by voucher of him in the Remainder in tail who vouched the common Vouchee and if he in the Remainder in Fee were bound by the Recovery because the Statute of 14. Eliz. is That Recoveries suffered by Tenants for Life shall be void against him in Remainder or Reversion and the Proviso doth not extend to bind more of them in the Remainder then those who assent of Record It was adjudged in B. R. that the Remainder in Fee was bound as well as if the Tenant in tail had bin the first Tenant to the Precipe and upon Error brought the Judgment in the Exchequer Chamber was affirmed But because the Defendant in the first Action had pleaded the Recovery by a Writ brought de tenementis praedictis which was not the use in common Recoveries but especial to have the Recovery of so many Messuages so many Acres of Land Meadow Pasture c. in certain and because it did not appear by the Record before them that the Writ did contain any certainty of the Messuages or Acres c. the Judgment was reversed Rotheram and Stibbings Case 905. Action upon the case against an Executor upon Assumpsit of the Testator to pay 100 l. in consideration of Marriage of his Daughter the payment to be made when he should be required upon non Assumpsit Judgment was had in B. R. for the Plaintiff Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was reversed because the Action did not lie against the Executor Maynard and Bassets Case 906. Trover and Conversion de 3000. cords of Wood the case was A. granted to B. so much wood in Buxsted Wood as would make 4000. cords to be taken by the appointment of A. B. before any appointment assigned his Interest to M. the Plaintiff afterwards A. granted to the Defendant as much wood in the said Wood as should make 6000. cords at the choice of the Defendant then A. appointed B. a certain quantity to satisfie the first Bargain which B. cut down and the Defendant by colour of his Grant took and carried away the same whereupon the Plaintiff brought his Action and had Judgment in B. accordingly And Error brought and assigned because the Declaration is not de bonis propriis 2. Because he sais he was possessed de 3000. cordis ligni and the Defendant cordas praedicti ligni cepit without saying any particular quantity and 3d. because the Declaration is vi armis but all the Exceptions were disallowed by the Court and the Judgment was affirmed Palmâ—r and Sherwoods Case 907. A Trespass for carrying away goods The Judgment in B. R. was that the Plaintiff should recover his Damages for part and the Defendant capiatur and that the Plaintiff sit in misericordia pro residuo transgressionis which is said to be Error and that the Judgment ought to have bin Quaerens nibil capiat per billam pro residuo transgressionis Sed non allocatur but the Judgment was affirmed Chamberlain and Nichols Case 908. In debt upon a single Bill for payment of money at a day the Defendant pleaded payment without an acquittance Issue upon it Judgment for the Plaintiff in B. R. Error assigned because the Issue was joyned upon a matter not material nor pleadable viz. payment without an acquittance but because it was after Verdict and the Error assigned in the Plea which the Defendant himself had pleaded The Judgment was assirmed Only and Font Le Roys Case 909. Debt being against an Executor he pleaded there was another Executor who administred and was alive and concluded Judgment si Action whereas he ought to have pleaded to the abarement of the Bill The Plaintiff replyed Billa cassari non debet It was objected to be Error out holden good notwithstanding the Bar of the Defendant would have concluded the Plaintiff Smithwick and Binghams Case 910. Error brought upon a Judgment in B. R. in Ejectione firme because the Plaintiff entituled himself to a Term for years by an Administration taken of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and did not alledge that the Intestate had goods in diverse Diocesses but the same was disallowed because it did not appear to the Court whether he had or not but if it had appeared to them they conceived the Administration taken had been void if the Inrestate had not goods in divers Diocesses Partridge and Turks Case 911. The case was A. seised of two Messuages in the Parish of St. Brides London demised them to the Parson and Churchwardens of St. Brides ad distribuend ' annuatim 5 s. of the profits to the poor of the Parish in honorem duplicationem omnium illorum annorum quibus Dominus noster Jesus Christus vixerat in terra and gave 20 s. to maintain a Priest and dyed and the Parson and Churchwardens were seised and the Jury found the Act of 1 E. 6. and that the King was seised ut Lex postulat and granted the same to I. S. in Fee who devised it to the Plaintiff for Life and that the Parson and Churchwardens reentred and were seised ut Lex postulat and so demised them to the Defendant The Question was whether Partridge the Plaintiff was in by disseisin or not It was adjudged in B. R. he was not in by disseisin Error was brought and it was adjudged that the gift of A. was good and the giving of 5 s. inter pauperes was no Superstitious use and where part is given to a good use and part to a Superstitious use the King shall have but that Rent which is given to the Superstitious use and the Land shall go to the Devisee 2. It was said the entry of Partridge was no Disseisin because no actual expulsion of the Parson and Churchwardens were found but the Court held that because it is found that Partridge when he made the Lease was seised prout lex postulat his Seisin shall be intended lawful and not by disseisin and it cannot be lawful because the Devise was good to the Parson and Churchwardens and therefore it was by disseisin and afterwards the Judgment was reversed Bucknel and Heys Case 912. Error brought upon a Recovery in Battery in B. R. and assigned that there was no Bail there and upon a Certiorari the Chief Justice certified Bail I. H. without addition and with a Blanck for the place of his Habitation The Judgment there was reversed because no bail for the party who was sued and so he was never in the custody of the Marshal nor could be sued there Turges and Beachers Case 913. In Assumpsit in B. R. the Declaration was That the Defendant was indebted to the Intestate 30 l. for the residue of 100 Quarters of Wheat sold to him by the Intestate The Defendant promised the Plaintiff being Administrator to pay it when he should be required Found for the Plaintiff there the Judgment was reversed because in the case Debt lay and not Action upon the case Ody and Yates Case 914. Note It was holden by all
the Justices that a Writ of Error was not maintainable in the Exchequer Chamber by the Statute of 27. Eliz. upon a Judgment in B. R. upon Rescous because it is not within the words of the Statute although it be a Trespass Giddy and Heales Case 915. Action upon the case in B. R. by Heale for these words he being a Counsellor at Law Whereas one said to Giddy that Heal had affirmed upon his credit that the Fee-simple of certain Lands was in the Patentees of the Queen The said Giddy said No friends Heales Warranty we well know a great number of his Country trusting to his Warranty have been undone It was adjudged in B. R. for the Plaintiff and 100 l. damages and Error being brought in Exchequer Chamber and assigned the Words were not actionable The Judgment was affirmed Marronor and Cottons Case 916. Judgment was given against Marroner in the B. R. for Cotton for these words spoken against Cotton a Justice of the Peace viz. He hath received mony of a Thief that was apprehended and brought before him for stealing of Sheep to let him escape and keep him from the Goal Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and assigned the words were not actionable but the Judgment in B. R. was affirmed Bâ—shop and Gins Case 917. Debt upon an Obligation in B. R. for performance of Covenants one was that he delivertd a Ship in London usque portum de Blackney and no time limited for it and the breach was assigned in it that he did not deliver the ship such a day and Judgment there for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Issue was ill joyned because he had time to deliver it during his Life that the Court said was but the misjoyning of the Issue which was remedied by the Statute of Jeofails after Verdict 2. Error that the Venire was of Blackney where it ought to be de Portu Blackney The Court held it no Error but good and the Judgment was affirmed Falsowe and Thornies Case 918. In Debt the Venire upon the Roll was retornable die Martis post 15. Trin. and the Writ in facto was returned die Jovis post 15. Trin. that was assigned for Error but non allocatur because but misawarding of Process which is aided by the Statute of Jeofails and the Judgment was affirmed Cundey and Edgecombs Case 919. In Debt the Venire was filed Trin. 35. Eliz. to try an Issue between Richard Cundey de Bodrygan querent Peter Edgecombe de Mount Edgecomb in Com. Devon Defendant The Writ was direct Vic' Cornubiae Hill 39 Eliz. The continuance upon the Roll was Juratores inter Richardum Cundey de Bodygran in Comitatu Cornubiae mercatorum queren Petrum Edgecombt de Mount Edgecomb in Com-Devon in placito debiti ponitur in respectu nisi Justitiarii ad Assisas in Comitatu praedict capiendas assignat prius venerint c. upon the Margent was written Cornubiae It was assigned for Error that the last County is Devon in the Addition of the Defendant for the habitation of the Defendant The Justices held it no Error because Cornubiae was in the Margent and where there are two Counties before Com. praedict shall extend to that which will affirm the Judgment although the other be the Prochine antecedent Wilcoks â—nd Hewsons Case 920. Debt upon a Bill of 30. l. The Defendant pleaded he delivered the Bill upon a Condition to the Plaintiff that if he did procuer a particular of certain Land that it should not be his Deed but if he did not procure the particular it should be his Deed The Plaintiff took Issue it was his Deed and so found by Verdict Error brought and assigned that the Defendants plea was insufficient and the Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon it and the Issue which he took was vain and void because the especial matter had confessed the Deed and so the Issue is taken upon a thing confessed the Judgment was affirmed because the Defendant cannot assign Error in his own Plea and although the Issue be joyned upon a thing confessed the same is but surplussage and it was in the Election of the Court to give Judgment either upon the Plea or the Verdict Joyner and Ognells Case 921. Debt upon a Bill of 100 l. by Humphrey Joyner Executor of George Skiner against the Defendant the Defendant pleaded per minas and after Issue joyned befor Nisi prius he confessed the Action in Court The confession was entred non potest dedicere quia ipse debuit praedict ' Georgio Skinner in vita sua praedict ' 100. l. modo forma poout and upon that the Judgment was Quod praedict Humfred Joyner recuperet versus praedict ' Georgium Ognel debittum suum praedict ' necnon quatuor libras pro damnis suis quae sustinuit tam occasione detentionis debiti praedict ' quam pro missis c. eidem Humfredo Skinner per curiam adjudicat upon this Judgment Error was brought and assigned that the confession of the Action is not according to the Declaration for the Declaration is in the debuit to the Testator and Detinet of the Executor as it ought to be but the Confession is in the Debuit only 2. Error the Judgment is Quod Humfrey Joyner recuperet debitum eidem Humfredo Skinner adjudicant whereas it ought to be eidem Humfredo Joyner adjudicat As to the first Error the Court said that after the Defendant hath relinquished the Bar the Declaration remains without defence for which cause the Court may well judge for the Plaintiff and for the second Error it was amended by the Court. Gomersall and Watkinsons Case 922. Eliz. Watkinson the Defendant brought Debt in B. R. against the Plaintiff Executor of William Gomersall and shewed that the Testator retained her in his Service 28 Eliz. taking 40 s. for one year for her Wages and so from year to year and that she had served the Testator five years who died her wages not paid The Defendant the Executor pleaded Nihil debet which was found against him and Judgment for the said Eliz. the Plaintiff Error was brought and assigned the Action did not lie against the Executor It was said by the Justices it appeareth prima facie upon the Declaration that the said Eliz. was compellable to serve by the Statute of 5 Eliz. and then when he voluntarily retains her in service being compellable to serve the Master cannot wage his Law in Debt for the wages and therefore the Action is maintainable against his Executors Stanton and Suliards Case 923. Note It was Resolved in this Case Whereas the Sheriff brought an Action upon the case against the Defendant in the Kings Bench upon Assumpsit to pay the Sheriffs Fee upon arresting the party in Execution which was 12 d. for every pound where the Execution did exceed a 100 l. and there Judgment was given for the Plaintiff that upon Error thereupon brought in the Exchequer the Judgment was reversed because an Action
upon the case did not lie in such Case Bowes and Powletts Case 924. In the Kings Bench the case was A. and B. were Indebted to the Queen by Recognizance 500 l. C. and D. were indebted in 200 l. to F. by Obligation F. was indebted to A. 200 l. F. at the request of A. assigned the Debt of 200 l. due from C. and D. to the Queen by Deed enrolled in part of satisfaction of the 500 l. due to the Queen by A. B. A. afterwards for his discharge of the 200 l. against the Queen prosecuted Suit in the Exchequer against C. for the levying of the 200 l. of the goods and Chattels of C. C. in consideration that A. would forbear to prosecute any Process against the said C. till Hill Term following promised to pay A. 200 l. and 20 l. to buy him a Gelding and in an Action upon the case brought for it in B. R. upon non Assumpsit It was found for the Plaintiff there and Damages and Judgment Error was brought in the Exchequer and the Judgment upon the body of the Declaration was reversed because the consideration was not lawfull nor sufficient for the surceasing of a Suit was no discharge of the Debt nor was it lawfull to have recompence for the forbearing or surceasing of a Debt which was due to the Queen Hinson and Burridges Case 925. Action upon Assumpsit in B. R. In consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to I. S. the Defendants Factor at the request of the Defendant 200 Hog-labms to the use of the Defendant he promised he would pay so much mony to the Plaintiff as should be agreed betwixt the Plaintiff and I. S. and alledged he delivered them to I. S. and I. S. and the Plaintiff agreed for 40 l. price to be paid at certain dayes since past and the Defendant had not paid the mony It was found for the Plaintiff and Judgment Errour brought and assigned 1. That the Contract was the Contract of the Defendant himself and Debt did lye not Assumpsit Resolved the sale was to I. S. and the use is but a Confidence which gave not property to the Defendant so that Debt did not lye against him but Assumpsit 2. Error no place is alledged where the Plaintiff and I. S. agreed of the price and day of payment which is traversable The Court held it good enough because the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit and a verdict was given But the Court said it had been a good cause of Demurrer Palmer and Humfreys Case 926. Ejectione firme de una pecia terrae vocat M. furlong una pecia terrae vocat Ashbrokee uno Gardino vocat Minching-Garden quae omnes singulae parcellae terrae jacent in W. It was assigned for Error that Pecia terrae is uncertain and so the Declaration not good And 2. Because no place certain is alledged in which the Garden is and for these Causes the Judgment was reversed Matthew and Matthewes Case 927. Assumpsit in B. R. whereas the Testator was endebted to the Plaintiff 35 l. The Defendant being his Excecutor in consideration the Plaintiff would give him day promised to pay the money Found there for the Plaintiff and Judgment upon Error brought the Judgment Reversed Because the consideration was not sufficient because the Defendant was not by Law bound to pay the money after the death of the Testator and giving day to pay that which he was not bound to pay was no sufficient Consideration Edmunds and Bufkins Case 928. Debt in B. R. and declared the Dean and Chapter of W. demised the Rectory to A. for 60. years which by mean Conveyance came to F. who demised it to C. for 20. years rendring Rent C. demised it by his will to D. 10. of the last years and afterwards dyed possessed D. entred and granted his Interest to Edmunds F. demised the residue of the Terme to S. his Wife and Executrix S. married Bufkin they brought Debt and had Judgment Error was brought and assigned that C. the first Lessee of F. demised 10. of the last years to D. and it was alledged that the demisor made not any Executor or that the devisee did enter by the assent of the Excecutor nor that he was possessed by virtue of the demise but generall that he entred after the death of the devise and for these Causes the Judgment was reversed Paramour and Pains Case 929. Action upon the Case in B. R. and declared in Consideration the Plaintiff had sold to the Defendant 14. Cowes for 34 l. and 4. Oxon for 16 l. the Defendant promised to pay cum requisitus esset Found for the Plaintiff the Judgment was reversed because the Consideration was not sufficient but Debt lay upon the Contract and not Assumpsit Plaine and Bagshawes Case 930. Debt in B. R. against B. Executor of I. S. and demanded 47 l. 8 s. 8 d. monetae Flandriae attingent ' to 40 l. 12 s. 6 d. English money The Defendant pleaded fully Administred the Jury found Assets and Judgment there that recuperet debitum suum praedict ' damna sua praedict ' Errour brought and assigned for that the Jurours did not inquire of the value of Flanders money and for that cause the Judgment was reversed for although the Plaintiff did affirme the Flanders money did attain to 40 l. 12 s. 6 yet it is no Warrant to the Court to adjudge it so unlesse found by the Jury Stafford and Powlers Case 931. Error was brought of a Judgment in an action upon the Case in B. R. for words the words were viz. One W. Web being arrested as accessary for stealing his own goods Mr. Stafford knowing thereof discharged the said Web by an agreement of 3 l. to which Mr. Stafford was party whereof 30 s. was to be paid to Mr. Stafford and was paid to his man by his appointment Error brought It was said the words were not actionable but the Justices held them actionable and the Judgment was affirmed Bordolf and Perry and his Wives Case 932. Debt in B. R. upon an Obligation made by the Wife dum sola fuit the Defendant pleaded Non est factum found for the Plaintiff The Judgment was that the Husband be in misericordia and the Wife Capiatur And it Reversed because it ought be Capiantur against both Penraddock and Erringtons Case 933. Assault and Battery in B. R. against two Defendants and declared of Assault Battery tantas minas de vita sua imposuer ' quod non audebat ire circa negotia They pleaded Deson Assault demesne It was assigned for Error that the Assault of one cannot be the Assault of the other and they ought to have pleaded several pleas the Court held it no Error for that the Assault might be joynt 2. Error because nothing is said to the Minas yet the Judgment was affirmed because Minas is but to enforce the damages and not the substance of the Declaration Wilcocks and Greenes Case 934.
817 Wells and Fentons case 822 Web and Hargraves case 835 Williams and Greens case 836 Worleys case 842 Walter and Pigotts case 845 Whetstone and Mintons case 852 Webster and Allens case 873 Ward and Lakings case 876 Wilmot and Knowles case 884 Ward and Sudmans case 894 Westby Skinner and Catchers case 902 Wiseman and Jennings case 904 Wilcoks and Hewsons case 920 Wilcocks and Greens case 934 Wood and Bucklâ—ys case 936 Waâ—ley and Mosleys case 947 VVortesleys case 956 Worleys case 959 Williams Vaughans case 1014 Whitlock and Hartwells case 1015 Waltham Mulgars case 1017 Sir Will. Walter and Hangers case 1055 VVheeler and Heydons case 1056 VVrights case 1064 VVorral and Harpers case 1065 Eliz VViimots case 1093 VVhite and Halls case 1097 VVeaver and VVards case 1126 VVindham Kemps case 1134 The VVeavers of Newberries case 1140 VVood and Shirleys case 1149 VVhitlock and Hardings case 1152 VValter and the Dean and Chapter of Norwiches case 1157 VVilkings and Perrotts case 1161 VVatbrooke and Griffiths case 1163 VVinscomb and Pulisons case 1164 VVolley and Davenants case 1182 VVray and Clenches case 1203 Y. YArdley and Prestwoods case 435 Yelverton and Yelvertons case 442 Yelding and Fays case 458 Yotes and Goths case 882 Yelland and Fiches case 1026 Yardley and Ellices case 1107 Z. ZOuch and Bampfields case 382 ☞ THere is newly extant an ABRIDGEMENT of the Three Volumes of the REPORTS of Sir George Croke Kt. of all such Select Cases as were adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench and Common Bench during the Raigns of Q. Elizabeth King James and King Charles Collected by the Author of this Abridgement AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE REPORTS OF Sir FRANCIS MOORE Knight Serjeant at Law Mich. 1. Hen. 7. Capell and Churches Case A Writ of Right Patent in the Court of the Castle of Rising of the King was directed Balivis suis de Rising whereas the proceedings were senatoribus Curiae held good because the Paylifs are to make the Sommons and the suitors Justice Capell and Aprices Case 2. Replevin The Defendant avowed That A. and B. held the Mannor of H. and divers Lands of the Bishop of London parcel of the Bishops Castle of S. by Homage Fealty Escuage and by the Rent for Castleguard pro reddit auxil Vic. The Defendant pleaded That the Castle was utterly decayed and as to the auxil Vic. demurred in Law The Plantiff was Nonsuit but the Rents are still paid to the Bishop though the Castle be decayed Cleydon and Spensers Case 3. Resolved That if an Executor with his own proper monies pay a debt due by the Testator he may retain so much of the value of the goods of the Testator in his hands Case of the Sheriffs of London 4. The Custome of London is That if a Villein remaineth in the City by the space of a year and a day without any Claime made of him he may all time during his life live in the City Free 5. Resolved by the Justices That that which is written after the words In cujus rei Testimonium is parcel of the deed aswell as that which is written before it 6. Resolved It is no principal Challenge That a Juror is endebted either to the Plaintiff or Defendant 7. Resolved In a Replevin That one of the Jurors was Steward of the Mannor to the avowant is a principal Challenge 8. Two are bound each to other to stand to the award of Arbitrators They award that the one shall make a Lease for years to the other rendering Rent to the Lessor the Lease is made the Rent is not paid adjudged the Bond is not forfeit because Distresse or Debt are proper remedies for the Rent contr if it be awarded the Lessee should pay the Rent 9. Debt for not performance of an Arbitrament Adjudged It is no plea generally That he hath performed it but he must show how he hath performed it 10. Resolved It is a good Challenge to one of the 4. Knights who come to impannel the Grand Assise that one of them is maried to the Plantiffs daughter and the other 3. shall try it 11. If a submission be de jure titulo possessione of certain Lands The Arbitrators cannot award that one of the parties shall procure the Lord of the Mannor to grant a Copy holdor that a stranger shall release because out of the submission Frances Case 12. Resolved That the King by his Letters Patents cannot grant the Lands of a Lunatique to another to take the profits to his own use because the King himself is not entitled to them for his own use but for the use of the Lunatique his Issues Wife c. Otherwise it is of an Ideot for then the King hath the profits to his own use making allowance to the Idiot for his keeping Levet and Lewknors Case 13. An Executor recovered in Debt and then dies Intestate and the Ordinary commits Administration de bonis non c. Resolved the Administrator shall not have a scire fac upon the Judgement but a new Action of Debt as Administrator to the first Intestate Sir Godfrey Foliambs Case 14. Quare Imp. The Case was A. seased of the Mannor of D. to which Mannor an Advouson was Appendent granted the next Avoydance to B. and D. eorum cuilibet conjunctim divifim haered executor assignis suis The Church voyd B. presents D. to the Church adjudged That the presentment of him was good though he was one of the Granters 15. The Husband is entitled to Land in the Right of his Wife Resolved The Husband alone without joyning the Wife in the Writ shall have an Action upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. because the words of the Statute are Expulit disscisivit 16. A man was indicted for a Robbery done in the Foot way leading from London to Islington Resolved That he should have his Clergy because the Indictment is not of a Robbery in alta via regia nor in the High way but in a Foot way Vaughan and Lord Burghs Case 17. In a Writ of Prohibition there wanted the word Ostensurus Resolved though after Issue joyned that the Writ was amendable by the Statute Baker and Brooks Case 18. A Parson granted an Annuity of 5 l. issuing out of his Rectory pro Consilio impenso to I. S. Habend recipiend to the said I. S. and his Assignes The said I. S. granted it over to I. D. Resolved That the grant of the Annuity was good and the Assigne may have Debt for it 19. Wast was brought against Lessee for years He pleaded in Barre an Accord which was executed Adjudged to be a good plea. 20. Resolved by the Justices That the Master cannot Sollicite Counsel nor give Mony to Counsel in an Action brought against his Servant for his Servant but yet he may give what is due to his Servant for his Wages to Counsel for their Fees and it is not maintenance 21. Resolved That the Lord in Ancient Demesne shall
made Title by a Demise in Fee to himself the Plaintiff traversed the Custome and the Custom was found to demise in Fee or for Life but not in Tail It was adjudged that the Issue was found for the Defendant because the substance was found for him and the tail was but Inducement Ewer and Heydons Case 468. A. seised of three Houses and other Lands Pastures and Meadows in W. in the County of H. and of Land in the County of O. devised in this manner viz. I give my Capital Messuage in the County of O. and all other my Lands and Meadows and Pastures in the Parish of W. That the Houses passed by the Devise for that Land comprehends Houses The Bishop of Worcesters Case 469. The Bishop presented a Felon at the Sessions at Newgate who had stollen a Bason and Ewer from him for which the person was attainted and a Writ of Restitution awarded to the Bishop In Bar of the Restitution a Scrivener of London a Freeman came and said That every Shop in London is a Market overt and that he bought the Bason and Ewer in his Shop being a Scriveners Shop Adjudged the sale of it in the Scriveners shop did not alter the propriety of the Plate for it was not a Market overt for such things And it was said That any Shop in London by Custom was a Market overt for the buying of all things It was Resolved that such a Custom was an unreasonable Custome The Lord Norths Case 470. Christ Church in Oxon is incorporated by the Name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi de Oxon and they made a Lease by the name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi in Academia de Oxon and the Liberties de Accademia did extend further then the Liberties of the City yet it was adjudged a good Lease because the substance of the Corporation was inserted in the words of the Lease Bullen and Bullens Case 471. The case was S. B. being Cestuy que use before the Statute 27. H 8. devised to his Wife certain Lands for her Life and that after her decease R. B. his eldest Son shall have the Land 10 l. under the sum or price it cost and if he died without Issue F. â— his Second Son should have the Land 10. l. under the price it cost and if he died without Issue of his Body then his two Daughters A. and E. shall have the Land paying the value thereof to the Executors of his Wife The Question was if R. B. the Devisee had an Estate Tail or not It was argued it was an Estate tail and it was compared to Frenchams case 2. Eliz. Dyer where a man devised Lands to his Wife for use the Remainder to C. F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Heirs of his Body the Remainder over and it was clearly taken that the general Limitation if he die without Heirs of his Body shall not alter the especial Tail On the other side it was said that the Estate was Fee-simple for that the words are That he shall have the Land 10. l. under the price and so the word paying implies a Fee-simple The Court enclined to be of opinion It should be a Fee-simple But the Case was not Resolved but Adjourned Germin and Ascotts Case 472. A. seised of Lands â—n Fee devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to his second Son and the Heirs males the like remainder to his third Son the remainder to his Daughter in Tail with remainder over Proviso That if any of the Devisees or their Issues shall go about to alien discontinue and incumber the premisses that then and from the time they shall go about to alien discontinue c. their estate shall cease as if they were naturally dead and from thenceforth it should be Lawfull for him in the next remainder to enter and hold for the life of him who shall so alien c. and presently after his death the Land shall go to his Issue the Devisor dyeth the eldest Son and all the other but the second Son levy a Fine the second Son claimes the said Land by the Devisor It was Resolved in this Case by all the Justices that the Proviso of ceasing of the estates upon an attempt to alien or upon an Alienation was repugnant to the estate Tail and that remainder which was limited to the second Son upon such attempt was void in Law St. Johns Case 473. A. Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the Sheriff who made a Warrant to a special Bayliff to execute it who arrested the party after a new Sheriff was elected but had not received his Writ of discharge adjudged the Writ was executed well but otherwise if the party had been arrested upon the Warrant after his Writ of discharge was delivered Godwin and Ishams Case 474. Error of a Judgment in debt upon an Oblation to perform Covenant in an Indenture The Covenant was That if the Plantiff pay the Defendant 100 l. at Mich. then the Defendant would pay him 10 l. yearly after during his life and it was alledged that the Defendant did not pay him the 10 l. yearly but did not mention the payment of the 100 l. by him which was assigned for Error It was adjudged No Error because the Defendant by pleading Conditions performed which he did plead had confessed the payment of the 100 l. to him by the Plaintiff The Judgement was affirmed Woodlife and Vaughans Case 475. Words viz. He hath forsworne himself and I will prove him perjured or else I will pay his charges Adjudged the words are actionable notwithstanding the Disjunctive or else I will pay his charges Barton and Lever and Brownloes Case 476. Tenant in tail upon a Recovery had came in as Vouchee It was Resolved that in such Case he had barred his Issue from any Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and it was said That it was adjudged Mich. 32 Eliz. in Carringtons Case That if Tenant in Tail levyeth an Erronious Fine and afterwards levyeth another Fine the Issue in Tail was barred of his Writ of Error upon the first Fine Rolls and Germins Case 477. It was Resolved in this Case where the Testator retained an Attorney of the Common Pleas to prosecute a Suite in that Court That an Action will lye for his Fees which be due to him in that Suit against the Executor of the Testator because the Testator in such Case could not wage his Law but for monies expended in Suites in other Courts by the Attorney the Action will not lye Welcombs Case 478. Debt brought to answer to Tho. Welcomb Excecutor of Joh. Welcomb The Judgment was Quod praedict Johis recuperet where it should have been Quod praedict Tho. recuperet Resolved it was not amendable because no default in the Judgment is amendable being the Act of the Judges and not of the Clarks 479. The Bargainee Covenanted
he was not a person Qualified to take two benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities It was agreed that a Countesse a Widdow had power to retain two Chaplains who might purchase Dispensation for plurality But when she had once retained two she could not retain a third Chaplin who might purchase Dispensation within the Statute and therefore in the principal Case the Retainer of Priory being the third Chaplain was not good nor his dispensation good and so the Queen for want of Presentation of the Patron and Ordinary had good title to present Oldbery and Grogonds Case 729. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of certain money at a day certain The Defendant pleaded that the same was agreed to be paid for the Resignation of a Parson of his Benefices to the intent another might be presented unto it and so upon a Symoniacal agreement The Court held it no plea for that an averment shall not be that it was to be paid for other cause then the Obligation expresseth Agor and Candishes Case 730. An information was brought in the Exchequer by an Informer tam pro Domina Regina quam prose ipso upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. cap. 2. of Retainers and Judgment was there given the Informer to have one Moyety of the forfeiture and the Queen the other Moyety Error was brought upon the Judgment and assigned for Error that the Statute limits the party to sue in the Kings Kings Bench and divers other Courts but speaks not of the Exchequer It was the opinnion of the Justices that for that cause the Judgment was erroneous as to the Informer only Then it was moved that the Judgment might be and stand good for the whole forfeiture to the Queen for it was said that a Judgment might be reversed in part and stand for the other part and divers Presidents vouched to that purpose But the Court was of opinion because the first Judgment gave but a Moyery to the Queen this Court had not power to give more nor encrease it but only had power to affirme the Judgement Boddy and Hargraves Case 731. Debt upon a Lease for years was brought against the Administrator in the Debet detinet It was adjudged well brought because the Rent was encreased in the time of the Administrator himself But it was said That in all Cases where the Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a duty Testamentary it ought to be only in the Detinâ—t because the duty demanded ought to be Assets Layton and Garnonces Case 732. A man recovered Debt in Co. B. and had Judgment and he took forth Processe and the party was taken upon a Capias utlagatum within the year after the Judgment upon Processe continued without any discontinuance against him It was adjudged in this Case that he should be in Execution at the suit of the party without prayer because the processe was continued Parker and Sir Ed. cleeves Case 733. The Case was A. seised of three acres of equall value conveyed by act executed two of them for the Joynture of his Wife and the third he conveyed by act executed to the use of such persons and of such estates as he should declare by his last Will afterwards he devised the Land to one under whom the Plaintiff claimed In this Case it was amongst other poynts Resolved that he could not devise the Land because he had Conveyed two parts before by act executed in his life time Sydnam and Courtneys Case 734. Sir George Sydnam possessed of divers Leases for years gave them to his Daughter who was the Wife of C and to the Heirs of her body and if she dyed withot Issue that they should remain to such person of Combe Sydnam which Combe Sydnam he devised to his Cosen and his Heirs males in default of the Issue of the body of his daughter There was a Clause in the Will that his daughter should not alter the Leases but that they should remain according to the Will and made his Daughter his Executrix and dyed C. caused the Daughter to enter upon the Leases as Executrix and so waive the Legacy and afterwards the Daughter dyed without Issue Then C. caused an Administration to be taken of the goods of Sir George Sydenham which was at the Costs of C. and then to convey over the Leases to C. The Heir of Sir Geoâ—ge complained in Chancery and the Leases decreed unto him for the two fraudes which were used by C. in the Obliging of the Leases because the Daughter had them upon special trust and although it was said in this Case that the entail of the Leases was not good yet because there was a trust in the Daughter and expressed in the Will It was said the parties were compellable to execute the Trust and the Lord Chancellour resembled it to the Case where an Assignment was made of a Lease upon an expresse Trust to one and the Heirs of his body and afterwards to another and the Heirs of his body and the Assignes were Compelled to execute the Trust and to suffer the Issues in Tail to take the profits of the Lands The Countesse of Waâ—wicks Case 735. The Case was A. seised in Fee enfeoffed I. S. who dyed without Issue having Issue M. his Sister and Heir of the whole blood and T. of the half blood their Father being long before attainted of Felony dyed seised M. entred and enfeoffed the Countesse The point was if the Corruption of the blood of the Father had disabled the Course of discent and Inheritance between the Brother and Sister Quaere not Resolved Sprakes Case 736. A Copyholder makes a Lease for years Resolved that the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firme though the Lease be not warranted by the Custom Fisher and Smiths Case 737. Note It was Resolved in this Case That if a man plead a Bargain and Sale in which no consideration of mony is expressed there it must be averred that it was for mony and the words for divers considerations will not imply mony but if the deed be for a Competent sum of mony though the certainty of the sum be not expressed it is good enough Worsloy and Charnocks Case 738. A Statute Merchant was by Mâ—ttimus removed out of the Chancery in C. B. an execution awarded there super tenorem Recordi Resolved 1. That Error lyes in B. R. although the Original be in the Chancery and the Execution in C. B. 2. Resolved that in that Case the Conusor cannot alledge for Error that the Statute wants one of the Seales that ought to be to it because he hath admitted the same in C. B. 739. Debt in B. R. upon Mutuatas for 50 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attachment in London and had found pledges and because the pledges were not put in at the day of the last default but at another day it was holden No plea and Judgment was for the Plaintiff Washington and Burgons Case 740. It was holden by the
and Stermons Case 1120. Resolved that an Action upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes lieth by the husband and wife in the Temporal Court and so it was adjudged in Wentworth and Crispes case which vide there Stebs and Goodtriks Case 1221. The custom of L. in the County of B. was alledged that the Parson ought to have the Tenth Land of corn beginning at such Land which was next to the Church the Occupiers of the Land to defraud the Parson by Covin did not sowe their Tenth Land nor manure it The Parson sued for Ththe in Kinde to have the tenth Cock for Tythe of the Corn sowed and a Prohibition awarded notwithstanding the Covin because he had remedy at the common Law for the Fraud and a Prohibition was awarded Quarles and Spartings Case 1222. The Temples were dissolved and their Possessions and Priviledges by Act of Parliament 17 E. 2. transferred to St Johns of Jerusalem and their Possessions by Act of Parliament 32 H. 8. cap. 24. given to the King It was Resolved that the King and his Patentees should pay Tythes of those Lands although the Lands propriis sumptibus excolantur because the Priviledge to be discharged of Tythes is proper to Sipritual persons and ceaseth when the person Spiritual is removed And the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Dissolution did not extend to such Lands as came to the King by special Act of Parliament as these Lands of St. Johns of Jerusalem did Bakers and Rogers Case 1223. The Church being void B. contracted with the Patron for 180 l. to have the Presentation and thereupon presented W. his Brother who knew nothing of the Symonaical contract till after his Induction notwithstanding he was deprived in the Spiritual Court because he was Symoniace promotus and it was holden in this case That if a Usurper present by Symonie the Clerk is punishable in the Spiritual Court for the Symonie although the Patron doth recover the Advowson and the Presentation Sir Richard Chapman and Hills Case 1224. Debt brought upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes and declated upon two Leases one of the Parson who had two parts and another of the Viccar who had the third part The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty which was found against him It was moved in stay of Judgment that Not Guilty was no Plea but Nihil debet ought to be pleaded and that the Plaintiff ought to have brought several Actions being several Demises both Exceptions over-ruled by the Court. 1. That Not Guilty was a good Plea 2. for that the Suit was for the wrong aswell as upon the Title Day and Peckvells Case 1225. It was Resolved in this case upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. that the Statute giving Treble Damages the Jury cannot give other damages 2. That the Jury cannot give Costs 3. That two Farmors may joyn in one Action upon this Statute 4. That a Farmor shall have an Action upon the Statute although the Statute doth not give him an Action by Equity of the Statute because he hath the right to the Tythes and the agreement with one Farmer shall bind his Companion The Queen and Blanches Case 1226. Resolved that the Certificate of the Bishop that the Incumbent refused to pay his Tenths is not Peremptory but Traversable and that the demand of the Tenths must be at the house of the Incumbent and the refusal there Kelley and Walkers Case 1227. Suit was in the Spiritual Court for laying violent hands upon a Clerk It was surmised there that the Clerk assaulted the Plaintiffs Servant for which the Plaintiff peaceably laid his hands upon the Clerk which allegation they would not allow of there and a Prohibition was awarded notwithstanding the Statute de Articulis Cleri Sir Robert Lane and Pigotts Case 1228. It was Resolved in this case that if Lessee for years be sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes he in the Reversion may have a Prohibition Smith and Sherburnes Case 1229. The Incumbent being sick the Father contracted for 100 l. in the presence of his Son for the next Avoidance and after the Incumbent died and the Father presented his Son after Induction he was sued in the Spiritual Court to be deprived he pleaded the General Pardon of 35 Eliz. in which Symonie was not excepted It was the opinion of the Justices that notwithstanding he was deprivable there and in this case it was adjudged that the Presentment of the Father of the Son was Symonie Reynolds Case 1230. The Church-warden and Parson that all those who had the house wherein the said Reynolds did dwell had used to find meat and drink for them and the Parson going in Procession in Rogation week at his house and because he did not find them meat and drink he sued them in the Spiritual Court and a Prohibition was awarded because the custom was a custom against the Law Dorringtons Case 3231. He sued in the Admiralty because his Ship called the S. lying upon the Thames at Râ—driff at anchor was there broken by the Ship called the Aeneas by the negligence of the Officers thereof and a Prohibition was awarded because the Thames is Infra corpus Comitatus and not within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Saccars Case 1232. Resolved that a Prohibition is awardable against any who wasts the Houses of the Parson the Incumbent or cuts down the Trees or doth other waste Lanes Case 1233. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Wood under 20. years growth which is imployed in hedg-poles for repairing of the Coppices Biggs Case 1234. Resolved where a Prohibition is awarded upon a Suggestion of a Modus Decimandi and a consultation awarded for not proving the Suggestion within six months there a new Prohibition shall not be awarded upon an Appeal in the same Suit Babingtons Case 1235. Resolved If one be sued in the Spiritual Court ex officio or by Libel and he demands the Copy of the Libell which is denied that a Prohibition lieth in such case vide Statute 2 H. 4. Lloyd and Maddox Case 1236. An Executor was sued in the Spiritual Court for a Legacy who pleaded a Recovery in debt against him at the common Law ultra which to satisfie he had no assetts The Plaintiff there said the Recovery was by Covin and that the Plaintiff who recovered the Debt offered to discharge the Judgment and the Defendant would not do it Resolved that the Covin was properlie examinable in the Spiritual Court because the Lgatee could not sue for the Legacy at the common Law and therefore a Prohibition in this case was denied Barnard and Bridgmans Case 1237. Resolved in this case that if the Master of a Ship gage a Ship in Spain for 50 l. and for that the Ship is attached in the Thames at its return the Owner of the Ship shall have a Prohibition otherwise if the Ship be engaged for necessary Tacle the Owner shall pay it FINIS The TABLE
Error but is without remedy Hawtree and Anger 's Case 194. Debt against A. B. and E. the daughter of C. Coheirs in Gavelkind upon an Obligation of their Father A. and B. were Outlawed and had their pardon E. the daughter of C. who was dead was waive The Plaintiff declared against A. and B. simul cum E. who was waive The Defendants pleaded that E. now one of the Heirs in Gavelkind was within age It was Resolved that the Heir of an Heir should be chargeable with an Obligation simul cum the immediate Heirs and that such Heir should have his age and if he was within age the parol should demur for them all Mich. 7. Eliz. Swann and Searles Case 195. Covenant against A. and B. Executors of I. D. I. D. was Tenant for life the remainder to A. I. D. by Indenture demised the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendering rent by the word dimisit Concessit I. D. dyed A. who was in the remainder entred and avoided the Terme and thereupon the Plaintiff the Lessee for years brought the Action against the Executors of I. D. and it was adjudged that the Action did not lye Mich. 7. Eliz. Worleyes Case 196. An Enfant was bound in a Statute of 600 l. and afterwards was taken in Execution upon it and at full age he brought an Audita Querela to avoid the Execution The Case was argued by the Judges and at length Resolved That the Audita Querela should abate For it was Resolved that if any Enfant acknowledge a Statute or Recognizance or Levyeth a Fine of his Land he shall not reverse it by Error or otherwayes when he is of full age it being matter of Record but if he will avoid it it must be during his Minority 197. One came to an Inn and brought goods with him The Inkeeper said to him There are many resort to this House and I do not know their behaviour therefore here take the Key of such a Chamber and put your goods there for I will not take Charge of them and afterwards the goods were stolen It was the opinion of Wrey Justice that an Action did lye against the Inkeeper for he is by the Law chargeable with all things which come into his Inn and by Law he cannot discharge himself by such words as are in this Case Price and Jones Case 198. Error by A. and B. against I. S. of a Judgment in an Assise of Novel Disseisin given by the Justices of Assise at Monmouth It was demurred unto and Adjudged here in C. B. That a Writ of Error here upon that Judgement did not lye Stakely and Thynns Case 199. In Debt the Plantiff and Defendant both appeared by their Attorneys and day was given to the parties in statu quo tune till 8. Hill at which time the Defendant made defaust Holden the Plantiff should not have Judgment because Dies Datus is as strong as an Imparlance Lucas and Cottons Case 200. Words viz. George Lucas is a false Knave and worthy to stand upon the Pillory The Defendant Justified because the Plantiff swore his debt falsely to be true upon an Attachment according to the Custome of the City of London which by the Court was holden to be a good justification wherefore adjudged against the Plantiff Slisield and Sibills Case 201. Debt by Husband and Wife upon a Lease for years the Defendants said that they had not any thing in the Land at the time of the Lease as to part It was found that they had and did demyse and as to other parts that they did not demyse It was holden the Plantiffs could not have Judgement for any party Arden and Mischells Case 202. Replevin The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to the Countesse of Rutland for Rent The Defendant said that the Abbot of C. 29 H. 8. was feised and made a Lease to I. S. for 60. years rendering Rent viz. 22 s. and expressed the same by such figures viz. 22 s. and that after the making and delivery of the Indenture the Plantiff caused the said 22 s. to be rased into the forme of 5. and after the said 5. caused to be adjoyned the Letter m by which the Indenture was void It was the opinion of the Justices that by such rasure the deed was void Bâ—lfield and Rouse Case 203. Dower The Defendant pleads as to part in abatement that he was not Tenant and as to the Rest he pleads a gift in Fee to the Husband by which he claimed the Land as Brother to the Husband and also pleads a Will by which he was entitled to other parts both which the Plaintiff did Detain Upon Non Detinet it was found for the Plaintiff and she had Judgment for damages from the death of the Husband Watson and Bishop of Cant. Case 104. In a Quare Impedit the Defendants at the Distresse made default and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff against all the Defendants to recover damages because they were supposed all disturbers by their default but the Plaintiff was compelled to make Title Bullock and Bardetts Case 205. The Case was the Bishop of Salesbury in temps R. 2. made a Feoffment in Fee of a Messuage and 3. Roodes of Land in Erbonfield parcel of the Mannor of S. nec non of 17. Acers of Wood in a great Wood containing a 1000. Acres to Bullock and his Heirs and after 5. discents the Land came to the Plaintiff who 6. of the Queen entred into the great Wood and made election of the 17. Acres in a place called Saltors Hill parcel of the said great Wood and distinguished them by Metes and Bounds The Question was if the 17. Acres passed to G. Bullock and whether the election of them by R. Bullock his Heirs in the 5th discent was good or not It was the opinion of the Justices that nothing thereof was vested in G. Bullock the Ancestor and the Election to have the 17. Acers was not given to the Plantiff the Heir for that nothing was in the Ancestors which might discend to him and as a purchasor he could not take for that nothing was given to him Pasc 10 Eliz. The Lord Dacres Case 206. The Lord Dacres and others agreed to enter into a Park and hunt there and to kill those who should resist them They entred and I. S came to one of them and asked one of them what he had to do there and the other killed him the Lord being a quater of a myle distant from the place and knew not of it It was adjuged Murder in him and all his Companions Sir Rich. Mansfields Case 207. Difference being betwixt Sir Rich. and one Herbert for Wreck of the Sea they appointed a Duell Herbert with his Servants came to Sir Richards house to fight with him a Friend to them both perswaded with them to take up the matter One of the Servants of Sir Richard cast a Stone at Herbert and his Servants and perchance therewith killed their Friend It
was adjudged Murder for the Malice which he had to Herbert 208. A man made a Lease for years upon Condition if the Rent was behind the Lease to be void the Rent is behind the Lessee continued possession for 3. years after the Lessor brought debt for the Rent for all the time Quaere if it doth lye the Justices were divided in opinion Moreton and Hopkins Case 209. In a second Deliverance by A. against H. the Defendant he made Conusance as Bayliff to I. S. and M. his Wife The Case was the Plainâ—iff 17 Octob. 4. 5. Mar. by deed granted a Rent of 10 l. to B. and to E. and W. the younger Son of the said A. Habend for the life of E. to the use of E. and gave seisin of it W. and E. so seised W. dyed E. took Husband I. S. who for 5 l. Rent arrere avowed The Plaintiff said That the said I. S. Z October 7. Eliz. acknowledged that he had received 5 l. of the Plaintiff of the said Rent It was adjudged that the said receipt and acquittance of I. S. the Husband was a good barre of the Conusans Howse and the Bishop of Elys Case 210. In Debt the Plantiff declared that the predecessor of the Bishop granted to him the Office of keeping the Mansion House of D. of the Bishop for the Term of his life with the Fee of 2 d. per diem to be issuing and paid out of the profits of the said Rents and Farme of D. by the Receiver of the Bishop and also an yearly Robe which grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Bishop dyed the Annuity and Robe was not paid for which the Plaintiff brought his Action against the Successor Bishop who pleaded that the Plaintiff did not exercise the said Office and because D. was within the Isle of Ely where the Kings Writ did not run a Venire was to the Sheriff of Cambridge from S. next adjoyning to D. in the said â—sle of Ely who found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover the Annuity and the Arerages and the Robe and that the grant did binde the Successor Luken and Eves Case 211. In Replevin The Defendant avowed for that A. was seised of the Mannor of D. in Fee and had a Leet within the Mannor to be holden in the Feast of c. and let the Mannor to the Defendant for years And that the Defendant held the Court Leet such a Feast and that the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant within the Leet at the time and being Summoned to appear at the said Leet did not appear which being presented by the Homage he was Amerced 5 s. which was afferred and for the Amercement the Defendant did destrain The Defendent pleaded that he was not a Resient within the Leet at the time which was found against him wherefore the Defendant was adjudged to have a Return of the Cattel and his damages Stephens and Clarks Case 212. Quare Imp. King Henry 8 seised of the Mannor of D. and the Advouson Appendent presented I. S. the Mannor with the Advouson by Discent came to the Queen who granted it to the Lord Stafford and his Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Lord Stafford dyed His Wife and eldest Son granted the Mannor and Advouson to I. D. and his Wife for their lives The Incumbent dyed who during the Avoydance granted the Advouson to the Plaintiff It was Resolved That the grant of the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff during the Avoidance was void in Law Playn and Crouches Case 213. A Villein was Regardant to a Mannor the Lord of the Mannor had not seisin of the Villein nor any of his Ancestors from 1. H. 7. to this time but they had seisin of the Mannor to which the Villein was Regardant and if seisin of the Mannor was seisin of the Villein was the Question The Issue in an Assise being upon the seisin Quaere It was not Resolved It was Conceived that in favore Libertatis the Lord could not now seise the Villein No Judgment was in the Case 214. If the Husband be seised of Land in the Right of his Wife the Husband makes a gift in Tail of it rendering Rent and afterward the Husband and Wife grant the Reversion by Fine It was holden it should bar the Wife of the whole but if they had granted the Rent only then the Wife after the death of the Husband might enter into the Land 215. A man Leaseth a Mannor for years rendring Rent with a Reentry a stranger recovers in Debt against the Lessor and hath Elegit upon the Judgment Resolved he shall have the moyety of the Reversion and the moyety of the Rent in Execution and the Condition is suspended for the whole vide before 216. Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for 21 years and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery who enters and ousts the Lessee and make Livery Adjudged It was a discontinuance And it was said That it was adjudged in the Earl of Warwicks Case A man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Feoffment in Fee and a Letter of Attorney to make Liver who ousted the Lessee and made Livery That it was a good Feoffment and if the Lessee for life reentred the Reversion remainder in the Feoffee 217. A maid Servant conspires with her Lover to rob her Mistrisse the Man comes in the night the Maid hides him and after the Man kills the Mistresse Adjudged Murder in the Man and Petty Treason in the Maid Servant Symonds Case 218 A. 24. H. 8. Covenants with I. S. that all persons who were Feoffees of Certain of his Land should be seised thereof to the use of the said A. for life and after his decease to the use of W. his Son and M. S. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten and for want of such Issue the remainder to the Right Heir of A. and after he makes a Feoffment to those uses W. and M. S. intermary A. dyeth After 27. H. 8. the Husband aliens the whole and dyeth his Wife enters into the whole Adjudged her entry into the whole was not Lawfull but only for a moyety and it was agreed that several moyeties may be of an Estate tail aswell as of a Fee simple between Husband and Wife 219. A man made a Feoffment to the use of a Woman for â—â—fe who was a Feme sole at the time the remainder to the right Heirs of their two bodies the remainder to his right Heirs in Fee after they intermarried and the Husband having Tenants at Will of the Lands Devised that the Wife should have the Reversion in Fee so as she pay his debts and Legacies and performe his Will and by his Will deviseth his Tenant should have the Tenements for life and dyeth the Wife takes another Husband who ousts the Tenants at Will It was Resolved the same was no forfeitute of her remainder But if the Will
being at Rome and his Return into England that the Obligation should be void In debt brought the Defendant pleaded and tendred Issue that the Obligor never was at Rome It was said by the Justices That where the condition contains matter not triable the condition is void but where the matter is parcell tryable parcel not that the Condition is good But in this Case the Justices doubted of it because 2. things are Coupled by a Conjunction so as they cannot be severed otherwise if they were mentioned in the Disjunctive 302. A man was Arraigned and Condemned of Felony and Imprisoned for it in Newgate and an Execution out of the Exchequer at the suit of a comon person was delivered to the Sheriff against him who served it upon him It was the opinion of all the Barons that the Sheriffs might choose to serve the Executon or not because the King had an Interest in the body of the person Imprisoned but if they do serve the Execution notwithstanding the pardon yet it is good by which it appeareth that the Attainder shall not extinct the debts of other Subjects but that if the Attainder be purged by a Pardon the Execution of all other duties are revived and stand good for the parties 303. A man made a Feoffment in Fee reserving Rent Suit of Court and Relief and by the deed granted that if the Feoffee his Heirs or assignes should be destrained for other services then are reserved in the deed that then it should be Lawfull for the Feoffee his Heirs and Assignes to distrain in his Mannor of D and keep the distresse till he was satisfied the damage of so much as he had sustained by the distresse The Feoffee made a Feoffment over It was Resolved that in such Case the second Feoffee might Destrain because it was a Covenant which ranne with the Lands 304. Words for calling the Plaintiff a Caterpiller for he liveth by Robbing of his Guests he being an Inholder Adjudge the words not Actionable otherwise if he say He is a Caterpiller and liveth by Robbing in the High way 305. Resolved that an Action upon the Case lyeth for calling an Attorney a Common Barretor It was Colborns Case 306. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that for a Common Nusans done in via Regia as for making a ditch in it so as he cannot passe the way with his Cart and Carriages an Action upon the Case will not lye without shewing some particular injury thereby done to his person for that he is thereby no more endamaged then the Kings other Subjects but such Offence is to be presented in the Leet being a Common Neusans and not punishable by a private Action but where there is to him a particular damage 307. Debt upon Obligation the Condition was if the Obligor his Excecutors or Assignes do pay to the Obligee 10 l. within 3. Moneths next after his Arrival from Rome the said Obligee proving the same by Testimonial or other Witnesses that then c. the Defendant said that the Plaintiff had not made proof that he was at Rome the Plaintiff shewed a Testimonial under the seals of several great Persons living at Rome that he was there It was Resolved in this Case that the proof might be by Witnesses or Testimonial and it is no Mischief for if the Testimonial be Counterfeit he may take Issue upon it that it is not a true Testimoniall James Case 308. A man seised of Lands in Fee took a Lease for years of a stranger by deed Indented of his own Land the Terme expired and the stranger entred and the other brough Trespas Resolved by all the Justices that it should be an estoppel against the Lessee but only during the Terme Linsâ—is Case 309. It was Resolved in this Case That an Action upon the Case doth not lye for calling the Plaintiff a Common Extortioner unlesse it be averred that the Plaintiff was an Officer for that none can be a Common Extortioner unlesse he be an Officer 310. An Action was brought for speaking these words viz. Thoâ— meaning such an one art a perjured man and a procurer of perjury and many the like words tending to that purpose The Court said that the Action did not lye for the words if they were not spoken directly and in the affirmative and an Action doth not lye for words by circumstance tending to slander Manxells Case 311. A man made a Feoffment in Fee of his Lands and bound himself in an Obligation that he and his Son would do all Acts devised by the Obligee The Obligee devised a Deed of Release the Father delivered it as his deed but the Son did not deliver it but because hâ— was unlearned he required the Obligee to read it unto him and refused to seal and deliver it where Debt was brought against the Fâ—ther It was Resolved that the Son was bound to deliver it at his peril because the Father had bound himself that his Son should do it and that Debt did well lye against the Father his Son not sealing and delivering the Release 312. Diverse persons brought one Joynt Quare Impedit and in the Declaration they varied upon the title It was adjudged that the Writ should abate for the Judgment ought to be according to the Writ unlesse there be Summons and severance and upon diverse titles a joynt Judgement cannot be given because there is but one Lawfull title 313. Note It was holden by the Justices That an Attaint did not lye upon a verdict given in a Rediâ—â—eisin before the Sheriff and Coroners notwithstanding the Register fol. 20. is that Attaint doth Lie 314 The Lord licensed his Copyholder to make a Lease of Copyhold for 21. years to begin at Mich. following the Copyholder made a Lease accordingly by Indenture and also before Mich. by deed made another Lease to another for 21. years to begin also at Mich. following Anderson Chief Justice said the making of the second Lease was a forfeiture Hide and Neuports Case 315. A Copyholder in Fee took a Lease for years of the Mannor Resolved the Copyhold was extinct for ever and not only during the Lease Allen and Givers Case vide â—03 316. Husband and Wife brought an Action upon the Case against the Defendant and his Wife because the Defendants Wife said that the Wife of the Plaintiff had procured one to Murder I. S. It was adjudgeâ— that the Action did well lye and it was said that where one said to another that he layed wait in the Highway to Rob him that the Action did lye for the slander though nothing succeeded upon it 317. In false Imprisonment the Defendant said at the time of the Imprisonment he was Sheriff of the County of W. and Justified by reason of a Capias directed to him to arrest the Plaintiff the Plaintiff said the Defendant was not Sheriff but one I. S. It was adjudged against the Plantiff for the Court said That all things which he did as Sheriff were
Lawfull before he had a discharge of this Office or perfect notice of a new Sherff Johnson and Smiths Case 318. Action upon the Case for slandring of his Title and declared That he was seised of Lands by discent from hâ—s Father and was agreed with I. S. for a sale of the same Lands and I. S. went to the Defendant being an Attorney and prayed his advice for the making the Assurance and that the Defendant said to I. S. that he had heard that the Father of the Plaintiff had granted a Rent Charge out of the Lands in Fee by reason of which words I. S. refused to buy the Lands and all other persons for fear of the said Incumbrance to his damage c. The Defendant said he was an Attorney at Law and I. S. came to him for Counsell in secret he said the words spoken in the Declaration It was strongly urged that although he was an Attorney that would not excuse him because an Attorney is allowed to give Counsell and the utterance of the words in private did not excuse being spoken to the buyer himself But it was Resolved the Action did not lye and adjudged against the Plantiff Dawbney and Goores Case 319. In Disceit D. G. and G. were Joynt Merchants they made F. and S. their Factors in Barbary G. and G. conspired with S. to demand allowance of 1000 l. which was allowed them upon accompt by which D. was damnified for that the money was not due and the truth was S. only made the Account The poynt was if one Factor might make an Account for both and if the two Merchants might take an Account for them all three It was said that they all ought to joyn in Account but one solely might Assigne Auditours to take the Account on the other side it was said there was no Joynture in Merchandize and that one Merchant shall have an Account against his Companion Quaere the Case was not Resolved Hill and Morses Case 320. It was Resolved in this Case That a Copyhold without a special Custome could not be entailed 321. An Enfant acknowledge a Fine before the Cheif Justice but the Conusee would not have the Fine ingrâ—ssed till his full age The Enfant came now with the Note of the Conusance and prayed a Wriâ— of Error and examination of his age which the Justice agreed unto and that an Entry be made thereof and by that save to him his advantage 322. A man sold his Land and Covenanted to save the Vendee harmlesse upon request It was said if the Land be extended by force of a Statute before the request the Covenant is not broken for that now the Covenant is become impossible by the negligence of the Covenantee himself but if he had made request before the extent there the Covenant should be broken for default of saving harmelesse Foreman and Bobâ—ams Case 323. Repâ—evin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge of 3 s. 4 d. â—issâ—ing out of the place where c. which was one parcell of the Mannor of W. of whâ—ch Mannor I. S. was seised in Fee and 33 H. 6. made a Feoffment of the said Close rendering Rent with distresse and dyed seâ—sed and it discended to his Son who bargained and sold the Mannor with all Lands Rents Reversions services and herediraments which are parcell or had been deemed reputed or taken as part parcell or member of the Mannor and the Defendant as Bayliff of the Heir of the Bargainee made Conusans for the Rent and whether the Rent did passe as parcell of the Mannor was the Question by the bargain and sale It was said it did nâ—t passe by the word parcell but it passed by the words reputed parcell if it were so reputed parcell at the time of the grant Quaere the Case is not Resolved in this Book but vide Pasch 26 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part 13. there the Judgment was given against the Avowant Justice Windhâ—ms Case 324. A Lease was made reciting that whereas he had made a Lease of one Close to the Lessee for â—0 years rendring 8 s. Rent and another Lease of another Close to the same Lessee for 40 years now he demised to the same Lessee both the said Closes for 40. year from and after the determination of the several demises It was a question if the last Lease was good because there is not any certain time of the begining of it Resolved the Lease was good and the Law shall make an Interpretation of the demise reddendâ— singula singulis how the Terme shall begin Vide Cook 5. part the same Case Dolman and Vavasors Case 325. A. seised in Fee of Lands 15 Eliz. suffered a Common Recovery to B. which Recovery was executed by Habere facias seisinam After the Recovery had it was declared by Indenture between the parties that the Recovery should be to the use of the said A for life without impeachment of Waste the remainder to the first begotten Child of his body and the Heirs male of such first begotten Child and so to his 9. Issues and for want of such Issue to V. the Tenant or Defendant and the Heirs male of his body and if these Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the Recovery was the Question It was Resolved that these Subsequent Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the said Recovery for so was the Intent of the parties as appeareth by the Indentures and it was adjudged that the declaration by the subsequent Indentures should stand good because there was not any other declaration of any other use Scroggs and Lady Greshams Case 326. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executrix of Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded several Obligations made by the Testator to the Queen amounting to 8000 l. solvendum eidem Doâ—inae Reginae quando requisitus â—uisset ultra quam non habet upon which the Plaintiff demurred because the Obligation not being upon Record but taken in paâ—s was not good for that the Queen could not take but by matter of Record and also the solvendum is not to the Queen and Successors and the Queen is not to have the preferment of payment of her debts unlesse they be debts upon Record But yet in such Case if the Queen first sue she shall be preferred although she hath Judgement after another who sueth The Lord Pagetts Case 327. The Case was the Lord Pageâ—t seised of divers Mannors by deed Indented Covenanted with I. S. and others that in consideration of discharge of his Funerals payments of his Debts and Legacies and advancement of his Son and others of his blood to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said I. S. and others for the Life of the Lord Pagett and after to the use of C. P. and other for 24. years and after the expiration of the said Term of 24. years to the use of William Pagett his Son in tail Afterwards the Lord Pagett
Praecipe but the Recovery as to the estate of the Husband took effect only by way of Estoppel but it was no bar as to him who was in Remainder and in this case it was said That if Lands be given to husband and wife and the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband alone suffers a common Recovery that the same should not bind the Estate tail although the husband doth survive the wife Martin and Wilks Case 335. It was adjudged in this Case in B. R. That Land in Antient Demesne is extendable upon a Statute Staple or Statute Merchant Hill 11. Jac. in t C. B. Cox and Barnesbyes Case adjudged accordingly Wolstan Dixies Case 336. A seised in Fee of Lands in London made a Lease to I. S. for years and after by Deed enrolled in the Chancery he sold the reversion to Dixie and his wife and afterwards the Rent was behind and he brought debt against I. S. The Defendant said That after the Lease and before the Sale to Dixie A. the Lessor by Deed enrolled in London bargained and sold the Land to him It was adjudged a forfeiture of the Term and judgment was for the Plantiff Rudhall and Milwards Case 337. Rudhall Serjeant at Law Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Devised the use to C. his younger Son and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to I. his eldest Son and his Heirs upon condition that C. should not alien nor discontinue but for the Joynture of his Wife and only for the life of such wife C. after the death of his Father entred and levyed a fine to a stranger and declared the use to himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his own body the Remainder to the right Heirs of his Father afterwards C. having Issue male died the Wife died the Heir of I. the eldest Son entred upon the Lessee It was adjudged that because the Statute of 27. H. 8. gave the possession in quality and condition with the use and also gave to Cestuy que the same advantages as the Feoffees had that the said Heir was enabled to take advantage of the Condition be it a Condition or a Limitation The Vis-Countess Bindons Case 338. The Executors of Viscount Bindon brought Detinue against the Widdow of the deceased Viscount and declared upon the Detainer of certain Jewels The Defendant did justifie the Detainer of them as her Paraphronalia It was agreed in this Case by the Chief Baron and others That Paraphronalia ought to be allowed to a Widdow having regard to her Degree and in this Case the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount that 500. Marks was but a good allowance for such a matter Mich. 28 Eliz. in Cur. Wardor Mounsons Case 339. A Commission in the Nature of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Robert Mounson issued to Enquire what Lands and Tenements he had the day of his death of whom by what services the yearly value of them who was his next Heir and of what age he was It was found that the Father of Robert was seised of the Mannor of B. in Fee and gave the same to Robert in tail the remainder to G. brother of Robert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father That G. died in the Life of Robert and Robert died without Issue and that F. the Son of G. was within age and the Lands holden of the Queen in Capite and that Robert long before his death was seised in tail of H. Farm and N. and 17. Eliz. levied a Fine to the use of himself in tail the Remainder to F. the Son of G. in tail and died such a day without Issue of his body and upon this Office one Mounson the Heir general prayed a new Office for it was said that the said Office was insufficient to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. It was the opinion of the Court that the Office was good to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. But if it was not then a Melius inâ—quirendum should issue forth and not a New Office Branches Case 340. In the Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Impersonce was no discharge of the Tythes of the Copyhold Lands and in this Case also it was adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando Moor and Williams Case 341. Assumpsit The Case was Lessee for years the reversion to M. the Lessee in defence of the Plantiffs Title spent such a Sum money and prayed contribution or recompence Moor said in consideration thereof he should have the like Lease after the expiration of the Term which Williams the Defendant required and the said Lessor refused to make upon which Williams brought Assumpsit Resolved it did not lie because the Consideration was executed before the promise Stanley and Bakers Case 342. A man possessed of a Lease for years devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his body and if he died without issue to his youngest Son and the heirs of his body and for want of such Issue that the Term should remain to his Daughters he died having two daughters and afterwards another daughter was born The eldest Son sold the Term and died without Issue the youngest Son died without Issue the three daughters entred It was adjudged they all three should have the Term although the youngest Daughter was not born at the time of the death of the Devisor Owens Case 343. Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail Tenant in tail bargained and sold to him and his Heirs and levied a Fine which was not alledged to be with Proclamation It was adjudged that the Bargainee was not such a Grantee of the Reversion as should maintain Wast because it was no discontinuance and but for the Life of Tenant in tail Higham and Harwoods Case 344. A man had houses and Land which had bin in the tenure of those who had the Houses and he devised his Lands with the appurtenances It was adjudged That the Lands did pass by the words with the appurtenances for that it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Watkins and Ashwels Case 345. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment upon condition that if he or his Heirs paid such a sum such a day to reenter He died his Son and Heir within the age of 14. years The Mother of the Infant without the privity of the Infant and who was not Guardian in Socage in the name of the Infant tendred the mony at the day It was resolved it was an Insufficient tender otherwise if she had been his Guardian in Socage Carewas Case 346. The Abbot of M. was seised and made a Lease for years De scitu Manerii Rectoriae suae de omnibus aedificis
Covenant he devised to each of the Daughters 10. l. to be paid at their several ages of 21. years One of the daughters sued his Executors in the Spiritual Court for her Legacy and upon suggestion by the party that he is bound to pay her 10. l. at her age of 21. years a Prohibition was granted and the intent of the Devise was that he should not be twice charged 369. One sued an Administrator for debt upon pleinement administr The Jury found Assetts for part to the value and Judgment for that part for the Plaintiff and that for the residue the Defendant eat siae die and now he brought a Scire fac surmising Assetts to the value of the Residue It was the opinion of the Court that it did not lie 370. Debt upon Obligation with condition if the Obligor pay to the Obligee 10. l. or four Kine such a day at the then Election of the Obligee the Obligation to be void It was the opinion of the Court that the Obligor is to tender both at the day appointed by reason of the words at the then Election which word then shall have relation to the day appointed 371. A Lease was made to three Habendum to them for 99. years viz. to the first for 99. years if he should so long live and if he died to the Second pro residuo termino anaorum tunc ventur if he should so long live and if he died within the Term then to the third pro residuo termino annorum ad tunc ventur It was the opinion of the Justices that it could not enure by way of Remainder because there was not any Estate in esse during the particular Estate Yet they conceived the Estate of the second was good because it did enure as a new Grant Qu. 372. In a false Imprisonment against a Mayor he justified because he being a Magistrate the Plantiff said he was a Fool It was the opinion of the Justices that if he called him Fool in the place and exercise of his Offic◠that the Imprisonment was lawfull otherwise not Vdeson and the Mayor of Nottinghams Case 373. Vdeson was in the custody of the Mayor upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. and he would not let him at liberty upon Sureties wherefore he sued by Bill here and and Declared against the Mayor in Custodia Marischalli and recovered by Verdict It was the opinion of the Justices that by the Statute of 18. Eliz. none should sue for any penalty upon a penal Law but by original Writ or Information and so it was said it was adjudged in the Bayliffs of Bosworths Case Griffiths Case 374. It was was Resolved by the Justices That Error lyeth in the Kings Bench upon a Judgment given in an Ejectione firmae in Wales given before the Justices there 375. A Draper having a Servant to sell Clothes in his shop the Servant took the clothes and converted them to his own use It was adjudged that Trespasse vi armis lyeth only against the Servant because he had the possession as Servant and it was Resolved That in all cases where the Servant hath not a speciall nor general property Trespasses lyeth 376. One made a Lease for years the Lessee devised the Term to his wife for so many years as she should live and after to his Son the Wife purchased the Inheritance and sold the same again and covenanted that it was discharged of all Incumbrances and died The Son claimed the Term it was adjudged the possibility to the Son was a forfeiture of the Covenant and Bond of the Wife Sir Thomas Gorges Case 377. The Queen seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant and granted the Mannor una cum advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should present pro hac vice 378. A man who was bound in a Recognizance for the good Behavior was indicted that he called one Pealer Lier Druakard and said I will make thee a poor Kirton and also Quare clausam fregit averia cepit injustè detinet It was Resolved by the Justices in B. R. That these were not words which threaten a battery of his Body without which the Recognizance is not forfeited 379. Debt brought in the City of Oxon The Defendant pleaded that he was one of the Barons of the Cinque Ports within the County of Kent and pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court upon which the Plaintiff demurred Qu. If a good Plea It was not Resolved Hayward and Bettesworths Case 380. Replevin the Defendant avowed for Rent the Case was The Father was seised in Fee and let the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendring Rent and afterwards he infeoffed a Stranger and executed livery upon parcel of the Land in a Close called D. the Lessee nor any of his Cattel being there but being in the house It was adjudged that nothing passed by the Livery but that the reversion of the whole descended and therefore it was adjudged for the Avowant Pigott Palmers and Grangers Case 381. The Case was A. was seised of Land which he intended to sell to the Father for 160. l. of which 140. l. was paid by G. in consideration of the Marriage of Pigott with the daughter of Granger and that the Land shall be conveyed for the Joynture of the daughter and the Heirs Males of their Bodies they intermaried and had Issue the Plaintiff Pigot died the wife took Husband Palmer the Defendant and they accepted a Fine of a Stranger with a render to the Stranger for 100. years rendering the ancient rent the wife died It was resolved that the taking of the Conveyance with the render for 100. years made the Estate of the wife void by the Statute of 11. H. 7. Zouth and Bamfields Case 382. In a Formedon in the Discender brought of the Moiety of a Mannor The Defendant pleaded in Bar that the Grandfather of the Demandant levied a Fine sur Conusance de droit c. with Proclamation of the moiety of the said Mannor by which Fine it was granted and rendered to the Grandfather and his Heirs whose estate the Tenant in the Formedon had The Defendant replyed that at the time of the Fine levyed and after the Demandant was seised of the Land in his Demesne as of Fee It was Resolved That the Defendant being Heir in tail against such Fine levyed by his Ancestor whose Heir he is was estopped to aver his seisin and continuance thereof as a stranger at the time of the Fine levyed Nor to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt Against which it was objected 1. That by the Statute of Donis It is provided Quod finis ipso jure sit nullus 2. That the Statute of 27. E. 1. of Fines doth not extend to Heirs in tail but to Heirs in Fee and that the Issues in tail are not bound by Fines which enure by way of Estoppel 3. That the Statute of Fines
with a Proviso that if the rent be not paid at a day limited that the Lease should cease without making mention that it should be paid at the Receit and if it should cease before Office was the Question It was Resolved by Manwood Cheif Baron and all the Barons in the Exchequer That ipso facto upon default of payment the Lease was determined according to the purport of the Contract and that immediately without Office For the Proviso shall be taken to be a limitation to determin the estate and not a Condition to undo the estate which cannot be deserted but by an Office in the Case of the Queen Green and Edwards Case 419. A Lease was made by a Man for 80. years if his Wife should so long live and if she dye that the Son should have the Land for the Residue of the Terme then to come It was adjudged void as to the Son for that there is no residue of a Terme which is before determined Hicks and Palingtons Case 420. Complaint was in the Court of Request for average of a Ship spoyled of certain goods shipped from Bristol to Galicia in Spaine The goods were taken by a Pyrat by violence It was decreed Average should be paid because the Merchants had assented to pay it after the Ship was robbed The Queen and Vaughans Case 421. In a Quo Warranto the using of Liberties c. the Defendant pleaded That an Abbot was seised of Waifes and estrayes by prescription and that he used and exrcised to have Catalla fellonum within 3. moneths before the suppression of the Abby but did not shew by what Title Grant or Charter and so by the Statute of 32 H. 8. and by Patent de tot talia tanta Consimilia Libertates he concluded that eo Warranto he claymed the Liberties It was Resolved by the Justices that he ought to shew the grant made to the Abbot and also what estate the Abbot had in them Because the Statute doth not revive other estate in the Liberty but which came to the Crown by the dissolution of the Abby But Resolved that the Conclusion eo Warranto was good because it shall be taken distributive that he used those which might be appurrenant as appurtenant and the other by the other title Smith and Vewes Case 422. Debt upon mutuat as of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. and because the several summes in the Declaration did not amount to the sum in demand the Judgment given in it was reversed Sherrot and Holloweyes Case 423. Replevin The Case was a Feoffment was made by Indenture rendering 3 l. rent which clause of distresse and the Feoffor Covenanted to make further assurance of the Land the Feoffer levyed a Fine to the Feoffee who rendred 3 l. rent It was Resolved he might avow for the first rent notwithstanding the Fine and that the Remainder is not a grant of a new rent but a Confirmation of the old rent Mead and Cheneys Case 424. A recovery is had in Debt against an Administrator and a Scire facias de bonis of the Intestate upon which a Devastavit was returned It was adjudged that an Elegit lyeth de bonis propriis of the Administrator which he had the day of the Judgment Barton and Andrewes Case 425. Note this Case was the very Case agreeing verbatim with Bennet and Halseys Case which see before Sect. 387. Hil. 33. Eliz. Degoze and Rowes Case 426. Debt against the Desendant as Heir to his Father upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded his Father was seised in Fee and Covenanted with I. S. and others to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Defendant in tail the remainder to his daughter in tail the remainder in Fee to his right Heirs with a Proviso of Perpetuity and that the Father dyed and he entred and so had nothing by discent Upon a special verdict the Case was The Father caused certain Indentures to be written and engrossed comprehending uses betwixt I. S. and one M. and him but would not M. should be acquainted with it till I. S. had agreed to it But he delivered the deed to a Scrivenor to the use of I. S. and M. so as I. S. would agree to it the Scrivenor went with the Deed to the house of I. S. but could not speak with him and after I. S. dyed never having notice of the Deed It was adjudged in this Case that the Father never Covenanted because the agreement of I. S. was a Condition precedent to the essence of the Deed and so there was no Deed to raise the uses and therefore it was adjudged against the Defendant Halme and Jees Case 427. The Case was Grandfather Father and Son the Grandfather Tenant in tail made a Feoffment in Fee rendering rent to him and his Heirs and dyed the Father excepted the rent the Feoffee levyed a Fine with Proclamation and 5. years passed It was adjudged the Son was not barred because the acceptance of the rent was but a Conclusion but did not extinguish the Reight and so the Son was not barred by the Fine and 5. years which encurred in the life of the Father Fulwood and Wards Case 428. Tenant for years determinable upon the Life of the Lord Pagett by deed granted a Rent of 10 l. issuing out of the Land with Clause of distresse the Lord dyed It was Resolved that by his death the Rent was not determined but Election did remain in the grantee to make it either a Rent or Annuity Cornwalls Case 429. He was Indicted that he was Communis publicator secretorum Dominae Reginae and of other persons impannelled with him to enquire for the body of the County de diversis Feloniis against his Oath in that behalf taken and because it was not found that he was sworn to keep secrets nor that the secrets which he discover did touch his Oath the Judgment was adjudged insufficient Langles and Hayres Case 430. Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for treble damages for not setting forth of Tythes the Declaration recited the Statute to be in 2 and 3 E. 6. which could not be in 2. years of the said King therefore after verdict the Judgment was stayed Welden and Bridgwaters Case 431. It was adjudged in this Case that he who had but Vesturam terrae viz. the Crop at his Lot every 2. or 3d. year might maintain an Action Quare Clausumfregit Ashley and Harrisons Case 432. Debt the Defendant pleadedan Outlawry of the Plaintiff at the Suit of I. S. the Plaintiff pleaded the Pardon of 31 Eliz. It was demurred to because it was not alledged that he was any of the persons excepted out of the Pardon Resolved the Pardon was allowable to make any one to answer the Plaintiffs action but not against the Queen for she is not bound by the allowance of it Sir Francis Englefields Case 433. The Case in effect was this A. seised in Fee by Indenture in
Consideration of Blood Covenants with B. his brother to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after the use of B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. Provided that if A. by himself or by any other during his Natural life tender to B. a Gold ring to the intent to make void the said use that then the said uses should be void Afterwards A. 26 Eliz. is attainted of Treason and Outlawed for it and the King makes a Lease of the Lands to C. and D. for 40 years The attainder is confirmed by Act of Parliament and Enacted That the said Act shall not extend to make any Lease void made by the K. after the said Treason Also Enacted that all persons which claim an estate or interest in Land not enrolled since 18 Eliz. shall within 2. years after the Session of that Parliament shew and bring into the Court of Exchequer his or their Grant or assurance to be void The King reciting the Proviso and benefit thereof given him by Act of Parliament authorizeth E. to deliver the Gold ring to B. to the Intent to make void the uses he reads the Patent to B. and makes a tender to him which he refuseth to accept of E. certifies the same into the Exchequer This Case was very largely and Learnedly Argued by all the Serjeants and others at the â—arre which vide in the Book at Large afterwards it was argued by all the Barons in the Exchequer and there amongst other things it was Resolved by them That the Condition in the principal Case viz. the tender of the Gold ring was not annexed to â—he person of A. but that any one might make the tender and thaâ— it was given to the King by the Act of Parliament and when a Statute gives a Condition to the King the performance of it which is the substance and which is not inseparably annexed to the person is given to the King 2. That the Tender and Certificate of it was good without Office found 3. That presently by the tender the uses were determined and the Land vested in the King by force of the Act of Parliament The Earl of Northumberlands Case 434. A. 15 June 22 Eliz. bargained and sold the Mannor of D. to the Earl of Northumberland and his Heirs who because the Land was holden in Capite 3. Sept. the same year purchased a License of Alienation in Octob. the same year a Fine was Levyed for further assurance and in Novemb. the same year the Deed was enrolled The Queen seised the Lands for a Fine for Alienation without License It was adjudged the Queens hands should be removed from the Land because the bargainee was now in by the Fine and not by the bargaines and sale and also because the Licence did precede the Fine the Alienation was not made without License Yardley and Prestwood and others Case 435. In a Quare Impedit It was holden by the Justices in this Case That a double usurpation upon the Queen did put her out of possession of Advowson and put her to her Writ of Right of Advowson But the Law hath been taken since that time and so adjudged that a double usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession of her Advowson Vide 33 Eliz. Hassies Case Tr. 4. Jac. The King and Champians Case accordingly Isabell Mordants Case 436. An Enfant Levyed a Fine to the Queen The Queen granted the Lands to Bowes Treasurer of Barwick Error brought to reverse the Fine Bowes pleaded in Barre the Statute of 18 Eliz. It was Resolved that notwithstanding that Statute the Writ of Error did lye for that Statute did not extend to make grants good of such persons who could not make grants by the Common Law as Enfants persons of Non sane Memorie c. Sir Mayle Finch and Hen. Finches Case 437. The Mother of Sir Moyle Finch and the Defendant in her Widdowhood levyed a Fine to the use of her self for life and after her death to the use of her Executors for 5. years and after to Sir Moyle in Tail with divers remainders over and afterwards she maried I. S. and she with I. S. granted the Terme of 5. years to Sir Moyle and after that she and her Husband levyed a Fine to Sir Moyle and I. D. and after that the Wife with her Husbands assent made her Will and made the Defendant her sole Excecutor and dyed the Defendant entred It was agreed by the Justices 1. That the use limited to the Excecutors was good 2. That the Wife could not grant it in her life time 3. That it was extinguishable in the Wife by a Fine come ceo c. but not by a Release 4. That the Fine sur Conusans de droit c. had extinguished the Terme and the said Fine had made such a disturbance of the possession that the use being future at the instant of her death in the Excecutors could never rise 5. That a Feme Covert with the assent of her Husband might make a Will but not thereby to dispose of Legacies 6. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Wife who had the estate for her life had levyed a fine sur Conusans de Droit c. 438. Action upon Indebitatus Assumpsit solvere It was Resolved the Plaintiff could not give in evidence matter of specialty to prove his debt but he might give in Evidence matter of Contract Fitzherberts Case 439. He was Arrested in Execution by the Sheriff of Derby the 3. day of Feb. at 7. of the Clock in the Morning and the same day at 10. of the Clock he was elected a Burgesse of Parliament for the Borrough of New Castle It was agreed in Parliament because he was arrested before he was chosen Burgesse he could not have the Priviledge of the House Hunger and Freys Case 440. A man had recovered in Debt and had Judgment and an Elegit and had an extent delivered him and Nihil as to goods Afterwards he suggested the Defendant had more Lands goods and chattells in the same County and had a New Elegit and upon that he had a Lease for years in Execution and no other Land was found It was adjudged that the sale of the Lease for years by the Sheriff and delivery in Execution was good Townsend and Walleys Case 441. A man had 6 l. Land in possession and Lands in Peversion upon an estate for life and by his Will he deviseth all his Lands to his Excecutors for 10. years to pay his Debts and perform his Will and after the 10. years ended that his Executors or one of them or the Executors of his Excecutors or any of them should sell his Lands and he made diverse Excecutors and gave 40 l. Legacies by his Will and dyed After the 10. years 2. of the Executors sold the Land 1. Resolved that the Land in reversion might be sold as well as the Land in possession 2. That the sale by the 2. Executors was
of a Judgment upon a Plaint in Debt in an Inferior Court was assigned because the Defendant had not Addition But the Judgment was affirmed because it is not of necessity to have Addition for the Defendant in a Base Court where Process of Outlawry doth not lie Collins Case 456. Audita Querela was brought by Fraud by A. B. and C. for all Executions being several Suits of divers persons Adjudged it was unduly granted and therefore a Vacat was made thereof upon Record because one Audita Quaerela cannot be upon several Suits Hoâ— and Taylors Case 457. The Lord of a Mannor granted by Copy to one and his Heirs Subboscum in M. Wood and G. Grove annuatim succidendum by four or five Acres at the least and after made a Lease of the Mannor The Lessee cut down certain Wood the Copyholder brought Trespass and the Lessee justified with averment that he had left sufficient for the Copyholder to be cut by four or five Acres yearly Resolved First that Under-wood might be granted by Copy if the Custome permit it Secondly That the whole Wood passed and the word annutim succidendi to be an order only appointed for the cuâ—ing of it not to restrain the Grant Yelding and Fayâ—s Case 458. The custom of a Parish was That the Parson had used to keep within the Parish a common Bull and Boar for the encrease of the Parishioners Chattel and the Defendant being Parson had not kept them for four years together for which the Plaintiff brought action upon the Case the Defendant by Protestation there was no such Custom pleaded Not guilty It was adjudged a good Custom and that the Action did lie and the Plea of Not guilty not good the offence being in non feasance of a thing and the Protestation not good against the Custom Morgan and Wyes Case 459. In Trover and Conversion The Plaintiff put in exception that the Sheriff was his Cosen and prayed a Venire to the Coroners which issued accordingly and at the Nisi prius the Tales de circumstantibus was awarded and found for the Plaintiff and Judgment and upon Error brought this was assigned for Error and it was adjudged Error and the Judgment reversed Downhall and Catesbyes Case 360. In a Formedon in the remainder the Case was A. seized in Fee gave Instructions to one to make his Will in writing and to give the Land to his Son for Life who put the Will in wriing and therein writ the Estate to be in Fee It was Resolved that the Will was void being contrary to the intent of the Devisor Evington and Brimstons Case 461. A man left his Gates open ad nocumentum Inhabitantium for which he was amerced in the Leet and his Chattel distreined for the amercement he brought Trespass It was adjudged That it was an Offence not amerceable in a Leet and the Distress unlawful and the action well brought Eatons Case 462. Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was If the Obligor and his Wife sell the Wives Land then if the Obligor during his Life purchase to the Wife and her Heirs so much Land and of that value as that which should be sold or else shall leave to his Wife so much money or money worth after his death to her own use that then c. The Defendant pleaded the Wife was dead the Plaintiff said the Husband and Wife had aliened the Land and the Husband had not purchased so much other Lands to the Wife and her Heirs It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because the Condition was for the benefit of the Obligor and gave him Election either to purchase Land or leave money of which Election he is prevented by the death of the Wife which is the act of God and so discharged of one part of the Condition and then the whole Condition and Obligation are both discharged Thyn and Cholmlys Case 463. A Lease for years was rendring Rent at Mich. and our Lady with a Nomine poenae of 3 s. 4. d. the Lessee assigned the Term adjudged that the Assignee was chargable with the Nomine poenae incurred after the Assignment not before Carter and Loves Case 464. The Case was A Termor devised his Term to I. S. who made his Wife his Executor and died the Wife entred and proves the Will and afterwards took Husband and the Husband takes a Lease of the Lessor afterwards the Devisee entred and granted his Estate to the Husband and Wife 1. If by this acceptance of the new Lease by the Husband the Term which the Wife had to the use of another viz. the Testator should be determined Resolved It was clear it was a surrender 2. When the Devisee entreth into the Term devised to him without the assent of the Executor and after gâ—ants his right and interest to the Executor if the Grant be good because he hath not any Term in him but only a Right of the Term suspended in the Land It was holden to be a good Grant and that it shall have a protection to enure by way of Grant to pass the Estate of the Devised to the Executor Dell and Higdens Case 465. It was Resolved in this Case That the admittance of Tenant for Life of a Copyhold is the admittance of him in the Remainder because the Fine is entire and no more Fine is due by him in the Remainder but otherwise it is of him in the Reversion 2. Resolved That the surrender of a Copyhold in Tail is not a Discontinuance but a common Recovery without Voucher is a Discontinuance Sams and Pitts Case 466. Assumpsit The Plaintiff and Defendant controversies being betwixt them submitted themselves to Arbitrament and the Plaintiff in consideration of 6. d. given him by the Defendant promised to pay 200 l. to the Defendant if he did not perform the Arbitrament The Defendant also assumed to the Plaintiff in consideration of 6 d. given to him by the Plaintiff that if he did not perform the Arbitrament that he would pay to the Plaintiff 200. l. upon request and alledged in Fact that an Arbitrament was made that the Defendant should be bound to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff and his Wife should have and enjoy the Land in question without the Let or hindrance of him his Wife or C. their Son and Heir and that the Plaintiff had performed all on his part yet the Defendant did not become bound to the Plaintiff as c. nor paid the 200 l. though requested and because it was not expressed in what Sum the Defendant should become bound to the Plaintiff and because the De-Accord is that the Defendant be bound for Annoyance without Let of the Son of the Defendant which was a Stranger to the Arbitrament It was adjudged against the Plaintiff and that the Arbitrament as to that part was void Dorley and Woods Case 467. In an Action brought the Defendant alledged a Custom of a Copyhold to be demised in Fee Tail or for Life and
That if the Bargainor paid a certain sum of money at a certain day and place that the Bargainee and his Heirs would stand seised of the Land to the use of the Bargainor and his Heirs and entred Recognizance to performe the Covenants The Bargainor paid the money before the day at another place and after day tendred a deed to be sealed by the bargainee containing the receit of the mony and also a Release of all his right in the Land the Bargainee refused to Seal it The Court doubted if by the Refusal the Recognizance was forfeited because he was not bound to Seal the Deed not being pertinent to the Assurance of the Land But the Court conceived that the acceptance of the money before the day was sufficient to excuse the forfeit of the Recognizance Isams Case 480. Three Women and the Husband of one of them recovered Debt in C. B. the Record was removed by Error in B. R. where the Judgment was affirmed the Husband dyed The Women sued forth a Capias against the party without first suing a scire facias It was adjudged that there ought to have been a scire facias first sued forth because the Defendant perhaps had a Release of the Husband who was dead to plead Morgan and Williams Case 481. An Administrator brought debt and declared That Administration was Committed to him by A. B. sacrae Theologiae praefessorem and doth not say loci illius Ordinarium and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Sheffield and Rises Case 482. Assumpsit In consideration that the Plaintiff had submitted himself to the Arbitrament of I. S. the Defendant ad tunc ibidem assumpsit It was said the Action did not lye because it was upon a Consideration executed But adjudged for the Plaintiff because the words ad tunc ibidem extend to the time of the Assumpsit Sir John Perrots Case 483. In Intrusion against the Lady Dorothy Perrot and James Perrot the Case though very long was thus in effect Sir John Perrot 26 Eliz. before his Attainder seised of diverse Mannors by Indenture tripartite Reciting that whereas he had 2. Sons viz. F. and W. by diverse venters for Love and affection which he bore to his said 2. Sons and such other Issue male as should be of his body and for the Love which he boâ—e to I. his reputed Son and other Considerations Covenanted that he his Heirs and Assigns and all other persons who had Interest in the said Mannors should stand seised thereof to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Wast and after to the use of W. for life and after to the use of the first Son of the said first Son for life and after to the use of all the Sons and Issues male of the said W. by his first Wife which he should Marry one after the other in such Course and forme as they successively ought to discend by due course of Law for the terme of the lives of the said Sons and Issues males and for want of such Issue Then he limited the remainder in use to F. for life and after to his first Son for life and so further as the same was limited to W. and for want of such Issue to I. and for want of all such Issue the remainder to himself and his Heirs and Assignes There was a Proviso for the making of Joyntures to the Sonnes Wife Proviso That Sir John by any Writing signed and sealed with his hand and seal might revoke alter change any use estate or limitation in the said tripartite Indenture that then the said Sir John and all other seised and all assurances aforesaid should be of such estate or in such manner as by such Revocation enlargement or limitation should be declared W. dyed without Issue male Sir John Perrot afterwards 35 Eliz. by writing under his hand and seal did limit the Lady Dorothy his Wife the Defendant for her Joynture a third part of the Mannors in 3. equal parts to be divided 36 Eliz. T. dyed seised in possession and Dorothy entred and took the 3d. part of the profits of the said Mannor and averred the Feoffment was by writing with and under the proper hand of Sir John and traversed the Intrusion upon which it was demurred There were many points in this Case both upon the pleading and matter in Law 1. If all the estates perpetually limited in Freehold for life to all the Sons were void or which of them were good which void 2. If Sir John in making of the Feoffment had duly pursued the Authority limited to him by the Proviso 3. If Sir John in the Assignment of the Joynture to Dorothy his Wife which is the principal title by which she Justifies had duly pursued the Authority limited to him by the other Proviso for making of Joyntures The Case was very Learnedly oftentimes argued at large and Tr. 38 Eliz. It was adjudged for the Queen against the Defendants not upon the matters in Law but upon a poynt of pleading only For it was said by the Barons that they did not take plea sufficient that he did enfeoffe such person Habend to them and their Heirs to the uses in the Indentutres unlesse it had been pleaded the Feoffment was by writing or so averred to be which shall not be intended so to be without special pleading or averment of it King and Hunts Case 484. Tenant in Tail enfeoffed his Son of full age and afterwards disseised and levyed a Fine with Proclamation before the last Proclamation the Son entred and made a Feoffment the Father and Son dyed the Feoffee made a Lease for years to a stranger and dyed seised The Issue in Tail brought a Formedon and recovered by faint pleader It was adjudged in this case because it appeared by the plea That the Fine was levyed to the Lessee for years himself and not averred it was to other uses the Terme was extinct and so he could not falsifie the Recovery East and Hardings Case 485. Note It was adjudged by the whole Court in this Case That if a Copyholder cut down Trees without a Custome it is a forfeiture unlesse it be for Reparations Barwicks Case 486. Intrusion the Case was That the Queen made a Lease to Barwick of a Mannor for 21. years he surrendered the same to the Queen Anno 23. and the Queen in Consideration of the surrender granted him the Mannor a die Confectionis of the Patent for the life of I. S. and the Lessee pur auter vye devysed the same to him for 40. years and averred the life of I. S. The Plaintiff said That after the Lease made by the Queen to him for 21. years that he granted all his estate in a part of the Mannor to a stranger and afterwards in Consideration of the surrender the Queen made the Lease pur auter vye Resolved the 2d Lease made by the Queen was void because all in the first Lease was not surrendered and so the Queen
long live a Widdow And so note there is a difference between a Limitation and conditional words Harris and Vandergies Case 503. Resolved in this case that an Administrator shall have Trespass de bonis asportatis in vita of the Inteste by the enquiry of the Statute of 4. E. 3. Dudley and Knights Case 504. In Debt The Issue was if the Plaintiff habuit gavisus fuit possidebat the Office of Bedelry of the Court of Conscience of the Bishop of London it was found occupavit Officium praedictum It was said that occupavit did not amount to Gavisus fuit vel habuit but the Court held it good enough Lassels and Lassells Case 505. Action upon the case by the Father against the Son for those words spoken by him of his Father viz. My Brother hath stollen a Black Mare and you were privy to it and sent her away to the Fens to my Brothers House Adjudged the words were slanderous being spoken of a Justice of Peace Jenkingson and Wrays Case 506. Words viz. John Jenkingson meaning the Plaintiff deserveth to have his Ears naild to the Pillory Adjudged the words are actionable being spoken of an Attorney Bale and Rodes Case 507. Words viz. There is a Villain now broken into my Mothers house to rob my Mother and is in the house innuendo the Plaintiff The Court doubted if the innuendo did reduce the words to be spoken of the Plaintiff Barbers Case 508. Words viz. The Plaintiff hath bin in prison for stealing M. Pigotts horse Qu. If the Action lieth because he doth say that he had stole the Horse Atkinsons Case 509. After a Recovery of Detinue the Defendant upon the Distring as pleaded that after the Judgment he had delivered the Goods to the Plaintiff Adjudged no Plea without being returned by the Sheriff or without a Deed shewing it Pen and Glovers Case 510. Lessee for years of a Mannor covenanted that he nor his Assigns would mâ—lest vex or put out any Tenant from his Tenancy upon payment of forfeiture A breach was assigned that the Lessee entred upon the possession of A. a Tenance of the Mannor and beat and wounded and troubled the said A. for his Tenement It was adjudged no breach without an Ouster or disturbing him of the profits of it Carith and Reades Case 511. A Lease was made of certain Fenny Grounds in the County of Cambridge the Lessee covenanted to drein certain other Lands in the said County not in the Lease and in Covenant brought he pleaded that the Lessor had entred upon the Land let Adjudged no Plea because the Covenant was collateral and not for doing any thing inherent to the Land ler. Besey and Hungerfords Case 512. The Venire fac was returned the first day of the Term and the Roll gave day before the Term and Issue was joyned and tried upon it The Court said the Roll is the Warrant for the Writ The Court held the Writ issued without Warrant and the same was not aided by the Statute of 18 Eliz. for that that Statute aids only Discontinuance Miscontinuance and Misconveying of parties Ap Richard and Penrys Case 513. In a Quod ei Desorceat in Wales in the Nature of a Writ of right Issue was joyned and tried upon the meer Right The Demandant upon Non-suit was barred by Judgment and a new Quod ei desorceat brought and the first Judgment pleaded in Bar It was adjudged a good Bar and Judgment final given It was the opinion of the Justices in Error brought and assigned that final Judgment should not be given upon the Demurrer That this Judgment was good and the Judgment was affirmed Gawen and Ludlows Case 514. Note It was Resolved in this case That if in a Replevin the Defendant claims property the Plaintiff may have a Writ de proprietate probanda althought it be two or three years after because by the claime of the property the first Suit is determined Wilford and Mashams Case 515. A constitution in London is That an Apothecary who sells unwholsome Drugs should forfeit a certain pain The Defendant sold unwholsome Drugs in London for which the Chamberlain of London brought Debt in London for the pain Adjudged maintainable there by their By-laws and Customs Wild and Copemans Case 516. Words viz. Thou art a forsworn man for thou wert forsworn in the Leet Adjudged the words actionable because a Leet is a Court of Record Borough and Taylors Case 517. The Queen made a Lease rendring Rent with condition if the Rent was behind by the space of 40. days that the Lease should cease the Rent was payable at the receipt of the Exchequer afterwards the Queen granted the Reversion It was adjudged that in this case the Grantee ought to demand the Rent upon the Lands and not at the Receipt of the Exchequer for that the Grant had altered the place of payment Belchamber and Savages Case 518. Debt was recovered against the Defendant by another who sued Execution and the Plaintiff was Sheriff and had the Defendant in Execution and he escaped and the Sheriff paid the condemnation and brought an Action against the Defendant who pleaded that the Goaler licensed him to escape Adjudged no Plea Beckford and Parncotts Case 519. A man seised of Lands in A. had Issue four Daughters viz. A. B. C. and D. and devised all his Lands in A. to A. and B. his two Daughters and made them his Executors Afterwards he purchased other Lands in A. a Stranger was desirous to purchase those Lands which he had new purchased and he said That the Land should go with the residue of his Lands to his Executors Afterwards the Testator made a Codicill and caused it to be annexed to his Will but in the Codicill no mention was made of this Land and if the new purchased Land should pass by the Will without a new publication of this Land was the Question Resolved the Land newly purchased should not pass for notwithstanding that the reading of the Will and making a new Codicil may amount to a new publication yet it doth not manifest the intent of the Devisor that more shall pass then that which he intended at the first and the reading of the Will and making a new Codicill may not be termed a new publication without an express publication for the Land newly purchased therefore the Land shall not pass by it Ascue and Hollingsbrooks Case 520. The case was A. acknowledged a Statute Merchant at Lincoln before the Mayor there to which Statute there wanted the Seal appointed by the Statute of Acton Burnell wherefore the Conusee brought Debt upon it in Co. B. and had Judgment Error was brought and the Judgment was reversed because it was not an Obligation for it shall not be taken to be an Obligation without express proof of the delivery of it as an Obligation 2. Because three were bound jointly in it and the Action was brought against one of them only and so the Writ did
and he demanded of the Plaintiff what was his Name he answered his name was I. D. therefore he arrested him adjudged for the Plaintiff for that the Defendant at his peril ought to take notice of the party Sharpe and Swaines Case 603. A Feoffment was made of a house and Land which was within the View of the house and the deed of Feoffment was delivered in the house only It was adjudged no Livery for the Land Popham Chief Justice said it was not good for the house Barkby and Forsters Case 604. A man brought Assumpsit in B. R. and declared whereas 16. December at the request of the Defendant he delivered to the Defendant 100 l. to the use of the Defendants Father the Defendant promised to repay it to the Plaintiff ad vel ante the first of May following The Defendant pleaded the Plaintiff had brought an Accoumpt against him for the same money and declared the money to be delivered 10 December and prayed Judgment of the Action pendant the Accoumpt upon Error brought the Judgment was affirmed because damages are recoverable in this Action but not in an Accoumpt Blowfield and Withes Case 605. Debt against 2. one was taken in Execution and suffered to escape by the Goaler It was adjudged that Execution might be sued out against the other 606. Judgment a Writ of Entry was reversed because the Name of the Sommoners were not endorsed upon the Writ Arkingsall and Dennys Case 607. An Archdeacon having a Parsonage appertaining to his Archdeaconâ—y before the Statute of 13 Eliz. made a Lease for 40. years of the Parsonage which was confirmed after the Statute Adjudged the Lease and confirmation were both good Harrington and Wyes Case 608. A. made Articles betwixt him and 2. others by which it is Covenanted by the said A. that the said A. doth let c. and the said A. doth covenant to make a Lease for 21. years according to these Articles Provided that they shall pay to the said A. yearly 28 l. Resolved that it was a present Lease and a Reservation of Rent and that the Rent should be paid during the Terme Parlor and Butlers Case 609. Prohibition the case was the Plaintiff was Convented before the High Commissioners for saying of the Defendant a Minister That he was fiâ—ter to stand in the Pillary then to preach in a Pulpit and that be had taken 2. Orders already and that he lacked but taking the third which was to have his Ears cut off He there Justified the words that the Defendant had forged an Acquittance and shewed it The Commissioners would not allow of the Justification but granted him to aske the Defendant Forgivenesse the Prohibition was granted because they ought not to meddle with the Cause Easton and Newmâ—ns Case 610. If a man find goods and being demanded of him he denyes for to restore them It was adjudged to be a Conversion of them Randals Case 611. An Enfant confessed a Judgment in the Kings Bench in Debt It was Resolved that he could not have Audita Querela during his Nonage to reverse the Judgment in that Court but he might have Error in the Exchequer Chamber by the Statute of 27 Eliz. to reverse it Shephard and Metcalfes Case 612. A Prohibition by 3. Resolved one Nonsuit or Retraxit shall not bar the others Holcome and Rawlins Case 613. If a Disseisor make a Lease for years and the Disseisee reenters It was Resolved that the Disseisee after his reentry shall punish the Lessee for Trespas for the mean profits during his Occupation although he be in by Title but before his reentry he shall not punish him Gooses Case 614. Appeal of death against Principal and Accessaries before the fact and of accessaries after the fact The principal is found not guilty of the Murder but guilty of Manslaughter Resolved all accessaries before the fact should be discharged because to a Manslaughter none can be accessary before the fact Perries Case 615. An Enfant of the age of 9. years was admitted by his Guardian to sue an Appeal de morte fratris 616. A Writ of Error was delivered at the Instant the Judgment was given the Court would not allow of it because it was procured before the Judgment was given 617. Nota per Curiam A Copyholder may prescribe by usitatum est against his Lord but against a stranger he must prescribe in the name of the Lord. Ford and Glanviles Case 618. Administration is committed durante miuore aetate of an Enfant and Debt is brought against him and then the Enfant comes of age Quaere if the Writ shall abate Roberts and Agmondeshams Case 619. A Lease was made of a Rectory a Parson was presented to it and upon a supposition that he was holden out with force had a vi laica removenda upon which the Sheriff returned non inveni vim laicam nec potentiam armatam Notwithstanding which Returun upon Affidavit that he was kept out with force a Writ of Restitution was awarded out of the Kings Bench. Woodlifes Case 620. Accompt for goods delivered to a Factor to Merchandize he pleaded he was robbed of the goods and of divers other goods and Chattells of his own and holden a good plea. Bradshawes Case 621. A man prescribes for Common Appendant Resolved unity extincts it but not Common for arable Land Halliwel and Jervoise 622. A Parson sues before the Ordinary for Tythes and then he Appeals to the Audience where the sentence is affirmed Then the parties Appeal to the Delegates and there both sentences are repealed It was agreed that such a condition ad revidendum the sentences may issue forth but then such a Reviewing shall be final without further Appeal but if the Commissioners do not proceed to the Examination according to the Common Law they shall be restreined by a Prohibition Mortimer and Windgates 623. Accompt for Malt the Defendant said the Plaintiff brought Trover and Conversion for this and other Malt and for part found for him and for part not and demanded Judgment of the Action adjudged no bar for it may be he did not convert the Malt yet he ought to accompt for it Smith and Bowsals Case Vide the same Case 912. Plito 610. before Bradshawes Case the very same with this Case Rogers and Jacksons Case 624. Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded the Statute of usury alledging that agreatum fuit that the Plaintiff should have so much money pro donatione diei solutionis the Plaintiff traversed absque hoc quod agreatum fuit and found for the Plaintiff It was said in stay of Judgment the word Corruptâ— was not pleaded in the Bar It was Resolved the Bar was made good by the Replication and the Declaration being good It is sufficient for Judgment for the Plaintiff Bacon and Hills Case 625. Ejectione firme the case was A. had Issue 3. Sons viz. B. C. and D. and devised to B. and C. certain parcells of Land and to D.
Sons the Remainder to C. and his Heirs B. never had any Son afterwards but dyed having Issue a Daughter his sole Daughter and Heir Afterwards C. dyed having Issue It was Resolved in this case that it shall be intended in the Limitation of the use that after the death of B. without Issue Male that C. should have the Land as well where no attempt is to alien as where there is an attempt because the words are and immediately after his decease then to the first Son c. by which they conceived that the use which should rise upon the attempt to alien is only restrained to the use of B. for Life 2. Resolved that by the words If it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Issue then to C. and in truth B. never had a Son that the use should rise to C. 3. Reâ—olved when the render was made to B. for 80. years if he should so long live and after his Decease to his first Son c. with the Remainder to C. that all the Remainders were void because the Estate of the Freehold during the Life of B. did not pass by the Render out of the Conusees but the Inheritance compleat did remain in the Conusees 4. Resolved That the Conusance of the Fine is of necessity to be intended to the use of the Conusees because they otherwise could not render by the Fine but if the Render had bin void in all as it is in part then they conceived the use should go according to the Render but not in this case because the Render for 80. years was good and so the use remains in the Conusees The Lord Buckhursts Case 656. The case it self is very long being upon several Conveyances Settlements of very many great Mannors Lands in several Counties within the Realm of England and by her last Will to several persons or to their uses or to her Executors for the performance of her last Will upon which diverse matters of Law did arise which were very largely and Learnedly argued by Council but not Resolved some points in Law were agreed upon and Resolved which vide in Coo. 1. Reports in rhe Lord Buckhursts Case and were these in Substance viz. 1. If a man grant Land for him and his Heirs to another and his Heirs that is a general Warranty because it is not restrained to any person certain 2. If a man seised in Fee-simple hath diverse Evidences some containing Warranty and some not and convey the Land to another without Warranty upon which he may be vouched the Purchaser shall have all the Charters and Evidences as well those which contain the Warranty as the other for in as much as the Feoffor hath conveyed his Estate absolutely and is not bound to Warranty it is reason that the Feoffee for his better assurance have all his Charters as incidents to the Land although they are not granted to him by express words 3. If the Feoffee in the case aforesaid make a Feoffment with Warranty so as he is bound to render in value in such case without express Grant the Feoffee shall not have any Charters which comprehend Warranty upon which the Feoffor may have his Waranty paramount for the Feoffee hath not taken upon him to defend the Title but the Feoffee shall have the Evidences which do concern the possession 4. If A. enfeoff B. with Warranty to him his Heirs and Assignes and B. enfeoff C. with Warranty although that C. may vouch A. as Assignee yet he shall not have the first Deed for B. hath made a Warranty to him and may be vouched and therefore he shall have the first Deed. 5. If A. be seised of a Seignory Rent Advowson or any thing which lies in Grant and grants the same over to B. with Warranty and B. grants the same over to C. with VVarranty C. shall have the Charter although that B. is bound to VVarranty for that it is for his necessity to make his Title and without it he cannot make any defence against A. or any claiming by him 6. If a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee with VVarranty and dieth the Heir of the Feoffee shall have all the Charters which the Feoffor himself may have although the Heir hath nothing by discent for the possibility of discent after Barker and Bornes Case 657. Debt against the Heir upon an Obligation of his Father and Judgment is given against him upon nihil dicit the Judgments shall be general and not only of the Lands special which discend but extend to his own Lands Thompson and Butlers Case 658. An Annuity is granted to a woman for Life she takes Husband the Husband during the Coverture by express words releases the Annuity Resolved that the Release of the Husband doth not extinct the Annuity but that if the VVife survive she shall have it 659. It was Resolved by all the Justices That if the Clerk of the Market do take a Fee of a peny for view only of Vessels which are not defective and doth not Seal them or if he Seal them he take 2 d. upon every Vessel the same iâ— extortion 660. Resolved upon the Statute of 33. H. 8. 28. 23. Eliz. That if Tenant in tail become Recusant is convict but not by Judgment upon Tryal or Confession and dieth and his Lands seized that the Issue shall avoid it because it is not a debt by Judgment as the Statute of 33. H. 8. requires The Lady Willoughbyes Case 661. Sir Francis Willoughby died his VVife with Child P. W. who had married the Daughter of Sir Francis and had a great part of the Possessions setled upon him for want of Issue Male of Sir Francis attempted to suffer a Common Recovery to the intent to bar the Issue Male of Sir Francis and disinherit this Issue in ventre of his VVife to stop the Recovery she pretended she was with Child P. W. prayed a VVrit de Ventre inspiciendo which was granted and the Sheriff of London came to the Ladies House and brought a Jury of women whereof two were Midwives and they searched the Lady and the Sheriff returned that she was with Child Clark and Hardwicks Case 662. Scire fac upon Recognizance in Chancery acknowledged by H. to M. of 200 l. The VVrit was brought by the Plaintiffs Executors of M. the Sheriff returned Mortuus whereupon a new scire fac issued against the Heir and Terrae-Tenants The Sheriff returned K. Terre-Tenant of certain Lands and C. Terre-Tenant of the Mannor of D. K. made default C. appeared and pleaded a Joynt-tenancy with two other who were alive not named in the Writ nor Returned It was adjudged that upon this Return and Plea of Joynt-Tenancy that the Scire facias should abate and a new Scire facias was awarded Davy Matthew and Binfields Case 663. 3 â— Eliz. Ejectione firme The Case was Husband and wife seised for the Life of the wife made a Lease of a Mill to B. the Defendant for 17. years who 34.
especial matter upon the division of the day ought to come on the other side otherwise it shall not be intended Bullock and Bibleys Case 771. A Woman Copyholder in Fee took Husband who without his Wife surrendred to the use of a Stranger who was admitted and surrendred to the use of D. the Defendant who was admitted the Husband died the wife survived and died the Heir before admittance made a Lease to trie the Title It was adjudged that the Surrender of the Husband alone made no discontinuance of the Copy-hold of the wife 2. Resolved that the Lease was good before Admittance otherwise it was of a Surrender before Admittance Gooles and Granes Case 772. An Infant surrendred Land which was Copyhold to the use of a Stranger who was admitted It was adjudged that the Infant at his full age might enter because it was no bar nor discontinuance Ford and Holborns Case 773. A. let the Mannor of D. to H. for 17. years rendring yearly to D. G. 10 l. and he was bound in an Obligee to A. to pay the said Rent to D. G. if she so long lived and the said H. or his Assignes should or might so long enjoy the Premises In Debt by the Executors of A. against H. he pleaded that after the Lease to him he himself surrendred the Lease to A. which he accepted and that till the Surrender no Rent was unpaid It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the acceptance of the Surrender was no conclusion against the collateral payment to a Stranger and H. but for his own Act might have enjoyed the Land still Savage and Bechams Case 774. In Action upon the case for an Escape against the Prisoner brought by the Plaintiff Sheriff It was Resolved that upon a voluntary escape the Sheriff should not maintain an Action against the Prisoner but otherwise upon a negligent escape West and Blackwells Case 775. A. Outlawed after Judgment was taken upon the Capias utlagatum and afterwards escaped Resolved that he was not in Execution for the party without prayer Williams and Beathles Case 776. Debt upon an Obligation after Verdict and Judgment it was assigned for Error that the Teste of the Original was before the day of payment in the Condition It was holden Error and the Judgment for that cause reversed Wells and Dennyes Case 777. Upon a Recovery in Debt of 400 l. upon 2 Fieri fac 100 l. was levyed and returned Afterwards a Capias ad satisfaciend issued for the whole 400 l. It was the opinion of the Court it ought to issue forth but 300 l. and the Judgment for Execution was reversed May and Middletons Case 778. After Debt brought the Plaintiff attached in London a debt due by another man to the Defendant and had Judgment to recover Adjudged a good bar to the Action for so much Bufkin and Edmonds Case 779. It was adjudged in this Case That a Rent payable off the Land upon Cesser of an Estate ought to be demanded where no entry may be Hughton and Princes Case 780. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Turkies nor their Eggs nor of tame Patridges or Pheasants quia ferae naturae Beswick and Cundens Case 781. It was adjudged in this case That the Feoffee shall have Action upon the case for a Nusance continued though it was erected before his time Sharington and Fleetwoods Case 782. It was Resolved if a Parson Libells for Tythes and a Prohibition is granted and after he libelleth for the Tythes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon Prohibition lieth against him Hall and Vaughans Case 783. If the Jurors eat and drink at their own proper costs before Verdict after their departure from the Bar it is fineable only but it shall not make their Verdict void Adams and Albons Case 784. Resolved that if a Venire facies bears date the day it is retornable it is amendable by the Roll. Gregory and Blasâ—fields Case 785. An Action upon the Statute of 4. and 5. Philip and Mary for using the Trade of a Clothier not having bin bound an Apprentice for seven years was brought by Plaint in the Court of Ludlow and Judgment there The Judgment was reversed because first it ought to be by Original or Information and Secondly because it ought to be brought in the Courts of Record at Westminster and not in Borough Courts Varrel and Wilsons Case 786. Conspiracy The Defendant pleaded his goods were Feloniously Stollen and he found them in the possession of the Plaintiff for which he Indicted him and gave evidence against him and upon the Tryal the Plaintiff was acquitted and traversed the Conspiracy aliter vel alio modo It was adjudged a good Justification because the finding of the goods in his possession was a sufficient cause of Suspition Marrow and Tarpins Case 787. Debt against two Administrators for Rent behind after the death of the Intestate they pleaded that before the Rent behind one of the Administraters assigned all his Interest to I. S. of which the Plaintiff had notice and accepted of the Rent by the hands of the Assignee before the day in which the Rent in arrear was due It was Resolved that the privity of contract as to the Action of debt was determined by the act of the Lessee and therefore the action of Debt after the Assignment did not lie against the Administrator Smith and Johnsons Case 788. Error of a Judgment in Action upon Assumpsit in the Court of Reding The certificate was Plita c. ad Cur. Dominae Reginae Burgisui de Reding tenend per consuctudinem Libertat Major Burgensibus concess I without saying per consuetudinem ex antiquo usitot or alledging by what person the Liberties were granted and for this cause the Judgment was reversed Corbet and Corbets Case 789. A seised of Lands for real affection covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of R. and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to C. and the Heirs Males of his Body Provided if R. or any Heir Male of his Body shall intend or go about any act to cut off the Estate tail then it shall be lawful for him that is next to enter A. died R. suffered a common Recovery Resolved the Proviso was repugnant to the Estate tail and that the Cesser of the Estate tail as if the party had bin dead was impossible and the going about it such a secret thing that an Issue cannot be upon it Grar Marshal and Marshals Case 790. A. levyed a Fine of five yard Land to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to the use of his eldest Son who was the Plaintiffs husband and the Plaintiff and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband Proviso if the Husband died living A. his Father then G. the Plaintiff his wife should have yard Land and a half for her Life in possession without shewing which Land the Husband died
good against a Purchaser bna fide for valuable consideration Crowther and Fryers Case 800. The case was a Parson sued a Copyholder for Tythes arising upon his Copyhold he prayed a Prohibition and suggested that the Bishop of W. was Lord of the Mannor and that he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. for them their Farmors and Tenants had bin discharged of Tythes arising upon the Mannor and shewed he had bin a Copyholder of the Mannor and preseribed in his Lord. It was the opinion of the Justices in this case that although there is a Prescription upon a Prescription one in the Copyholder to make the estate good the other in the Bishop to make his discharge good yet a Prohibition lyeth for the Prescription in the Lord of Right of necessity and common Intendment proceeds the Prescription in the copyhold estate and the discharge of the Tythes in the Lord shall go to the benefit of the Copyholder Blake and Allens Case 801. B. was bounden 10 A. in an Obligation of an 100 l. for the true behaviour of his Son he being an Apprentice to A. A. after the sealing and delivery of the Bond razed out the word Libris and inserted the word Marcis It was the opinion of the Justices it was not a Forgery punishable because he made his own Bond void and it was not a prejudice to any but to himself 802. Two Executors made Partition of their Testators Specialties and then one of them did release to the Debtor an Obligation which did appertain to the part of the other the Debtor having notice of the Partition betwixt them the other sued in Chancery for Reliefe but the Chancery would not relieve him but if the Release was obtained by Covin for a less Sum then the Debt was there it was holden the Debtor should satisfie the Over-plus 803. It was agreed by the Justices that the Hundred is not chargable with the escape of the Felons nor to pay the Robbery if the Robbery be done in an House nor if it be a Robbery in the High-way in the Night 804. Note It was Resolved â—9 Feb. 43. Eliz. by the Justices upon the Arraigment of the Earl of Essex 1. That when the Queen sent the Lord Keeper and others of her Council to him commanding him to disperse the armed persons which he had in his house and to come to her and he refused so to do and kept the armed men in his house that that was Treason 2. That when he went with a Troop of Captains and others into the city of London and there prayed aid of the citizens to assist him in defence of his Life and to go with him to the Court so as he might be of power to remove his Enemies which attended upon the Queen that that was Treason 3. That the Fact in London was actual Rebellion although he did not intend hurt to the Queen 4. That the adherence of the Earl of Southampton to the Earl of Essex although he did not know of any other purpose then of a private Quarrel which the Earl of Essex had against certain of the Queens Sewants was also Treason in him 5. That all those who went with the Earl out of Essex-House into London whether that they knew his intent or not were Traitors although they departed by Proclamation but those who upon a suddam adhered to him in London and departed so soon as Proclamation was made they were within the Queens Grace of pardon by the Proclamation Holland Jackson and Ogdens Case 805. Error was brought to reverse a Recovery and a Scire facias issued against K and other Terre-Tenants depending which a Writ of Estrepment was awarded against the Terre-Tenants and Resolved it did well lye Dalton and Hamonds Case 806. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case that if the Lord demandeth an excessive Fine of his Copyholder and he refuseth to pay it it is no forfeiture otherwise where it is a reasonable Fine and the Court and Jury shall be Judges of the reasonableness of it But if a Fine be certain the Tenant is to bring it with him to Court and to pay it before admittance and if he be not ready to pay it it is a forfeiture Gambleton and Grassons Case 807. In Trover and Commission it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Judgment that the Distringas with the Nisi prius bore the same date with the Venire facies It was the Resolution of the Court that it should be amended for it was aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Higgins and Spicers Case 808. A Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners ita quod B. who was one of the Coroners se non intromittat because he was the Servant of R. who was Sheriff It was said the same was no cause of Challenge but the Court conceived it was because confessed However it was but a misconverting of process which was aided by the Statute Hall and Jones Case 809. Action was brought upon the case for slanderous words in a Court of Pipowders The Stile of the Court was Curia pedis pulverizati ratione Mercati c. Secundum consuetudinem Civiiatis It was adjudged there for the Plaintiff and Error brought and Assigned that a Court of Pipowders doth not belong to a Market but to a Faire The Court held that by custome of a city or place it might be to a Market 2. Resolved that an Action upon the case for slanderous words did not lie in a Court of Pipowders and for that cause the Judgment was reversed The Countess of Warwick Attwood and Davies Case 810. Action upon the case against two the one pleaded to Issue the other demurred upon the Demurrer the Plaintiff had Judgment and a Writ of enquire of Damages against him alone and the Defendant relinquished the other Issue It was the opinion of the Court that he might relinquish against him and have Judgment and execution of the damages against the other only Sir Gervase Clifton and Chancellors Case 811. In Trover and Conversion of Jewels The Defendant pleaded that a Stranger was possessed of the Jewels and sold them to him in his shop in Bristol he being a Gold-Smith and because he did not say that the Sale was in pleno Mercatu nor aver'd it was his shop in which he used the Trade of a Gold-Smith It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and in this case it was agreed that the King cannot grant to one that his Shop shall be a Market overt to bind Strangers because it is against the Law Ludd and Wrights Case 812. In debt to perform an Accord the breach was assigned of a thing out of the Submission and issue being joyned the Plaintiff at the Nisi prius was Nonsuit Then the Judgment given upon the insufficient Pleas is not upon the Nonsuit It was holden the Defendant should have costs for the unjust vexation Gawen and Rants Case 813. In Replevin the case was
Plaintiff that the Action did not lye Vide this Case more at large in Cook 3. part of his Reports Cornwalls Case 869. Quo Warranto for claiming goods of Felonum de se The Defendant said that the Mannors of S. and L in the County of Gloucester were within the Principality of Wales before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and the Kings Writ did not run there and that his Grandfather seised of those Mannors as Lord Marcher used amongst others to have that Liberty of goods of Felons de se and that the Statute of 27 H. 8. which united Wales to England had a Proviso that the Lord Marchers should retain their Franchises to hold Courts to have Waifes and Estrays infangtheef outfangtheef and Felons goods and deduced the Mannors to himself and eo Warranto he claimed to have the good of Felons de se within his Mannors upon which it was demurred the Case is only argued bet not Resolved Ideo Quaere Darcy and Allens Case 870. The Queen by her Letters Patents granted to Darcy the Importation and sole making of playing Cards within the Realm of England for a certain Terme of years A Citizen and Freeman of the Company of Haberdashers in London Cards beings Merchantable Commodities brought Cards into England and sold them for which Darcy brought his Action of the Case and declared it was to his damage of 2000 l. upon which there was a demur in Law It was in this Case after long and Learned Arguments at length Resolved That the Letters Patents for the sole making of playing Cards within the Realm was void because it being a Mechanical Trade it was contrary to the Liberty and to the prejudice of the Subject 2. That the dispensation or sole License to have the Importation of Cards was a Monopoly and so void by the Law See Coo. 11. pt the Case of Monopolies Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters Case 871. The Dean and Chapter by deed under their Common Seal granted to the King the Mannor of S. in exchange for other Lands the deed was made without a Letter of Attorney but they acknowledged it to be their deed in their Chapter house before I. S. Attorney of the Court of Augmentations who brought it into Court and it was there enrolled with a Memorandū that the enrolment was such a day which was a moneth before the date of the deed In this Case it was Resolved 1. That the acknowledgment of the deed in the Chapter house was sufficient without doing it by Attorney 2. That the Attorney of the Augmentation might take the acknowledgment of a Deed out of Court he being a Judge of the Court. 3. That the enrolment of the deed before the date of it was not void as to make the deed void because it was only the Misprision of the Clark which shall not make the deed void Prine and Allingtons Case 872. A Capias ad satisfaciend ' was 2. July delivered in Holborne to the Sheriff of C. he the same day made his Warrant to his Bailiffs but afterwards the same day there came a Supersedeas to the Sheriff the Bailiffs not having notice of it took the party in Execution who escaped and they retook him upon which false Imprisonment was brought It was adjudged the Action did lye for the retaking of him was not Lawfull because the Authority of the Sheriff was determined by the Supersedas Yet the Court held the Bailiffs were excused in this Case and no action of Debt upon the escape did lye because they had no notice of the Supersedas Webster and Allens Case 873. A Copyholder where the custome was to demise for three Lives demised to one for life the Remainder to such a one as he should marry and the first Son of his body Resolved that both the Remainders were void but the estate for his own life good Penny and Cores Case 874. Debt upon Obligation for payment of 8 l. the Defendant pleaded payment of 5 l. before the day and acceptance of it in satisfaction of the 8 l. It was adjudged a good plea. The Queen and Bishop of Peterboroughs Case 875. A Baronesse which was a Widdow retained two Chaplains they purchased Dispensation the Baronesse was married before they accepted double Benefices It was adjudged they might after take two Benefices because the marriage was no discharge of their Service but if the Baronesse dye before they accept the Benefices they cannot afterwards take two Benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Ward and Lakins Case 876. In a Replevin the Plaintiff declared of the taking of two Heifors apud W. tali die and did not say in quodam loco vocato c. and for that cause the Declaration was held to be insufficient Scarles Case 177. Debt against an Excecutor by Original he pleaded a Recovery in the Court of I. and that ultra he had not goods the Recovery was after the Teste of the Original but the Defendant avered that he had not notice of the Original It was holden by the Court a good plea but if a man be sued upon an Obligation and he will pay another debt after without suit if he have notice of the first suit Devastavit in an Execuror Gregory and Harrisons Case 878. Resolved Ejectione firme doth not lye of a Copyhold if the Plaintiff doth not declare the Custome Lease and Ejectment 879. A Woman recovered Dower in the Common pleas and had a Writ to the Sheriff to put her in possession of the same The Sheriff returned the Writ that he delivered her 84. Acres and that she had entred into 24. Acres parcel thereof and accepted of the same Resolved it was a good bar to her although it was a lesse quantity then the 3. part of the Land mentioned in the Record Aoliffe and Archdales Case 780. Resolved in this Case If a man be bounden to pay money for the Meat Drink and Apparel of an Infant and pay it and take a Bond of the Infant to repay the money such a Bond is void and the Infant shall avoid it for Nonage Broke and Smiths Case 881. It was adjudged in this Case that where a man by a Deed was to discharge Lands from all Incumbrances and before the sealing and delivery of the Deed there is Memorandum endorsed that it should not extend to such an Incumbrance It was Resolved the Endorsement is an explanation of the Deed and made parcell of it and a suit upon an Obligation to discharge Incumbrances shall not extend to the Incumbrances mentioned upon the endorsement of the Deed. Yate and Goths Case 882. A. was indebted to B. who dyed Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and brought debt and had Judgment and after dyed Intestate It was adjudged that an Administrator de bonis none of the first Intestate could not sue forth Execution upon the Judgment but is put to a new action of debt Swelman and Cuts Case 883. A Lease was made for years upon
Debt against Executors upon Obligation of 200 l. they pleaded a Recovery by a stranger of 200 l. upon another Obligation and averred it was a just and true Debt ultra which they had not in their hands the Plaintiff said the Recovery was by Covin It was adjudged in B. R for the Plaintiff Error brought and the Judgment reversed for it could not be by Covin if it was a just Debt and the Replication should have been absque hoc it was a just and true Debt Morses and Rosses Case 935. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would surcease his Suit which he had in Chancery against the Defendant the Defendant promised to save him harmlesse from all actions which should be brought against him for or Concerning a Lease which the Defendant had assigned to him and alledged he surceased his Suit and that a Stranger had brought an action against him in B. R. by reason of the said Lease and the Defendant did not save him harmlesse Judgment being for the Plaintiff in B. R. It was reversed because he did not shew the certainty of the Action brought against him nor that it was for any matter in esse at the time of the promise Wood and Bukleys Case 936. Action upon the Case whereas Wood exhibited his Bill against Buckley in Star Chamber containing he had nusselled Pirats Murtherers and other Malefactors he being a Justice of Peace and Vice-Admiral Wood afterwards in another place having speech with divers concerning as well of the ill carriage of the said Buckley as of the matter in his Bill against Buckley in the Star Chamber said I will Justify every matter therein to be true The Defendant Justified the speaking of the words being examined upon the truth of his Bill before I. S. and I. D. by Command of the Councell and traversed that he spake them at any other place or time upon demur being adjudged for the Plaintiff upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because no action lying for the exhibiting of the Bill no action lay for saying the words of his Bill were true Sir Henry Berkley and Earle of Pembrooks Case 937. Action upon the Case by the Earl of Pembroke against Sir Henry Berkley and shewed he was seised of the Mannor of S. to which the Office of the Keeper of the Forrest of F. did appertain in Fee and to have omnia bona forfeited within the Forrest fugam facere bis per annum quicquid de hujusmodi fugatione accidere possit and to have Hony Wax mortuum boscum c. appertaining to his Office and the Defendant disturbed him to exercise the said Office The Defendant pleaded a Deed in Tail in Bar made by the Plaintiff In the Deed there was a Proviso viz. Provided alwayes and the said Sir Henry Berkley doth Covenant for him and the Heirs males of his body to and with the said Earl and his Heirs to preserve the game as far as commonly hath been used and that he nor his Heirs males shall cut or sell any woods there except for browse and necessary reparations and the Plaintiff said the Defendant had cut down four Oakes and converted them to his own use and averred they were not for browse nor reparations and that he entred for the forfeiture It was adjudged upon a demur in B. R. for the Plaintiff Error was brought upon the Exchequer Chamber upon the matter in Law that the Proviso was not a Condition but a Covenant but as to that point it was Resolved by all the Justices that the Proviso was a Condition 2. Error was that the damages were assessed entirely for divers things some of them being uncertainly and insufficiently alledged for he prescribed to have omnia bona forisfacta which could not be without Charter also to have de furgatione quicquid acciderit which was also uncertain and also the damages for them ought to have been severally assessed and not entirely The Court held that for that Cause the Judgment was erroneous and for that Cause only the Judgment was reversed Reymer and Grimstones Case 938. Assumpsit In Consideration he at the Defendants request had promised to wash the Defendants linnen and the linnen of his Servants and to provide meat and drink for the Defendant and his Servants the Defendant promised to pay so much money to the Plaintiff when he should require it so as it should not exceed the proportion used in O. for the like time and further declared that in Consideration the Defendant upon accompt between them made was in arrerage to the Plaintiff 18 l. the Defendant promised to pay him the said 18 l. and the Plaintiff shewed for how long time he had washed the Cloathes c. and that he required 8 l. which did not exceed the proportion in O. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and damages severally assessed for the Costs entirely Error was thereupon brought it was the opinion that the first Assumpsit was good and the second void and the Judgment given for the damages and Costs upon the first Assumpsit was good and the Judgment for them affirmed but for the damages assessed upon the second Assumpsit and for the damages de incremento entirely give for both the Judgment was reversed Goodall and Wyatts Case 939. In Ejectione firme The Case was A. made a Feoffment of Lands to B. in Fee upon Condition if A. paid within a year after the death of the Feoffee to his Heirs Executors or Administrators 100 l. that the Feoffment should be void B. made a Feoffment over to C. and dyed and afterwards within the year it was agreed betwixt A. and the Administrator of the Feoffee that the said A. should pay to the Administrator the 100 l. and that the Administrator should repay back all to A. the Feoffee but only 32 l. which was done accordingly and then A. entred into the Lands pretending the Condition was performed it was adjudged in B. R. that his entry was not Lawfull and that this fraudulent and Covenous payment was no performance of the Condition and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices a greed that the Judgment given in B. R. should be affirmed Vitsey and Fermours Case 940. The King granted Manerium de H. in Parochia de R. omnia terras decimas haereditamenta sua in R A. in the tenur of I. S nec non omnia alia terras tenementa haereditamenta in R praedict ' It was adjudged in B. R. that the Tythes in H. which was a Town within the Parish of R. did passe But upon Errour brought the Judgment was reversed because R. praedict shall be intended R. the Town and not R. the Parish Adams and Dixons Case 941. Assumpsit the Plaintiff was Bail for I. S. in B. R. the Defendant in Consideration that he should pay him the Condemnation promised to deliver to him the Bond made for the principal Debt and a letter of
Attorney to sue the principal in his name It was adjudged for the Plaintiff in B. R. and upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because it was an insufficient Consideration Dickenson and Sheres Case 942. Upon the awarding of the Venire facias upon the Roll the day of the return of it was omitted this being assigned after verdict for Error was holden by the Court not to be Error 943. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that an action lyeth for the Rector of a Parsonage against the Parishoners for not seting forth of their Tythes although the Statute of a Edward 6. drâ—h not appoynt who shall have the action English and Bowers Case 944. Covenant upon an Indenture of demyse of the Rectory of S. in the County of O. The Indenture was made at London and the Venire Issued to the Sheriff of O. It was assigned to be Error but the Court held it good because it shall be of the County where the Land lyeth Heley and Rigs Case 945. A Bill was exhibited in the name of Rigs per Johannem Keeling attornaâ— ' suum and the Warrant of Attorny was posuit lcco suo Gulielmum Keeling the same was assigned for Error but the Justices caused it to be amended and affirmed the Judgement Maylard and Kesters Case 946. Assumpsit In Consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to the Defendant pannos laneos pro funer alibus of a Clark he promised to pay him for them cum inde requisitus esset and alledged he sold and delivered divers Cloths to him viz. 31. yards of black Cloth for 19 l. and recited divers other particulars amounting to 160 l. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was reversed because Debt properly lay and not Assumpsit Wolley and Mosleys Case 947. Action of Assault and Battery in B. R. upon a demur the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover It was a Warded upon the Roll à Fierifac to enquire of damages returnable die Martis post tres Trinitatis and the Writ was in facto returned die Mercurii post tres Trinitatis which was the very date of the return upon the Roll and the Plaintiff had damages and Costs 40 l. Error was brought and assigned whereas by the Record of the Continuance the Plaintiff appeared by I. P. his Attorney that before that time he was dead The Court held that to be no Error because the Record is to be credited before the allegation of the party 2. Because there was variance between the Roll and the Writ the Court held that was amendable 3. That the Writ is executed the same day of the Return that was holden to be no Error and so it was said it was adjudged Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. in Gawen and Ludlows Case In the Court of Wards The Queen and Savages Case 948. A. seised of Lands holden in Capity by Knight service by License 27 H. 8. conveyed the same to his Son and Heir apparent and F. and their Heirs in consideration of Marriage betwixt them who intermarried and 2 E. 6. by Fine regranted the Land to the Father who rendred it to the Son and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten the Father dyed the Son haveing Issue three Daughters dyed 5 Mar the eldest Daughter had Issue Fran. Mooâ—e and dyed 25 Eliz. F. took second Husband W. Savage and they 28 Eliz. Leased the Rectory of K. to I. S. for 60. years and after granted the Reversion of the Rectory and Leased the Mannor to A. Savage for the life of F. Afterwards a Common Recovery was had in which S. and his Wife were vouched The Queen prayed to have the Wardship of Fran. Moore and to have the primer seisin and profits of the Land after the death of the Wife W. Savage averred the Recovery was to the use of himself pretending thereby that the Issues in Tail of the Son of Agnes and F. were barred In this Case it was Resolved for the Queen for one moyety and that the first Feoffment by A. to his Son F. before Marriage was not within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but when they Reconveyed back the Land that was a Conveyance of each of them their parts and then the render of the whole to them in special Tail as to the moyety of the Son the gift of the Father to the Son and his Wife within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but as to the gift of the Wife by the Fine was not within the Statute but the Recovery as that should bind the Issue Fishers Case 949. It was found by Office that A. seised in Fee of divers parcells of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite 21. Eliz. by License conveyed them to I. S. and E. his Wife Daughter of the said A. and that afterwards by Indenture he Covenanted for Fatherly love and affection that after the sealing of the said Indenture he would stand seised of the premises to the use of the said I. S. and E. his Wife in Tail Remainder in Fee to a stranger It was not found when the said Indenture was sealed and delivered nor that I. S. and E. his Wife were seised in Tail nor was it found in the Office Sic inde Seisitus did Covenant Notwithstanding these Exceptions it was Resolved that the Office was sufficient wherefore a Travers was to the Office Gervoyes Case 950. A. seised of the Mannor of N. in the County of W. and of Lands called F. in the County of of S. in Consideration of Marrage and for a Jointure for his Wife Covenants that he and his Heirs shall stand seised of the Mannors Lands c. to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives after their deceases to the use of the Heirs of the body of A. The Lands in F. are recovered by verdict from A. only during the Coverture between them A. dyeth his Heir within age It was Resolved in this Case that the Wife should have recompence for the Lands which were Enrolled during the Coverture although she accepted of the Residue of her Joynture after the death of her Hâ—sband Forsters Case 951. The Husband seised of Land in the Right of his Wife which was holden in Knight service the Heir being in Wards committed wast in the Lands Resolved the Husband should be charged to the value of the Lands and lose the possession of the Lands so long as his Wife should live Georges and Stanfields Case 652. Lands by Act of Parliament were assigned to the Countesse of Bindon during her life the Reversion to her Daughter who was in Ward to the Queen the Viscountesse took Husband and she and her Husband committed wast in the Land For the punishing of which a Bill was exhibited in the Court of Wards Resolved that the Court of Wards could not adjudge treble damages for the wast in this Case and therefore the Case was dismissed to Law Bridges Case 953. A. bargained and
come in Question 2. because the adjunction de in W. the Town is not but to make a certainty of the Mannor for there may be two and Mannors in W. one within it and another wwithout it Harison and Haxeys Case 1095. The defendant was Bail for B. in an Action brought by I. S. against him who recovered and had Judgement B. brought Error pendant the suit I. S. dyed the Debt not paid his Administrator brought a Scire sac against the Bail who pleaded the release after the Error brought both to him and the principal B. of all Executions and Deeds It was adjudged a good barre because the duty and debt remained notwithstanding the Error brought May and the Sheriffs of Londons Case 1096. Action upon the Case against the defendant for suffering one whom they had arrested upon a Bill of Middlesex to escape The defendant said that the Prisoner was rescued from them and adjudged no Plea and so it was said it was adjudged Pasc 43. Eliz. in Walâ—o Lamberts Case which vide Cro. 3. part 867. White and Halls Case 1097. The Guardian recovered in Debt upon an Obligation made to an infant the Defendant payd the principal and costs and prayed the Guardian might acknowledg satisfacia Curia they can acknowledg satisfaction for so much as he returned and for so much they ordered him to acknowledge satisfaction and that no execution should issue for the rest 1098. A man devised Lands in London to his Son and heirs after the death of his Wife and if his Daughters overlived his Wife Son and his heirs they should have it for his life and after their deaths I. S. should have it paying 6. l. yearly to the Company of Merchant Taylors London to be bestowed in Charitable uses Resolved that the Wife hadan estate but for life by Implication 2 That the Son had Tail by Implication and not Fee-simple for as long as the Daughters lived the Son could not die without heirs collaterall 3. That the estate to I. S. after the death of the Daughters Was a Fee simple by reason of the annual payment of the money And in this case it was said that a Devise to A. and his successors was a Devise in Fee-simple Austin and Monks Case 1099. Scire fac Against the Bail upon the Statute 3. Jac. c. 8. the Defendant pleaded that after the Writ of Error allowed and before any default the principal rendred his Body in Execution adjudged a good barre for notwithstanding the Writ of Error may render his body and so excuse his Bail The Sheriffs of London and Michells Case 1100 Debt for 12. l. for their Fees upon the Statute of 28 Eliz. cap. 4. for doing Execution The Statute is they shall not receive ultra such a sum The Court said that implies that they may take so much as is not prohibited and although the Statue doth not give an Action for it yet because it is a duty an Action is given them by Law Linghill and Broughton Case 1101. Action upon the Case against an Administrator that the intestate was endebted to the Plantiff 100l and the Defendant his Administrator affirmed that if the Plantiff would forbear him per rationabile Temous he would pay him and alledged he forbore him 8. years Verdict for the Plantiff It was said in stay of Judgement the Declaration was not good because not shewed how the Testator was Indebted Resolved that he need not do because the promise of the Administrator is a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt 2. That the forbearance per rationabil Tempus uncertaine and adjudged the forbearance per paululum temporis was not good The Court said they might Judge of the reasonablenesse of the time not of the meaning of paululum temporis and 8. years is a reasonable time of forbearance it was adjudged for the Plantiff Babington and Lamberts Case 1102. Assumpsit In consideration the defendant had received 24l of divers persons for the Plantiffs use he promised to pay it such a day it was said the Declaration was not good because not expressed of what persons he received the money but it was adjudged good because a consideration executed and so not traversable Calimore and Jensons Case 1103. Assumpsit In consideration that the Defendant upon an Insimul Computaverunt the Defendant was found endebted to the Plaintiff judged a good Consideration Philpot and Ballards Case 1104. Resolved in this Case that if a Judgement be given against the Plaintiff and others in an inferior Court as a Hundred Court one of them onely if he be sole Tennant and hath the Damage may have a false judgment and restitution and it was holden that althoughthe Judgement was given upon a customary claim and not upon any matter at Common Law yet false Judgement did lye Eman and Mouldsworths Case 1105. A Prohibition was granted in C. B. because the Plantiff sued for defamation in the spiritual Court because the defendant had reported that he was incontinent It was said although the Plantiff alledged a general pardon yet this being a private Case the pardon did not discharge it Pease and Meades Case 1106. Condition of a Bond was that the Obligator should pay such a summe to such a person at such a place and day as the Obliger should name by his Last Will in Wiâ—ting he names none but makes the Plaintiff his Executor and dyed It was adjudged the Excecutor was not an assignee and so the Obligation by the Omission of the Obliger is discharged Yardly and Elices Case 1107. Woords spoken of an Atturney to his Clyent viz. Your Atturney is a bribing Knave and hath taken 20l. of you for a bribe to cozen me Adjudged the Action did lye for the words Fryer and Gildrings Case 1108. Two men were bound to a third person joyntly and severally the Obligee made the Wife of the Obligor his Excecutrix who Administred then the Husband of the Obligor made her his Executrix and dyed having assets to pay the debts then she dyed and the Plaintiff took Letters of Administration of the goods of the Obligee not Administred and brought debt against the Defendant being the surviving of the Obligor It was adjudged that the Action would not lie for the making of the Wife of one of the Obligors Executrix was a suspension of the Action and a personall Action once suspended by the Act of the party as it is here it shall be extinct for ever Quaere Norton and Syms Case 1109. Debt upon Obligation for performance of Covenants the Defendant being under-Sheriff to the Plaintiff Covenanted That he would not execute any Writ of Execution above 20l. nor any venire fac in severall Causes and also to acquit and save harmeless the Plantiff of all escapes of Prisoners taken in Execution and of all fines and amercements Resolved in this Case when there are in an Indentures Covenants in the Negative for not doing and in the Affimative for doing he is to plead specialy to the
Negatives that he hath not broken them and to the Covenants in the Affirmative that he hath performed them 2. When the Covenants Negative are against Laws and the Affirmative Lawfull there he may plead performance generally and the Court is to take notice that the Covenants in the Negative were void and against Law 3. That the Covenants that he would not do any Execution nor Execute any Writs here as venire fac were against Law 4. When some Covenants are void by the Common Law and others not void an Obligation taken for the performance of Covenants stands good for those that are good and not for the other Gresley and Luthers Case 1110. Assumpsit The Defendant was a Suitor for Marriage of the Daughter of I. S. the Mother of the Daughter was sollicited by the Defendant for her assent and furtherance of the Marriage and the Defendant promised that if she would agree that her Daughter should Marry the Defendant that he would give to the Mother 100l she gave her assent and the Marriage took effect It was Resolved that the Agreement of the Mother was a sufficient consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon Fosters and Jacksons Case 1111. Scire fac Against an Executor to have Execution of a Judgement against the Testator the Defendant pleaded that the Testator was taken in Execution for the same Debt and dyed in Execution It was Resolved that was a discharge of the Debt vide Laud and Williams Case Pasch 44. Eliz adjudged accordingly Harecote and Wrenhams Case 1112. The Case was The Father in his life time had conveyed a Lease in Trust to F. and made his Son his Executor who recvered 100l in Chancary against F. which he had and came to his hands as Executor The Question was if this 1000l should be Assetts in the Executors hands Resolved it should be Assetts Selby and Chutes Case 1113. The Lessor Covenanted that the Lessee should enjoy the Land without the disturbance Let or hindrance c. of the Lessee The Lessor sued the Lessee in Chancery suggesting the Lease was made to him in trust to try a Tittle onely In Covenant brought the Lessee assigned this in breach of the Covenant Adjudging no breach because it was a Suite in Equity and not at Common Law Sir Henry Rolls and Sir Robert Osborn and his wives Case 1114. Warrantia Charta against Husband and Wife that the husband and wife levied a Fine 2 Jac. to the Defendant and his Heirs with Warranty the Defendant pleaded that the same Term a common Recovery was had by a Stranger in a Writ of entry against the Plaintiff who vouched the husband only which Recovery was to the use of the Plaintiff for part of the Land for his Life with divers Remainders in tail with the Remainders in Fee to the Plaintiff and his Heirs In this case these points were Resolved 1. the wife one of the Defendants died pendant the Writ that the Writ should not abate because the Warranty was by the Husband and Wife so as by the death of the wife the Warranty as to her was determined and it stood for the Husband and his Heirs 2. Resolved that the Warranty was determined by the Severance and Division of the Land 3. Resolved that if the Plaintiff be impleaded in which he might vouch if he did not vouch that he might have Warrantia Charta 4. Resolved that because it appeared by the Plea in Bar that the use of the Recovery was to the Plaintiff but for Life so as the Plaintiff is in of another estate that he could not have a Warrantia Charta to recover upon a Warranty in Fee It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Cownden and Clarks Case 1115. In Ejectione firme the case was A seised of Lands in Fee in Soccage had Issue I. his Son and E. his daughter who was married to I. D. by whom she had Issue two daughters M. and F. he made his Will and devised out of his Lands Annuities to his Grand-children M. and F. and gave a Legacy to G. his brother of 20 l. and his Lands he devised thus My meaning is that my Land I now stand seised of and that of right I have shall discend to J. my Son but my Executors shall take the profits of it till his age of 24. years Provided If the said J. die without Issue of his body thâ—n the Land go to the right Heirs of my name and posterity equally to be divided part and part like and then to the said M. and F. I. died without Issue G. his brother entred and made the Lease It was Resolved in this case that the Devise to the right Heirs of his name and posterity was void and by consequence the Reversion in Fee discended to I his Son and from him to his two Daughters as his general Heirs and that appeared to be the intent of the Devisor for he did not intend his brother should have the Land for the words be part and part like and he did not intend his two daughters should have the Lands because he devised them Annuities Rowrth and the Bishop of Chesters Case 1116. It was Resolved in this case that after an Induction an Institution is not to be examined in the Spiritual Court but by a Quare Impedit only But yet the Justices if they see causa may write to the Bishop to certifie concerning the Institution Tisilate and Sir William Esex Case 1117. Covenant was brought upon the words Covenant Premise and Agree that the Lessee should quietly occupy and enjoy the Lands demised for during the term of Seven years and the Plaintiff shewed that a Stranger entred upon the Land but did not shew that he entred by title and for that cause it was adjudged against the Plaintiff and the difference was taken betwixt a Covenant implied as here it was in the words demise c. but upon a Covenant expressed there the Lessor is to gard the Land against every person Harrington and Deans Case 1118. Accompt A. was endebted to the Plaintiff 200 l. The Plaintiff required the Defendant to receive it of A and prayed the Defendant to borrow so much for him and pay it to the Plaintiff the Defendant did borrow 200 l. of I. S. and A. was bound for the repayment of it It was adjudged that the Defendant should account for this mony for that he had a Warrant from the Plaintiff to receive the mony of A. and by the direction of A. he received it of I. S. for A. therefore he was to account for it The Earl of Cumberland and Countesse of Cumberlands Case 1119. Waste in 3. Several Townes A. B. C. There were 29. Issues joyned and tryed 14. for the Plantiff and 14. for the Defendant One was if certaine Oakes cut down were imployed in reparation of the Castle of A. which Issue was tryed with the Defendant It was moved in stay of Judgement that the Visne was of the Town of A. where it ought to
this case that if S. had died and no other was instituted by the Patron but the Church remained void that the King might Present otherwise it had been if the Patron had presented a new Parson to the Church before the King presented Pym and Gorwins Case 1165. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case that one cannt prescribe for a Seat in the body of the Church for that the Seats there are disposable by the Parson and Churchwardens but for a Seat in an Isle of the Church a man may prescribe because it may be presumed that he or his Ancestors who had house and lands within the Parish had edified and built the said Isle and so it was said it was adjudged in the Lady Grays case Norris and the Hundred of Gawtrys Case 1166. Debt against the Hundred upon a Robbery 9. Octob. 13 Jac. the Teste of the original was 9 Octob. 14 Jac. It was said the Action was not brought within the year for there is but one ninth of October within the year It was the opinion of the Justices that in this case a Fraction of a day should be by devision of time in a day viz. the Robbery committed 9 Oct. 13. post meridiem is within the year of the bringing of the Writ 9 Octob. 14 Jac. in the morning Vide Ludford and Grettons Case Plowd Com. 491. Dawks and Hills Case 1167. Upon an Information upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. an Ingrosser of Chattel justified for a certain number of Chattel and sold upon two several Licenses without distinction how much upon the one and how much upon the other and upon a Demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Middleton and Lawtes Case 1168. Two Patrons pretended title to present the one presented and the Bishop refused his Clerk He sued in the Audience and had an Inhibition to the Bishop and after there he obtained Institution and Induction by the Arch-Bishop Afterwards the inferior Bishop instituted and inducted the Clerk of the other for which Process issued out of the Audience against him he upon that prayed a Prohibition and a Prohibition was awarded as to the Incumbency because the Ecclesiastical Courts have not to meddle with Institution and Induction for that would determine the Incumbency which is tryable at the Common Law Stewkley and Butlers Case 1169. In Trespass the case was A. seised of the Mannor of D. made a Lease of the Scite and Demeans to the Defendant for three Lives except all Tymber-trees and covenanted that his Lessee should take all Woods Afterwards the Lessor bargained and sold to the Lessee all those the Trees Woods and Under-woods growing within the Mannor viz. within the Grounds called A. B. and C. Habendum una cum omnibus aliis arboribus within the Mannor which may conveniently be spared and the Bargainor covenanted that it should be lawful for the Barganee at all times within five years to enter and cut the Trees and Woods and convert them to their own uses In this case it was Resolved 1. That the Viz. was void for a Viz. may explaine or distribute a thing precedent but not restrain it 2. Resolved that the una cum aliis arboribus in the Habendum should make a new Grant of the other Trees 3. Resolved that the words which followed the una cum cest ' una cum omnibus arboribus within the Mannor which could be spared was void for the uncertainty and there is no means agreed betwixt the parties here to reduce the same to a certainty 4. Resolved that the Covenant of the Bargainor that it should be lawfull for the Bargainee to take the Trees and Woods within five years was not a Condition but a meer Covenant and the difference was taken where one sells all his Trees to be taken within 5 years after there the Vendee shall not take them after 5 years ended but if the time of taking of them be by way of Covenant there it shall not restraine the party to take them at all times as well after the five years as within the five years but the parties are to have their remedy by an Action of Covenant upon the disturbance Yet it was said by Hatton that if one grants his Corn growing and the Grantee doth not take it in convenient time so as the Grantor receive detriment thereby the Grantor shall have Action upon the case against him Hansons Case 1170. He was cast over the Bar because he gave direction in writing to an Under-Sheriff what persons he would have him return upon a Pannel for tryal of an Issue and named others who he would not have to be retorned Kingswell and Crawleys Case 1171. Replevin The Defendant avowed for Rent for that I. S. held of him by Fealty and Rent whose Estate the Plaintiff had The Plaintiff said I. S. enfeoffed I. N. who made a Lease to the Plaintiff for Life absque hoc that he had the estate of I. S. Resolved that the Traverse was void for after the Statute of 21 H. 8. the party is to avow upon the Land and then it is not material what Estate the Tenant had so he occupied the Land but before the said Statute it had bin a good Plea so as the Statute hath changed the Law for the Traverse in pleading although there is not any word of it in the Statute Andrews and the Bishop of Yorks Case 1172. It was Resolved that is a good Plea in an Assize of Darrien Presentment that the Plaintiff hath a Quare Impedit depending the same avoidance 1173. Words viz. He hath stollen my coâ—n out of my Barns Adjudged per curiam the words were actionable Hall and Wingfields Case 1173. The Defendant acknowledged a Recognizance before the Lord Hobart at Serjeants-Inn in Fleet-street London which Recognizance was enrolled in the Court of common Pleas The Plaintiff brought debt upon this Recognizance in the Common Pleas and layed his Action in London Whether it ought to be brought in Middlesex where the Record of the Judgment was or in London was the Question The Justices were divided in several opinions Winâ—h it ought to be in Middlesex where it is enrolled because the Debt is consummate Warberton it may be in any County where the party pleaseth Hutton it lieth where the Record is Hobert if no mention had bin made upon the Inrollment of the Recognizance before the Chief Justice at Serjeants Inn it ought to have bin brought in Middlesex but now it was in the Election of the Plaintiff to bring it either in London or Middlesex vide this case more at large Hob. Reports 195. where the case seems to be Resolved Lea and Pains Case 1175 Debt upon Obligation to stand to an Award The Plaintiffs in January submitted themselves to stand to the award of I. S. for all Quarrels Debates Questions stirred moved or depending I. S. in April made an Accord that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff should pay Twenty Nobles in
discharge of all Quarrels c. It was objected the Award was void because the Submission did not extend but to Quarrells depending at the time of the Submission which was in January and the Award is of all Quarrels c. which shall be intendable at the time of the Award It was adjudged for the Plaintiff for that it doth not appear that there were any new Quarrels risen between the Submission and the Award and if there were any such it ought to have been shewed on the Defendants part Heard and Baskervills Case 1176. Rplevin The Defendant avowed for Rent granted 12 E. 1 and shewed the discent to such an one whose Heir he is but did not shew how he was Heir It was the opinion of the Court that he is not to shew how Heir in the Writ but in the Declaration and the shewing how Heir is but matter of Form because not traversable but Heir or not Heir is only Issuable and therefore upon a general Demurret it is helped by the Statute of 27 Eliz. But not pleading of the Deed of the Rent shewed in Court or hic in curia profert is matter of substance not aided by the Statute Speak and Richards Case 1177. The Plaintiff sued Execution upon a Recognizance of 2000 l. acknowledged to him in Chancery by I. S. and others and upon two Nihils retorned upon two Scire fac in Middlesex a Levari issued to the Sheriff of S. the Defendant who retorned he had levyed 500 l. towards the satisfaction of the Plaintiff and that he had it ready to deliver to the Plaintiff and because upon this Return upon request of the Plaintiff he had not paid it him he brought Debt against the Sheriff The Defendant as to part of the 500 l. viz. 300 l. pleaded nihil debet to the 200 l. he pleaded payment and thewed an Acquittance the Plaintiff demurred Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for the 300 l. and for the 200 l. nihil capiat per breve because the Recept and the Acquittance is confessed by the Demurrer Davison and Barkers Case 1178. Information upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for using the Trade of a Bakes within the city of Norwich not having been an Apprentice seven years It was said that no penalty did rise to the Informer for a penalty which did accrue within the city of N. by reason of this branch in the Statute viz. All Amercements Fines Issues and Forfeitures which arise within any City or Town corporate shall be levyed gained and received by such persons as shall be appointed thereunto by the Mayor c. to the use of the same Cities The Justices were divided in their opinions vide Croke 1. part 130. and Hob. Reports 183. where this Case seems to be Resolved Rynes and Mophams Case 1179. Action upon the case that he lent the Defendant his Mare at C. to plow the Defendants Land at P. and safely return her two days after and the Defendant overwrought her so that she died The Venire was of C. only where the Mare was delivered and not where she was labored and therefore the Judgment was reversed Harbin and Greers Case 1180. Action upon the case A custom was alledged That all the Inhabitants of certain Messuages holden of the Bishop of S. had used to grind their Corn which they used to spend in their houses or should sell at certain Mills called the Bishops Mill in S. and not elsewhere without the License of the Bishop It was adjudged the custom is void and unreasonable to grind all their Corn which they should sell Dembyn and Browns Case 1181. A Rent was jointly granted to husband and wife the husband died the wife took Administration of his Goods and as Administratrix brought Debt for the Arrearages incurred in the Life of her husband Adjudged the Arrearages were due to her in jure proprio and the naming of her Executrix of her Husband was Surplusage Wolley and Davenants Case 1182. A Scire fac against the Bail he pleaded that the Principal reddidit se Adjudged it shall be tried by the Record and not by the Country and if the party render himself at the Bar and the Attorney of the Plaintiff is not there to pray him to be committed he shall be committed ex officio by the Court. Roberts Case 1183. A man 25 H. 8. seised of an House and Lands made his Will in these words viz. I bequeath to L. my wife my house in P. with all the Lands thereunto belonging during her Life and after her decease I make A. B. C. and D. Feoffees in the said House and Lands to see the house kept in reparations and the rest of the profits of the same Rents after the discretion of the said Feoffees to be bestowed yearly upon the Reparation of the High-ways of W. and the Town The Devisor and his wife being both dead It was a Question the Will being made before the Statute of 32 H. 8. and the Land not in use whether it be an appointed Limitation or Assignment within the Statute of 43 Eliz. of Charitable uses It was Resolved that the said intended Devise was a Limitation or an appointment to a Charitable use to be relieved within the said Statute of 43 Eliz. Sir Tho. Middletons Case 1184. Sir Thomas Middlenon received 3000 l. from Queen Eliz. for the payment of the Soldiers which returned in the voyage made by Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkings The Captains Mariners ane Soldiers made a voluntary constitution that every Mariner and Soldier should abate so much a month out of their pay to be imployed for the relief of the Mariners and Soldiers which were maimed or hurt in that Service of which abatement there was 300 l. in the hands of Sir Thomas Middleton It was Decreed upon a commission upon the Statute of 43 Eliz. that this 300 l. was a charitable use within the Statore and Sir Thomas was decreed to pay the money to the said use Rivers Case 1185. A Copyholder in Fee devised 14 Acres of his Copyhold Lands to his Son and his Heirs upon condition to employ the profits thereof for the Relief of the poor of S. for ever and died no surrender being made to the use of his Will either before or after I. S. purchased this Copyhold Land upon a Commission upon the Statute of 43 Eliz. this charitable Use was found and that the profits had not been employed accordingly It was decreed that the Purchasor having notice of the said charitable use should pay 12 years arrearages according to the value of the Land at 7 l. 10 s. per annum to be paid for ever by the Purchasor and his Heirs for the relief of the Poor and that he and his Heirs should hold and enjoy the Lands for ever Vochel and Dancastels Case 1186. In Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years the Defendant pleaded that the Lease was made to one H. and the Defendant and that H. his Companion 1