Assumpsit MEgot brought an Action upon the Case against Broughton and Davy upon Assumpsit and it was found by Nisi Prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank Broughton dyed and after Iudgment given Davy the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the said Court scil in the Kings Bench where Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of Broughton depending the Writ vide 2 R. 3. 21. and this Case is not like to Trespass for Trespass done by many are several Trespasses but every Assumpsit is joynt If the Court may reverse their own Judgment and if the Court upon this matter might reverse their own Iudgment was the Question the Case was not resolved but adjourned CLII. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found by Office that J. S. held by the Queen and dyed without Heir whereas in truth he had an Heir scil A. S. who leased the Lands for an hundred years and afterwards traversed the Office Office trove and had an Ouster le mayne le Roy. Now the matter was moved in the Common Pleas by Fenner in behalf of the Sheriffs of London before whom the matter depended to whom it was said by Anderson Chief Iustice Conveyance by the Heir upon Entrusion That where the King is entituled by an Office to a Chattel as to a wardship c. there if the Heir without any intrusion bargain and sell levy a Fine or lease for years during the possession of the King it is void against the King but shall bind the Heir but where the King is intituled to the Fee-simple as in this Case such a Conveyance is meerly void Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIII Samuel Starkeys Case HOmine replegiando by Samuel Starkey to the Sheriffs of London Who returned that the said Starkey was indicted to be de mala fama deceptione Domini Regis with divers other general words and namely that he had deceived J. S. a Clothier and that he was a common Cozener and thereof being found guilty Iudgment was given by the Mayor and Recorder That he should be disfranchized of his Freedom and should be fined and imprisoned for a year and further said that he had not paid his Fine nor the year expired Cook Such Return hath not been seen and it is directly against the Statute of Magna Charta Wray Chief Iustice gave a Rule that the Sheriffs should make their Return at their perils before such a day Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIV. Bushy and Milfeilds Case IN Error brought by Bushy and Milfeild It was assigned for Error that where in the first Action the Iury gave four pence Costs and the Court gave de incremento three and twenty shillings that in the Iudgment the four pence was omitted Error It was the Opinion of the Court That for that Cause the Iudgment should be reversed although it be for the advantage of the Party so where the Iudgment is quod sit in misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLV Bingham and Squires Case BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire Obligation 3 Leon. 151. The Condition was If Squire did procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Archdeaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so as the said Bingham at the said next Avoidance may present that then c. The Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the next Avoidance was made to Bingham but before the next Avoidance the present Archdeacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment of that Avoidance belonged to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case that the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words scil So that Bingham may present And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLVI Mansors Case A. Man bound himself in an Obligation to make an Assurance of Lands the first day of Jan. and the last day of December he to whom the Assurance was to be made scil the Obligee the said last day before Sun-setting came to the Obligor with a Deed ready to be sealed and prayed him to seal it who said to him that he was a man unlearned and said he would shew the same to his Counsel and then he would seal it And if the Obligation was forfeited or not because he did not seal it presently was the question And Fenner argued that it was not for when a thing is to be done upon request then he who makes the request ought to give sufficient and convenient time to perform the Condition I agree That where the Condition is absolute there if the Condition be not performed he shall not be excused by the default of another As if a man be bounden to marry A.S. and she will not marry him or to enfeoff J. S. and he refuseth as 3 H. 6. is the Obligation is forfeited Yet in these Cases if the Obligee himself be the cause that J. S. will not take the Feoffment or he will not marry A. S. the Obligation is not forfeited So in our Case for by his late request it is impossible for me to perform the condition for before my Counsel shall have perused it the time will be past If a man be bound to enfeoff one of Lands in Barwick request ought to be made so long time before that after that he may go to Barwick So if one be bounden to pay 1000 l. to J.S. he ought to make his Tender so long time before the last instant of the last day that the mony may conveniently be told This Case was in question A man made a Feoffment of the Manor of D. with the Appurtenances to which an Advowson was appendant and covenanted that the Manor upon request should be discharged of all manner of Incumbrances and before that the Feoffor had granted the next Avoidance to J. S. the Incumbent died the Clark of the Grantee was instituted and inducted the Feoffee requested the Feoffor to discharge the Incumbrance The opinion of many Sages of the Law was that he had not made his request within convenient time So if a man be bounden to infeoff the Obligee to have and to hold to him and his Heirs as long as J. S. shall have Issue of his Body If the Obligee demand Assurance after the death of J. S. without Issue yet the Obligation is not forfeited In 22 E. 4. if Lessee for the life of another continues possession for two or three weeks after the death of Cestuy que use where he could not have more speedy notice of his death he shall not be a Trespassor In 15 Eliz it was holden in Wottons Case That where he was bound to make a Feoffment to J. B. and J. B. came to him in Westminster Hall and tendred to him a Writing
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. a House called a Stable a Barn and another House called a Carthouse and Garnier And that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy said it was good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment but if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
Defendant that these Matters of Forgery were not within the Statute of 5 Eliz. nor also the Perjury or the procurement thereof upon which the Lords of the Council there Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury referred the consideration of the said Statute to both the Chief Iustices who at the next day in Court declared their Opinions upon the said Matters i. e That the said Matters did not extend to the Forgery of a Deed containing a gift of Chattels personals which see clearly by the Statute which as to that purpose extends but to Obligations Bills Obligatorie Acquittances Releases or other Discharges and that also a Deed of Assignment of a Lease of Lands in Ireland is not within the said Statute and also they were of opinion that the said Perjury and the procurement of it was not punishable by the said Statute because the Oath was taken coram non Judice for the Town-Clerk of London could not take an Oath in such a case Note no more than a private person But because that the Bill in the perclose and conclusion of it was contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm the two Chief Iustices were of Opinion That the said Court might punish these Offences as Misdemeanors at the Common Law but not according to the Statute and afterwards Shyriffe was fined and by Order of the Court to stand upon the Pillory Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber LXXX The Queen and Lord Vauxes Case Bills IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor c. the Lord Vaux brought a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given against him in the Court of Exchequer and assigned for Error that a Bill was exhibited against him that the Lord Vaux had taken certain goods of the Queen at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and also had intruded into the Rectory of Ethelborough in the County of Northampton whereas the Queen ought to have brought several Bills being for several causes arising within several Counties But it was resolved by the whole Court That the Bill of the Queen was good enough and here is no mischief for if the Defendant will plead Not Guilty two several Venire Facias shall be awarded one into Middlesex the other into the County of Northampton Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXXXI Owen and Morgans Case GEorge Owen brought a Scire Facias against Morgan to have Execution of a Fine levied 8 Eliz. by which Fine the land was given to the Conusee and his heirs the Conusee rendred the same to the husband and wife and to the heirs of the body of the husband Note that the husband was the Conusor the remainder in Fee to the now Demandant and note that the Writ of Covenant was between the Conusee Plaintiff and the husband Deforceant without naming the wife And afterwards the husband suffered a common Recovery without naming of the wife Common Recovery the hushand and wife died without Issue and now Owen to whom the remainder was limited by the Fine brought a Scire Facias in bar of which the Recovery was pleaded It was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant That the said Recovery had against the husband was a good bar Feme not party to the Writ of Covenant not bound by a Recovery and should bar the remainder and the wife ought not to be named in or party to the Recovery for that nothing accrued to her by the Fine because she was not party to the Writ of Covenant and to the Conusans vide 32 H. 8. Fines 108. None can take by the Fine but those who are named in the Writ of Covenant but every Stranger may take by way of Remainder Vide etiam 7 E. 3. Br. Fines 114. 6 E. 3. Fitz. Fines 117. 7 E. 3. Fitz. Scire Facias 136. It is said by Herle if such a Fine ut supra be taken it is good as long as it is in force LXXXII Sir Richard Lee and Arnolds Case Post 93. SIr Richard Lee Kt. seized of three Manors made a lease of them to Sir Nicholas Arnold for certain years reserving for the one Manor 5 l. and for the other Manor 10 l. and for the third Manor 10 l. upon condition that if the said rents or any of them or any part c. be behind a re-entry into all the Manors and afterwards he bargained and sold the reversion of one of the said Manors to William Winter in Fee and afterwards by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the two other Manors and for the rent of one of the said Manors the Vendee did re-enter into all the Manors Manwood Here are several reservations Reservation of Rents upon a joynt Lease several rents and several leases for although that the words are joynt yet by construction they are become several as Land given to an Abbot and a Secular man although here be joynt words yet they are Tenants in Common Litt. 296. And if I sell to you two Horses the one for 5 l. and the other for 5 l. here are two several contracts the Parties to whom these reversions are assured ut supra are Assignees within the Statute of 32 H. 8. by which it is enacted that Assignees may take advantage of Conditions for such an Assignee is not meerly in by act of law as the Lord by Escheat and he is not such an Assignee but is in by conveyance The Lessor enters upon his Lessee Assigns and makes his Feoffment and the Lessee re-enters now the Feoffee is an Assignee and this condition is destroyed in part and continued in part Condition destroyed in part good in part If one hath Common in the land of another for 20 beasts and releases his Common for 10 beasts the Common for the residue remains but if he purchaseth part of the land in which he hath Common the whole Common is destroyed A Feoffment to two with warranty and one of them releases the warranty all the warranty is gone As to the condition for as much as it is not collateral but incident to the reversion it may be severed and is of the same nature as the rent and reversion A man possessed of lands for 20 years and seized of other lands in Fee Conditions divided leaseth all the land for 10 years reserving rent with clause of re-entry and dieth now the Heir hath a reversion for the land in fee and the executor for the other land so the condition is divided according to the reversion so if lands were given to one in general tail and others in special tail he thereof makes a lease rendring rent and dieth having several Issues inheritable to each tail now the condition shall go according to the rent and he conceived that the Grantee of parcel of the reversion is an Assignee within the said Statute Grantee of parcel of the Reversion is an Assignee within 32 H. 8. Of Conditions as if a Lease for years
on the other side That the Estate of the Alien is so weak that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be infeoffed to anothers use and if he be such use is void For there is not a sufficient seisin in an Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged on Forset Case Where an Alien and the said Forset were Ioynt-Purchasers and the Alien dyed that Forset should not have the whole by Survivour but that upon Office found the Queen should have the moiety Vide 11 Eliz. Dyer 283. Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVI Jermine and Arscots Case THe Case between Jermine and Arscot was this A seized of Lands in Fee had Issue six Sons and one Daughter and devised the Manor of c. parcel of his said Lands to J. S. for ninety years if the said J. S. and G. his Wife or any of them should so long live the remainder to P. his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his other Sons in tail the remainder to his Daughter Provided That if the said P. his Son or any of the Sons of the Devisor or any of the heirs males of their bodies should endeavour by any Act or Thing to alien bargain or discontinue c. that then after such attempt or endeavour and before such Bargain and Sale c. were executed that the estate of such Person attempting should cease as if he were naturally dead and that then the premises should remain and come to such person to whom the same ought to come remain or be by the intent and meaning of his Will and died P. levied a Fine of the Manor he in the next remainder entred and claimed the Land by force of the Devise This Case was this Term argued by Walmesly Serjeant that an Estate tail cannot cease for it is an Estate of Inheritance and here is not any limitation for the Estate tail by the meaning of the Devisor shall remain revivable upon the death of the Offender but a Limitation determines the Estate utterly which is not here but here it appeareth as well by the meaning of the Devisor as by the words of the Devise that the Estate tail upon such act should be suspended and it cannot be resembled to the Case cited on the other side 22 E. 3. A Rent granted to one in Fee and that it shall cease during the Nonage of every Heir the Rent is but suspended between the Parties and Privies to the Gift as in the Case of Littleton of Re-entry and Retainer quousque but that a Stranger should re-enter and retain quousque that cannot be And in the Case of Scholastica reported by Plowden the Estate tail by such Offence is determined by the limitation But in our Case by the meaning of the Devisor only suspended so our Case is not like to that Case Shuttleworth to the contrary The purpose of the Devisor appeareth to be the continuance of the Land in the name and Family of the Caries and as to the difference of ceasing and suspending of an Estate tail the same is not to the purpose for the Tenant in tail himself may suspend his Estate tail therefore à fortiori the Donor upon the Creation of the Estate tail As by Littleton Tenant in Tail grants totum statum suum the Estate tail is thereby suspended and by Anderson if in such a Case after such a grant Tenant in tail levy a Fine in our Case If Tenant in tail offend and the party to whom the next interest is limited enters and after the Offender levies a Fine to a Stranger there although his Estate was determined by the offence yet the Estate tail is bound by the Fine Ad quod caeteri Justiciarii murmurabant Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the eldest in the life of his Father levieth a Fine and after the Father dieth the Estate tail is bound contrary if the Father had survived his eldest Son And afterwards in the end of this Term Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for by the Will here is a good limitation and an estate to cease upon an act and upon another contingent to be revived is good enough Vide 30 E. 3. 7. A Lease for life rendring rent and if the rent he behind that the Lessor shall return quousque agreement be made so as a Freehold may cease and rise again according as the same is limited And all this was agreed by Rhodes Periam and Windham and afterwards Walmsley for the Plaintiff took an Exception to the Bar for that the Defendant pleaded Quod Petrus Cary tempore levationis finis praedict non habet exitum and doth not say that tempore quo ipse Henricus clamabat reversionem praedict the said Peter had not Issue for he said if Peter had Issue when Henry claimed the Reversion nothing had vested on him by the said claim But all the Court besides Anderson said that needed not be but if the matter had been such the same should come on the part of the Plaintiff Also they said That the Estate was vested in Henry without claim and although after the Offence committed and before claim Peter have Issue yet Henry should retain the Land during the life of the Offender against such Issue born after the Fine levied for by the Fine levied the Reversion vested in Henry without any claim by force of the said limitation CLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Alien suffers a common Recovery 9 Co. 141. LAnd was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder over to another in Fee the Alien suffered a common Recovery and died without Issue All this matter was found by Office. It was moved That this Office should have return so as upon the matter the Alien was not Tenant of the Land at the time of the Recovery suffered But the whole Court held the contrary and that the Recovery was good and should bind him in the Remainder Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVIII Seixtbark and Percies Case EJectione firmae of Lands in Knolton and Woodland the Parties were at Issue and the Venire facias was of Knolton only and it was found for the Plaintiff It was shewed in stay of Iudgment that the Venire facias was not well awarded for it ought to have been De vicineto de Knolton Woodland which was granted by the Court And that that defect was not relieved by any Statute for it is a Mis-trial and for that cause Iudgment was stayed and a Venire facias de novo granted 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXIX The Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxfords Case THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital and Meason de Dieu in Southampton and they make a Lease of Lands parcel of the Possession of the said Hospital to one Hagel for term of years by the name of
of the body of the Husband and he said a Scire facias did lye upon the Fine well enough for the Fine is not void but only erroneous and being in its force this Writ doth well lye And he cited to this purpose 7 E. 3. Fitz. Sc. fac 136. where upon such a Fine levied and such Exception ut supra taken to it To which it was said by Herle that forasmuch as the Fine is excepted and yet in its force we ought to grant Execution and also 30 H. 6. none can take the first Estate in the Fine but he who is named in the Writ of Covenant but every Stranger may take by way of Remainder and such was the Opinion of the whole Court As to the matter in Law all the Court agreed That notwithstanding the Recovery the Demandant should have Execution for here the Land which by pretence of the said Recovery shall be Recoverd in value cannot go to the Estate which is given for the Estate given was to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Husband and then the Tenant against whom the Recovery was had was impleaded as sole Tenant in which Case the Vouchee when he comes in is to warrant a sole Estate but not another but now the Land to be recovered in value shall go to the Husband alone and the Wife shall have nothing so as the true Estate is not warranted and so not answered And he cited the Case of 38 E. 3. 5. in a Formedon the Tenant vouched himself for to save the tail and shewed that one A. was seized and gave the Land in Demand to the now Tenant and to E. his Wife in tail which E. is now alive and by award the Voucher was disallowed Because it was there said by Knevyt the Recovery in value cannot be according to the gift 45 E. 3. 18. Tenant in tail discontinues and takes back an Estate in Fee is impleaded and voucheth the Donor he shall be ousted of the Voucher for that he is in of another Estate and afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to have Execution Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCIII Foles and Griffins Case DEbt upon Obligation by Foles against Griffin the Condition was That if the Obligee may enjoy certain Tythes demised to him by the Defendant during his Term against all Persons paying yearly the Rent of three pound that then c. To which the Defendant said that the Plaintiff did not pay the said Rent c. Beaumont Serjeant moved that the Plea is not good but he ought to say that the Plaintiff enjoyed the Tythes until such a Feast at which time such Rent was due which Rent he did not pay for which c. Quod Curia concessit Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXCIV Young and Taylors Case IN Debt upon an Obligation upon Condition to perform the Arbitrament the Obligation was laid to be made in the Parish of Bow in London and the submission was of all things depending between them so that they made an Award of the premisses before such a day and said further that no Arbitrament was made The Plaintiff Replicando said that the Arbitrators made an Award in the Parish of Pancras in Warda praedict and layed a breach c. The Defendant rejoyned that 300 l. was depending in Controversie between them for a certain thing of which no Arbitrament was made upon which they were at Issue and tryed by a Visne of the Parish of Bow only which passed for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Iudgment That the Trial was not good for no place is alledged where the Controversie of 300 l. is depending for which cause it shall be tried where the Bond and Arbitrament was made to which it was said That the alledging the place where the Arbitrament was made is superfluous for which Cause the Trial is good And also the Submission being conditional the Award ought to be of all things submitted or else it is void contrary if it be no Condition Vide Cook 8 Part Baspoles Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCV. The Queen and the Bishop of Lincolns Case THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and others And the Case was That F. Bishop of Lincoln Predecessor of the Defendant was Patron of the Church and presented to the same being void one Garth who being inducted took another Benefice by which by reason of the Statute of 21 H. 8. the first Benefice became void and remained void by the space of seventeen years whereupon the Queen was entituled to present to the same by Lapse The said F. then Bishop presented to the same and afterwards was translated to Winchester and the Defendant now Bishop was suffectus And he certified into the Exchequer that the Incumbent presented by the said F refused to pay his Subsidy upon which he was deprived and if now the Queen shall present by reason of her Title by Lapse notwithstanding the plenarty after or if the Title by Lapse of that Presentment of the Bishop was c. was a great Question And the Case late adjudged between Beverly and Cornwel was cited but there the Case was that the Clark presented where the Presentment appertained to the Queen by Lapse died but here he is deprived which may be the Covin betwixt the Ordinary and him Fenner argued to the contrary and put divers Cases to prove that the Prerogative of the Queen did not alter the right of the Parties As the Queen hath a Seignory consisting of Homage Fealty and Rent and the Queen grants the Seignory to a Stranger reserving the Rent and afterwards the Tenancy Escheats the Rent is gone The Queen leases for years rendring rent to a Stranger upon Condition who enters upon the Lessee the Condition of the Queen is suspended The Queen purchaseth Lands in Borough English hath Issue a Son and dyeth seized he hath the Land now by descent afterwards a younger Son is born that Land shall be divested out of the possession of the King and the Royalty of his person doth not alter the right of descent And afterwards forasmuch as the same deprivation is the act of the Incumbent the refusal the act of the Ordinary himself the sentence and not the act of God in the case before cited It was the Opinion of the Court That Iudgment should be given for the Queen CXCVI. Windham and Meads Case WIndham brought an Action upon the Case upon the Common Law of England concerning Hostlers The Case was That the Servant of Windham brought his Masters horse to the Inn and there it was stollen To which the Defendant said That the said Servant brought the said Horse to the said Inn to be put to Pasture and thereupon the said Horse was put to grass and was there stollen it was ruled in that Case that the Inn-keeper should be excused but if the Inn-keeper of his own head without direction of the Owner
Land Rents and Reversion until of the Issues and Profits thereof certain Sums of Mony should be paid to his younger Sons and dyed And Exception was taken to the pleading because it is not specially shewn that the Land devised was holden in Socage And that was holden a sufficient Exception And the Court was of Opinion That the Opinion of Dyer Devises Whiddon and Bendloes in 16 Eliz. was not Law for by the common Law no Land was devisable but by Custom which ought to be pleaded where Title is made by Devise Tenances And now by the Statute all Lands holden in Socage are devisable and but two parts of the Land holden by Knight Service and therefore he who would make Title to himself by a Devise ought to shew the Tenure of it and so it was lately adjudged in the Kings Bench in Thompsons Case And by Anderson and Periam This Feoffment was well executed for the manner of it Attorneys make Livery for the Letter of Attorney is Conjunctim divisim ad intrandum in omnia singula praemissa and upon these words one Attorney may make Livery in one parcel of the Land and the other Attorney in the other parcel and in this case if one of the said Attorneys make Livery in one part only without medling with the residue by himself or by any other the same shall pass for it is not necessary that all pass or nothing at all 7 Eliz. Dyer 79. CCCXI. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case ADrian Stokes and the Lady Francisca Dutchess of Suffolk his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and others The Bishop pleaded and demanded Iudgment of the Writ because he said It appeareth by the Writ Quod praedicta Francisca uxor praefati Adriani nominatur in dicto Brevi Domina Francisca Ducissa Suffolk ubi per Legem terrae eadem Francisca by her Marriage betwixt the aforesaid Adrian and her the said Frances had lost her name of Dignity and ought to be named Francisca uxor praefati Adriani Wherefore and because the said Frances is named Lady Dutchess of Suffolk in the said Writ therefore he demanded Iudgment of the Writ And afterwards the Plaintiffs did discontinue their Suit and durst not proceed Vide the Case 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. Mich. 4 5 Phil. Mary CCCXII The Queen Due and Kirbys Case THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirby and declared That Colley was seized of certain Lands in Fee and holden of the King and Queen as of their Manor of Westbury which Manor is ancient Demesne and so seized levied a Fine to the said Due for Conusans de droit c. Due rendred unto Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirby in Fee Colley dyed Kirby entred as in his Remainder Kirby pleaded That the Land is Frank-fee c. upon which they are at Issue which Issue depending not tryed Due dyed It was moved that the Writ should abate But it was allowed for this Action is but Trespass in its Nature for to punish the said Disceit And Due had nothing in the Land but is named only because he was party to the Disceit And no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine reversed Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXIII. Russels Case RUssel was condemned in an Action of Debt Execution and after the year and day the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciend ' against him and he was taken by force of it and committed to the Marshal as in Execution It was holden by the Court That the same was a void Execution and not only avoidable by Error and therefore the Defendant was discharged for it is not at any Execution and the Plaintiff may have a Scire Facias when he will. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXIV Wroth and Capells Case BEtween Wroth and Capell the Case was 3 Leon. 102. That A. was indicted upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. and Exception was taken to the Indictment because there were no words of Freehold in it or to prove that the party grieved had any Freehold whereof he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold therefore the Exception was not allowed c. Another Exception was taken to the Indictment for that the words were in unum Tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an incertain word and therefore for that cause the party was discharged But the Indictment was further in unum Tenementum 10 Acras terrae eidem pertinent and as to those Acres he was put to answer CCCXV. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Execution NOte It was agreed by the Court and affirmed by the Clarks That if an Action of Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon one Ioynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath Iudgment to recover that one Ioynt Execution ought to be sued against them both but if the Suit were by Original and several Praecipe's Execution might be sued forth against any of them Mich. 8 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXVI. Belfield and Rous's Case IN Dower by Sibill Belfield who was the Wife of Anthony Rous against Thomas Rous they were at Issue upon Detinue of Charters and it was found for the Demandant and it was further found That the Husband of the Demandant of whose Seisin she demanded Dower dyed having Issue Charles Rous Quodque idem Carolus dict' Sibill perceperunt receperunt per spacium sex annorum proxime post mortem dict' Anthonij the Issues and Profits of the said Lands whereof the Demandant now demands Dower and that the said Charles afterwards dyed without Issue after whose death the said Thomas Rous entred c. And Iudgment was given for the Demandant and to recover damages after the death of her Husband CCCXVII Pasc 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Uses BEfore the Statute of Vses a Feoffment is made to the use of a Man sole and a Woman sole and their Heirs and afterwards they inter-marry and afterwards the Statute of Vses came It was the Opinion of the Iustices That they should hold the Land in such sort as they held the Vse scil by several and divided Moieties for by the said Statute the possession shall be executed to the Vse in such Nature Condition and Quality as it was before Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXVIII Sir Gervaise Clyftons Case A Quo Warranto was brought against Sir Gervaise Clyfton 3 Leon. 184. Quo Warranto and shewed That the said Sir Gervaise was seized of a Manor and a Messuage within which he claimed to have a Court with view of Frank-pledge and other Liberties and that without any Grant or Authority usurpavit Libertates praedictas That the Defendant pleaded Quod non usurpavit Libertates praedictas
one John Whettesley and Ann his Wife examinand ' Ann ' praedict ea intentione That the said John and Ann should take back an Estate thereof for their lives the Remainder to one John Buck in Fee. Note the Surrender ought to be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot Two several Surrenders of the said Husband and Wife of the said two Messuages and took an Estate for their lives the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay certain Moneys c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the Warrant was ad Capiend ' unam sursam redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the Warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Letter of Deputation should be absolute and without condition and now in the Execution of it is conditional so as the conditional Estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the Court was clear of Opinion to the contrary in both the points That the proceedings here are sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because the Surrender and Regrant is entred into the Roll of a Court dated to be holden 2 Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the 3 of June after but as to that the Court was clear That the Mis-entry of the Date of the Court should not prejudice the party for that Entry is not any matter of Record but only an Escroll and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country And the party shall give in Evidence to the truth of the matter and shall not be bound by the Rolls and according to this Resolution Iudgment was given Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXLIX Long and Hemmings Case GIles Long brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester Hemmings and Hadnell Hemmings pleaded That one Tho. Long seized of the Manor of F. to which the Advowson was appendant by his Deed granted the Advowson unto him 17 Eliz. The Incumbent pleaded the same Plea to which the Plaintiff Replicando said That before the said Grant viz. 6 Eliz. the said Tho. Long granted to him the said Manor c. and upon Issue joyned the Iury found this Special Matter That the said Feoffment was by word and Livery and Seisin was made and afterwards the said Tho. Long granted the said Advowson to the Defendant and afterwards Attornment was had and if without Attornment the Advowson passed with the Manor was the Question Shuttleworth argued That the Advowson passed as appendant to the Demesns for an Advowson shall be more properly appendant to the Demesns than to the Services for the Services may be determined many ways so cannot the Demesns for if the Services be determined by Escheat c. yet the Advowson remains appendant to the Demesns and an Advowson may be appendant to an acre parcel of the Manor but not to the Services and so an Advowson may well pass without Deed as upon a Feoffment of a Manor the Services pass without Deed. And if a man seized of a Manor with an advowson appendant makes a Feoffment of one acre parcel thereof with the advowson the advowson is appendant to that acre 33 H. 6. 5. although it be not by Deed. Vide contra Temps E. 1. Faits Feoffments 115. 17 E 3. 4. It ought to be by Deed 43 E. 3. 24. Walmsley argued to the contrary The Verdict is That Tho. Long give not the Manor but the Capital Messuage of F. and all other Lands and Tenements of the same which words of the same have relation to the Messuage and therefore neither the Manor of F. nor the advowson pass and admit that all the Demesns pass yet the advowson cannot pass as appendant for that advowson shall pass as appendant to the whole Manor and not to such or such part of it And by Littleton 7 E. 4. 27. if a man holds of me three acres by 12 d. and I grant the Services of the third acre the same is void so here there is no advowson appendant to the Demesns And he said That in this case the advowson is appendant to the Services and although Services are Inheritances incorporeal yet an advowson may be appendant to them as one Office may be appendant to another Office and one advowson to another advowson 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. A Man seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant enfeoffeth one by Deed of one acre parcel thereof and also by the same Deed grants the Advowson the Advowson shall pass as in gross for they are several Grants although but one Deed. Another matter was That Thomas Long enfeoffed and here the Iury have found that Thomas Long gave in tail c. And he conceived that the Plaintiff upon that Verdict should have Iudgment As in Waste the Plaintiff assigns the Waste in cutting down of 20 Oaks and upon Not Guilty It was found that he cut down but 10 the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment upon that Verdict The Case was adjourned CCCL Trin. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was Lessee for life of another bargains and sells by Deed indented and enrolled and afterwards levies a Fine to the Conusee Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c It was holden by the whole Court That it was a forfeiture of his Estate for when the Bargainee being now Tenant for the life of another accepts a Fine of a Stranger sur Conusans de droit c. that he admit the Fee in him by matter of Record otherwise it is of a Fine sur Release And by Manwood If Lessee for life be disseised and levies a Fine to the Disseisor sur Conusans de droit c the Lessor shall re-enter Quod Dyer negavit Because that the Lessor at the time of the Fine levied had not any thing in the Reversion but only a Right Manwood put this Case Land is given to A. and B. and to the Heirs of B. they are disseized by two A releaseth to one of the Disseisors now they are Ioyntenants but for a moiety and the Estate in the other moiety is changed into an Estate for life Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLI The Queen and the Bishop of Norwich's Case IN a Quare Impedit the case was That the title to present to the Church was devolved to the Queen by Lapse The Patron himself presented and his Clerk was inducted and afterwards deprived It was the Opinion of the whole Court That if the Deprivation was without any covin that the title of the Queen by Lapse was gone Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLII. Ashpool and the Inhabitants of Everinghams Case IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Ashpool
20 Of omnia bona by an Executor what passeth 22 Of a Reversion by a Bishop 23 Of the Office of a Sheriff 33 Habeas Corpus WHere the cause of Commitment must be retorned upon it Where not 21 Heirs The second Son shall inherit the Land purchased by his eldest Brother notwithstanding the Attainder of the Father 5 Jeofails WHere upon a Jeofail the Court awarded a Repleader 19 Indictment Quare Clausum A. B. fregit held good notwithstanding A. had but a Lease at will of the Land. 6 De uno Equo for a Gelding not good But where Trespass is brought de Equo ellato and the Jury find a Gelding c. it is otherwise ibid. Upon Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 8. for being a Broker in an usurious Contract for which he incurred a Premunire 32 Upon Stat. 5 E. 6. against P. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. holden void for that it is not said he drew it with intent to strike the party 49 Upon Stat. 8 H. 6. two Exceptions taken to it but disallowed ibid. For stopping quandam viam valde necessariam quashed for want of the word Regiam and for that the party indicted had not any addition therein 121 Infant Makes a Lease for years and at his full age says to the Lessee God give you joy of it the Lease is thereby affirmed 4 If an Infant being in Execution sues a Writ of Error and is bailed the Recognisance shall be by his Bail only that he shall appear and if Judgment be affirmed that they pay the mony and not render his Body to Prison 6 Inmates Who shall be accounted Inmates upon the Stat. of 31 Eliz. 10 Interest Difference between an Interest and a Limitation 33 Judgment Shall not be stayed upon Allegation that one of the Defendants was dead after Verdict for the Court cannot take notice of it judicially nor any of the parties have day in Court to plead it besides the party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 15 If the Court may reverse their own Judgment Quaere 60 Reversed for Error in omitting the Costs the Jury gave 61 Jurors Where bound by confession of the parties where not 56 A Juror before the Retorn of the Pannel became a Minister of the Church and therefore prayed to be discharged according to the priviledge of those of the Ministry but it was not granted because he was a Lay man at the time of the Pannel made 190 Justice of Peace One cannot be Justice of Peace by Prescription 149 Lease OF a Manor c. with all the profits of a Wood except 40 Trees to the Lessor to take at his pleasure the Wood is not comprised within the Lease but the Lessee shall only have the profits as Pawnage Herbage c. 9 If a man makes a Lease of a Wood ad faciendum maximum proficuum meliori modo quo poterit the Lessee cannot thereby cut the Trees nor do waste 9 Made by a Corporation void for Misnosmer 11 Good to maintain an Ejectione firmae 14 Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 17 By Tenant at will if a disseisin 35 Leases made by Prebendaries within the Equity of the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 28. 51 Leet Pound breach is not inquirable there 12 But excessive Toll is ibid. Nobleman SHall be bound with Bayl in a Recognizance to render his Body 6 By 13 E. 1. if he hath not Goods or Lands his Body shall be taken in Execution ibid. Obligation Forfeited 18 Outlary How avoided by Plea in person 22 186 Payment OF Rent before the day by the Obligee doth not discharge him 4 Of a Debt generally by a Surety Executor to the Principal if it shall be as Executor or as Obligor Quaere ibid. Pleadings In a special Justification in Trover the place of Conversion may be traversed but where a Justification is general the County is not traversable at this day 4 It is no good Plea for the Tenant in a Writ of Entry sur disseisin to say that the House in demand is within the City of London whereof he is a Citizen and that King H. 3. concessit civibus c. quod non implacitentur c. extra muros Civitatis praed sed illis rectum teneatur infra Civitatem praed secundum cons Civit. praed For he ought to have shewed That the Citizens for their Lands there ought to be impleaded in the Hustings 13 In Trespass for pulling Hurdles c. the Defendant justified by Prescription to have a free course for Sheep in the place where c. and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave of the Lord of the Manor the Defendant cast them down prout c. the Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause and held naught for he should have traversed the Prescription 17 Traverse of the place in Trover where good 22 Special Plea to an Assumpsit not good and why 31 Posse Comitatus It differs from Posse Manerij 87 Possessio Fratris Where it shall not be of Copyhold Lands 38 Previledge Denied to the Treasurer of the Records of the Kings Bench and why 81 Prohibition If the Parson Libels in the Spiritual Court against the owner of Lands for Tythes which he severed but a Stranger took and carried away no Prohibition shall issue for that he might plead the same matter in bar in the Spiritual Court. 7 To the Spiritual Court to stay a Suit commenced there for Tythes upon a Prescription shewed in the Kings Bench. 25 Granted to stay a Suit in the Court Christian commenced against an Executor by one for a Legacy bequeathed to him by his Father who willed his Goods should be parted amongst his Children according to the Custom of London 12 Upon claim of Property 150 Quare Impedit May be brought by Executors to remove a Clerk collated wrongfully in the life time of the Testator 15 Recognizance IF a Recognizor of a Recognizance acknowledged before a Master in Chancery dye before it be inrolled it may be inrolled at the Petition of his Executors 8 Common Recovery Feme not party to the Writ of Covenant not bound by Recovery 26 Remainder Where void 21 Resceit One prayed to be received in a Formedon and was ousted of it by the Court. 51 Reservation Of Rents upon a joint Lease 27 Difference between a Reservation and a Contract 29 Retorn Of the Sheriff where void 21 Sale. OF a Bayliwick of an Hundred is not within the Statute of 5 E. 6. c. 16. 33 Of Goods by the Sheriff upon Execution where good where not 20 21 Surrender If Lessee for years take a second Lease from Guardian in Soccage made in his name it is a surrender of the first Lease 7 What shall be said to be a surrender of a Term what not 30 Treason UPon Attainder of Treason who shall seize the Goods for the Queen 34 Tythes Unity no discharge of Tythes 47 Venire Facias GRanted de novo after Verdict for that the first Venire Facias was of K. only for that it ought to have been de Vicento de K. W. 85 Vesturam terrae He who hath Vesturam terrae cannot dig the Land. 43 Those who have Lot-Meadow viz. to change every year according to Lots have not any Freehold therein but only Vesturam terrae 43 Writ DE fama gestu what it is 40 FINIS
which Ayliffe concessit Wray Chief Iustice was absent in the Star-Chamber Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XLV Harvey and Harveys Case Suit for Legacies Prohibition CLare Harvey libelled against Sebastian Harvey the Executor of Sir James Harvey their Father for a legacy bequeathed to him by his Father in his Will. By which he willed that after his death his Goods should be divided and parted betwixt his Children according to the laudable custom of London and averred in his libel that the Goods and Chattels whereof the Testator died possessed amounts to such a sum and that it belonged unto him being one of his children to demand so much Virtute Legationis praedict The Defendant came and prayed a Prohibition and Wray Chief Iustice conceived he ought to have it for here is not any legacy but the Testator setteth forth his meaning that his pleasure is that the custom of London should be observed in the disposition of his Goods and the said Clare is put to his Writ de rationabili parte Bonorum But yet afterwards a special Consultation was granted Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XLVI Sandersons Case Leet NOte It was adjudged by the Court that Pound-breach is not inquirable in a Leet for it is not a common Nusans But Rhodes Serjeant said that excessive Toll is inquirable in a Leet Vide Book of Entries 390. XLVII Pasc 37 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Abatement of Writ IN a Quare Impedit by the Queen exception was taken to the Writ because the words were quod permittat ipsam praesentare ad Rectoriam de D. where it ought to be ad Ecclesiam the Court awarded that the Writ should be openly amended in Court by a Clerk of the Chancery Amendment XLVIII Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Pleadings IN a Writ of Entry for Disseisin the Tenant said that the House in demand is within the City of London and that the said City is an ancient City and that King Henry 3. concessit Civibus Civitatis praedict quod non implacitentur de terris tenementis suis c. extra Muros Civitatis praedict and said that he himself is a Citizen of London and demanded judgment of the Writ and to the Pleading he further said Sed illis rectum teneatur infra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict Exception was taken to the Plea because the Tenant did not shew before that by their custom they ought to be impleaded And by the Opinion of the whole Court the Tenant ought to have shewed that the Citizens for their lands there ought to be impleaded in the Hustings c. And the general words in the Plea Sed illis rectum reneatur infra Civitatem praedictam secundum consuetudinem Civitatis praedict do not supply the defect aforesaid And afterwards it was awarded that the Tenant plead Ouster Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XLIX Hunt and Sones Case AN Action upon the Case by W. Hunt against W. Sone Assumpsit 2 Leon. 107. Owen 42. 3 Cro. 118. 1 Roll. 29. 30. ibid. The Plaintiff declared Quod cum idem Hunt was seised in his Demesn as of Fee of certain lands and shewed the same in certain praedict Sone in consideration that the said Hunt permit the said Sone occupare terras praedict ab eodem die 20 Julij 27 Eliz. usque ad secundum diem Novembris which should be in Anno 1589. assumed and promised that he the said William Sone ad festum omnium Sanctorum proxime sequend 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ac ab inde annuatim durante dict termino 20 l. 5 s. ad festa Annunciationis Beatae Mariae ac omnium Sanctorum per aequales portiones solvend eidem Hunt bene fideliter contentare vellet at licet praedict W. Hunt permisit praefat Sone occupare terras praedict a dict 20 die Julij 27 Eliz. Usque ad secundum diem Novemb. 28 Eliz. Licetque etiam post dict 20 diem Julij 27 Eliz. ante praedict diem secund Novemb. An 28 Eliz. dict fest omnium Sanctorum An. 27. Supradict ac fest Annunciationis Beatae Mariae Virginis ac fest omnium Sanctorum 28 Eliz. praeterierunt praedict tamen W. Sone dict 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad praedict fest omnium Sanctorum proxime sequend post permissionem assumptionem praedict ac aliam 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad fest Annunciationis 28 Eliz. ac alia 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad fest omnium Sanctorum An. 28. Eliz. superdict nondum solvit The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff entred into parcel of the Premises 6 October 28 Eliz. eadem occupare eundem Sone non permisit upon which they were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff it was moved in stay of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had no cause of Action before that all the Term was expired for it is an entire Assumpsit and cannot be severed by action and therefore it was said that if I promise to pay you 10 l. viz. at such a Feast 5 l. and at such a Feast other 5 l. there before the last day of payment no Action lieth for the sum of 20 l. is one sum entire But if I promise to pay another at Easter next 10 l. and at Midsummer as much here they are several Assumpsits and upon default of payment of the first sum an Action will lie without excepting the latter payment But at last the Court agreed That Iudgment notwithstanding that exception should be given for the Plaintiff and that the Declaration was good enough as well in respect of the Exception aforesaid as also that the word Licet was effectual enough to set forth the permission L. Hil. 31 and 32 Eliz In the Common Pleas. A. Disseised B. of two Acres of Land and leased one of them to C. at will and the other Acre to D. at will and they entred accordingly B the Disseisee by Lease leased both Acres to E. for years and entred into one of the Acres in the name of both and sealed and delivered the Lease to E. It was holden by the Court to be a good Lease to maintain an Ejectione firmae of both Acres LI. Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Cro. 655 656 plus 2 Roll. 416. Johnson versus Smart cont A. Seised of certain Lands and having two Sons devised part of his Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the other part of his Lands to his younger Son in tail with this clause in the Will that if any of his Sons dyed without Issue that then the whole Land should remain to a stranger in Fee and dyed the Sons entred into the Lands devised to them respectively and the younger Son died without issue and he to whom the Fee was devised entred It was adjudged That this Entry was not lawful and that the eldest Son should have the Land by the implicative devise Mich. 32 Eliz. In the
one who had an Estate so determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure could not begin in his Life 2. The Letter of the Act is 21 years or under and the word under strongly expounds the meaning of the Act to be not to extend to such an Estate for hereupon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land leased is the Inheritance of the Wife and it was said that in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act of Parliament was strictly construed Acts of Parliament It was enacted that all Copies for three Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife which was Queen Katherine should be good The Admiral granted in Reversion for three Lives It was holden that the Grant was void and not warranted by the said private Act of Parliament Dyer The words are general omnes dimissiones therefore not to be restrained to special Leases Manwood A Feme covert by duress joyns in a Lease with her Husband it shall bind her The Case was adjourned LXI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen leased for years rendring 10 l. Rent the Lessee granted the Land over to A. rendring 20 l. Rent A. granted the Land over to B. who surrendred to the Queen and took a new Lease And Manwood said that the first Lessee should have an Action of Debt for the Rent of 20 l. against him Debt for Rent who was possessed of the Land and not against A. his Assignee for it is a Rent issuing out of the Land and he who hath the possession of the Land shall pay it and no other for if any part of the Land be evicted the Rent shall be apportioned and because it is meerly a Rent and ensues the privtiy real viz. the possession of the Land and not the privity personal the Person of him who was party or privy to the Contract and he said If the first Lessee who reserved the Rent entred upon the Land the Rent is suspended Dyer The first Lessee hath Election which of them he will sue 18 H. 6. 1. in Debt against Lessee for years for the Arrearages of Rent reserved upon it he needs not declare that the Lessee had entred for the Contract is the ground of the Action 44 Eliz. 3. 5. Debt against the Lessee notwithstanding the Assignment Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXII Bluets Case BLuet granted the next Avoidance to Stell and Brooks and was bound to Brooks in an Obligation that he should enjoy the said Presentment without any disturbance or claim of the said Bluet Stell released to Bluet his Interest on the said Advowson The Church became void Bluet offer'd to joyn with Brook Obligation forfeited in presenting to the Avoydance It was holden in this Case that the Obligation was forfeited although that Bluet had a puisne Title to it after the Obligation was entred into Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXIII Shrewsbury and the Inhabitants of Ashtons Case Action upon Statute of Huy and Cry. AN Action was brought by Shrewsbury against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Ashton in the County of Bucks upon the Statute of Huy and Cry It was moved by Fleetwood Serjeant for the Defendants That if upon such Huy and Cry the Inhabitants do their endeavours as much as in them is to pursue and take the Malefactors and yet they cannot apprehend them that in reason they ought not to be charged But the whole was very strongly against him For Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Inhabitants of the Hundred in which the Robbery is done are bound to apprehend the Felons or to satisfie the Party robbed and the Party robbed is not bound to give notice to the Inhabitants nor to direct them which way the Felons took their flight but the Inhabitants are bound to pursue the Felons without any such instruction And afterwards the Inquest was taken and gave a Verdict in this manner That where the Plaintiff had declared that the Robbery was done in the Parish of D. in the Hundred aforesaid the Iury found that the place where the Robbery was done was a Lane within the said Hundred and that the one side of the said Lane was within the Parish of S. and the other side within the said Parish of D. and that the Robbery was done on the side of the said Lane which was in the Parish of S. and prayed the Opinion of the Court upon the matter And the whole Court was clear of Opinion That notwithstanding the Exception the Plaintiff should have Iudgment for here is the right Hundred which ought to be charged and the mistaking of the Parish was not to the purpose Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXIV Josselin and Josselins Case IN Debt the Plaintiff declared That he let certain Lands for years to the Defendant rendring Rent payable at the Feasts of the Annunciation and St. Michael or within forty days after every of the said Feasts and that the Rent was behind at the Feast of St. Michael last past unde actio accrevit The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet upon which they were at Issue It was shewed to the Court that here upon the Pleading is a Ieofail for the Rent is reserved payable at the said Feasts Jeofails or within forty days after and he declares that the said Rent upon which the Action was brought was behind at St. Michael without respect to the forty days after which cannot be for before the forty days after each Feast no Action did lie whereupon the Court awarded a Repleader Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXV The Queen and the Earl of Shrewsburies Case THe Queen granted to George Earl of Shrewsbury Grants of the King. Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench. An. 15 Eliz. the Office of Earl Marshal of England and now came the said Earl and prayed that J. N. one of his Servants to whom he had granted the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench might be admitted to it because that the same is an Office incident to his Office and in his power to grant and that Knowles to whom the Queen had granted the same Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench which she had by the Attainder of Thomas Duke of Norf. might be removed And a President was shewed M. 14 and 15 Eliz. between Gawdy and Verney where it is agreed That the said Office was a several Office from the said great Office and not incident to it And as to the Case of 39 H. 6. 33 34. the truth is that the said Marshal of the Kings Bench was granted expresly to the Duke and so he had it not as incident to his Office of Marshal of England On the other side were three Presidents shewed In the time of Edward 2. That the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench was appendant to the said Office of Marshal of England And 8 H. 2. when the said Great Office was in the
should vest in his Heir It was further given in Evidence that the Conusor named the said Cook one of the Conusees and willed that the other three Conusees should release to him Gawdy Iustice held That that by nomination the use did vest in Cook for he said it had been adjudged that where before the Statute of 27 H. 8. One infeoffed divers persons to his use Feoffment to Uses and the Feoffor willed that his Feoffees should make estate to such person as his Son and Heir should name and died the Son and Heir named one of the Feoffees that the same was a good nomination c. Wray and Jefferies to the contrary for after this release Cook is in the whole by the Conusor and not by his Co-Feoffees and by this limitation the Conusor ought to name such a person which ought to take the estate and so cannot one Ioyntenant from his Companion c. And also the words are so that they four shall take the estate 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXIII The Bishop of Rochesters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case upon Evidence was Grant of a Reversion by a Bishop Attornment the Bishop of Rochester 4 E. 6. made a lease for years to B. rendring rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient rent Habend from the day of the Lease without impeachment of waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. the Lessee did not attorn and in default of Attornment it was holden by the whole Court that the Lease was void for it is made by way of Grant of the Reversion But by Catlin if the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence that B. after the notice of the Grant to C. had speech with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had then in his Lease but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices conceived that that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C to have power to make a new Lease Also the said B. being in company with one R. and seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromely Solicitor Attornment the same is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present It was holden by the whole Court that it was a good Attornment But if the Attornment was not before the Bishop was translated to Winchester the Lease should be void and although the confirmation of the Dean Chapter was before the Attornment so as no estate was vested in C yet it was good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient be it before or after by Catlin Southcoat and Whiddar Iustices but Wray held the contrary Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXIV Russels Case Execution where not good upon a Capias without a Scire Facias RUssel was condemned in an Action of Debt and after the year and day the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad Satisfaciend against him and by force thereof he was taken and committed to the Marshal as in Execution It was the Opinion of the Iustices that it was a void Execution and not only voidable by Error and therefore the Defendant was discharged for it is not any Execution at all and the Plaintiff may have a Scire facias when he pleaseth Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXV Bluet and Cooks Case Action for Words IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for scandalous words viz. Lambert is a Thief and Bluèt innuendo the Plaintiff is his Partaker It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the words were not actionable because they were too general for it may be that the Plaintiff is his Partaker in other Matters But if the words had been That Bluet knowing Lambert to be a Thief was his Partaker there the Action would have lain Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXVI Hunt and Gonnels Case Bail. HUnt recovered in Debt against Gonnel and procured against him a Capias ad Satisfaciend upon which Non est inventus is returned Execution but the Writ is not filed Hunt sued a Capias against the Mainpernors who are taken in Execution It was the Opinion of the Iustices that they should avoid this Execution by Error and not by Plea or Surmise c. But if the Capias returned against Gonnel had been filed and after imbezelled Quaere of the Error for the Court conceived that the matter shall be examined but Quaere to what intent Wray said to punish the Deceit but not to maintain the Execution against the Mainpernors Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LXXVII Saer and Blands Case SAer Parson of the Church of D. libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bland for Tythes Bland came to the Kings Bench and shewed that within the said Parish of D. there is a Hamlet in which the said Bland inhabited and the said Inhabitants within the said Hamlet time out of mind had had a Chappel of Ease within the said Hamlet because the said Hamlet was distant from the Church of the said Parish and with part of their Tythes have found a Clark to do Divine Service within the said Chappel and also had paid a certain sum of money to Saer Prohibition Prescription and his Predecessors for all manner of Tythes and prayed a Prohibition and had it and it was holden a good Prescription LXXVIII Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copyholder with licence of the Lord made a Lease for years and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the rent to the use of a Stranger who is admitted accordingly Attornment It was moved if there needed any Attornment It was the opinion of Rhodes and Windham Iustices that the Surrender and Admittance ut supra are in the nature of an Attornment and so amount to an Attornment or at least supply the want of it Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber LXXIX The Lady Newman and Shyriffes Case THe Lady Newman Sister of James Wingfield 3 Leon. 170. lately deceased exhibited a Bill of Complaint in the Star Chamber against one Shyriffe dwelling in Dublin in Ireland and two others complaining That the said Shyriffe had forged a Deed purporting that the said James had by that Deed given unto him all his Goods and also that the said James had by that Deed assigned to the said Shyriffe a Lease for years of Lands in Ireland and also the said Shyriffe had procured the two other Defendants to depose upon their Oaths before the Town-Clerk of London That the said Deed was Sealed and Delivered by the said James as his Deed. It was moved by the Counsel of the
lie Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XCVII Baspoles Case THe Father seized of Lands is bound in an Obligation 3 Leon. 118. 2 Leon. 10 1. Stiles 148 Devise to his Son and Heir and devised his Land to his Wife until his Son shall come to the age of 21 years the remainder to the Son in Fee and no other Land descends to the Son from his Father It was moved that the Heir in this case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra Vide 9 E. 4. 18. per Needham It was the Opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices that the Son should be adjudged in by descent Clench held the contrary Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XCVIII Onions Case IN an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for hunting in his Park the Statute gives treble damages It was the Opinion of the Iustices that notwithstanding that the Statute gives treble damages Costs that the Plaintiff should have Costs also XCIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and a Scire Facias issued against the Bail before any Capias issued against the Principal Bail. and the Bail was taken and now they came and shewed this matter to the Court and prayed to be discharged Wray Iustice said They shall be put to their writ of Error for being but Error in Process we may reverse our own Iudgment C. Mich. 14 Eliz In the Common Pleas. A Man seized of a Pasture within which are two great Groves and Wood known by the name of a Wood leased the same by Indenture for years and also in the same Pasture were certain Hedgrows and Trees there growing sparsim by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses and further that it shall and may be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away the same at all times during the term Harper said the Hedg-rows did not pass by these words for they are not known by the name of Woods 14 H. 8. 2. Manwood held the contrary Mounson contrary to Manwood for the words of the Grant may be supplied by other in it viz. Woods Dyer held that these Hedgrows should pass for the Grant is general It was further moved if by these words the Lessee might again cut them c. or but once Harper Manwood and Mounson three of the Iustices held That he might cut them but once But Dyer held the contrary said so it should be if the words had been growing upon the Premisses and this word growing although it sounds in the present tense yet it shall be taken also in the future tense if not that the word tunc be laid for that is a word of restraint The case which was argued in the Chancery 27 H. 8. where I was present was this The Prior of St. Johns let a Commandry Provided that if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void And it was doubted if that Proviso did extend to the Successor for this word being in the present tense and yet it was holden by Fitzherbert that it should be taken in the future tense and so to extend to the Successor but otherwise if the words had been nunc being 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CI. Conies Case A Man seized of Lands in Fee devised Devises that his wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his daughter and Heir should come to the age of sixteen years and if the said Mary died that J.S. should be his Heir Manwood said Tail. That the daughter after she had attained the age of sixteen years should have the Lands in Tail for Devises shall be construed according to the interest of the Devisor if they have any certainty or reason but no intent shall be taken against reason and certainty It is certain the daughter shall not have Fee-simple for that should have descended to her without any Devise and these words if she dye cannot be intended a condition for it is certain that she shall dye but if the words had been If she dye before the age of sixteen years J. S. should be his Heir that had been a condition and if the words had been That after the death of Mary J. S. should be his Heir So as the Estate Tail remains in the daughter Mounson and Harper contrary And that she shall have but for life Mounson said That if Mary had been a Stranger to the Devisor she had taken nothing Devisee who shall first take And this case was put by Barham Serjeant A man devised 100 l. to his youngest daughter and 100 l. to his middle daughter and 100 l. to his eldest daughter and that all these sums should be levied of the Profits of his Lands It was holden by the better Opinion that the youngest daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest daughter c. and that he said was Conies Case CII 6 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Lease to another for years to begin after the death of the Tenant for life the Lessee for years died intestate the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to A. the Tenant for life and A. joyned in the Purchase of the Fee-simple of the Land demised It was holden by the Iustices in this Case that the Fee was executed for one Moiety for the remainder for years Estate executed was not any impediment to the execution of it Manwood conceived that the Term was not extinct for the same is not properly a term Extinguishment but only an Interest of a Term which cannot be surrendred Mounson He hath the Term in auter droit as Administrator and therefore it cannot be extinct Dyer If an Executor hath a Term and purchaseth the Fee-simple the Term is determined A woman Termor for years takes Husband who purchaseth the Fee the Term is extinct by Manwood for the Husband hath done an act which destroys the Term scil the Purchase But if a woman being a Termor marrieth with him in the Remainder the Term continueth for here it is not the act of the Husband but the act of Law. It was the Opinion of Dyer Tenants in Common that in this case the Tenant for Life and the Administrators should be Tenants in Common of the Fee. CIII Mich. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe husband is seized in right of his wife of certain customary lands in Fee and he and his wife by licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring rent have Issue two daughters and the husband dyeth the wife takes another husband and they have Issue a son and a daughter the husband and wife dye the son is admitted to the Reversion and dyeth without Issue and by Manwood
is not punishable by the Law of the Land no more than if many conspire to indict one but do not put it in Execution it is not punishable but if A. saith that B. lyeth in wait to kill him or rob him there an Action lyeth for insidiatores viarum are punishable But the Opinion of the whole Court was that because these words sound in great discredit of the Plaintiff it is reason he have his Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXL The Lord Stafford and Sir Rowland Heywoods Case THe Lord Stafford brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Rowland Heywood Kt. Abatement of Writ Exception was taken to the original Writ viz. ad respondend c. Quare colloquium quoddam habebatur inter Dominum Stafford Row. Heywood de assurando Castrum to the said Lord Stafford by the said Sir Rowland c. Dictus Rowlandus Castrum illud non assuravit c. where the said Writ said cum colloquium quoddam habebatur for the cause of the Action is not colloquium habitum but the not assurance of the Castle according to the promise made super colloquium praedictum and for that cause the Writ was abated CXLI Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Court If one who is not a common Informer be barred in any Information or Action upon a penal Statute he shall pay costs notwithstanding the Preamble of the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. be for the redressing of divers Disorders in common Informers but if pars gravata be barred in such case he shall not pay costs Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXLII Robinsons Case GEorge Robinson Lessee for years of the Manor of Drayton Basset the Reversion to the King devised his term to his wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow with the Remainder over if she married or died and made his Wife and his Son William his Executors the said William being within age and therefore the administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will and afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and dyed And by Cook nothing passed by this Grant for William had the same before for every Executor hath the whole Interest Popham contrary for at the time of the Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the wife was sole Executrix and by Egerton Solicitor if during the said Executorship by the wife one doth trespass upon the Lands the wife only shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-Executor which Cook denied and he cited the Case 10 H. 7. 4 where two Executors are and the one only is possessed of goods of the Testator and a Stranger takes them our of his Possession to whom the other Executor releaseth and after the Executor out of whose possession the goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespasser who pleads the Release of the other Executor and it was holden a good Plea for the possession of the Plaintiff was also the possession of his Companion The Case was further that Thomas Robinson in pleading shewing that G. Robinson was possessed and the same devised to his wife who granted to William Robinson who devised it to the Defendant And the other side shewed that the said Thomas granted the said term to Paramour and upon that grant they were at Issue if now against his own pleading Thomas might give in evidence that Thomas could not grant for that he had not any thing to grant for if the gift made by the wife to William was void and he had the term as Executor then he could not devise it but his devise to Thomas was void and then Thomas could not grant it and so Ne grant pas It was also shewed that the said Thomas granted the same to Paramour by Indenture if now against that Indenture he might give in evidence such special matter ut supra and if the Party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded to give the Verdict Secundum veritatem facti for they are sworn to say the truth and by Popham and Egerton as well the Iurors as the Parties are bound and concluded by the confession of the Parties on the Record and here all confess that William devised to him virtute cujus he was possessed The Queens Attorney to that said That true it is that Thomas Robinson was possessed but further said that the said Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides Therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary And by Manwood Chief Baron if the Parties admit a thing by not gainsaying it Jurors where bound by confession of the parties where not the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed the Iury shall be bound thereby And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLIII Applethwait and Nertleys Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant promised in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry his Daughter to give to the Plaintiff 40 l. and said he had married his Daughter and yet the Defendant Licet saepius requisitus would not pay it It was moved by Cook in stay of Iudgment that the Declaration is vitious because there is not set forth the place and time when the request was made for the Assumpsit being general it is by Law to be paid upon request Fenner If the promise was expresly to be paid upon request the Declaration was not good And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLIV Wats and Kings Case SAmuel Wats Plaintiff in Ejectione firmae against W. King upon a Special Verdict it was found that W. Wallshot was seized in Fee and he with one Oliver Shuttleworth Octab. Mich. 3 4 Phil. Mary levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to John Hooper who granted and rendred by the same Fine to Oliver for a month the remainder to the said W. Wallshot and to one Anne Cook and the heirs of their bodies c. the remainder to the right heirs of the said W. Wallshot in Fee and that with Proclamation William and Anne intermarry have issue John now alive W. Wallshot 4 5 Phil. Mary levy a Fine with Proclamation to Edward Popham Esq to the use of the said Edward and his heirs W. Wallshot 18 Eliz. died Anne took to husband Richard Stephens and they in the right of the said Anne entred and by Indenture demised the said Land to Richard Hoose the Father Richard the Son and Mary his wife for the term of their lives rendring to the said Richard Stephens and Anne his wife and to the heirs of the body
of the said Anne and of the right heirs of the same W. Wallshot Anne died and if this Lease should bind the Conusee was the question for it was agreed by all that the Issue in Tail was bound by the Fine Quaere the Case was only put but not resolved CXLV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon a recovery in a writ of Entry sur disseisin of two Acres of Lands an Habere facias seisinam was awarded the Sheriff as to one Acre returned Habere feci and as to the other tarde And that return was shewed to the Court Amercement of the Sheriff and all the Iustices but Periam held that the Sheriff should be amerced for that return being contrary repugnant in it self but Periam said it may be that the Acre of which no seisin is had was so distant from the other Acre whereof the seisin was had that the Sheriff in time could not make execution of both being so remote the one from the other To which it was answered That if the truth of the case was such Then might the Sheriff make Execution in one Acre in the name of both Acres And if upon a Capias ad satisfaciend against two the Sheriff retorn as to one a Cepi and as to the other Tarde he shall be amerced for his several retorns cannot stand together Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLVI Lees and Lord Staffords Case COmpton made Conusans as Bayliff to Edward Lord Stafford and shewed that Henry Lord Stafford Father of the said Edward and Ursula his Wife were seized of the place where and let the same for years to Edward Lees the Plaintiff Robert Lees and Elizabeth Atwood upon Condition they nor any of them should alien the said Term nor any part of the same without the leave of the Lord or his Heirs Henry Lord Stafford and Ursula died and that the Reversion thereof descended to Edward Lord Stafford and shewed further that the said Edward Lees the Plaintiff had aliened To which the Plaintiff in bar of the Conusans said that the said Edward now Lord Stafford gave License that the said Edward Lees Robert or Elizabeth might alien and that was without Deed. It was conceived by some that this Licence was not of any force to dispense with the Condition because it is uncertain and doubtful in the disjunctive and it was resembled to the Case of 11 H. 7. 13. where a man gives a thing to J. S. or A. B. it is void for the incertainty But all the Court was to the contrary For here the thing which is given is but a Liberty and is not to be resembled to a Gift or Interest and the intent of the Lord Stafford was that one of them might alien but not all of them and afterward Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLVII Limver and Evories Case LImver as Administrator of one A. brought Debt against Evory and the case was F. made G. his Executor and G. made H. an Infant his Executor and died and during the minority Administration was granted to the Plaintiff who as Administrator of G brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond made to the first Testator and that was assigned for Error for the Plaintiff ought to bring his Action as Administrator of the first Testator vide 10 E. 4. 1. 26 H. 8. 7. and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLVIII Knevit and Copes Case KKnevit brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared 3 Leon. 266. whereas John Hopkins by his Deed bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him a House and two yard Lands containing forty Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture at Tithingham de forecomb in the Parish of Steep c. and upon Not Guilty the Visne was of Tithingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook that the Declaration had not certainty for it is not shewed certain how much Meadow Land and how much Pasture is contained in the said two yard Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant Guilty as to so much Land but not to the residue also he hath not shewed in the Declaration when the Lease was made but only saith that by Indenture bearing date 20 May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then is the demise To which Exception it was said by the Iustices That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to be delivered at the day of the date Another Exception was taken to the Visne because that the Visne ought to have been from the Parish and not from Tithingham 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Manor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be from the Manor of B. but of B. Gawdy You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is well of Tithingham for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Vill conus from which a Visne cannot come CXLIX Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1027. MIlbourn brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester against the Inhabitants within the Hundred of Dunmow in the County of Essex it was found by Special Verdict that the Plaintiff was robbed 23 Aprilis inter horam secundam matutinam tempore nocturno ante Lucem ejusdem diei and the Opinion of the Court was clear that the Plaintiff should be barred for the said Statute provided for ordinary Travel as in the Case of Archpool who came to his Inn post Sunset ante noctem in tempore diurno which is an usual time for travelling to come to his Inn but the Law doth not receive any in protection of this Stat. who travel in extraordinary hours for it is the folly of the Traveller to take his journy so out of season and the Inhabitants are not bound to leave their Houses and to attend the ways tempore nocturno and another reason was alledged by the Iustices because the said Statute appoints watch to be kept in the time of night à Festo Ascensionis usque ad Festum Sancti Michaelis and this Robbery was done the 23 of April so as it was out of that time and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CL. Barkers Case Estrepement in Partition A Writ of Partition by Barker heir of Gertrude Marquess of Exceter who devised all her Lands to Blunt by which the third part was descended to the Plaintiff and he prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ ought not to be granted for that the Plaintiff might have a more proper remedy upon the Statute cum duo tres c. and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLI Megot and Davies Case
and prayed him to seal it And Wotton said that he would not that the Obligation was forfeited contrary if he had not denyed to seal it but had shewed the same to his Counsel as in our Case But the Opinion of the Iustices was that the Obligation was forfeited For when he knew the last instant of the time he ought to have had his Counsel there ready with him Vide the Case of Arbitrement 18 E. 4. 21. At another day the Case was argued again by Andrews and he said that the Obligation was not forfeited For he said it is a Rule in Law Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas and in E. 4. a man was bound upon request to relinquish and renounce Administration and there it was holden that after the request he ought to have convenient time to go to the Ordinary before it shall be said that he had forfeited his Obligation In 33 E. 3. it is said that if J. S. be bound That if A B infeoff C. that then he shall pay to the Obligee 10 l. Now if the Feoffment be made after Sun-setting as it well may be yet it is sufficient to save his Obligation if he pay the mony the next day And 19 H. 6. an Annuity was granted to an Infant until he was promoted to a Benefice if a Benefice be offered unto him before he be of sufficient age and he refuseth it the Obligation is not forfeited If a man be bound to enfeoff and make Livery and Seisin of the Manor of D to one upon request and afterwards the Party is made King in which Case he cannot take Livery now if upon request the Party refuseth yet it is no Forfeiture And it hath been holden here by you all That if a man unlearned seals a Deed which is written contrary to the intent of the Parties the same not being read unto him by that he shall not be bound for ever But the Opinion of the Court was as before That the Obligation was forfeited CLVII Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte that Mead and Windham the other Iustices being absent were of Opinion That a Copyholder in Fee who by Custom may surrender in Fee may make a surrender in Tail without any Special Custom to warrant it and he who may prescribe to make a Feoffment in Fee may make a Lease for Life and it shall be good because Omne majus continet in se minus Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLVIII Trecarram and Friendships Case 1 Leon. 287. TRecarram made a Demise by these words This Indenture between Trecarram c. of the one part and Friendship his Wâ—â—e and their Children lawfully begotten at the Assignment of the said Friendship of the other part The Question was if L. the Daughter which the Husband and Wife had at the time of the Lease made was Party to the said Indenture and so took by it Or if another Son of Friendship which after he made his Executor should have the Term. Hamon 30 E. 3. If a Gift be made to Infants of such a man it is a good Name of purchase and if he hath but one Infant it is good to him and so in our Case where Friendship had Issue a Daughter at the time of the Lease that she should take only otherwise where he had many And the words viz. at the Assignment of Friendship are mere surplusage as 20 Ass where a man gave twenty loads of Wood in such a Wood whereof fourteen he hath of the gift of such a one these words whereof he hath of the gift of such a one are surplusage Cook conceived that the Daughter who was in esse at the time of the demise should have the Term For if a man make a grant to two as the one of them is not Capax he who is capable shall have the whole As a Feoffment to J. S. and the right Heirs of J. D. J. D. being alive J. S. shall have the whole So Ass a gift to a man and to such a wife which he shall have he shall have the whole and the wife nothing The words At the Assignment c. are void for there is not a Person able to take at the time of the grant therefore he shall not take afterwards and because the Daughter is able she shall Wray Iustice conceived that these words At the Assâ—gnment of Friendship were not void but that he had reserved to him liberty to make his Son party or not and because he had not assigned him that he took nothing Ayliffe If Lands be leased to me my Wife and William my Son whereas his Name is John it is void as to the Son for the Misnomer but if he had said Son without more it had been good to the Son and so here if he had not mentioned any Assignment then the Daughter should have had it but contrary by the words of the Assignment Clench The intent of the parties is to be considered As if I grant to you Common within my Manor of D. it shall be construed to be within my Lands commonable and not in my Orchard And here it shall be intended those Children which he shall name when the sealing was and if he name others after it shall be void as a Lease to you and to her who you shall take to wife is void for there ought to be such a person at the time of the commencement of the Deed which might take And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Defendant who claimed by the Executor should have the term and not the Plaintiff who claimed by the Daughter and therefore Iudgment was entred that the Plaintiff nihil capiat per Billam Pasc 24 Eliz. CLIX. The Countess of Sussex and Worths Case IN 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary 1 Leon 35. â— 3 Leon. 132. Co. 6 Rep. 33. Fitz-williams Case a private Statute was made by which the Manor of Barnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture Proviso that it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to make a Lease or Leases for 21 years The Earl made a lease for 21 years and afterwards he made another lease for 21 years within a year before the first lease ended and the second lease was to begin at the end of the first lease and if the second lease was good and within the intent of the Act was the question Popham Attorney That it was not 1. Because it is to begin at a day to come 2. Because it is made during the first lease But it may be objected that it is said lease or leases It is not the sense of the Act for by it he might only make leases in possession and not in futuro and so he might make a lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the intent of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and W.
neither at the time of the Will nor at the time of her death she had nothing of the said Manor of Tremington but the said Rent of one hundred thirty and six pounds Also it may be taken that she who devised was ignorant of the Law and conceived that it was a Manor when she had Rents and Services out thereof notwithstanding that those who are learned in the Law know that a Manor could not pass without there was two Suitors at the least 21 R. 2. Devise 27. Lands are devised to one for life the remainder Ecclesiae Sancti Andreae in Holborn there it is holden in an Ex gravi Querela that the Parson should recover for otherwise the Devise should be void if the Parson should not have the Lands and in Wills shall subserve and give place to the intent of the Party and therefore if a man deviseth that his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his debts his Executors shall sell them and to that intent the naming of them Executors is sufficient Plow Com. 523. in Weldens Case it is vouched to be adjudged that if one after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Feoffees shall be seized to the use of A. in Fee that it was a good Devise of the Lands to A. and yet then he had not nor could have any Feoffees c. But the Party was ignorant of the Statute and his intent to pass the Land was apparent in that Case the words were as much impertinent to the matter as in our Case for there he had not any Feoffees as here she hath not any Manor Br. recites That in 38 H. 8. it was holden by Baldwin Shelly and Morgan that if a man who had Feoffees to his use would after the Statute of 27 H. 8. that his Feoffees should make an Estate to J. S. that the Land should pass to J. S. 26 H. 8. Feoffments Faits 12. Land cannot pass by the Deed of an House for it cannot be parcel of an House but an Acre of Land may be given by the name of a Carve and a Carve of Land by the name of a Manor and yet a Carve can be no more a Manor than this rent yea Rents and Services more resemble a Manor than a Carve of Land. It cannot be intended that her Will was here to pass the Manor it self which was not in her but in another Also she by four years before had the rent and therefore it shall be intended that it was her meaning to pass the same which she her self received and no other thing and although in the Devise the rent be specially named and the Manor also yet the same shall not alter the Case for if a man grant the Reversion upon an Estate for life and by the said Deed grants the Land and the Tenant attorns and the Grantee deviseth all his Land the Reversion shall pass without all question If a man grant the Advowson of D. and in the same Deed the Church and Rectory of D. and the Grantee deviseth the Rectory of D. the Advowson shall pass In Adams Case Plow Com. 195. a man leaseth his Capital Messuage rendring rent there the question is If the Reversion or Rent shall pass It was adjudged That all which he had passed As to that that it cannot be levied out of the Rent for that no place is therein of Distress I say that she did not know whether a lesser rent might be paid out of a greater rent and 1 H 4. Multure was granted reserving rent and the Grant was good The words of the Will are All which Manors Lands and Tenements c. she devised to the Lord Mountjoy and these words expound her meaning for although the word Rent be not within the word Manor yet the words Lands and Tenements do comprehend it and words subsequent in Wills may express the Premisses As 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman seized in Fee of two Houses having three Brothers devised the House in which A. inhabited to his three Brethren and A. to dwell there and they not to raise the rent and devised the House in which B. his Brother dwelt to him and that he pay to C. his Brother 3 l. for to find him at School and otherwise to remain to the House Proviso that the Houses shall not be sold but shall go to the next of the Name and Blood which are Male and dyed B. his brother dyed without Issue the eldest of the two middle brothers entred and had Issue a Son and dyed It was a Question If the Son or the middle brother should have the House And it was holden that the Son of the eldest should have it in Tail which Exposition was by reason of the words in the Proviso that it should not be Sold and that it should go to the Heirs Males Shuttleworth The rent shall not pass by the Devise for the construction of a Will ought to be according to the words or according to the intent collected out of the words and not by a thing out of the Will for then a stranger shall be the maker of the Will of another And 19 H. 8. if a Will be doubtful it ought to be expounded for the Heir at the Common Law. And if the rent ought to pass it ought to have apt words and not the name of a Manor And thereupon he put the Case that where one deviseth certain Lands to one and afterwards his Goods Leases and other things to another All his Goods and Terms shall pass but not his Lands for that there wanteth apt words to pass them for the word other things shall not pass them and this set order ought to be observed for the avoiding of confusion And the Rent and Services shall not pass for the two parts admitting the words sufficient for they cannot be divided But Periam said That the rent might be divided Anderson said That it should be but a Rent-seck Periam said it was a Rent distrainable of Common Right but Anderson doubted of it but they all agreed that it might be divided but there should not be two Tenures Fenner The Rent should pass by the Devise of the Manor for there is do difference betwixt a Manor and a Seigniory in gross amongst Lay-men and then their intent shall be taken although it was not written by apt words for in Grants a Reversion shall be taken for a Remainder and à Fortiori a Devise And 7 E. 3. a Manor shall pass by the name of a Knights Fee and 19 H. 8. a Wood shall pass by the name of Land and 38 E. 3. by grant of totam terram which A. held in dower the Reversion shall pass Afterwards in Mich. Term the Plaintiff discontinued his Ation And Periam told me I being at his House that the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff and if it had not been discontinued they would have given Iudgment accordingly Now this was the intent of the Lord Mountjoy The
several Declarations the Declaration of the Feoffees shall stand for that the Land passeth from them So if Cestuy que use and his Feoffees make a Feoffment in Fee 21 H. 7. And to that purpose he put the Case reported by Plowden 15 Eliz. 464. Husband and Wife seized in right of the Wife they levy a Fine sur Conusans de droit come ceo c and the Conusee renders the Land to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband dieth the Wife discontinues the Land the same is not within the penalty of the Statute of 11 H. 7. For notwithstanding the Wife be now in by the purchase of her Husband yet that purchase is not within the meaning of that Statute because the Law respects the original Seisin which was in the Wife and so it was adjudged Vide Term. Mich. 30 Eliz. Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLXXXVIII The Earl of Northumberlands Case THe Earl of Northumberland brought Debt for Arrearages upon Account The Defendant shewed that before the said Account the Plaintiff of his own wrong imprisoned the Defendant and he so imprisoned assigned Auditors and so the Account was made by Duress It was holden a good Plea by the Iustices of both Benches Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXIX Clark and Kemptons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Leon. 141. Smith and Burds Case Co. 10 Rep. 129. b. Payment of Rents The Defendant leased for years to the Plaintiff rendring rent payable at Michaelmas and the Annunciation or fourteen days after Et si contingat the said rent to be behind post aliquod terminorum vel festorum praedictorum in quo solvi debet by the space of 14 days post aliquod festum praedict that then c. It was adjudged in this Case that the Lessee had fourteen days after the said fourteen days mentioned in the Reservation without danger of the penalty of the condition and the last words post aliquod Festorum praedict for the contrariety shall be rejected Pasc 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXC Harris and Whitings Case DEbt upon an Obligation by Harris and his Wife as Executors of Giles Capel against Whiting the Condition was that if the Obligor before the Feast of Pentecost pay such a sum so as the Obligee be ready at the payment thereof to enter into a Bond of 200 l. with Sureties to purchase such Land c. that then c. The Defendant pleaded that he was ready to pay c. and that the Obligee was not ready to enter into such Bond ut supra The Plaintiff Replicando said that he was ready absque hoc that the Defendant was ready to pay It was moved that the Traverse was not good for the first Act here was to be done by the Obligee viz. to enter into the Bond ut supra for otherwise the Obligor had not any means to compel the Obligee to enter into it But by Wray Chief Iustice the first Act is to be done by the Obligor and at the Payment the other party is to do that which to him belongs to do Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXC Ralph Morris Case RAlph Morris and his wife libelled against one in the Ecclesiastical Court for that the Defendant called the Wife of the Plaintiff Veneficam Sortilegam Incantatricem Daemoniorum And now came the Defendant into the Kings Bench surmising that the matter of the Libel is determinable by the Law of the Land and thereupon prayed a Prohibition and it was holden that although the Offence of Witchcraft be in some cases punishable in our Law yet the same doth not take away the Iurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Law and to call one Witch generally an Action doth not lye in our Law as it hath been adjudged But to say He hath bewitched such a one an Action doth lye And by Wray Witchcraft which is made Felony by any Statute is not punishable by the Ecclesiastical Law but in case of Slander upon such a Witchcraft such slanderous words are of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and for Witchcraft which is not Felony the Ecclesiastical Court shall punish the party and afterwards in the principal Case a Consultation was awarded Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCI. Tyrrels Case TYrrel Warden of the Fleet of an Estate of Inheritance let the said Office for years and afterwards is condemned in London in many Actions of Debt and is there detained in Execution for the sum of fourteen hundred pounds and now one Iden sued the said Tyrrel in the Common Pleas in an Action of debt for 50 l. and had Iudgment to recover and thereupon the said Tyrrel is brought to the Bar and Iden prays he be committed to the Fleet in Execution for his Debt It was first moved by the Court if there was not a practize between Iden and Tyrrel for to deliver him out of the Compter in London to a more easie Prison c. But it was moved by Fenner who was of counsel with the Creditors in London that it should be very dangerous to commit Tyrrel Prisoner to the Fleet because he had the Inheritance of Custody of the said Prison and if the Lessee under whose guard he shall be surrenders his Interest or if he doth not pay his Rent so as in default thereof Tyrrel re-enter or if that the Term expire before that the Creditors of Tyrrel be satisfied then here is an Escape and discharge of Execution and we are without remedy But as to that it was said by Rhodes Windham and Anderson That if the Lessee surrender it shall be an Escape in him and he shall answer for the same Afterwards by Order of the Court Tyrrel was committed to the Fleet in Execution and the Sheriffs of London discharged Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCII Owen and Morgans Case THe Case between Owen and Morgan which was agreed Trin. 29 Eliz. was this Richard Owen was seized of Ante 26. Post 222. c. and levied a Fine to Owen and Morgan and to the Heirs of Owen and they granted and rendred the said Land to the said Richard and Lettice his Wife not Party to the said Writ of Covenant nor to the Conusans and to the Heirs of the body of the said Richard the Remainder over to the said Owen now Demandant in Fee The Husband alone without the Wife suffered a Common Recovery the Wife died the Husband died without Issue If this Recovery by the Husband only should bind the Remainder was the Question And now the Lord Anderson declared openly in Court for himself and in the name of his Companions the other Iustices that the Demandant ought to have Iudgment that the said Recovery should not bind the Remainder But first he spake to the Fine it self for the Wife is not named in the Writ of Covenant nor the Conusans but in the Render the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs
that the same is not any Claim to avoid the said Fine upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. Pasc 29 Eliz. CCXIII. The Queen and Sir John Savells Case A Bill of Intrusion was exhibited by the Queen in the Exchequer against Sir Robert Savell Kt. who pleaded in bar her pretence and upon Issue joyned the matter was tryed by the Records and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Queen and an Injunction for the Possession awarded accordingly Sir Robert dyed and now Sir John Savell Son and Heir of the said Sir Robert brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 31 E. 3. The perclose of which Writ was ad grave damnum ipsius Johannis Savell filii haeredis dicti Roberti It was objected against the Writ That no Writ of Error upon the said Statute of 31 E 3. lay upon such proceedings which at the time of the making of the said Statute was not in force For tryal of an Issue in the Exchequer by Record was enacted by the Statute of 33 H. 8. and the Statute of 31 E. 3. extended to give a Writ of Error upon such Iudgments which were given by Verdict Confession or Demurrer and not upon tryal by Records which was given but of late times But to this objection it was answered by the Lord Chancellor and the other Iudges That long time before the said Stat. of 33 H. 8. Issues joyned in the Exchequer have been tryed by the Records and he when he was the Queens Solicitor had seen divers Presidents to that intent in the time of Hen. 6. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXIV. Houtiers Case DEbt was brought upon a Concessit Solvere according to the Law of Merchants and Custom of the City of Bristol Exception was taken because he did not mention the Custom in his Declaration And because in the end of his Plea he saith Protestando se sequi querelam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis Bristol the Plea was awarded good and the Exception disallowed CCXV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man was indicted upon the Statute of 4 Eliz. of Perjury in a Court-Leet And the Indictment was That he at the Leet of the Earl of Bath super Sacramentum suum coram Senescallo c. Exception was taken to it because it saith at the Leet of the Earl of Bath whereas every Leet is the Kings Court although that another hath the profit or commodity of it And it was said that the Steward of a Leet is not an Officer of Record and also his Oath was If he had done a Rescous or not with which he was charged And by Drew It is not within the Statute for it ought to be either before a Iury in giving Evidence or upon some Article But the Iustices in that were of opinion against him Mich. 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXVI Howen and Gerrards Case IT was adjudged in this Case That Partition of Lands made by the Bayliff of a Franchize was not good within the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Partition but it ought to be done by the Sheriff himself Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXVII Strangder and Burnells Case AN Action upon the Case of Trover of Goods and converting them to his own use in Ipswich The Defendant pleaded That the Goods came to his hands in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiff gave to him all Goods which came to his hands in Dunwich absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover or Conversion in Ipswich It was holden to be a good manner of pleading by reason of the special Iustification Vide 27 H. 6. But where a Iustification is general the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19 H. 6 7. 62 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXVIII Hodges Case IF one enfeoffeth his Son and Heir apparent and no use is expressed nor Consideration it was said It should be to the use of the Son and so hath the Law been taken and so it is in Case of a Covenant to stand seized to the use of the Son. The Court said that there was a difference betwixt the Cases or in the Case of Feoffment they seemed to be of Opinion that the Deed should have no operation but in the other Case it may be otherwise upon construction of the Result of the Vse to the Father 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXIX. Mark Stewards Case AN Assumpsit before Action brought may be discharged by word otherwise after Action brought Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXX Verney and Verneys Case IN Dower by Verney against Verney The Case was That Lessee for years by Fine to whom the Land was rendred by Fine for years upon the Default of the Tenant prayed to be received and it was Counter-pleaded because the Statute of Gloucester gave no Receit but where the Termor might have Recovery by Writ of Covenant but where the Lease as in our Case doth commence by render by Fine there cannot be any recovery by Covenant But it was the Opinion of the Lord Anderson That such a Termor shall be received CCXXI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor Treasurer c. A Writ of Error was cast upon the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 12. It was moved by Egerton Solicitor to the Queen for the Defendant That the Writ of Error ought to abate for false Latine for the Writ is Pertenet where it ought to be Pertinet But by Manwood Anderson and Wray The same is no Exception but notwithstanding that the Court may proceed to the Examination of the Errors For the same is not properly a Writ but rather a Commission to the Chancellor Treasurer c. and therefore it was ordered that the Party should proceed to the assignment of the Errors Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCXXII The Queens Fanes and the Archbishop of Canterburies Case THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against Fane 1 Leon. 201. the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Chichester and Hudson Incumbent and counted that John Ashburnham was seized of the Advowson of Burwash and was Outlawed in an Action of Debt during which Outlawry in force the Church voided by which it did appertain to the Queen to present The Archbishop and Bishop pleaded that they claimed nothing but as Metropolitan and Ordinary Fane pleaded That King E. 4. ex gratia sua speciali c. and in consideration fidelis servic c. granted to the Lord Hastings the Castle and Barony of Hastings and Hundred c. Et quod ipse haberet omnia Bona Catal. Tenentium residentium non residentium aliorum resident quorumcunque hominum de in Castro Baronia c. seu infra eadem pro numero debit c. tam ad sectam Regis c. quam c. utlagatorum Et quod ipsi liceret per se vel ministros suos c. and from him derived to
23 Eliz. is If any Person do any thing to move the People to Sedition the same is Felony but then it must be Sedition against the Queen and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLV Ratcliffe and Shirleys Case THe Lady Ratcliffe brought an Action upon the Case against Shirley for these words Words My Lady Ratcliffe is a beggerly Lady and giveth thread-bare Coats she bought Sheep and cosen'd men of their money and she is as very a Thief as he that robbeth by the High-way Vpon Not Guilty the Iury found that the Defendant spake these words She is a worse Thief than he that robbeth by the High-way It was holden that the words found by the Verdict were actionable as well as if the Defendant had called the Plaintiff Thief generally But it seemed to the Court that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for it may be that the Defendant dixit utrumque at several times and so several Causes of Action And it is not like to the Case 3 Ma. 118. where part of the words is found quoad alia verba non dixit and so expresly acquit him of the remnant so it is not here for this Verdict doth not acquit him of the other words and for that Cause Iudgment was stayed Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLVI Herne and Crowes Case IN an Action upon the Case by Herne against Crowe and declared that whereas certain Irish Merchants had imported Furs here into England which were offered to be sold in London which Furs the Defendant desired to buy but because he was a Foreigner he could not buy them without peril of forfeiture and then the Plaintiff was in communication with the Merchants to have bought them that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that when he had bought the said Furs the Defendant should have such a quantity of the said Furs as he pleased upon equal price assumed and promised that he would speak no more with the said Merchants for the buying of the said Furs yet that notwithstanding he proceeded in the said bargain and offered to the said Merchants sixty pound more than any other by reason of which the Plaintiff could not have them for such reasonable price as he might have had them before It was holden by Wray Chief Iustice That the Declaration here was insufficient upon which the Defendant might have well demurred Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLVII. Bakers Case A Writ of Partition by Baker Heir of Gertrudi Marquess of Exeter who devised all his Lands to Blunt by which the third part descend to the Plaintiff Estrepement and prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ is not to be granted for the Plaintiff may have a more proper remedy upon the Statute Cum duo vel tres and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded CCXLVIII Mich. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Conditions A Man was bound in an Obligation that he should release all his right in Black Acre to the Obligor and in the performance of the said Condition he made such a Lease and delivered the same to C. to the use of the Obligor The Opinion of the whose Court was That the Condition was not performed because the Obligor had not the Lease in his own hands to plead but is put to his Writ of Derinue against C. which was not the intent of the Condition Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLIX Seaman and Brownings Case SEaman brought Debt in an Obligation against Broshnin and others Executors of one Marshall The Condition was That whereas the said Marshall had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff If the Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoyed the said Lands against the said Marshall c and assigned the breach That the said Marshall had entred upon them and cut down five Elms there upon which they were at Issue And it was found that a Servant of the said Marshall had entred and cut them and that in the presence of the said Marshall his Master and by his commandment It was the Opinion of the Court that the Condition was broken and that the Master was the principal Trespasser Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCL Babingtons Case HUmphrey Babington brought a Writ of Disceit and counted that T. S. was seized of Land and held the same of the Manor of Rodely which Manor is ancient Demeasn And that the said T. S. being so seized a Writ of Entre sur Disseisin was brought against him in which T. S. pleaded and lost and Iudgment was given against him Et quod ipse Humphridus extitit Dominus Manerii praedicti and concluded ad exhaeredationis ipsius Humphrâ—di periculum manifestum Exception was taken to the Count because the words are quod cum ipse existit Dominus Manerii praedicti where he ought to say further Amendment Et tempore Judicii praedicti existebat for if the Recovery was before he purchased the said Manor his Action doth not lye which Rhodes and Anderson concesserunt wherefore day was given to the Plaintiff to amend his Count. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLI Sir William Pelhams Case THe Case was A. Tenant for life the remainder in tall to B. c. A by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Messuage so conveyed to W. P. in fee who suffered a common recovery in which A. is vouched and so a common recovery had and executed and this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the recovery should bind B. and his remainder in tail was the question or if it be a forfeiture Altham argued that here is a forfeiture 1. It is to see if a common recovery suffered by Tenant for life which here is the Bargainee be a forfeiture or no by the common Law 1 Leon. 264. it s not forfeited 2 Leon. 60 65. if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery 2. If it be executed then if he in the remainder may enter for the forfeiture When the Tenant for life bargains and sells the Messuage although upon it an estate in fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but what he may lawfully pass and that was the estate for life of the Bargainor for such an estate only he might lawfully pass and here the Vendee is but Tenant for the life of another and when of his own assent he suffers a common recovery and that without right it is a forfeiture By matter in Fait a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in Fait he cannot commit a forfeiture if not thereby the reversion be not pulled out of him in the reversion As if a Lessee for 10 years make a Lease for 1000 years it is not a forfeiture for by that the reversion is not touched but if he by matter of Record do
he could not put in a true Inventory and upon that the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition surmising that he himself claimed Property in the said Goods and the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of it and the Trial of the said Goods did belong to the Common Law And a Prohibition was granted Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXII Mountjoyes and Andrews Case IN Scire Facias upon a Iudgment in Debt The Defendant pleaded that heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued directed to the Sheriff of Leiceâ—â—er by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendant Execution adhuc doth detain them Retorn of Writ It was holden by the Court a good Plea although he doth not say that the Writ was returned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath remedy against the Sheriff CCLXIII Vide this Case reported by Cook 1 Part by the name of Capells Case THe Case between Hunt and Gately in the Exchequer Chamber was now argued by Fenne That the Rent granted by him in the Remainder upon an Estate tail is good and shall bind the Land after the Estate tail determined notwithstanding the common Recovery suffered by the Tenant in tail in possession Before the Statute of Westm 2. of Donis Condic c. no Remainder could be limited upon an Estate tail for that which remained in the Donor was but a possibility and therefore then a Formedon in Remainder did not lye But the said Statute which provided a Formedon in the Descender provided also by Equity a Formedon in the Remainder for a Formedon in the Reverter as appeareth by the said Statute was in use in Cancellaria And now here in our case is a Remainder lawfully vested in the Grantor which he may dispose of as he sees good and therefore when he grants a Rent-charge out of it the same is a thing vested in the Grantee and by no subsequent act can be divested and although the Estate which was charged be now charged by the Recovery yet it is the same Land which was charged and therefore the charge shall continue as if a gift in tail be rendring Rent and the Donee levieth a Fine yet the Rent remaineth and the Donor shall distrain 48 E. 3. 3 9. So here If after the grant of this Rent Tenant in tail in possession levies a Fine by which the Remainder which was charged is discontinued and afterwards the Conusor dyes without Issue the Grantee shall distrain upon such possession which passed by the Fine As if A. lease to B. for life and afterwards grants a Rent out of the same Land to C. B. aliens in Fee and dyes although that A. cannot re-enter but suffers the said torcious Estate gained de novo by wrong to continue yet B upon such possession shall distrain for the Rent for it is the same Land which was charged and by Law a thing in abeyance may be charged As if a Parson grant a Rent-charge to begin after his death and the Patron and Ordinary confirm it it shall bind although the Grant doth not take effect in the life of the Grantor but when the Freehold is in abeyance So if the Patron and Ordinary in the time of Vacation grant a Rent-charge out of the Parsonage the same is good and shall bind the Successor and yet at the time of the Grant the Freehold of the thing granted is in abeyance Vide 5 E. 6. Dyer 69. That a Rent which is not in esse shall be bound by a Iudgment 22 E. 3. 19. 5 E. 3. Fitz. Dower 343. By Bracton Jus concerning a real thing is threefold 1. Jus terrae scil the Ownership of the Land. 2. Jus in terra as a Rent Common c. 3. Jus ad terram scil Right permanent And by this Common Recovery in our case Jus terrae shall be bound but not Jus in terra And he said That if Land be given to A. in tail the Remainder to the Kings Villain in Fee and before any claim by the King A. suffers a common Recovery and dyes without Issue this Recovery shall not bind the King. And as to the Case of 26 H. 8. 2. which hath been Objected against the falsifying of the Recovery where a Parson made a Lease for years and afterwards in a Quare Impedit brought against him and the Patron they pleaded faintly to the intent to make the Lessee lose his Term now such a Lessee cannot falsifie in such case the Parson by another way might have defeated the Lease as by Resignation but in our case the Grantor of this Rent by no way might defeat his Grant And he said a common recovery did not bind Dower therefore nor this rent And if Tenant in tail in possession grants such a rent and after suffers a common recovery the rent shall stand why not also in the case of a remainder for upon them both as well the remainder as the possession the recovery operatur And recoveries shall always bind the possession and no farther and shall not disprove the right but the possession And the recovery by it self doth not bind the possession but in respect of the Voucher without which no recovery shall bar and that in respect of the recompence which the Law presumes c. which recompence cannot extend to this Rent-charge and then there is no reason that he to whom it was granted should be prejudiced by this recovery and always in case of recompence the Law is very precise As if I grant unto you an Annuity of 30 l. per Annum until you be presented to a competent Benefice a litigious Benefice is not a recompence intended nor shall determine the Annuity nor a Benefice of 15 l. If two make an exchange for their Lives and one of them dyeth the exchange is not determined but the Heir of him who dyeth shall enter and retain the Land as long as the other shall live Ad quod Manwod Chief Baron subsidebat And there is a great difference between a Lease for years and a Rent-charge for at the Common Law upon such Recovery the Lessee for years was bound contrary of a Rent-charge for it was unreasonable that a thing not demanded by the recovery should be bound by it especially because that the Land rendred in value shall not be charged with the rent Walmesley Serjeant contrary A remainder upon an Estate tail is debile fundamentum and cannot uphold with assurance a Rent-charge against a common recovery and it cannot be found in any Book but in 5 E. 4. 2. That a remainder upon an Estate-tail expectant may be charged for an Estate-tail is in Law presumed to be perpetual and therefore what Lands are entailed by Fee the words of the Fine are Sibi haeredibus de Corpore suo exeuntibus imperpetuum And it is the common learning in our Books that every Estate of Inheritance be it Fee-simple or Fee-tail shall be
as the Statute of 11 H. 8. hath ordained in case of a Lease for years where the Lessor his Heirs or Assigns have suffered the recovery and not otherwise And afterwards he argued very much upon the reputation and dignity of common Recoveries that they are the strongest and most effectual Assurances in the Law and therefore they ought to be countenanced rather by the Iudges than in any part diminished or disabled and we ought to consider of them Non ex rigore juris rigida disquisitione but according to the common use and practice what is the ground and foundation of these Recoveries And so Iudges have used heretofore to examine Matters which peradventure according to the strict Rules of the Common Law drew them away But they perceiving that a dangerous Consequence thereby would follow to an infinite number of the Kings Subjects the Law having been otherwise practised before have framed their Iudgments not according to the exact Rules of Law but to avoid the Inconvenience aforesaid according to the common and received practice c. Nam communis Error facit jus and to that purpose he cited a Case very lately adjudged in B.R. viz. A Writ of Error was brought in B. R. upon a Iudgment given in Wales and the Error was in this That the Writ was returnable coâ—am Justiciariis Domini Regis Comitatus c. where it should have been coram Justiciariis Magnae Sessionis Dominae Reginae c and such are the words of the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap 26. the which Sessions shall be called the Kings great Sessions in Wales and notwithstanding that the Iustices in strict consideration of the Law thought the same to be Error for the said Statute had given to the said Court such name yet because it was well known to the Iustices That that was the common course in the said Court ever after the erection thereof And also if the said Iudgment should be reversed for that cause many Iudgments should be also reversed which should be a great disquietness and vexation to the whole Country there they in their discretion thought it convenient to qualifie the Law in that point and so to avoid the said Inconvenience affirmed the said Iudgment So in the case at Bar If this Rent-charge should stand against the said recovery no inconvenience should be so firm but it should be impeached no Title so clear but should be incumbred therefore for the common repulse of many the strict rules of the Law ought to yield to common practice for the avoiding of a common inconvenience it hath been holden for Law when Tenant in tail maketh a feoffment in fee the Feoffee is impleaded voucheth the Tenant in tail now forasmuch as he cometh in as Vouchee it is now said that he cometh in of all his estates I do not see any reason for that but common allowance practice and experience c. It was adjourned c. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXIV Baxter and Bartlets Case IN Assise of Freshforce by Baxter against Bartlet upon Null tort Null Disseisin pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment upon which the Tenant brought Error for that the Assize have generally found the Disseisin but have not enquired of the force And after many motions the Iudgment was affirmed CCLXV. Sir Henry Gilfords Case IT was found upon a Special Verdict That Henry Gilford Citizen and Freeman of London 7 Feb. 6 E. 2. seized of a Capital Messuage Devised the same by these words Lego volo Quod omnes Domus reddit ' quae habeo in Villa de London ordinentur assignentur per Executores meos ad sustentationem trium Capellanorum qui pro vita celebrabunt in Ecclesia Sancti Pauli London Et ad hoc faciend ' Do eis plenam potestatem and made his Executors William Staunton and others and dyed the Will was Proved and Inrolled according to the Custom Afterwards the Executors by their Deed bearing date 7 E. 2 granted and assigned the said Capital Messuage and his other Tenements in London to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls in London and their Successors Habend ' tenend ' in forma sequenti Haec est finalis Concordia c. That the Dean and Chapter shall have the said Lands for ever to find yearly a competent Sustenance of 10 Marks to a Priest to celebrate Mass for the said Henry Gilford and all Souls and that the said Priest at all hours of Divine obsequies should give his attendance in the said Church and faithfully do his Office to say Mass and Prayers according to the Degrees and Customs of the said Church and that the Dean and Chapter should find Bread and Wine and Massing-cloaths and Torch-light and granted the residue of the profits of the Lands to celebrate an yearly Obit and for the perpetual security of the said Chauntry the said Executors granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of London 20 s yearly rent for ever Ita quod the Mayor and Chamberlain for the time being presented a meet and convenient Chaplain to the said Chauntry to the said Dean and Chapter within 15 days after the Avoidance the which Chaplain the Dean and Chapâ—er are bound to admit And the form of the said Conveyance was such We the Executors H. G. do grant and assign to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls all the Lands Tenements and Rents aforesaid to have and to hold to them and their Successors for the sustentation of a Chaplain perpetual and his Clark for the said H. G. and all Souls receiving from the said Dean and Chapter 10 Marks for the celebrating of the said Obit of the said H. G. And that the Grant and Assignment of the said 20 s. to the Commonalty in the relief of the said Chauntry is such scil To have and receive of one Shop in Cheap maintenance of the said Chauntry aforesaid And that the said Dean and Chapter oblige themselves and their Successors and the Church to pay the same to the said Priest and Clark and that it shall be lawful for the Mayor and Commonalty aforesaid to distrain for the said Rents By virtue of which Will and Indenture the Dean and Chapter enter and were thereof seized in their demesne c. and that at all times after they had taken the profits thereof until 2 E. 6. and that the Dean and Chapter of the profits of the premises had yearly paid 10 Marks for the stipend of the said Priest And further the 27 July 16 H. 8. the Dean and Chapter demised the same to F. Cole for 40 years and that afterwards 15 Maij 36 H. 8. the said Dean and Chapter leased the same to Nicholas Wilford for 50 years rendring 9 l. Rent with Clause of Distress if the Rent was behind by half a year being demanded the Lease should be void which N. W. 1 E. 6. devised the same to his Wife who devised the same to Tho. Wilford the
rather a portion of the profits c. and therefore the Land shall be said the Chauntry and not the Sum and here the intent of the Statute extends to the intent of the Founder So that if the intent of the Founder was to give the Land to Superstitious Vses the same is within the Statute If Cestuy que use wills that his Feoffees have the profits of his Lands ut supra to the Sustentation of a Chauntry Priest and the Feoffees imploy but 20 l. per Annum whereas the Land is of the value of 100 l. per Annum by this Statute the King shall have all for the intent of the Founder was That all should be imployed And so here for upon the Matter the Dean and Chapter are but as Feoffees and see that this Statute of Chauntries makes a great difference between Obits and Lights and Chauntries for in the Case of Obits and Lights the King shall not have but that which was imployed Whetstones Case was That Whetstone seized of the Manor of Cocke made a Feoffment thereof to certain Feoffees to find two Obits in such a Chappel and with the residue of the profits to maintain the Chappel and Iudgment was given for the Queen Here the Condition knit to the Reversion upon a Lease made by the Dean and Chapter to Nicholas Wilford passeth to the King by the Act of Parliament for a Condition is an Hereditament and when the King grants over the reversion to Butcher the Condition also passeth by 32 H. 8. Bromley Solicitor The Statute extends to Chauntries in existence only and not to Chauntries in reputation Chauntry hath divers significations in Law 1. For the Service which the Chauntry Priest is to do as cessavit de Cantaria 2 Sometimes for the Advowson of the Chauntry scil Quod permittat praesentare ad Cantariam 3. Sometimes for the Body of the Chauntry scil the Land of which it is endowed and in that sense it is taken by the Statute I will agree if the same had been an ancient Chauntry time out of mind c. and the Incumbents thereof had taken the profits and made Leases of it that then it should be a Chauntâ—y within this Statute for it might be corporated by prescription But the Chauntry here in question is not a Chauntry by prescription for the beginning of it is known so it is a Chauntry in reputation only and not in facto And he said That in that case the rent limited to the sustentation of the Priest shall go to the King and not to the Land for the Land was not given for the sustentation of a Priest but the rent only so as the Land was not immediately imployed for the finding of the Priest And he resembled this case to the case lately in question upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. An Abbot was seized of a great Wood which was never imployed in kind to the use of the House being seven Miles distant from the House but was never in Lease but was yearly sold by parcels and the Woodward rendred an Account of the same to the Auditor And the Opinion was That a Lease for years made of it within a year before the Dissolution was not within the said Statute for it was not immediately imployed for Hospitality But see the same reported by the Lord Dyer to the contrary 3 4 Eliz. 207. that such a Demise was void although that the Wood was not immediately imployed c. And see also the words of the Statute scil That the Land shall be in the actual Possession of the King in as ample manner as the Priest had it and the Priest had nothing in the Land but only in the Rent It was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXVI. Harveys Case HArvey seized of a Manor made a Feoffment thereof to divers persons to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his Son and the Heirs Males of his Body and if the said Son or any of the Heirs males of his Body discontinue or alien otherwise than for 21 years or three lives that then his Feoffees should be seized to the use of Nic. Harvey his Brother in Fee the Feoffor dyed the Son made a Lease for 21 years and afterwards discontinued against the Proviso if that lease should bind Nic. Harvey who came in by the latter use c. Dyer It is hard to avoid the lease for at the time of the making of it the lessor had a good interest and authority to make the lease and the act which impeacheth the Estate of the lessor commenceth after the lease by the discontinuance and therefore shall not avoid the lease Manwood The second use doth determine the first use and all Estates derived out of it Mounson contr ' For here this word Otherwise than for 21 years c so as such a lease is excepted As if a man man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of J. S. and his Heirs until J. D. shall pay to him 20 l. and then to the use of J. D. and his Heirs here if J. S. makes a a lease for years and afterwards the Monies are paid to J. D. now J. D. shall hold the Land discharged of the lease for there is no word Otherwise c. for these words Otherwise qualifie the second use Dyer The word Otherwise amounts to an Exception Manwood doubted of it and moved and demanded if the wife of the Cestuy que use should have Dower or not Barham conceived that she should c. CCLXVII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in Socage made a lease for four years and dyed his Heir within age of 8 years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased by Indenture to the same lessee for 14 years It was holden that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise it is of a lease made by Guardian in Nurture CCLXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt it was found for the Plaintiff 20 Eliz. and 21 Eliz. the Plaintiff released to the Defendant and the continuance was made until this Term scil Mich 29 Eliz. per Curiam advisare vult And now the Plaintiff against his own Release prayed and had Iudgment A Release pleaded after Judgment and Verdict without any knowledge to the Defendant and Process of Execution issued and now Walter a Clerk of the Court on the behalf of the Defendant shewed the Release to the Court and also the whole special matter and prayed the Release of the Court against this practice Anderson presently granted a Supersedeas But afterwards before the Process issued forth he and the other Iustices were of Opinion That the Defendant could not plead the said Release nor any further matter after Verdict and demanded the question of Nelson chief Prothonatory who advertised the Court That he could shew a President where an Arbitrement had been pleaded after a Verdict and Issue joyned upon it and that
he is not to have Damages because the Waste was not to his disinheresin and the Land he shall not recover against the Defendant for the Term is not determined and such was the Opinion of the Court. As to the matter in â—aw Shuttleworth said That the Action of Waste ought to be brought against the Lessee himself and not against the Assignee for when he grants over his Term excepting the Trees it is a good Exception for when the Land upon which the Trees grow is leased to another the Trees pass by the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the Term by which when he grants his Land he may well except them as the first Lessor might have done and if the Lessee for years cutteth down the Trees the Lessor cannot take them for that he hath other sufficient remedy scil an Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley contrary And they conceived that the Lessee had but a special Property in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough bote House-bote c. But if he demiseth the Land or granteth his Interest in it he cannot except the Trees nor his special Property in them no more than he who hath Common appendant may grant the Land excepting the Common And in such case the general Property in the Trees remains in the Lessor as parcel of his Inheritance And this appeareth by many cases 27 H. 8. 13. Lessee for life and he in the remainder joyn in a lease for life the Lessee commits Waste the Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in an Action of Waste the Tenant for life shall recover the place wasted and he in the reversion all the damages Vide 2 H. 7. 10 H. 7. cited before That the Lessor may licence the Lessee to cut the Trees which proves that the Property is in him And Vide 40 Ass 22. the Lessor shall have the Windfalls And as to that which hath been said That by the Exception of the Trees the Soil it self is also excepted that is true as to the Trees for nourishment and not otherwise for if the Lessor cutteth down the Trees or roots them up he shall not after meddle with the Land where c. but the Soil shall be entirely to the Lessee The Lessor during the Term may grant the Trees so cannot the Lessee therefore the greater and better Property in the Trees is in the Lessor and not in the Lessee and the Trees proprie loquendo are not parcel of the thing demised If this Exception of the Trees or Woods should hold place Inconvenience would follow for as it is holden in 15 H. 7. 11. If the Termor of Wood commits Waste in one corner of the Wood he should not lose all the Wood but that place only But if in the said Wood there are divers Plats of Land in divers places of the Wood if the Termor commits Waste in that Wood he shall lose all the said Plats although he hath not done waste in them for they are parcel of the Wood. Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Waste 127. and Vide ibidem Waste 112. 8 E. 2. Waste done in parcel of an House the whole House shall be recovered Vide also 30 E. 3. Fitz. Amendment 67. and 4 E. 3. Waste 10. Now if that be Law and the Exception be good how shall the place wasted be recovered here and against whom It seemed to the Lord Anderson That the Exception was void and that the Action was brought against the Assignee and he said it was a knavish and foolish Demise and if it should be effectual in Law some Mischiefs would follow which he would not remember Windham was of the same Opinion and that the Lessee could not assign his Estate with such Exception for he hath but a special Interest in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough-bote c. which should go with the Land. Periam conceived That as to such special Property that none could have it but he who hath the Land and therefore the Exception is void but as to the Fruit-trees such an Exception might be good and although that the Trees are not expresly demised yet quodam modo and after a sort they may be said demised as annexed to the Land and if waste be brought against him who made the Exception scil the Lessee he cannot say they were not let to him and therefore he doubted of the Exception And Rhodes doubted also of the Exception and Anderson said that he was clear of opinion that the Lessor should have the Windfalls and afterwards the Case was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXX. Audleys Case Uses THe Lord Audley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as followeth in effect viz My Will is that my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the said Lands â—00 l which he had lent to the said Lord Audley and also to stand seized to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after â—he Debts paid that the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the said Lands to him the said Lord Audley and Joan his wife and to the heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord Audley had Issue by the said Joan and also having Issue by a former wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his wife and by the opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Law upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an Intent and although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because no consideration was wherefore they should be seized to their own uses yet the same could not make a new use to the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate c. for the wife is a stranger to the Land and the same cannot be a Will or Testament for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who could not take by his own Will and this matter was depending in the Chancery And the advise of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by that writing no use was changed nor any use vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly until proof was made that such an Estate was made c. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXI. Walgrave and Somersets Case IN Trespass by Walgrave against Somerset the Case was That tenant at will cut down Trees and the Lessor brought Trespass vi armis And the Court was clear of opinion that the Action was well maintainable modo forma and Iudgment
the Land be holden of the Queen and so Nature cannot be transferred therefore neither this Proviso And so is the Tenure of Frankalmoigne 35 H. 6. 58. and it should be a great rigour to take the bridle out of the hands of the Natural Vncle into the hands of Iustice which is Manus regia And he cited the Case of the Lord Norris where it was rul'd That where the Act of Attainder of Norris gave to the King all Rights Titles c. yet a Writ of Error was not given thereby Manwood Actions are not expresly given by the said Act of Attainder As to the second point I conceive that the Coveyance is become void when the terms within the two years are passed and shall not expect until the two years be expired for the Inrollment ought to be within the term so that if all the terms of the two years be past it is now impossible for to inroll the Deed within the time limited by the Statute and then by 29 H. 8 the Conveyance is void and then is the Queen seized in Fee at the time of the making of the Lease by the Attainder of Sir Francis As to the Certificate without Office it is not sufficient to entitle the Queen to the Land and I deny the difference put by Popham between a Condition to be performed on the part of the Patentee and on the part of the King I confess that a Certificate to inform the Queen or her Councel of the quantity quality value c. of the Land is good without Office but not to entitle the Queen de novo to the Inheritance of another I grant that the Commission is of Record but the tender of the King is matter in pais and not of Record Three things ought to be observed in every Certificate to make it a good and lawful Certificate according to the course of the common Law unless it be in cases of necessity as in case of Ouster le mere c. 1. It ought not to be in the absence of the party 2. It ought to be pendente placito convocatis in ea parte convocandis 3. It ought to be directed to a known Officer but a thing certified by a private person being no Officer cannot be good Also a Certificate according to the course of the common Law being good is not traversable At another day the Case was argued by Egerton Solicitor for the Queen The Condition is given to the Queen by 33 H. 8. and also by 29 Eliz. and this Condition in it self is a general and ordinary Condition and rests not in privity and such an Act as may be made by any stranger as well as by Sir Francis himself scil the tender of the King. The reasons which moved Sir Francis to knit this Condition to the Conveyance were natural but the Proviso and the performance of it not tryed to Nature and therefore all the cases of privity are here out of Seisin As to the Lord Brays Case the same was not any Wardship but only an Order for the government or his Son and Heir for the Wardship of the Father in the Son is not a Chattel in him As to the Case of the Lord Norris the Writ of Error could not accrue to the Queen for by the Act of Attainder no Actions were given to the King And here is not any such privity as hath been pretended for by the words of the Proviso the Ring might be tendred to his Executors or Administrators therefore the Condition might be tendred when he is dead therefore without privity Title for alienation in Mortmain of Lands purchased by a Villain of the King or for a Condition broken are not in the King before Office But here the Condition is to be performed on the part of the Queen which her Royal Majesty cannot perform and therefore Commissioners are appointed to do it which they have done and upon the Commission retorned have informed the Queen of all the performance of it and all is now upon Record And there is a great difference between Certificates as in our case and Certificates which have been cited on the other side which are used to make Tryals upon Issues joyned betwixt party and party and in such Certificates I confess the Law as Cook hath argued The Sheriff is not known to be such an Officer but by his Commission under the Great Seal he upon a Writ of the King to him directed Summons Disseisins Attaches c. these are matters in fait but when the Sheriff hath retorned his Service then it is become matter of Record So in our case the retorn of the tender c. where the Queen is to be informed of the Lands of the Subject which she is to have there ought to be an Office but here the Queen is to do an act and that she hath done under the Great Seal by Commission by the Retorn of which she is in the whole matter therefore there needs not an Office to inform her of that which she her self hath done by another Authorized by her to do it And he said that the Leases made by the Queen being Tenant pur auter vie were not void ab initio but from the time of the two years but now the Estate of the Queen for life is determined therefore also the Leases derived out of it Exception hath been taken to the Information scil Praedictus Franc ' per Indenturam suam factam inter c. without saying sigillo suo sigillat ' that is good enough for facta esse non potuit nisi etiam sit sigillat ' therefore facta includes sigillat ' And afterwards Trin. 33. Eliz. this Case was argued by the Barons Clark puisne Baron said That Iudgment ought to be given for the Queen And first he said I conceive that here upon this Indenture is no use created in Sir Francis for he shall pay for a Licence of Alienation if the Lands be holden in chief and they themselves in pleading the uses say Virtute cujus the said Sir Francis was seized in his Demesne as of Freehold for his life the remainder thereof c. Although this Condition be tyed to Nature and rests in privity as hath been objected and so inseparable yet by Act of Parliament it may be transferred Impropriations Frankalmoign Frankmarriage Guardianship in Socage cannot be given away regularly but by Act of Parliament they may which vide for Impropriations by the Statute of 31 H. 8. Impropriations of Abbies and Priories dissolved nam Parliamentum omnia potest It may alter the nature of Lands make Gavelkind discendable according to the course of the common Law and so of Borough-English Attaint Error Disceit c. are Actions which lye in privity yet by Act of Parliament they may be transferred And in the case of the Lord Norris If the Act of Attainder had given to the Queen all Actions she might have had a Writ of Error And we see by experience That the
ordinary Condition But if the Condition was to be performed by Sir Francis in his proper person or by subscribing his name with his hand or such like act then it had been otherwise The case of Littleton 76. A Feoffment in Fee is made upon Condition that if the Feoffee pay to the Feoffor such a day 10 l. then the Feoffee shall have the Land to him and his Heirs for ever and before the day the Feoffee makes a Feoffment over upon a Condition the second Feoffee tenders the Mony it is a good tender and yet the words of the Condition do not extend so far but only to the first Feoffee who was privy to the Condition so where the payment is to be made on the part of the Feoffor and he dyes before the day tender by the Heir is good and here this is a general Condition and therefore may be performed generally without being restrained to any person for the performance of it And here we are in an Act of Parliament Quod omnia potest 32 H. 8. gave to Assigns of the Reversion which always before were fixed in privity Monks dead persons in Law by Act of Parliament made capable of Purchase and Inheritance Gavelkind and Borough-English made discendable at the common Law which the King could not do An Alien born is made Denizen by the King by which he may Purchase but yet not inherit But an Act of Parliament may make him heritable Corruption of Blood the King cannot take off but it ought to be purged by Act of Parliament As to the Statute of 29 Eliz. it hath made the Conveyance void as hath been objected for the Terms within the two years limited by the Statute are past and then the Condition is gone as against Intail upon Condition if the Intail be spent the Condition is gone But I conceive that until the two years be fully expired the Estates limited by the Conveyance continue and the Condition also The words of the said Statute are Shall within two years after the last day of this Session c. openly shew and bring forth into the Queens Court of Exchequer his Conveyance and there in the Term time in open Court shall offer and exhibit the same These words shew that the parties ought to shew the Conveyance within two years but doth not speak of any term and in the other Clause it speaks of term but not of two years so the time in which it ought to be shewed is two years but the time of the Inrollment might be in the term after the two years well enough for there are two two times in the Statute the one to shew the Conveyance the other for the Inrollment of it and two things are to be done Shewing and Inrollment and two times answerable to them two years and Term-time And he took it for a general Rule that time once expressed shall not be afterwards by implication abridged And if by your construction you make the time to end with the Term you abridge the time by a Month at least which was expressed before two years And for the reasonable construction of times Vide 28 H. 8. Dyer 44 Boulds Case If it fortune Joan Moll ' to decease before the Feast of c. without Issue Male of her Body then living c. this word then shall be referred to the Feast and not to the time of the death of the party for as the reason of the Case is where the intent of the parties is to have continuance in the thing the thing which they would have continue to the most extream time as may be And if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Males of his Body begotten and if he dye without Heirs of his Body then it shall remain over by this Implication if he dyes without Heirs of his Body the Donee shall not have general Tail but it shall be intended such Heirs to whom it was limited before And in our Case here there are some weeks between the ends of the Terms and the end of the two years and those weeks shall not be utterly void for in these weeks after the end of the Terms those of the Chancery shall take Conusance of Deeds And here in our Case the party was only to shew the Deed which might have been done at any time after the Terms so as it be within the two years if one be bound with Condition That if within two years he pay the Queens Silver upon a Fine to be levied and then and there in Term time ingross the same if he pay the Queens Silver within the two years he hath saved his Bond although that the Fine be not ingrossed until a Term after the two years So if one be bound to acknowledge a Deed in the Chancery within two years and there in the Term-time to Inroll the same if he do acknowledge it within two years it is sufficient and he may inroll it afterwards So in our Case the Estates continuing and the Condition also till the two years are fully expired therefore the Condition is well performed for the Estate continues defeazable by the Condition because within the two years and to abridge time is a violent thing And now Sir Francis is alive so as the power of the tender of the power of the King continueth And I conceive That the Certificate is sufficent without any Office and the party grieved may have traverse to it And I hold clearly that as this Case is Office cannot be found Office properly is to be found of things in paâ—s which happen before the Office as the Nonage of an Heir or of an Alien born or of a Villain here to entitle the King an Office is necessary to find things which have hapned before and without doubt this Certificate is traversable as the Certificate of the Bishop of Recusancy and also the Certificate of the Commissioners of Sewers and here those who are to certifie are to certifie a thing done by themselves and therefore there needs not any Office because they do it virtute Commissionis If a Commission be awarded to take a Surrender of the Bishoprick of N. or of a Pentioner c. there needs not any Office to find it and in the time of King Hen. 8 divers Abbots surrendred their Possessions to him of which no Office was found And now for conclusion The Queen comes in paramount her first Estate which she had pur auter voy scil by Attainder and now she hath it by the Condition and so paramount the Title under which the Defendants claim And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Queen Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXVII The Scholars of All Souls and Tamworths Case This Case is Reported in the first Part of Leonard IN a Writ of Right by the Colledge of All Souls in Oxon against Tamworth the Writ was Quod clamat tenere de nobis in liberam puram perpetuam Elemosinam And Exception was taken
the whole matter is not any sufficient demand and so Wray Chief Iustice said CCLXXVIII Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ACtion upon the Case was brought for these words Thou wouldst have stoln my Cloak if J.S. had not come in the way and thou art a Thief and I will prove it After Verdict it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in Arrest of Iudgment That these words were not actionable For the first words Thou wouldst have stoln my Cloak c. do not by Law give any cause of Action and when the words subsequent Thou art a Thief are depending apon the said former words and to be construed as spoken in respect of them and upon that intent But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary And that the said latter words should be taken and construed in abstracto by themselves as in gross and not as dependant upon the former words and afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXIX Hungerford and Watts Case HUngerford brought an Action upon the Case againts Watts Words for that the Defendant had said That the Plaintiff had caused the Defendant to be arrested with forged Writs It was objected That the words were not actionable for it might be that the Writs were forged by strangers without the privity of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff not knowing them to be forged procured the Arrest But the Opinion of the Court was That the words were actionable for the word Caused extends as well to the Forgery as to the Arrest and so amounts to the slander of Forgery CCLXXX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs IN an Action upon an Escape the Plaintiff is Nonsuited It was holden that the Defendant should not have Costs Note The words of the Statute upon an Action upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for any offence or tort personal to be supposed to be done immediately to the Plaintiff Notwithstanding this Action is quodam modo an Action upon the Statute 1. by Equity of the Statute of West 2. cap. 11. which giveth it expresly against the Warden of the Fleet Yet properly it is not an Action upon the Statute for in the Declaration in such an Action no mention is made of the Statute which see in the Book of Entries 169 171. and also here is not supposed any immediate personal offence or wrong to the Plaintiff And an Action upon the Case it is not for then the Writ ought to make mention of the Escape and that it doth not here and yet at the Common Law before the Statute of Westm 2. an Action upon the Case lay for an Escape and so by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Costs are not given in this Case And by Dyer upon Nonsuit in an Action upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. the Defendant shall not have Costs for it is not a personal wrong for the Writ is quod disseisivit which is a real wrong Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXXI Hollingshed and Kings Case HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bound to him in a Recognisance in 200 l. before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera of Guildhall in London Vpon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed before brought a Scire Facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he had brought this Action and upon the Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that the Plaintiff in the setting forth of the Recognizance had not alledged That the Mayor of London had authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he had not then is the Recognizance taken coram non Judice and so void and as to the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 45. the same cannot extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordata sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui recordum habent in rotulis eorum irrotulantur c. and also at the time of the making of that Statute the City of London had not any Sheriffs but only Bayliffs And the Statute ordains That upon Recognizance Process shall go to the Sheriffs c. therefore not to them But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for we well know that they of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which do concern the Iurisdiction of that Court and which arise by reason of the matters there depending Another matter was Objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera therefore it was not well taken But as to that Anderson Chief Iustice said Admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in a Scire Facias sued upon it the Defendant shall not take any advantage he shall be now bound by that admittance As if one sues a Scire Facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any such Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him the same is not void but voidable And Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove the Courts of the King ought to take notice that those of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo Warranto issueth to the Iustices in Eyre it doth not belong to them of London to claim their Liberties for all the Kings Courts have notice of them And at the last after many Motions the better Opinion of the Court was That the Plaintiff should recover Periam aliquantum haesitavit And it was said by Anderson and in a manner agreed by them all That if dependant this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire Facias is reversed yet the Court here shall proceed and take no notice of the reversal CCLXXXII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seized of a Barn in which the Tythes of certain Lands have used to be inned let the same by these words Demises .. Demise and to Farm-let the Barn with all Tythes belonging to the same It was holden That by that Demise the Tythes did not pass but Tythes which had usually been demised with the Barn passed by such words as by the Demise of an House Cum omnibus terris eidem pertinent ' all the Lands pass which have used to be demised with the said House for the demising usually of the Tythes with the Barn makes the Tythes belonging to the Barn but not the Inning Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXXII Haltons Case Recognisance Inrollment A Recognizance was acknowledged before J. S. who was one of the Masters of the Chancery and before the same was Inrolled the Conusee dyed the point was whether at the request of the Executors
Dyer that these Remainders were void for the term is determinable upon the death of William Cecill the Father and the residue of the said term cannot remain And by the Lord Anderson the Remainders of the term limited ut supra are utterly void for every Remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessioner of the term may live longer so as he in the Remainder cannot know what he shall have And such was also the Opinion of Rhodes And he put the Case between Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture Et provisum fuit by the same Indenture That if the Lessee dyed within the term of sixty years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have in right of the Lessee so many of the years as should amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture and it was holden That that secondary Interest to the Executors was void and that the words concerning the same did sound in Covenant CCCIV. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A made B. and C. his Executors Executors Action they took upon them the charge of the Administration and afterwards B. dyed and now an Action of Debt was brought against the surviving Executor and the Executor of the other Executor and the Writ was abated because against the surviving Executor it ought only to be brought Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCV Smith and Babbs Case SMith brough an Action upon the Case against Babb for stopping of Water incessanter decurrent by his Land Action upon the Case Stopping of Water by which his Land was drowned and his Grass rotted Exception was taken to it because it is not alledged That the Water had so run time out of mind Gawdy Iustice If the Water hath run there but for one year if the Defendant hath diverted it so as he hath drowned the Plaintiffs Land the Action will lye well enough Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVI Basil Johnsons Case BAsil Johnson one of the Clerks of the Chancery Priviledge of a Clerk in Court. was impleaded in the Common Pleas by Bill of Priviledge by an Attorney of the said Court and now Basil came into Court and shewed that he is one of the Clerks ut supra and prayed his Priviledge but the whole Court was against it because the Plaintiff is as well priviledged in this Court as the Defendant is in the Chancery and was first interessed in his Priviledge by the bringing of his Writ but the Defendant was not entituled to his Priviledge before the Arrest and afterwards by the award of the Court the said Basil was ousted of his Priviledge 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVII Collier and Colliers Case Prohibition BEtween Collier and Collier the Case was That the Plaintiff was Sued for Incontinence in the Spiritual Court and there they would have him Answer upon his Oath if he ever had Carnall Knowledge of such a Woman upon which he prayed a Prohibition Vide inde F. N. B. 41. a. Register 36. Et nemo tenetur seipsum prodere But the Court would advise of it 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVIII Mountney and Andrews Case Execution IN a Scire Facias by Mountney against Andrews of Grays-Inn upon a Iudgment in Debt the Defendant pleaded That heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued to the Sheriff of Leicester by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendants and that as yet he doth detain and keep them It was holden by the whole Court to be a good Plea although he did not say That the Writ was retorned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath his remedy against the Sheriff Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCIX Dawbney and Gores Case BEtween Dawbney Plaintiff and Gore and Gon Defendants in a Writ of Disceit In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That two are accountable to one and the one of them accounts without the other that that is not any account and then no account can be assigned in that As to that it was said by Popham Attorney-General That notwithstanding that one be not compellable to account without his Companion and by way of Action of Account the one shall not account without the other unless the Process be determined against him and then he who appeareth hath accounted and the other against whom the Process is determined hath purchased his Charter of Pardon the account made by his Companion shall bind him Vide inde 41 E. 3. 13. Yet if one of the Accomptants will account willingly the same is a good account And in account if one confesseth and the other pleadeth in bar the confession of the one shall bind the other and such was the Opinion of the Court. Another matter was moved in this case because that one Tedcastell and Swinnerton being accountable to the said Gores and Dawbney they have accounted to Dawbney only and he alone hath accepted of the account and that is not any account therefore no desceit but the Action of Account doth remain To which it was answered by Popham That the same was a good account being accepted by Dawbney and should bind the Gores for an Account is a personal thing as an Obligation which may be released by one of the Obligees Vide 14 E. 4. 2. Where one was accountable to two and the one of them did assign Auditors before whom the Accountant is found in Arrearages and thereupon both of them brought Debt upon Account and well And so none of the Exceptions were allowed by the Court. Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCX Trivilians Case THo Trivilian Tenant in tail of White Acre Black Acre and Green Acre leased White Acre for years to B. and Black Acre to C. and afterwards made a Feoffment of all three Acres to F. and others by Deed in which Deed was comprised a Letter of Attorney in which he ordained Harris and three others his Attorneys joyntly and severally to enter in the Premises and every part thereof in the name of the whole and possession in his name to receive and afterwards to make Livery c with other ordinary and usual words and it was expressed in the said Deed of Feoffment that the Feoffment should be to the intent to perform his last Will and afterwards one of the said Attorneys entred into the Land demised for life and expelled the Tenant for life and made Livery and Seisin to the Feoffees accordingly and afterwards the said Harris another of the Attorneys scil one of the Ioynt Lessees being one of the three Attorneys made Livery of the Land demised for years and after the Feoffor in the time of Queen Eliz. by his last Will devised That the Feoffees should be seized of the
But all the Court held the contrary and that the Copy should bind the Feoffee and the ceremony of admittance was not necessary For otherwise every Copyholder in England might be defeated by the sole act of the Lord viz. his Feoffment But the Lord by his own act which shall be accounted his folly hath lost his advantages viz. Fines Heriots and such other Casualties Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXV Boxe and Mounslowes Case THomas Boxe brought an Action upon the Case against John Mounslowe That the Defendant slandred him in saying That the said Thomas Boxe is a perjured Knave and that he would prove the said Thomas Boxe had forsworn himself in the Exchequer c. and supposed the said words to be spoken in London 4 Feb. 28 Eliz. Et praedict ' Johannes Mounslowe per Johannem Lutrich Attornatum suum venit defendit vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit quod praedict ' Tho. Boxe actionem suam versus eum habere non debet quia dicit quod praedict ' Thomas Boxe being one of the Collectors of the Subsidies before the speaking of the said words viz. 27 28 Eliz. in Curia Scaccarij apud Westm ' did Exhibt a Bill against the said John Mounslowe containing That the said John being assessed in ten pounds in Goods the said Thomas Boxe came to him and demanded of him sixteen shillings eight pence which the said John Mounslowe did refuse to pay and that demand and refusal was supposed to be in London in Breadstreet Et pro verificatione praemisiorum adâ—unc ibid ' Sacramentum Corporale per Barones praefat ' Thomae Boxe praestitit The said Thomax Boxe swore the said Bill in substance was true ubi revera the said John Mounflowe did not refuse per quod the said John Mounslowe postea viz. praedict tempore quo c. dixit de praefat ' Thoma Boxe praedict verba c. pâ—out ei bene Leuit The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant spake the words de injuria sua propria absque causa per praefat Johannem Mounslowe superius allegata Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Curiam praedict defendens similiter And a Venâ—re Facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages 400 l. And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there was no good Trial nor the Issue well joyned for the Issue doth consist upon 2 points triable in several Counties viz the Oath which was in the Exchequer and that ough to have been tryed in Middlesex and the matter which he affirmed by the Oath viz the demand and the refusal to pay the subsidy and that was alledged to be in London and is there to be tryed and the Issue viz. de 〈…〉 propria goeth to both for the ubi revera will not amend the Case as Penam Iustice said and both are material For the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff made such Oath and also that the substance and matter of the Oath was not true for otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be proved perjured And therefore the Counties here if they might should have joyned in the Tryal And the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff For Anderson and Wincham said That if this Issue could have been tryed by any one of the Counties without the other it should most properly and naturally have been tried in Middlesex where the Oath was made for the Perjury if any were was in the Exchequer But they said The Issue here was ill joyned because it did arise upon two points triable in several Counties which could not joyn whereas the Plaintiff might have taken Issue upon one of them well enough for each of them did go to the whole and if any of them were found for the Plaintiff that he had sufficient cause to recover Gawdy moved that it should be helped by the Statute of Ieofails which speaks of mis-joyning of Issues Anderson The Issue here is not mis-joyned For if the Counties could joyn the Issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyn it cannot be well tryed But the Issue it self is well enough Windham and Rhodes were of the same Opinion but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an Issue tryable in one Court be tryed in another and Iudgment given upon it it is Error And afterwards Lutrich the Attorney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quod mirum For first the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of Process and not mis-joyning of Issues and admit that this Case is not within any of those Clauses each of them being considered by it self yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32 H. 8. cap. 30. 18 Eliz. cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both Statutes was to waste delays circuits of Actions and Molestations and that the party might have his Iudgment notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appear to the Court. And here the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause to recover if any of the points of the Issue be found for him For if it be found that the matter and substance of the Oath be found true which might be tryed well enough by those in London the Plaintiff had cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the Verdict in London is good enough and effectual And note that Rhodes said that he was of Counsel in such a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevil and Dent. CCCLXVI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Leon. 103. THe Case was A. granted B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to commence when J. S. dyes without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue and the Issue dyeth without Issue Dyer said That the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore the Grant shall not then commence and if he dyeth then not at all by Manwood And Dyer and Manwood said If the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dyes without Issue c. And they said That if the Donee in tail hath Issue which dyeth without Issue the Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself dyed with Issue for there is an Interest And there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A and B. for the term of their lives if either of them dyeth the Survivor shall hold the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. or C. dyeth the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest CCCLXVII Temps Roign
guilty pleaded it was given in Evidence That time out of mind a Custom had been used and that proved by Witnesses that the eldest Heir be it Male or Female should inherit the Land and that it appeared in the Court Rolls of the said Manor of which the Land in question was parcel two Presidents to prove that the eldest Sister ought to inherit and that the youngest Sister should have nothing in the Land the one President was 8 Eliz. and the other 18 Eliz. In the other side in disaffirmance of the custom it was given in Evidence divers Court-Rolls 6 H. 4. and especially one President That both Sisters should inherit as Coparceners did by the common Law notwithstanding which the Iury found for the custom in regard they upon their own knowledge knew the usage of the Country and that in divers places it had been so used in the Hundred within which this Manor was But in this case it was agreed by the Court That if the custom had been that the eldest Sister only should inherit yet by that custom the eldest Aunt or the eldest Neece should not inherit the Land And so it is in the case of Borough English where the custom is That the youngest Son shall have the Land it doth not give it to the youngest Vncle for customs shall be taken strictly and Foster Iustice said That so it was adjudged in one Totnams case And in the Argument of this case it was said by Cook Chief Iustice That there are two Pillars of Custom one the common usage the other that it be time out of mind and therefore upon the Evidence given to the Iury the Court enforced the parties which maintained the custom to shew Presidents in the Court-Rolls to prove the usage and he said that without such proof and that it had been put in ure although it had been deemed and reported to have been the true custom yet the Court could not give credit to the promise by Witnesses Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCVI Arden and Goads Case IN an Action of Trespass upon the Case for divers Goods the Declaration was of Trover and Conversion of them to the Defendants use Vpon Not Guilty pleaded they were at Issue and there an Inventory of the Goods was given in Evidence to the Iury as the Goods were apprised by Vpholsterers And in this Evidence another Point did arise These Goods were taken in Execution and delivered to the Defendant by the Sheriff and afterwards the Owner of the Goods against whom the Execution was awarded made a Deed of Gift of them to the Plaintiff by these words scil He granted all those Goods which were late put in Execution Cook Chief Iustice said That Quacunque via data that Deed could not entitle the Plaintiff to the Goods for it is a Dilemma for Posito that the Goods were put in Execution then they did not pass and admit that they were not put in Execution he did not grant but only those Goods which were in Execution and so there is an opposition and afterward Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCVII The Earl of Rutland and Spencers Case THe case was 8 Co. 55. The late Queen Elizabeth granted to the Earl of Rutland the Office of Parkership and Constable of c. Habendum from the time of his full age for life and also by the same Patent she granted him the Stewardship of a Manor Habend ' praedict ' Officia pro termino vitae per Deputatum suum vel Deputatos suos c. eidem Officio pertinent ' in tam amplis modo forma c. Volentes quod subditi nostri sint auxiliantes assistentes to him And after that one as Steward to that Court came and made Proclamations and also did the Deputy of the Earl of Rutland And thereupon the Earl of Rutland brought an Action upon the Case against the other In this case three Points were moved by Nicholls Serjeant 1. If a Stewardship granted by the King might be exercised by a Deputy without such authority given him in his Patent And he took a Difference between an Office of Trust and other Offices as in 28 H. 8. of a Carver c. and 11 E. 4. 1. the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such Offices cannot without special Authority be assigned over 39 H. 6. 34. Of the Office of Marshal per se vel sufficient ' Deputatum c. Nevills Case in the Commentaries Offices of trust which are inheritances may be executed by Deputy 8 Eliz. Dy. 248. A Steward may be retained by word and he said There is a difference between a Deputy and an Assignee for an Assignee can forfeit but his own Estate but a Deputy shall forfeit the Estate of his Master and therefore if a Steward grant his Office for life who hath the Office in Fee the Grantee shall forfeit no more than his Estate for life 2 E. 6. Br. If the under Steward make Admittances it is good and yet he is but a Deputy but if it be out of Court then it ought to be by a special Custom Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer The Office of Chyrographer granted for life and exercisable by a Deputy And he said That in these Letters Patents the intent shall be taken beneficially for the Subject and that for the Honour of the King if the King be not deceived in his Grant. Vide 6 E. 6. Dyer 77. Dodderidge to the contrary and he took a difference between Offices of Trust granted for life and those which are granted in Fee for he who hath it but for life cannot assign them over for the Grantor did not intend that another person should have the Office unless express mention were made in the Grant of Assignees But when the Office is granted in Fee there is no such confidence put in the person of the Grantee for his heir shall have it who is a person not known to the Grantor But in all cases the Grantee is elected for his skill I agree 10 E. 4. 10. he may make a Deputy by special words but then that Deputy by those words cannot make a Deputy That a Steward is an Officer of trust is proved for he enters Plaints in the Court and Surrenders and although he hath not a Iudicial Place yet he hath a Ministerial Place and the Lord and Tenants repose their trusts in him And it is also an Office of Skill Vide 21 E. 4. 20. That the Office of the Keeper of a Park Steward c. cannot be assigned without special words of Assignees And as to the Case which was put by Nicholls 8 Eliz. That one may make a Steward by word and therefore an Assignee for life by word it is a Non sequitur And he said That for another cause in the Patent it self no Deputy in this case could be made for although the words are Habendum Gaudendum c.