of a General Verdict Of Special Verdict Of Council subscribing the Points in Question Of finding Deeds in haec verba Eight Rules of Special Verdicts in Ejectment Of Estoppels found by the Jury and how they shall be binding What is a material variance between the Declaration and the Verdict Of Priority of Possession Where the Special conclusion of the Verdict shall aid the imperfections of it Where and in what Cases the Verdict makes the Declaration good Verdict Special taken according to intent Difference where the Verdict concludes Specially in one Point and where it concludes in General or between the Special conclusion of the Jury and their reference to the Court. Circumstances in a Special Verdict need not be precisely found Where the Judges are not bound by the Conclusion of the Jury Of certainty and uncertainty in Special Verdicts Of the finding Quoad residuum certainty or uncertainty in reference to Acres Parishes Vills and time of Verdicts being taken by Parcels How the Ejectment of a Manor to be brought Of a Verdict on other Lease or Date than is declared upon which shall be good or not Where a Verdict shall be good for part and void for the Residue The time of the Entry of the Plaintiffs Lessor where material Where the Jury ought to find an actual Ouster on him that had the right Prout lex postulat how to be understood Where and in what Cases Special Verdicts may be amended Where the Jury may conclude upon a Moiety or not Where a dying Seised or Possest must be found Where the commencement of an Estate Tail is to be found CHAP. XII Where the Defendant shall have Costs How the Plaintiff may aid himself by Release of Damages Executor not to pay Costs Lessor of the Plaintiff where to pay Costs Where Tenant in Possession liable to pay Costs or not Feme to pay Costs on the Death of her Husband Infant Lessor to pay Costs of the Writ of Enquiry the Entry If Writ of Error lies upon the Judgment before the Writ of Enquiry and why Writ of Enquiry how abated Costs for want of Entring Continuances Where the sole remedy for Costs in the first Tryal is to be had CHAP. XIII The Form of entring Judgments in this Action How the Entry is when part is found for the Plaintiff and part against him Qd. Def. sit quietus Quod Def. remaneat indefenss Against several Ejectors of form Of the Entry in case of the Plaintiff or Defendant One of the Plaintiffs died during a Curia advisare vult If the Death of one Defendant shall abate the Writ One Defendant dies after Issue joyned After Verdict and before Judgment the Plaintiff dies What Notice the Court takes of the Lessor of the Plaintiff Ejectment for the whole and a Title but for a Moiety how Judgment shall be In what Cases and for what Causes Judgment in Ejectments are Arrestable as Erreneous Judgment for the whole where it ought to be for a Moiety More Damages found than the Plaintiff Counts Judgment against Gardian and Infant Not severing intire Damages Against Baron and Feme quod capiantur Vi Armis omitted in the Declaration Plaintiff brings a Writ of Error and the Judgment is reversed
what Judgment he shall have What Judgment shall be if the Lease expires before Judgment In what Cases Judgments shall be amended Mistakes of Acres Omission Defalts of Clerk Variance of parcel If Scire facias on a Judgment in Ejectment may be brought by the Administrator of the Lessee No Judgment upon Nihil dicit but upon motion in Court of Judgment given against ones own Ejector in several good Cases and of a Practise to gain Possession CHAP. XIV Habere facias Possessionem how to be executed and when and in what Cases a new Habere facias Possessionem is to be granted or not The manner how the Sheriff is to deliver Possession How the Sheriff is to esteem the Acres How the Sheriff is to give Possession of Rent or Common How Habere facias Possessionem awarded into Ireland In what Cases a new Habere facias Possessionem shall be granted or not And of the Sheriff ' s demeanor therein After the Writ of Habere facias Possessionem returned and filed whether the Court may award a new Writ Where the first Writ is not fully executed if the Court will grant a new one Where Hab. facias Possessionem shall be after the year without Scire fac ' Return of Habere fac ' Possessionem with a Fieri facias Of Misdimeanors in giving Possession Sheriff's Fees CHAP. XV. Of Action for the mean Profits In whose name it shall be What Evidence shall be given in this Action or not The Writ of Enquiry for mean Profits how it abates If upon Confession of Lease Entry and Ouster the Lessee may have Trespass for the mean Profits from the time of the Entry confessed In Trespass for mean Profits Special Bail is always given CHAP. XVI VVrit of Error Where it lies Of what Error the Court shall take Conisance without Diminution or Certificate Variance between the Writ and Declaration Variance between the Record and the Writ of Error One Defendant dies after Issue and before Verdict Nonage in Issue on Error where to be tried Amendment of the Judgment before Certiorari awarded Release from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Errors bars only him that Released and why Outlawry in one of the Defendants pleaded in Error Of Release of Errors by the Casual Ejector where it s a fraud Error without Bail a Supersedeas Ejectment against eight And Judgment was only against three And Error brought grounded upon the Judgment ad grave damnum ipsorum Error of Ejectment in Ireland THE LAW OF EJECTMENTS CHAP. I. The Nature of the Action of Ejectione Firme and of the Change of Real Actions into Ejectments Difference between an Action of Trespass and Ejectment in Five Diversities Difference between Ejectione Firme and Quare Ejecit infra Terminum in what Court this Action is to be brought or not and of Removal by Procedendo into inferior Courts THIS Action of Ejectione Firme includes in it self an Action of Trespass as appears by the Beginning Body and Conclusion of the Writ for the Writ begins thus Si A. fecerit te securum de clamore suo prosequendo tunc pone c. and so begins the Writ of Trespass The Body of the Writ of Ejectione Firme is Quare unum Messuagium vi armis fregit intravit and all the Addition in the Ejectione Firme is Et ipsum à firmâ sua inde ejecit c. The Conclusion of both is Et alia enormia ei intulit ad grave damnum and the Trespass and Ejectment are so woven and intermixt together that they cannot be severed and the Entry in an Ejectione Firme is In plito ' Transgressionis Ejectionis Firme In 6 R. 2. Tit. Eject ' Firme a. it is called an Action of Trespass in its Nature The Consequence of this is That in this Action Accord with Satisfaction is a good Plea And Accord and Satisfaction for one shall discharge all the Trespassers and Ejectors and tho' the Term which is a Chattel Real shall be recovered as well as Damages yet it is a good Plea Now tho' we find few Titles of Ejectione Firme in our Old Books yet it was in use all along it was used in Bracton's time and Term and Damages were recovered therein In tempore H. 3. he saith Si quis ejiciatur de usu fructu vel habitatione alicujus tenementi quod tenuit ad terminum annorum ante terminum suum there the Lessee shall have a Writ of Covenant against his Lessor and against his Vendee he shall have a Quare Ejecit infra Terminum and as well against the Lessor as a Stranger an Ejectione Firme But this Action came to be more frequent in my Lord Dyer's time as may appear by his Complaint in Court when he was Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas The Reason of the Change of Real Actions into Ejectione Firmes which also gives us the Reason of the change of Real Actions into Ejectments All Actions saith he almost which concern the Realty are determined in the King's Bench by Writs of Ejectione Firme whereby the Judgment is quod recuperet Terminum and by that they are soon put into Possession And therefore in a Formedâ—n it was prayed by Council that they might proceed without Essoyns and feint Delays because the Plaintiff's Title appeared which my Lord Dyer granted Because said he this Court is debased and lessened and the King's Bench doth increase with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And continued he no Action in Effect is brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower and the like And it is my Lord Chief Justice Hale's Observation in his Preface to Rolls's Abridgment The Remedy by Assises and several Forms and Proceedings relating thereunto were great Titles in the Year-Books and altho ' the Law is not altered in relation to them yet Use and common Practice hath in a great measure antiquated the use of them by recovering Possessions and the Remedy by Ejectione Firme used instead thereof So that rarely is any Assise brought unless for recovering Possesion of Offices And so of Real Actions as Writs of Right and Writs of Entry which are seldom brought unless in Wales by a Quod ei deforceat But now the Entry of him that hath right being lawful Men choose to recover their Possessions by Ejectione Firme But there was a new way invented to try Titles of Land in personal Actions but was not allowed as in Jeremy and Simson's Case 16 Car. 2. B. R. It was moved for Tryal at Bar on a feigned Action on the Case upon a Wager by Agreement of Parties to have the Opinion of the Court of the Validity of a Will but tho' the Action was laid in Middlesex yet being an Innovation and the way to subvert Ejectione Firme's which have subverted the Formedons and it sufficiently appearing feigned on the Record in that the Title of Land is hereby to be
upon the Rule and he was ordered to pay the Jury And in Davies's Case 13 Car. 2. B. R. H. desired to be made Defendant confessing Lease Entry and Ouster and at the Tryal resolved so to do but the Court denied that he should pay Costs because thereby the Plaintiff hath recovered and so hath the Fruit of his Suit To pay no Costs But in Williams and Hall's Case on Tryal at Bar the Defendants refused to confess Lease Entry and Ouster per quod the Plaintiff was Non-suited and it was moved that in regard the Default was the Defendant's that the Plaintiff might have Attachment against the Defendant according to the Course of the Common Bench which the Court granted So upon a Judgment a-against his own Ejector in default of confessing Lease Entry and Ouster without a special Rule no Costs shall be paid by H. the Tenant in Possession that made this Default because the Plaintiff hath Benefit of his Suit viz. Judgment against the Ejector whereby he may recover Possession Stiles p. 425. 13 Car. 2 B. R. 15 Car. 2. B. R. 1 Keb. 242. The Form of the Rule of Confessing Lease Entry and Ouster in B. sR. B. C. Vide infra Of the Effect of an Entry according to the Rule and where it will supply an actual Ouster and where not Ejectment was brought by Devisee of a Rent Where confessing Lease Entry and Ouster will supply an actual Ouster or not on Condition That if a Legacy be not paid yearly c. that it shall be lawful for the Devisee to enter and after the Demand made of the Rent this Action was brought and the Lease Entry and Ouster was confess'd Per Windham this is only of an Entry sufficient to make the Lease that entitles to the Action not of an Entry that gives Title to the Land and for Non-proving of an actual Entry the Plaintiff was non-suited But otherwise in case of a Lease rendring Rent to be void by Re-entry by Non-payment In the Ejectment there was a Rule for confessing Lease Entry and Ouster and the Question was Whether this be sufficient without Proof of actual Entry Per Hales C. J. the Confession is sufficient else in every Case of Disseisin c. the Entry must be proved but in Assignment of Assignee of Lessee such Confession doth not avoid the Assignment but that must be proved and this is as actual Lease on the Land wich cannot be without Entry And so is 1 Ventr 248. Anonym The Lessor of the Plaintiff had a Title to enter for a Condition broken for Non-payment of Rent Lease Entry and Ouster was confessed and the Court was moved that in regard that the Lessor having such a special Title and no Estate till Entry whether such an Entry shall be supplied by the general Confession or that there should be an actual Entry and it was held it should be supplied by the general Confession But by Hales If A. lets to B. and B. to C. to try the Title the confessing of Lease Entry and Ouster extends only to the Lease made to C. and not to that made to B. P. 26 Car. 2. B. R. Abbot and Sorrel's Case M. 25 Car. 2. B. R. Wither and Gibson 1 Ventr 248. Anonym In Okely and Norton's Case M. 22 Car. 2. B. R. Judgment was prayed for not confessing Lease Entry and actual Ouster by one Coparcener against another Per Cur ' on the former Rule to confess Lease Entry and Ouster generally actual Ouster need not be confessed and Judgment was against the casual Ejector The Rule to confess Lease-entry and Ouster does not extend to confess actual Entry upon a Lease which is the Title The Rule to confess Lease Entry and Ouster does not extend to confess actual Entry upon a Lease which is the Title but the Court said An Entry shall be intended until the contrary be proved of the other side The Case was upon Evidence to a Jury at the Bar. The Plaintiff's Title was a Lease for Five thousand Years which Lease was sealed and delivered at London and the Council for the Defendant would put the Plaintiff to prove an actual Entry by force of this Lease for it was agreed That the Rule to confess Lease Entry and Ouster doth not extend to it but per Cur ' it shall be intended that he entred until the contrary be proved on the other side M. 22 Car. 2. Okely and Norton Sid. p. 223. Langhorn and Merry Upon a Tryal in Ejectment the Title of the Plaintiff's Lessor appeared to be by a Remainder limited to him for life upon divers other Estates and that there was a Fine and Proclamation but he within the Five years after his Title accrewed sent two Persons to deliver Declarations upon the Land as the usual Course was upon Ejectments brought Per Cur ' this is no Entry or Claim to avoid the Fine he having given no express Authority to that purpose and the Confession of Lease Entry and Ouster shall not prejudice him in this respect M. 25 Car. B. R. Clark and Phillips As for ones being made Defendant the Rules are thus He that desireth to be made Defendant in Ejectment for as much as is in his Possession The Defendant to give a Note of what is in his Possession or of his Under-Tenant must give a Note to the Attorney of the Plaintiff in Writing of what the Particulars are of which he is in Possession or his Under-Tenant to prevent Delay at the Assizes T. 15 Car. 2. so ordered By Pinsent in B. C. If one move that the Title of the Land do belong to him and that the Plaintiff hath made an Ejector of his own and therefore prays that giving Security to the Ejector to save him harmless Difference between the Course in the King's Bench and Common Pleas. he may defend the Title the Court will grant it but will not compell the Plaintiff to confess Lease Entry and Ouster except he will be Ejector himself But it is not so in the Court of King's Bench for there in both Cases they will compel him him to confess Lease Entry and Guster Stiles Rep. 368. The Course of the Court is He that is made Defendant in Ejectment not to be charged with Actions by the by That one that cometh in to be made Defendant in Ejectment upon his Prayer confessing Lease Entry and Ouster shall not be charged with any Actions by the by because he comes in without Process or Arrest only to defend the Title In Ejectment after Declaration and before Plea Motions to tâ—r the Plaintiff and why he which had the Title moved the Court for to alter the Plaintiff because he was to give evidence and the Court agreed to it that he should alter the Plaintiff paying Costs and giving Security for new Costs and they may alter the Plaintiff in this Action upon the same Reason that they may alter the Defendant which is usually done 1
Anno sexto supradict ' entred and ejected him so there is not any day mentioned After Imparlance as the Course in the Common Bench is the Plaintiff made a second Declaration and there without any space made the Ejectment is supposed to be the 26th of May Anno supradict ' and the Writ was brought of this Ejectment 7 Jac. The Defendant pleads Non Culp ' and found against him and Judgment and this was assigned for Error The first Declaration is most material per Cur ' the first Declaration is the principal and material Declaration and the second is but a Recital of the first And if any matter of Substance be omitted in the first it cannot be aided and amended by the second for that begins with an Alias prout patet so it is but a meer Recital and therefore if the first be not good tho' the second be good and he plead thereto and the Trial is thereupon yet the Judgment is erroneous But as this Case is the first Declaration is well enough for he declares of a Lease the 25th of March 6 Jac. which is the first day of that year and the Declaration quod pâ—stea scil ' 6 Jac. The Defendant ejected him is certain enough for the year wherein he made the Ejectment so it appears to be after the Lease made and in the same year 6 Jac. wherein the Ejectment was and the Action is brought the. 7 Jac. and the Ejectment being made between the making of the Lease and the Action brought it 's good enough tho' there is not any certain day alledged Cro. Jac. 311. Merril and Smith Original in Ejectment was brought against H. Simul cum and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no Simul cum against the fourth and Judgment was arrested for this 2 Brownl 129. It 's a sure Rule Entry and Ejectment supposed before the Commencement of the Lease if the Entry and Ejectment be supposed in the Declaration to be before the Commencement of the Lease the Declaration is void as in Powre and Hawkins's Case cited Yelv. 182. in Davis's Case The Plaintiff declares upon a Lease of E. 27 April Anno sexto and lays the Ejectment to be the 26th of April Anno sexto supradict ' the Declaration was adjudged ill for this cause but the Court will and have help'd it by as favourable Construction as may be as in the principal Case in Yelv. The Plaintiff declares of a Lease made by C. 6 of May Anno septimâ— of a Messuage c. and that the Plaintiff entred and was possessed quâ—usque postea the Defendant 18 die ejusdem mensis Maij Anno sexto supradict ' ejected him it was moved in Arrest of Judgment upon Verdict for the Defendant to save Costs that the Declaration was insufficient This Action is grounded on two things viz. the Lease and the Ejectment for that this Action was grounded on two things viz. upon the Lease and upon the Ejectment and these two ought to be one after the other and in this Case the Ejectment is supposed an Year before the Lease made for the Lease is Anno septimo and the Ejectment supposed to be made Anno sexto yet the Declaration was adjudged good and the word sexto to be void For the day of the Ejectment being the 18th day ejusdem mensis it shall be intended to be in the same year in which the Lease is supposed to be made Brownl p. 146. mesme Case So in Adams and Goose's Case Cro. Jac. 97. In Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease the 6th of Septemb. and that he was possessed and that postea scil the 4th of Septemb. the Defendant ejected him and by three Justices the Declaration was held good and the 4th of September is impossible and repugnant and the postea ejecit is well enough But in â—â—odgaine's Case 1 Siderf the Jury found that J. N. let to the Plaintiff for five years the 24th of June Anno 1650. by force whereof the Plaintiff enters the 24th of June 1650. the Lease being to commence à die datus and that postea scil 24th of June 1650. the Defendant ejected him so that the Entry and Ejectment was supposed before the Lease and Judgment was against the Plaintiff for this Defect The Council of the contrary side stood much upon the Case of Adams and Goose but per Cur ' that Case differs from this for in Adams's Case it appeared to be that he entred by sorce of the Lease and was possessed thereof till he was ejected but in this Case he entred the 24th of June which was before the Lease commenced and Judgment was given 1. Because he said he entred the 24th of June and so was a Dâ—isseisor 2. Because the Declaration is contrary in it self And Clifford's Case Dyer 89. a. and Grâ—en and Moody's Case were cired Bridgman said He found no reason for Adams and Goose's Case Yelv. 182. Davis and Pardy Cro. Jac. 97. Adams and Goose Siderf p. 8. Goodgaine and Wakefeild Ejectione Firme of a Lease of H. Virtute cujus iisdem die anno he ejected him how construed P. 22 of May 20 Jac. of c. Hab. à primo die Maij for three Years virtute cujus the Lessee entred and was possessed quousque postea scil eisdem die anno the Defendant ejected him It was assigned for Error that iisdem die c. refers to the first day of May which is ultimum antecedens and then the Ejectment is alledged before the Lease made so the Declaration not good but per Cur ' the Allegation of the first day of May is but for the beginning of the Term and the Declaration being quod virtute dimissionis he entred postea iisdem die Anno c. that refers to the day of the Lease made otherwise he cannot be possessed virtute dimissionis and Judgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber Cro. Jac. 662. Rutter and Mills The common Mistake has been as is observable in our Book-Cases in laying the Lease to be à die daius and the Entry the same day which is a Disseisin not purged by the Commencement of the Lease for where an Interest passeth a is exclusive and so the Entry the same day was before the Lease was to commence and is a Disseisin but where no Interest passes as in Cases of Obligations Contra. In Douglas and Shank's Case Cr. El. 766. the Plaintiff declares of a Lease for years Habend ' à die datus virtute cujus dimissionis he entred Virtute cujus and was possess'd until he was ejected by the Defendant Not guilty pleaded The Declaration is ill because the time of the Entry is not alledged for if he entred at the day of the Demise he is a Disseisor and the Action not maintainable Virtute cujus how taken the strongest shall be taken against the Plaintiff viz. That he entred the day of the Lease made
Common Pleas the Issue is as much amendable by the Imparlance-Roll as it would have been by the Bill if the Action had been brought by Bill The Objection made to this Pulestone and Goodluck. is That tho' Tenants in Possession being not all duly served in the Country the Tenants agree to appear so as the Plaintiff would consent to try it at the Bar and that thereupon there was a new Declaration delivered which had this Mistake and seems to inferr that the former Declaration was waved and this was altogether a new Proceeding wherein the Court was misinformed for there was no new Declaration delivered and that which the Defendants produced was a Copy of the Issue only and proved nothing but that there was a Mistake which appears by the Roll and is admitted by the Plaintiff otherwise we need not this motion Now my Lord that the Defendants Appearance was to the Declaration delivered in the Country is plain for there was no other Declaration delivered nor was therein any other for them to appeal to besides it appears by the Rule wherein it is written Pulestone and Goodluck and under that the now Defendants shall be made Defendants in the room of Goodluck and shall confess Lease Entry and Ouster for the Lands in that Declaration mentioned and shall receive a Declaration and plead the General Issue and insist upon the Title only and that if the Plaintiff shall become Nonsuit for default of the Defendants confessing Lease Entry and Ouster then that Judgment shall be entred against the Defendant Goodluck c. Now my Lord I would know what Declaration the Defendants were to appear to it must be a Declaration against Goodluck and what Lease the Defendants were to confess it must be the Lease mentioned in the Declaration against Goodluck and what Judgment the Plaintiffs were to have if the Defendants did not confess Lease Entry and Ouster it must likewise be upon the Declaration against Goodluck. Now my Lord if the Defendants will shew a Declaration that was delivered them against Goodluck wherein there was this Mistake it would be hard upon us but if they cannot then the Declaration delivered against Goodluck is right and the demise they are obliged to confess is the demise in that Declaration and only mistaken by the Clerk's transcribing it Now My Lord if the Defendants have confessed a good and right demise and this hath been tried then it would be the greatest hardship in the World if the Court should not let the Plaintiff have the Benefit thereof and it is plain that the Demise the Defendants are by Rule to confess is the Demise in the Declaration against Goodluck. So that My Lord if there were no Statute to help it 〈◊〉 take it with Submission the Court having tried the Fact ought to make the Record according to the Fact they have tryed As to their consenting to appear for several of the Tenants that were not duly served on Condition the Plaintiff would try it at Bar My Lord that is an Argument against them and brings us within the Benefit of the Case betwixt Crawley and Parr where there was a Judgment in Ejectment by Confession and the Demise laid after the Judgment and amended after a Writ of Error brought because it was a Judgment by Warrant of Attorney for it should not be supposed that the Defendant gave a Warrant of Attorney to confess a void Judgment Now My Lord the Defendants consenting to appear shall never be intended to a void Declaration but to a good Declaration in order to a fair Trial. And My Lord we are the more intitled to the Benefit of it because we are Purchasors for we give a Consideration for it viz. agreed to try it at Bar and they themselves opened it so As to what was objected That when the Tenants have appeared to this Declaration in Ejectment and are made Defendants it is a new Action and that the Declaration against the Casual Ejector is rejected and that therefore this defect cannot be amended though right in the Declaration against the casual Ejector I give this Answer that the Declaration against this casual Ejector is not rejected but is by the common Rule in Ejectment made part of the Cause insomuch that if the Plaintiff be nonsuited he shall have his Judgment upon that Declaration and the Return of the Postea is Warrant for that Judgment so that by the common Rule in Ejectment they are so tied together that it is all but one Action and the now Defendants are to stand in the casual Ejector's place But My Lord the Words of the Statute are not so strict which are in any Proceedings precedenti Now My Lord the Declaration in Ejectment is a Proceeding and it is precedent and it is within the equitable meaning of the Statute which intends all Amendments that are by neglect of the Clerk if it appears that they are right in any of the Proceedings and for that end a Philiser's Note tho' no part of the Record hath been sufficient to amend by And My Lord the same may be said when the Defendant is arrested by a Lat. de Placito transgr ' and the Plaintiff declares in Debt or Case and mistakes the Christian Name Sirname whether shall it be amended by the Lat. and whether the Lat. shall be looked upon to be a Proceeding precedent to the Declaration because in another Action and so it would be if a Man be arrested de Placito transgr ' ac etiam Bill ' and the Plaintiff declares in Debt only this is likewise departing from the Writ but these are warranted by the Practice and Course of the Court these Processes being made use of only to force an Appearance and the Plaintiff may then declare in Case of Trespass or Debt as he sees good Now My Lord Declarations in Ejectment are the same thing because only made use of to force an Appearance and are by the common Rule in Ejectment become no more part of the same Action than a Lat. is But this My Lord we have a full Answer to for the Declaration against the now Defendant is entred on the Roll and is right But with Submission My Lord the Declaration is sufficient to warrant its own Amendment it being by Original viz. Que Johan ' Levett Maria eidem Rogero demiser ' ad terminum qui nondum praeteriit intraver ' ipsum à firma sua praedicta ejecer ' Now My Lord the Count may be amended by the Original which is that the Plaintiff's Lessors had before that time demised the Premisses to the Plaintiff for a Term not then past and if the Count be made of a Demise then in being it is all the Amendment we desire But My Lord here it may be objected When must that Demise bear date and commence Must the Court set a Date and Commencement to Plaintiff's Demise To which I answer That the Commencement is certain by the Declaration videlicet from the 25th
the new Practice upon Not guilty pleaded the Title is only to be insisted on at the Trial yet in some Cases special Pleas may and ought to be pleaded in Ejectione Firme especially in inferiour Courts which I shall first treat of and then give a little touch as to the special Pleading formerly in use in this Action that so the Reader may not be totally ignorant thereof But first What shall be a good Plea in Abatement Per Cur ' That the Plaintiff had another Ejectment depending It is a good Plea in Abatement of Ejectione Firme in B. R. that the Plaintiff had another Ejectment for the same depending in the Common Bench Moor p. 539. Digby and Vernon In Ejectione Firme Action commenced and the Term expires pendant the Suit if the Term be expired before the Action brought the Writ shall abate because he ought to recover the Term and Damages but if he commence the Action before the Term expire and it expires pendent the Writ there it shall not abate but he shall recover Damages Dyer 226. Entry of the Plaintiff hanging the Writ Entry of the Plaintiff hanging the Writ shall abate the Writ In Williams and Ashet's Case the Defendant would have pleaded Entry after the Verdict in Abatement of the Writ Entry after the Verdict and before the day in Bank is not Error but it was hold clearly he had not day to plead it but it is put to his Audita Querela But in Parkes and Johnson's Case in Ejectione Firme the Error assigned was That the Plaintiff after Verdict and between the day of Nisi prius and the day in Banco had entred whereby his Bill was abated and demurred thereupon Per Cur ' this cannot be assigned for Error for it proves the Bill is abateable but is not abated in fait neither is it material to assign it for Error for upon such Surmise which goes only in Abatement the Judgment shall be examined Cro. El. 181. Ashet's Case Cro. El. 767. Parks and Johnson The Plaintiff declares of one Messuage and forty Acres of Land in Stone Abate because he shews not in which of the Vills the Lands lie The Defendant imparles till another Term and then pleads That within the Parish of Stone are three Vills A. B. and C. and because the Plaintiff does not shew in which of the Vills the Lands lie he demands Judgment of the Bill quod ob causam praedict ' Billa praedicta cassetur The Plaintiff demurs and adjudged for him After Imparlance no Pleading in Abatement and why For 1. after Imparlance the Defendant may not plead in Abatement of the Bill for he had accepted it to be good by his Entry into defence and by his Imparlance 2. Reg. Where a Man pleads in Abatement he ought to give to the Plaintiff a better Writ The matter of the Plea is not good because the Defendant does not shew in which of the Vills the Messuage and forty Acres lie And where a Man pleads in Abatement he ought to give the Plaintiff a better Writ and upon Demurrer there shall be a Respondeas Ouster Yelv. 112. Tomson and Collier After Verdict for the Plaintiff the Question being brought against Baron and Feme that the Husband was dead since the Nisi Ejectment against Baron and Feme Baron died since the Nisi prius and before the day in Bank the Action continued against the Wife prius and before the day in Bank and whether the Bill should abate in all or should stand against the Feme was the Question and because it is in Nature of an Action of Trespass and the Feme is charged for her own Fact it was adjudged that the Action continued against the Feme and that Judgment should be entred against her sole because the Baron was dead Cro. Jac. 356. Rigley and Lee. Ejectione Firme by J. S. against N. and O. N. Where the Plaintiff by his demand confesseth the Writ abateable appears and pleads the General Issue and Process continues against the other until he appears and then he appears and pleads an Entry into the Land puis darrein Continuance Judgment de Brev ' The Plaintiff upon this Plea demurs in Law Curia advisare and in the interim the first Issue was found pro Quer ' versus N. and the Plaintiff prays his Judgment He shall not have it because the Plaintiff by Demurrer in Law had confessed the Writ abateable and the Writ by the Entry of the Plaintiff was abated in as much as the Term is to be recovered Dyer 226. Nevill's Case To the same purpose is the late Case of Boys and Norcliff In Ejectione Firme the Question was if the Entry into the Land after the day of Nisi prius and before the day in Bank may be pleaded in Abatement and if such Entry puis darrein Continuance be a Plea in Abatement Note this was in Error out of the Common Bench and held by the Court of the King's Bench that it is not Error yet entry will not revive the Term because it's only in Abatement Entry before the Nisi prius to be pleaded at the Assises and there is a Diversity between this and Death 1 Bulstr 5. And it 's usual if the Entry be before the Nisi prius to plead such a Plea at the Assises and if it be omitted the Advantage is lost but not so in case of Death By Death the Writ is actually abated Difference between Entry after Verdict and Death there being no time to plead it in Court but Entry must be pleaded puis darrein Continuance in Abatement only Sid. p. 238. Boys and Norcliff 1 Keb. 841 850. mesme Case Shall not abate by the Death of the Lessee Not abate by the Death of the Lessee Vid. 3 Keb. 772. Of pleading to the Jurisdiction Conisance of Plea how to be demanded and allowed and how pleaded This Plea was formerly allowed of and so is still in some Cases Now every Plea which goes to the Jurisdiction of the Court Regula for a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court. ought to be taken most strong against him that pleads it and to this purpose there is a pretty Case In Ejectment the Plaintiff declares of a Lease made at Haylsham Al' Jurisdict ' the Defendant pleads That Haylsham praedict â—ubi tenementa jacent is within the Cinque-Ports where the King 's Writ runs not Cinque-Ports and so he pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court The Plaintiff reply'd That the Town of Haylsham was within the County of Sussex absque hoc that it was within the Cinque-Ports The Defendant demurs Travorse because he ought to have traversed absque hoc quod Villa de Haylsham ubi tenementa jacent is within the Cinque-Port for the truth was it was part in the Cinque-Ports and part in the County of Sussex and the Land lies in the part which is in the Cinque-Ports but per Cur ' the
Traverse is good and the Bar is naught The Defendant in his Bar ought to have made his Distinction and every Plea which goes to the Jurisdiction of the Court ought to be taken most strong against him that pleads it and the Traverse here ought to be to the Town and not to the ubi which was idle for the Law said as much and we do not imagine any Fractions of Towns Winch. p. 113. Austin and Beadle Cro. Jac. 692. mesme Case Hutton p. 74. mesme Case Note He who would demand Conisance of this Plea ought to shew his Warrant of Attorney in Latin Sid. 103. in the Bishop of Ely's Case The Attorney General in Hales and Jull's Case prayed Allowance of the Plea Cinque-Ports that the Lands in the Ejectment were within the Cinque-Ports which the Court granted there being no Imparlance General or Special both which affirm the Jurisdiction of the Court and at the Venire fac ' the Plaintiff may suggest the Lands to be within the Cinque-Ports and have it of Places adjacent within the County 1 Keb. 65 Sir Edward Turner in Ejectment 〈◊〉 Conisance not allowable on Suggestion but it must be averred on Record ore tenus shewing his Warrant of Attorney demanded Conisance for the Bishop of Ely per Cur ' it's not allowable on Suggestion which is Cinque-Ports Ancient Demesne c. It must be averred on Record for tho' the Court takes notice that Ely is a Royal Franchise yet this must be so averred or pleaded and may be after Imparlance It must be averred or pleaded and may be after Imparlance in Ejectment when any third Person is concerned since the new way of Ejectment used in Green and Simpson's Case but Siderfin is contra that it cannot be pleaded after Imparlance 1 Keb. 946. 948. Sid. 103. The Defendant prayed to be admitted to plead in Abatement Where Conisance of Plea not allowed of in Ejectment that the Lands in the Ejectment are within the Cinque-Ports and the rather for that he was made Defendant by the Rule of Court with a special Imparparlance with a salvis omnibus c. Per Cur ' let him plead in Chief unless in Ancient Demesne no special Plea has been allowed because the Lord would be prejudiced in a Trial at Common Law 1 Keb. 725. Hale and Uppington In Hall and Hugh's Case in Ejectment of Lands Part within and part without the Cinque-Ports and demur part within and part without the five Ports the Defendant after Imparlance pleads in Abatement That part of the Lands are in the Five Ports and so prays Judgment si Curia cognoscere velit c. The Plaintiff demurs because it does not appear but that the Demise was out and it 's transitory and may be laid any where tho' the Lease was actually sealed in another Place or County and the Defendant may plead Non dimisit Where Non dimisit pleadeded in Ejectment as well as Not guilty The Demise in this Case was laid at Maidstone per Twisden this being an inferiour Court they cannot try the Demise which is issuable Why the new Rule of confessing Lease was introduced and the great Mischief that came in want of Proof of the Demise was the cause of introducing the new Rule In this Plea it was said That the Lands were in F. parcel of the Cinque-Ports where time out of mind the Writ of our Lord the King runs not and that they of F. have always tried c. this is ill Prescription must be to the five Ports and not to F. only for the Prescription should have been annexed to the Five Ports generally and not to F. only and the Court ordered him to plead in Chief and to confess Lease Entry and Ouster or else that the Plaintiff take Judgment against his own Ejector 2 Keb. 69 79. 1. Whether Ancient Demesne pleaded be a good Plea 2. Whether it may be pleaded after Imparlance In Cro. Car. 9. it was a Question Whether Ancient Demesne may be pleaded after Imparlance Ancient Demesne a good Plea in Ejectment and why It 's resolved That Ancient Demesne is a good Plea in Ejectione Firme and in Replevin tho' it was doubted in our Books formerly but that is fully setled in several Reports In Alden's Case 5 Rep. the Defendant pleads That the Tenements in which c. were parcel of the Manor of O. in Com. S. Quod quidem manerium est de antiquo Dominico c. and demands Judgment si Curia hic vult cognoscere c. The Plaintiff demurs and per Cur ' it is a good Plea 1. Because it 's the common Intendment that the Right and Title of the Land will come in Debate in this Action 2. In this Action the Plaintiff shall recover the Possession of the Land and have Execution by habere fac ' possessionem and this Action savours of the Realty So in Pymmock and Feilder's Case where the Pleading was nice the Defendant pleads that the Lands were Ancient Demesne and pleadable by a Writ of Right Close c. The Plaintiff shews that they were Copyhold Lands Parcel of the Manor and entitles himself by Lease under the Copyholder and traverseth That they were impleadable by a Writ of Right Close and it was thereupon demurred 1. Because Copyhold-Land parcel of a Manor of Ancient Demesne should be pleadable there and not at Common Law 2. Because this Traverse that they were impleadable is but the Consequence of Ancient Demesne Per Cur ' the Copyhold-Lands are as the Demesnes of the Manor and are the Lord 's Freehold and therefore not impleadable but in the Lord's Court and the Traverse is well enough taken 1 Bulstr 108. Cr. El. 826. 5 Rep. 105. Alden's Case Stiles 90. Cro. Jac. 559. Pymmock and Feilder Now a Lease for years is intended to be taken real in a Recovery and because a Lease for years intended to be recovered in Ejectione Firme it is a good Plea to say it is Ancient Demesne yet a Lease for years is but personal in Quality 2 Rolls Rep. 181. Banister and Eyres The Defendant imparles in Ejectione Firme Whether Ancient Demesne is pleadable after Impalance and after pleads that the Land is Ancient Demesne c. unde intendit quod Curia non vuit cognoscere c. The Plaintiff demurs Per Cur ' this Plea is pleadable after Imparlance because if Judgment be given here the Lord will reverâ—e it by Disceit and the Judgment will be avoidable and the diversity is true Regula A Man may plead that which is in Bar after an Imparlance but not that which goes to the Writ and this holds in all Cases but Ancient Demesne 2. The last Conclusion is Surplusage Conclusion of Plea but if he had begun his his Plea Actio non it had been ill notwithstanding the Conclusion ut supra But the Defendant waved his Demurrer without Costs and pleaded to Issue if Frank-fee
or not And yet Hetley saith p. 117. It was agreed by all that Ancient Demesne is a good Plea in Ejectment but not after Imparlance Marsham and Allen's Cas Dyer 210. in margine But now if a Man come in and pray to be made Defendant and to plead specially Ancient Demesne he shall do it and it 's now used of Course to plead Dilatories after Imparlance New Defendant not to plead Ancient Demesne after the former Imparlance 1 Keb. 361. Holiday's Case But in 1 Keb. 706. by Windham the new Defendant one that prays to be made so may plead Ancient Demesne after the former Imparlance because it 's not any Ouster of the Court of Jurisdiction Cur ' e contra He ought to plead Not guilty personally Roch and Plumpton's Case And in 1 Keb. 755. Plea of Ancient Demesne allowed the same Term Snow and Cooley The Court will allow Plea of Ancient Demesne the same Term contrary to the ordinary Rules in Ejectment And in Sutton and Courtney's Case it was prayed by Council That the Defendant might have Liberty to plead Ancient Demesne to a Declaration delivered before the Essoyn of this Term And how as of last Term which the Court granted and ordered him to attend the Scondary to settle the said Plea which is usually done by making the Plaintiff deliver a new Declaration as of this Term and so the Plea cometh quasi before Imparlance 2 Keb. 725. In David and Lyster's Case Rolls said Ancient Demesne is a good Plea after Imparlance for it goes in Bar of the Action it self and not in Abatement of the Writ Stiles 90. Plea puis darrein Continuance Ejectione Firme was brought for entring into three several Vills Release puis darrein Continuance before the Justices of Nisi prius they can not take it The Declaration makes mention of no Vill in certain The Defendant pleads a Release puis darrein Continuance before the Justices of Nisi prius Per Cur ' a Man cannot plead a Release at the Nisi prius after Issue joyned for so none should have Judgment When this Plea is pleaded the Justices of Nisi prius cannot proceed to take the Inquest and to this Plea of the Defendant the Plaintiff cannot there reply but he ought to reply in Bank After Issue joyned and a Venire fac ' awarded in such a Vill the Sheriff returns null tiâ—l Vill this is not good for he cannot return that thing which is contrary to the Issue to avoid the Trial à fortior ' one of the Parties cannot plead such matter at the Nisi prius the Authority of the Justices of the Nisi prius is to take the Verdict of the Jury and no other Plea And the Justices of the Nisi prius have no power to amend any Fault in the Declaration and when the Sessions end their Authority ceaseth Vid. Cro. Jac. 261. contra 10 H. 7. 21. 1 Bustr 92. Moor and Brown Yelv. p. 180. 1 Cro. Jac. 261. In Ejectione Firme against two one appears and pleads the General Issue and Process continues against the other who now appears and pleads Entry puis darrein Continuance in Abatement of the Writ Upon which the Plaintiff demurs and after Issue was found for the Plaintiff Demurrer a Confession of the Entry he shall not have Judgment for the Demurrer is a Confession of the Entry and shall abate his own Writ for in this Action the Term is to be recovered aliter if he had imparled Vide supra Plea in Abatement Dyer 226. Upon a Special Verdict in Ejectment Release pleaded at the day of the Argument and a day given for Argument before which the Defendant procures a Release of all Ejectments and at the day for the Argument pleaded the Release puis darrein Continuance and good aliter of a Release between the Nisi prius and Day in Bank because there he had no day in Court nor has he any Remedy but by Audita Querela if the Plaintiff sued Execution 2 Rolls Abr. 467. Wykes and Bunbury Cr. Jac. 646. Stamp and Parker Ejectment was brought of Lands in K. and two other Villages Entry puis dar ' Cont ' pleaded at the Nisi prius the Plea is receiveable The Defendant pleads Not guilty and at the Nisi prius pleaded That the Plaintiff puis le darrein Continuance entred into a Close parcel ' praemissorum and him expelled and a Demurrer upon it because he declared not in which of the Villages the Close lay Per Cur ' this Plea is receivable for it is matter in fait and peremptory to him who pleads it for as a Release or matter in Bar may be pleaded so may this and is receivable at the Discretion of the Justices if they perceive any Verity therein So is Rolls Abr. 630. Moor and Hawkins Cr. Jac. 261. Yelv. 180. Moor and Hawkins 1 Brownl 145. In Ejectione Firme the Defendant may plead at the Assises before the Justices of Nisi prius That the Plaintiff had entred into parcel of the Land mentioned in the Declaration puis darrein Continuance the Justices of Nisi prius may accept the Plea and dismiss the Jury and tho' they do not give any day to the Parties in Banco yet this is not any Discontinuance altho' that the Plea be collateral for the day of Nisi prius and day in Bank are one day For the Court in Bank gives day to the Jurors in Bank Nisi prius Justiciarii ad Assissas venerint and to the Parties day is given there absolutely 2 Rolls Abr. 630. Moor and Hawkins 1 Rolls Abr. 485. Sir Hugh Brown's Case In Ejectione Firme By this Plea the first Issue of Not guilty is discharged after pleading Not guilty a Release is pleaded puis darrein Continuance whereby the first Issue is discharged which the Court granted And tho' the Justices cannot try it at Nisi prius unless they think it but Colour and insufficient yet if he think it sufficient he must sign a Bill of Exceptions for the Trial is Error and so Yelv. Bill of Exception 181. And in this Case the Release of the Lessor of the Plaintiff is but Colour Also the Party cannot demur to such Plea also the Agreement to try and stand to the Title only is no Cause to over-rule such Plea and per Cur ' the Plea certified hither was allowed notwithstanding such Agreement being gained after 3 Keb. 67. Mich. 24. Car. 2. Carter and Haggard Accord and Satisfaction a good Plea in Ejectment H. P. brought Ejectione Firme against R. C. and A. his Wife and A. D. for an House in G. in c. upon Demise made by A. H. the 7th of April 8 Jac. for five years and that the Defendant the 10 of April in the same year ejected him c. The Defendant pleads That after the Trespass and Ejectment viz. primo Maij Anno octavo supradicto apud G. praedict ' talis inter R. C. praefat ' H. P. tam
de transgressione Ejectione praedict ' quam de omnibus aliis querelis debitis debatis inter eos ante tunc habitis fact ' sive propter al' c. habebatur concordia that in Satisfaction thereof the said R. one of the Defendants should pay to the Plaintiff 6 l. 10 s. at the Feast of St. Michael then next ensuing and that for the true payment of this he shall become bound in an Obligation of 13 l. and pleads performance of this and the Receipt of the said Sum at the said Feast accordingly And it was resolved That Accord in this Action is a good Plea as being in nature of a Trespass And tho' the Term which is a Chattel real shall be recovered as well as Damages yet it 's a good Plea and Accord and Satisfaction for one shall discharge all the Trespassors and Ejectors Vid. this Case argued 2 Brownl 128. 9 Rep. 77. Henry Peytoe's Case But now the Rule is to stand upon the Title only Aid prier where Aid shall be granted in this Action and in what Cases not The Defendant justified as in his Franktenement the Reversion to the King The Defendant shall not have Aid of the King and why and prayed in Aid of the King per Cur ' he shall not have Aid in this Action which is as a Trespass upon this Plea for he needs no Aid of the King to maintain this Plea So in Allen and Hallowel's Case the Defendant pleads That the Queen was seized in Fee and let it to J. S. for years by Patent who let it to the Defendant and prays in Aid of the Queen and it was ruled to be no Plea because he is not immediate Tenant wherefore a Respondeas Ouster was awarded And in Bridgman's Rep. 87. it is agreed That the Defendant shall not have Aid of the King because he is not his immediate Tenant and so no Privity between the King and him And to the same purpose is Anderson's Case in Hardress's Reports The Defendant prayed in Aid of the King's Lessee for 99 years for his Dutchy Land in trust for the Queen as part of her Joynture and as Bailiff to them and it was denied by the Court. And upon the General Issue it appears not whether the Right will come in Question and yet it 's said in the Countess of Kent's Case 3 Jac. B. R. That in Ejectione Firme the Defendant shall have Aid of the King because by Intendment the Freehold shall come in Debate in this Action 1 Rolls Abr. 407 156. Bennet's Case Cro. El. p. 374. Allen and Hollowell Hardr. 179. Anderson and Arundel 1 Rolls Abr. 148. But Aid lies in Ejectione Firme of a common Person when the Title of the Land is to come in question Defendant shall have Aid of a common Person And if a Man recover in Ejectione Firme against J. S. who dies in a Scire factas against his Heir the Heir shall have Aid of him in whose Title his Ancestor claims 1 Rolls Abr. 161 162. In Ejectment the Defendant pleaded Not guilty A Writ not to proceed Regina inconsulta allowed and after Issue joyned the Queen sent a Special Writ to the Court reciting that how the Defendant was Tenant in Tail with divers Remainders over the Reversion to the Queen and that her Reversion might be prejudiced by this Trial. Wherefore it was commanded then not to proceed to the Trial of this Issue Regina inconsulta And it was a Question much debated whether this Writ were allowable or not because it is a personal Action only Per Cur ' this Writ ought to be allowed as well as Aid prier because it appears to them that the Queen may be prejudiced in her Title and by the Writ there is a Recital of a Title in the Queen and her Trial of Right is to be discussed in Chancery In such Case where the King's Trial of Right to be dismissed where the Queen's Records are to prove her Title therefore per Curiam we shall not proceed without a Procedendo Vid. 1 Anders 280. Blofeild and Harris Cro. El p. 417. Sale and Barrington Moor 421. mesme Case Hardr. 428. In Trespass for breaking his Close Recovery and Execution in a former Action pleaded in Bar. The Defendant pleads That before this he had brought Ejectione Firme against the now Plaintiff and recovered and had Execution c. Judgment si actio Per Curiam it is a good Bar and the Conclusion of the Plea is also good Judgment si actio without relying upon the Estoppel 1 Leon. p. 313. Kempton and Cooper Ejectione Firme was brought against Drake and five others Drake pleads Not guilty the other five quoad 20 Acras plead Not guilty and as to the Residue that long time before c. the Plaintiff in his Replicat ' said He was possessed till by the said five Defendants who pleaded in Bar he was ejected and by his Declaration he has supposed himself to be ejected by all the six Defendants and so a Departure from the Declaration in the number of the Ejectors But Curia contra Several Issue For Drake by his several Issue which he has joyned with the Plaintiff upon Not guilty is severed from the other five Defendants and then when they plead in Bar the Plaintiff ought to reply to them without medling with Drake So in Ejectione Firme of 20 Acres the Defendant as to 10 Acres pleads Not guilty upon which they are at Issue and the Plaintiff replies as to the other 10 Acres and so was possest until by the Defendant of the said 10 Acres he was ejected this is good without speaking of the other 10 Acres upon which the general Issue is joyned 2 Leon. p. 199. Holland and Drake It was moved for the Defendant In this Action not to plead specially without Consent of the Plaintiff that he might have Liberty to plead specially in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment and not generally Not guilty because there had been matter given in evidence at a former Trial which ought not to have been By Rolls if the other will not consent you shall not plead specially but proceed according to the Course of the Court Stiles Rep. 412. Note The Defendant by Rule of Court Defendant not to plead till Costs assessed in a former Action was paid and Security for new Costs was not to plead till Costs paid assessed in a former Action on Nonsuit and that another Plaintiff might be named or that Security be given to pay the Costs if the Plaintiff should be Nonsuit again Stiles p. 433. Bar or Recovery in one Ejectione how far a Bar or Recovery in another It was a Question Whether a Bar in one Ejectione Firme were a Bar in another Bar in one Ejectione Firme how a Bar in another And Justice Berkley said It was adjudged upon this Difference That a Bar in one Ejectione Firme is a Bar in another for the same Ejectment
but not for another and new Ejectment Recovery in one Ejectione Firme a Bar in another And in Godbolt's Rep. Case 128. in Trespass the Defendant pleaded that at another time before the Trespass he did recover against the same Plaintiff in Ejectione Firme and demanded Judgment Per Cur ' it is a good Plea prima facie and that the Possession is bound by it for otherwise the Recovery should be vain and ineffectual And by Anderson If two claim one and the same Land by several Leases and the one recovereth in Ejectione Firme against the other that if afterwards the other bringeth an Ejectione Firme of the same Land the first Recovery shall be a Bar against him Per Rhodes a Recovery in an ad terminum qui praeteriit shall bind the Possession Godb. p. 109. no. 128. 3 Leon. 194. In Trespass for breaking his Close the Defendant pleads before this he had brought Ejectione Firme against the now Plaintiff and recovered and had Execution Judgment si actio Per Cur ' in 1 Leon. 313. Kempton and Cooper's Case and 3 Leon 194. the same is a good Bar and the Conclusion of the Plea is also good Judgment si actio without relying on the Estoppel and by two Justices it is no Estoppel for the Conclusion shall be Judgment si actio and not si serra respond ' and it was well pleaded For as by Recovery in Assise the Freehold is bound so by Recovery in Ejectione Firme the Possession is bound And by Anderson a Recovery in one Ejectione Firme is a Bar in another especially if the party relieth upon the Estoppel and altho' it be in an Action personal and in the nature of a Trespass yet the Judgment is good habeat possessionem termini sui during which Term the Judgment is in force and it 's no reason he should be ousted by him against whom he recovered for so Suits would be infinite but this grave Advice is now laid aside 4 Leon. 77. Spring and Lawson Note In Ejectione Firme against two Defendants one confesseth the Action and the other pleads in Bar Non Culp ' per Cur ' tho in Trespass against two 2 Defendants one confesseth the other pleads in Bar he cannot leave the one and proceed against and the one makes Default and the other confesseth the Action he may well relinquish his Suit against him who makes Default and proceed against the other which confesseth or pleads in Bar because this Suit is only in point of Damages but not so in Ejectment he cannot relinquish his Suite against one and proceed against the other for if so any Man may be tricked 2 Bulstr 113. Expiration of the Term in Ejectione Firme is no Plea Latch 106. Upon a Trial at Bar between Odil and Terril a Juror was challenged for that he said to one of the parties Provide you to pay for if I am sworn I will give the Verdict against you And that this is true the Parties to whom the Words were spoken did offer to depose the same and the Question was if he should be suffered to swear this he being one of the parties and he was allowed by the Court to be sworn to prove the Challenge good the other The Juror had bought Land of the Eessor and for this Cause the Triers found him not to be indifferent and so he was withdrawn Another Juror was challenged in this case for that he had bought Land of one of the parties in the Suit viz. of the Lessor and that the Lessor did owe to this Juror 10 l. and notwithstanding this Challenge the Triers found him indifferent otherwise per Cur ' if the Juror had owed Money to one of the parties 1 Bulst 20 21. Odil and Terril CHAB IX Of Challenge What is Principal or not Of Elisors Of Venue Where the Parish and Vill shall be intended all one Where it shall not be de Corpore Comitatus Where the Venire fac ' is amendable Venire fac ' to the Coroners because the Sheriff is Cousin to one of the Defendants A Venire de Forrest Venire de Novo for Baron and Feme BY Coke in Guest and Bridgman's Case Cousin to the Lessor it 's not a principal Challenge that the Sheriff is Cousin to the Lessor in Ejectment for the Lessor cannot hinder the Action of the Lessee this is not Law 1 Rolls Rep. 328. 2 Rolls Rep. 181. Banister's Case Venire fac ' awarded to the Coroners upon Surmise that the Lessor was Servant to the Sheriff Lessor Servant to the Sheriff Q. if it be a principal Challenge if it be no principal Challenge then is not the Writ well awarded and is not aided per Stat. 32 H. 8. Cro. Jac. p. 21. Harebotle and Placock Challenge to the Sheriff The Sheriff Cousin to the Plaintiff and a Venire fac ' prayed to the Coroners because the Sheriff is Cousin to the Plaintiff and shews how and because the Defendant did not deny it a Venire fac ' was awarded to the Coroners and Judgment was arrested because it was not a principal Challenge and a Venire de Novo awarded to the Sheriff 1 Brownl 130. Cradock and Jones It is not any principal Challenge to a Juror in Ejectione Firme That he had married the Cousin-german of A. That a Juror had married the Cousin-german of A. who was the Wife of R. from whom is descended H. from whom is descended B. who have the Reversion of the Land in question after the Death of his Mother who is to had an Estate for Life this is not any princapal Challenge because the Estate of B. does not appear in the Record and he had not the immediate Reversion 2 Rolls Abr. 654. Gabriel Dennis's Case In the Lord Brooks's Case the Court was informed That rhe Lessor of the Plaintiff was High Sheriff of the County and that the Coroner was Under-Sheriff Elisors and it was prayed that that Elisors might return the Jury but the Court would not grant it at the Prayer of the Defendant though the Plaintiff offered to agree to it it being in a Trial of Nisi prius but had it been in a Trial at Bar the Court would have granted it That the Lessor of the Plaintiff is High-Sheriff a principal Challenge but the regular Course is for the Plaintiff to pray it or else the Defendant may challenge the Array at the Assises for it is a principal Challenge that the Lessor of the Plaintiff is High-Sheriff or of Kindred to the Sheriff Tr. 1657. Hut 25. Moor 470. Rolls Rep. 320. 15 Car. 2. B. R. Duncomb and Ingleby In Ejectment the Plaintiff suggesteth that his Lessor the Sheriff and Coroners were Tenants to a Dean and Chapter Elisors whose Interest was concerned and prayed the Venire fac ' to Elisors and had it being confessed by the Defendant and the Court took it as a principal Challenge Duncomb and Inglesby's Case In Ejectione Firme the
H. and it appeared at the Tryal that E. K. was Essoyned and the Court denied to amend it and there was no Essoyn and so no Adjournment and the Plaintiff was at large and Judgment pro Quer ' Note No Statute gives Amendment but in the Affirmance of Judgments and Verdicts and not in Defeasance of Judgments and Verdicts 1 Leon. p. 134. Woodel and Harel In Dyer 89. the Plea was quod non ejecit querentem de c. modo forma it was moved there that it is not any Plea and yet Dyer Vide 121. b. The Defendant in any case of Misdemeanour may say generally Non Culp ' or traverse the point of the Writ as ne forga pas non ejecit non rapuit non manutenuit In Ejectione Firme the Parties were at Issue In what Case no Verdict shall be entred and by the Order of the Court the Tryal was staid yet the Plaintiff privily obtained a Nisi prius and the Chief Justice being informed thereof awarded a Supersedeas unto the Justices of Assise before whom c. and yet the Inquest at the instance of the Plaintiff was taken and found for the Plaintiff and all this matter was shewed to the King's Bench and per Cur ' no Verdict shall be entred on the Record nor any Judgment on it 2 Leon. p. 167. Feild Leich and Cage Ejectione Firme against Drake and Five others Drake pleads Not guilty the others pleads the Plaintiff replie and so a Demur Per Cur ' seeing that one Issue in this Action was to be tried between the Plaintiff and Drake and altho' the Plaintiff offered to release his Damages on the Issue joyned One Defendant pleads Not guilty the other demurs no Judgment upon the Demurrer till the Issue be tried and to have Judgment against the Five Defendants who had demurred yet the Court was clear of Opinion That no Judgment should be given upon the said Demurrer till the said Issue was tried For this Action is in Ejectione Firme in which Case the Possession of the Land is to be recovered and it may be for any thing that appeareth that Drake who has pleaded the General Issue has Title to the Land But if this Action had been an Action of Trespass there in such Case ut supra upon Release of Damages and on the Issue joyned the Plaintiff shall have Judgment presently 2 Leon. p. 199. Holland and Drake In B. R. Writ to prohibit the Trial Rege inconsulto after Issue joyned in Ejectione Firme and the Jury ready to try it there comes a Writ to the Justices that they should not proceed Regina inconsulta in the nature of Aid prier and it was allowed Moor 421 583. Nevil and Barrington A Suit in the Spiritual Court pro jactitatione Maritagij stays not Tryal 1 Keb. 519. Ejectment in Brecknock-shire Stat. 27 H. 8. Marches it was tryed in Monmouth-shire since the Stat. 27 H. 8. it 's a Mis-tryal for Monmouth-shire was made an English County but in time of Memory by that Statute and so it ought to have been tried in Hereford shire Hard. 66. Morgan's Case Error of a Judgment in B. R. in Ireland in Ejectment after Verdict for Lands in the County of Clare It was excepted that the Verdict was given by a Jury retorned by the Sheriff of the Queens County Consent to alter the Tryal entred upon the Roll. Hob. p. 5. sed non alloc ' for the Consent of the Parties to this Tryal was entred upon the Roll which was not in Hobart but only in a proper Rule of Court and therefore the Judgment there was reversed as 1 Rolls Rep. 28. Crow and Edwards with this accords Cr. El. 664. Sir Thomas Jones 199. Devoren and Walcott A new Tryal was denied in Ejectment New Tryal denied and why tho' the Verdict was given contrary to the Direction of the Court in matter of Law because it was a Tryal and because it is not final Sir Thomas Jones 224. Earl of Thanet's Case Ejectment was brought for Lands in the County of Clare in Ireland Issue was joyned on Not guilty and then there is an Entry on the Roll Consent to a Tryal in a Foreign County Et super hoc pro indifferentitriatione exitus praedict ' inter partes praedict ' eaedem partes ex eorum unanimi Consensu Assensu Consensu eorum Conciliat ' Attornat ' c. petunt Breve Dom ' Regis Vic' Com' Cork dirigend ' de Veniâ—e fac ' duodecim de corpore Comitatus sui ad triandum exitum praedict Ideo praecept ' est c. then there is a Nisi prius granted to the County of Cork and the Cause was there tried and a Bill of Exception put in and on Debate in B. R. Judgment was given for the Defendant The Plaintiff brings a Writ of Error whether Consent can make this Tryal in a Foreign County good and per Cur ' the Tryal is well had Raym. 372. Vicount Clare and Lynch Hob. 5. 1 Rolls Rep. 166 363. Palmer 100. At the Assises in Northumberland 15 Car. Nonsuit at Nisi prius discharged 2. a Plaintiff in Ejectment was called and non-suited and this entred upon the Record before the Venire or Distringas c. was put in and this appeared by the Postea produced and so the Justices of Nisi prius had not power of Nonsuit for their Power is by the Hab. Corpus and therefore the Court discharged the Nonsuit and gave leave to the Party to proceed again Sid. 64. Tomson's Case CHAP. XI Of joyning Issue and Tryal Where Issue in Ejectment shall be tried in other County than where the Lands lie Trial by Mittimus in the County Palatine Who shall be good Witnesses or not in this Action What shall be good Evidence in this Action Copy of Deed. Deed cancelled Conditions collateral Warranties found by Jury What is good Evidence in reference to a former Mortgage Where Probate of Will is sufficient Evidence or not In case of Rectory what is good Evidence and what things the Parson must prove Ancient Deed. Scyrograph of a Fine and constant Ejoyment Evidence as to an Appropriation Deposition of Bankrupts Deposition in Chancery Answer in Chancery Transcript of a Record Inrolment of Deed. Doomsday-book Variance between the Declaration and the Evidence Demurrer to an Evidence Exemplification of a Verdict Where Issue in Ejectment shall be tried IT ought to be in the County where the Land lies If Ejectione Firme be brought and laid in Com' D. for Lands lying in another County altho' this be by Assent of the Parties and the Defendant pleads Not guilty and Verdict and Judgment given for the Plaintiff yet this is Error for this is against the Law which cannot be altered by Assent of the Parties But upon View of the Record if it doth not appear to the Court that the Land lies in another County they will not reverse the Judgment for that Cause And
in Misericordia if it be supposed good The Court held them to be manifest Errors and assignable by the Defendant Hob. 108. Latch 61. Cr. Jac. 113. 1 Keb. 110. Hammond and Conisby But I conceive that is not Law for in Hammond and Conisby's Case Ejectione Firme was of a Manor upon Not guilty there was a Verdict pro Quer. for the Manor and quoad the Services Not guilty Error was assigned because the Verdict is not for the Plaintiff for the Manor because as to the Services it is for the Defendant Surpluse in a Verdict But per Cur. The last part of the Verdict shall be taken general for the Plaintiff Sid. 232. Ejectione Firme of a Messuage On Not guilty the Jury find the Defendant guilty of 2 parts of the House It was alledged in Arrest of Judgment That the Verdict has not found the Defendant Guilty according to the Count which is of a Messuage an entire thing Manwood contra Omne majus continet in se minus but if the Declaration had been of 2 parts of a Messuage and on Not guilty the Jury had found him Guilty of the entire House The Plaintiff shall not have Judgment Savill 27. In Ejectione Firme of a Messuage if it be found that a little part of the House is Built by incroachment upon the Land of the Plaintiff and not the Residue yet the Plaintiff shall recover for this parcel by the name of an House It 's laid down positive in Ablett and Skinner's Case in Sid. The Verdict may be of fewer parts than the Declaration p. 229. that the Verdict may be of fewer parts than in the Declaration As on Tryal at Bar in Ejectment the Declaration was of a fourth part of a fifth part in five parts to be divided and the Title of the Plaintiff upon the Evidence was but of a third part of a fourth part of a fifth part in five parts to be divided which is but a third part of what is demanded in the Declaration It was said the Plaintiff cannot have a Verdict because the Verdict in such Case ought to agree with the Declaration but per Cur ' the Verdict may be taken according to Title and so it was But Qu. how the Habere fac ' shall be executed If the Verdict in Ejectment contain more than the Declaration If the Verdict contain more than the Declaration the Plaintiff may release his Damages the Plaintiff may release the Damages Q. if he may release part of the Land Sid. p. 412. Ejectione Firme of the Manor of Dale on Non Culp ' pleaded the Jury find quoad unum Messuagium parcel ' As to a Manor Manerij praedict ' guilty quoad resid Not guilty It is moved he cannot have Judgment the Action is brought of the Manor and the Jury find him guilty of one House only so he cannot have his Judgment according to his demand So Delabar and Hudlestone's Case Ejectment of a Rectory and upon Non culp ' pleaded the Defendant was found guilty of Tythes without the Glebe and he could not have Judgment the Glebe being the Principal So Ejectione Firme of a Manor and proves only the Rents he shall not have Judgment Ejectment was of an House the Special Verdict was That the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and if there be several things laid in Ejectione Firme If several things are laid in Ejectione Firme and the Jury find the Defendant guilty in one the Plaintiff shall have Judgment of that as House Garden c. and the Jury find guilty of one only the Plaintiff shall have Judgment of this In Delabar's Case it was not found that the Tythes were parcel of the Rectory and so it differs from this Case In Ejectione Firme of a Manor and ten Acres it is no Plea that the ten Acres are parcel of the Manor aliter in Entry in the nature of an Assise Adjornatur The Jury find the Defendant guilty of one Moiety and for the other Moiety a Special Verdict this is no Error for the Jury may conclude upon the Moiety Where the Jury may conclude upon a Moiety or not for it may be he entred into one Moiety and not into the other but if he declares upon the whole they cannot find him guilty of a Moiety 3 Bulstr. 229. Milward and Watts But if one declares in Ejectione Firme upon a Fence made in certain Lands and he has Title but for a Moiety the Jury are not to conclude upon the Moiety for they are not to judge upon this but the Court. Where a dying seised or possest must be found A Man by his last Will and Testament devised all his Fee-simple Lands whatsoever to his Brother on Condition he suffer his Wife to enjoy all his Free Lands in H. duâ—ing her Life and the Jury found the Testator had only a Portion of Tythes in H. but they did not find the Testator died seised of the Tythes which without doubt had been ill upon the Demurrer And Rolls said He would see the Notes by which the Special Verdict was drawn up if that could help it For they all agree the Verdict ought to have found the Dying seised Stiles Rep. 279. Saunders and Rich. In Ejectione Firme if the Jury find a Special Verdict That J. S. was seised of the Manor of D. in his Demesne as of Fee of which Manor of Copyholder in the place where c. does waste by the cutting down an Oak and that after J. S. dies and the Lessor of the Plaintiff being his Cousin and Heir enters into the Manor and into the Place where c. for the said Forfeiture and was of this seised in his Demesne as of Fee and concludes si super totam materiam c. this is not a good Verdict because it is not found that J. S. died seised of the Manor and that this discended to the Lessor as his Cousin and Heir for it may be J. S. aliened the Land and that the Father of the Lessor or the Lessor himself might repurchase it and that he was also Cousin and Heir to J. S. for although it be in a Verdict yet it shall not be intended that the Fee continued in J. S. at his death and that he died seised thereof without finding of it P. 1 Car. 1. Cornwallis and Hammond Of Uncertainty in Special Verdicts As to Persons As to Acres and Parcels As to the Place or Vill. As to time As to Persons One deviseth all his Lands to E. his Wife for Life the Remainder to F. his Daughter in Tail the Remainder to the eldest Son of William his Brother in Tail Remainder over E. enters F. dies without Issue they find Gertrude Cousin and Heir to F. who levied a Fine but they find not Gertrude was Heir to the Devisor Do not find Heir and it may be althô F. was the Daughter the Devisor might have a Son or that she was Heir to him by a second Wife yet
by Baron and Feme on his Death she is liable as well as other Joyntenant Surviving 1 Keb. 827. Morgan and Stapel's Case The Lessor of the Plaintiff by several Rules of Court on Demand The Lessor of the Plaintiff where to pay Costs ought to pay Costs upon the Insufficiency or Skulking of the Plaintiff in Ejectment 1 Keb. 17. The Lessor of the Plaintiff is liable to pay Costs tho' he shall never be forced to give Security for them but the Lessor of a Tenant in Possession is not liable to Costs because tho' he may come in gratis and defend his Title Tenant in Possession liable to pay Costs by the Law yet the Tenant in Possession is only liable to pay Costs by the Law But only by the Course of the Court unless the Tryal be by the Lessors means brought to the Bar and then he shall never have a second Tryal at Bar before he hath paid the Costs of the former Tryal but yet the Court for Non-payment of Costs will not hinder proceedings in the Country Per Cur. 1 Keb. 106. Latham's Case Note In Judgment against his own Ejector no Cost to be paid by the Tenant in Possession Upon a Judgment against his own Ejector in defalt of confessing Lease Entry and Ouster according to Rule of Court without Special Rule no Costs shall be paid by H. The Tenant in Possession that made the defalt c. Contra upon Tryal had against H. because the Plaintiff hath the Benefit of the Suit viz. Judgment against his own Ejector whereby he may recover the Possession 1 Keb. 242. Verdict was for the Defendant Allegation by the Plaintiff to save his Cost not allowed and the Plaintiff to save his Costs alledged That the Venue was misawarded and that there was a Fault in the Declaration but resolved per Cur ' the Defendant shall have his Costs 2 Rolls Rep. 327 Pritchard and Reynell Palmer 365. mesme Case The Plaintiff in Ejectment was nonsuited The Plaintiff not to take advantage of his own insufficient Declaration which was recorded and the Defendant sued for Costs upon the Stat. 4. Jac. c. 3. The Plaintiff alledgeth insufficiency in his own Declaration to avoid Costs upon the Words of the Stat. That in Ejectione Firme and every other Action where the Plaintiff might recover Costs c. If it had been found for him that then upon Nonsuit c. in every such Action the Defendant shall have Judgment to recover Costs against him and the Plaintiff pretends in such Action he cannot recover where the Declaration is not sufficient But per Cur ' there is no reason the Plaintiff should take Advantage of his insufficient Declaration Palmer's Rep. 147. Dove and Knapp Debt was brought on the Stat. Costs on Stat. 8 Eliz. on Nonsuit and the Stat. mistaken of 8 Eliz. for Costs in an Ejectione Firme the Plaintiff being nonsuited supposing the Statute to be made ad Parliamentum tentum 8 Eliz. whereas the Parliament began Anno quinto and by Prorogation was held in 8 Eliz. so it ought to have been ad Sessionem Parliamenti tent ' Anno octavo Eliz. and ruled to be ill Cro. Jac. 111. Ford and Hunter If no Continuance be entred Costs for want of Continuances entred then a Discontinuance may be entred and he may recover Costs in Ejectment 2 Bulstr 63. Per Stat. When Nonsuit shall be for want of a Declaration 13 Car. 2. c. 11. Nonsuit shall be for want of a Declaration before the end oâ— the next Term after Appearance and Judgment and Costs against the Plaintiff Statâ— 13 Car. 2. c. 11. In all personal Actions and in Ejection Firme for Lands c. depending by Originâ—â— Writ There need not be 15 days between the Teste-day and Day of Retorn after any Issue therein joyned anâ— also after any Judgment had or obtained there shall not need to be Fifteen Days between the Teste-day and Day of Retorn oâ— any Writ of Venire fac ' Habeas Corpus Juratt ' Distringas Jurat ' Fiere fac ' or Cap ' ad sat ' and the Writ of Fifteen days between the Teste-day and the day of Retorn of any such Writ shall not be assigned for Error Stat. 13 Car. 2. c. 11. Infant Lessor in Ejectment shall pay Costs 3 Keb. Infant Lessor pays Costs 347. Masten and King Upon a Verdict against all Evidence the Court will tax Costs and will not suspend it till a new Tryal 1 Keb. 294. If the Defendant whose Title is concerned in an Ejectione Firme will not defend his Title to the Lands in Question and the Verdict do pass against the Plaintiff the Ejector may release the Damages Pr. Reg. 100. Note This Rule as to paying of Costs if a Man had a Verdict in Ejectment The sole Remedy for Costs in the first Tryal is by Attachment unless the second Tryal be in the same Court after a Verdict and Costs taxed and an Attachment for not paying them and whereas he cannot procure them of him who ought to pay them he sues the same Party for the same thing again in an other Court and he shews this by Motion and prays he may not proceed till Costs paid yet the Court will not grant it but he ought to resort to the Remedy of the Process of the Court where he recovered for these Costs and so it is if it was in the same Court for Costs for not going on to Tryal but if it were for Costs after a Verdict in the same Court there upon Affidavit of this it 's good Cause to stay the second Tryal for the same thing unless the Costs of the first be paid Sid. p. 229. Austin and Hood Upon a Tryal at Bar in Ejectment where two were made Defendants Where Costs are confessed on Lease Entry and Ouster c. and that the other did not and had entred into the Common Rule and at the Tryal one appeared and confessed Lease Entry and Ouster but the other did not and after Evidence given the Plaintiff was Non-suited and Costs taxed for the Defendants Per Cur ' both these Defendants are intitled to the Costs and he that did not appear might release them to the Plaintiff But the Court said If there should appear to be Covin between the Lessor of the Plaintiff and the Defendant who did appear to release the Costs they would correct such Practice when it should be made to appear 2 Ventr 2. W. M. Fagge and Roberts Berkley had Judgment in Ejectione Firme in C. B. and Execution of his Damages and Costs Foot brings Error and the Judgment is affirmed whereupon B. prays his Costs for Delay and Charges but could not have them for no Costs were in such Case at Common Law And Stat. 3 H. 7. c. 10. gives them only where Error is brought in delay of Execution and here tho' he had not Execution of the Term yet he had it of his
is the Party interested What notice the Court takes of the Lessor of the Plaintiff and therefore we punish the Plaintiff if he Release the Action or Release the Damages It was said too in behalf of the Judgment That there was a Man of the same name in the County with him that was made Plaintiff And by the Court that is sufficient and the Court shall intend it to be him were there any one of the same name in rerum natura It is said in Cooper and Franklin's Case Ejectment for the whole and a Title but to a Moiety Judgment shall be for the whole If one brings Ejectione Firme for the whole having Title but to a Moiety that iâ— hath been adjudged against Bracebridges's Case in Plowd He shall have Judgment for a Moiety 3 Bulstr 185. In what Cases and for what Causes Judgments in Ejectment are Arrestable or Erroneous In Savern and Smith's Case Judgment for the whole where it ought to be for a Moiety Judgment was de integris tenementis where it ought to have been for a Moiety The Judgment was given for the whole and intire Damages assessed by the Jury It s Error Croke Car. 7. The Declaration was Qd. per Indentur dimisit decimas garbar Rectorie de c. una cum quodam horreo gardino eidem Rectorie pertin And the Judgment on Demurrer on the Plea was Ideo c. qd praed Querens recuperet vers praefat Def. terminum suum praedict adhuc ventur ' de in Rectoria horreo gardino praed More Damages found than the Plaintiff counts cum pertin damna sua And more Damages is found in the return of the Inquisition than the Plaintiff counts And the intire Rectory was not Let and no Term supposed in it in the Declaration but in the said three particulars and no express Judgment is given for the Tithes and Damages are assessed for the expulsion of the intire Parsonage of which there was no complaint It seems its Erroneous Dyer 258. Plow 19. 1 Bulstr 49. 10 Rep. 117. 3 Cr. 544. Ejectione Firme was brought against four Against Gardian and Infant qd capiantur whereof one was an Infant and appeared by his Guardian and Verdict was pro Quer. and Judgment against them quod capiantur But no such Judgment ought to be against an Infant and its Error and Judgment was reversed Cr. Jac. 274. Holbrook and Doyle's Case C. Infant appeared be Attorney One of the Defendants at the time of the Judgment was within Age and appeared by Attorney where it ought to have been by his Guardian the Judgment being upon Verdict Per Cur. Its Error and in regard Damages and Costs are intire the Judgment shall be reversed for both by the Stat. 21 Jac. 13. Judgment shall not be Arrested for that the Plaintiff in any Ejectione Firme or in any personal Action being under Age did appear by Attorney and the Verdict did pass for him Judgment was reverst in Error of a Judgment in C. B. Not severing and intire Damages in not severing for what part by number of Acres by Special Verdict and giving entire Damages to the Plaintiff 2 Keb. 250. Mâ—â—kworth and Thomasin Ejectione Firme was against Baron and Feme Versus Baron and Feme quod capiantur tho' the Baron be found Not guilty On Not guilty pleaded the Feme was found guilty and the Baron Not guilty and the Judgment was against Baron and Feme quod capiantur This was assigned for Error but the Plaintiff had Judgment for so are all the Presidents But in the Writ it was vi armis Vi armis left out in the Declaration and in the Declaration vi armis was left out and for this cause Judgment was reversed Cro. Car. 406. Mayo's Case In Ejectione Firme Writ of Enquiry of Damages without saying Quod capiatur if Judgment be given upon Demur or by Default or on Non sum informat for the Plaintiff to recover the Term but it 's awarded that there shall be a Writ of Enquiry of Damages without saying Quod capiatur this is erroneous for it may be he will never enquire of the Damages and make Retorn of it and then the Fine due upon the Capiatur will be lost 1 Rolls Abr. 769. Note On Not guilty pleaded Issue is joyned and a Special Verdict found and upon this Verdict Judgment given against the Plaintiff and after the Plaintiff brings a Writ of Error Plaintiff brings a Writ of Error and the Judgment is reversed What Judgment he shall have and in this the Judgment is reversed the Plaintiff shall have Judgment to recover his Term his Declaration being good and the Law being for him on the Special Verdict For the Court which reverseth the first Judgment ought to give the same Judgment which was given in the first Suit 1 Rolls Abr. 774. Omalcowr and Eyres Note also If before Judgment the Years of the Lease expire the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover Damages Before Judgment the Lease expires the Plaintiff shall have Judgment for Damages otherwise in Actions where Freehold is to be recovered Savile 28. In what Cases Judgments shall be amended The Jury find the Defendant guilty of Ten Acres Twenty Acres entred for ten Acres and the Judgment was entred of Twenty Acres the Judgment was amended Winch. p. 8. If on Non culp ' pleaded a Verdict is for the Plaintiff and Costs and Damages given and upon this the Judgment is Quod quer ' recuperet the Damages and Costs and not quod recuperet terminum Quod recuperet terminum left out as the use is this is the Default of the Clerk and so amendable 1 Rolls Abr. 206. Belsh and Pate The Clerk of the Entries of the Judgments had mistaken the Parcels Variance of Parcels the Jury having found several Ejectments in several Parcels they find S. had ejected him out of certain Parcels by a certain Name Amendment and T. had ejected him out of other Parcels by a certain Name and mistook that S. had ejected him out of the Parcels that T. had ejected him having the Distringas for his Direction But it was amended for the Entry was quod recuperet versus S. unum Messuagium c. which was the Ejectment made by T. and so vice versa whereas the Court's Judgment was quod Judicium intretur pro Quer ' In Ejectione Firme of one Messuage two Cottages and certain Lands and the Jury find the Defendant guilty of the Moiety of a Messuage and Lands and Not guilty of the two Cottages and of the other Moiety of the Messuage and Lands and Judgment is quod Quer ' recuperet Terminum suum praedict ' de medietate tenementorum praedictorum eat inde sine die for the residue and this Judgment altho' it may be intended that Judgment is given for the Moiety of the two Cottages Default of the Clerk
Leon. p. 145. Upon the Habere fac ' Possessionem the Shereiff returned that in the Execution of the said Writ he took the Plaintiff with him Where the first Writ is not fully executed the Court will grant a new 〈◊〉 and came to the House recovered and removed thereou◠a Woman and two Children which were all the persons which upon diligent search he could find in the said House and delivered to the Plaintiff peaceable Possession to his thinking and afterwards departed-and immediately after three other persons who were secretly lodged in the said House expulsed the Plaintiff again Upon notice of which he returned again to the said House to put the Plaintiff in free Possession but the others did resist him so as without peril of his Life and of them that were with him in Company he could not do it And upon this return the Court awarded a new Writ of Execution for that the same was no Execution of the first Writ and also awarded an Attachment against the Parties 1 Leon. 145. If the Sheriff delivers more Acres than are in the Writ If the Sheriff delivers more Acres than are in the Writ this makes not the Writ Erroneous but Action on the Case lies against the Sheriff for doing it but if the Writ of Hab. fac possessionem contains more Acres of Land than were in the Declaration the Writ is Erroneous Upon Ejectione Firme Where Habere fac possession shall be after the year without Scire fac and Judgment Hab. fac possessionem shall be after the year without a Scire fac as to the Damages yet it s not absolutely requisite that there should be any Scire fac as to the Land for if the party take Possession of other Land than he ought Trespas lies 1 Sid. 351. Okey and Vicars Scire fac ' is given in personal Action per Stat. W. 2. where the remedy was after the year to commence a new Action on the same Judgment which cannot be in this Case as to Land tho' it may be as to Damages on Judgment for Damages Costs or Debt there must be a Scire fac ' for here is a person certain charged not so in Hab. fac possessionem 2 Keb. 307. Mesme Case but the Hab. fac Possessionem shall not be granted an year after the Judgment without a motion in Court Not to be granted after the year without a motion in Court And if it be once executed tho' the parties are turned out presently by a trick yet they may not have new Hab. fac possessionem without motion of the Court Siderf pag. 224. Note It was a Question in one Hills's Case upon the Statute of Maintenance A Man was out of Possession and recovered in Ejectione Firme and was put in Possession by Habere fac possessionem Whether he might sell presently and adjudged he might God b. 450. Upon the Hab. fac possessionem the Sheriff may break open the House to deliver Possession 5 Rep. 91. Return de Hab ' fac ' Possessionem cum Fieri fac Virtute istius brevis mihi direct ' 24 die Maij anno infra scripto Habere feci infra nominat ' H. H. Possessionem Termini sui infra scripti de Tenementis infra script ' cum pertin ac etiam Fieri feci de Terris Catallis infra nominat ' W. W. 20 s. parcel damnor infra script denarios illos haber coram Justiciarijs infra script ad diem Locum infra content ad reddend ' prefac H. prout interius mihi precipitur Of Misdemeanors in Possession In Ejectment Declarations were delivered and on Verdict Evidence was found for the Plaintiff against some and Judgment against the Casual Ejector for others in the whole 47 Houses Upon colour of Hab. fac possessionem the Sheriff turns out of Possession these 47 Tenants and 80 other Tenants also without any Process or Plea against them for the Execution of which Writ the Sheriff took of the Plaintiff 200 l. for Fees 1. The Court would not grant any Writ to supersede this Execution against the 80 for if so then it ought to be Quia erronicè and there was not any Error in the proceedings against them because there was no proceedings against them but they may bring Trespass against the Sheriff Sheriffs Fee and the Sheriff shall be indicted for Extortion for they cannot take such Fees in case of real Estate as personal 2 Sid. 155. There is a remarkable Case in Siderf 254. the King against Farr Farr being a Sollicitor had obtained a Judgment against the Casual Ejector upon which he Sues Hab. fac possessionem and the Sheriffs Bay liffs enter the House with him and break the Door where the Goods were and take the Woman to whom the House and Goods belonged and required of her Special Bayl and for want of it brought her to Newgate then Farr took the Goods which were of great value And upon Tryal at the Old-Bayly it appeared That Farr did this with intent to take away the Goods and had no colour of Title to the House for his Client He was found Guilty of Felony and was hanged not being able to Read tho' he were a Sollicitor The Court was moved for an Attachment against J. upon an Affidavit that he had ejected one out of Possion that was put in by Hab. fac possessionem and that in a very Riotous manner and had imprisoned the Party so put out of Possession The Council on the other side answered That the party came into the Land by vertue of an Eigne Judgment and an Extent upon it Rolls here is Title against Title therefore take your Course in Law for we make no Rule in it Stiles p. 318. Fortune and Johnson's Case Verdict for the Plaintiff was found in Ejectment But upon Agreement made between the Plaintiff and Defendant The Defendant was to hold the Land recovered for the remainder of his Term to come and according to this Agreement he held it for two years but afterwards before his Term expired the Plaintiff takes out an Hab. fac possessionem and executes it It was moved That the Defendant might have a Rule for Restitution Per Cur. it cannot be Take your Action on the Case against the Plaintiff for not performing his Agreement Stiles Rep. 408. Wood and Markham CHAP. XV. Of Action for the mean Profit 's In whose Name What Evidence shall be given in this Action or not THe Action for the mean Profits on the Judgment in the Ejectment In whose name shall be in the name of the Lessee during his Term. And note What Evidence shall be given in this Action In this Action no Evidence shall be given as to the Right which must be if the Action should be in the Lessors name and therefore he can have no such remedy 1 Keb. 731. Sadler and Taylor A Tryal at Bar was prayed in Action for mean Profits But the Court denied it