and Iudgment was given therein whereupon the Tenant to the Assise brought a Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. in Easter Term which did abate by reason of his death and after in the time of King James the new Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in Recordo quod coram nobis refidet which did also abate by reason of variety between the Record and the second Writ of Error whereupon Mich. 13. Jac. the said Plaintiff did purchase this new Writ of Error And the Defendants did plead in abatement of the said Writ of Error that the now Plaintiff before the purchasing of the said last Writ of Error and since the purchasing of the second Writ of Error viz. the 19th of September the 10. Jacob. did enter into the said Land and the same day and year at the place aforesaid did devise the said Tenements to one Thomas Alport Habendum from the Feast of S. John Baptist then last past for four years next ensuing by vertue of which Demise the said Thomas Alport into the said Tenements did enter and was and yet is possessed Vpon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendants joyned And I conceive that the Plea is insufficient Yet I do agree that if he who hath cause to have a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment of Land does make a good Lease for years he hath suspended his Writ of Error for the Term as he does quite extinguish it by his Feoffment But here it appears that there is no Lease made for it is pleaded only that the Plaintiff did enter into the Land and it appears by the recovery that his entry was taken away by the Iudgment in the Assise whereby he gains nothing by his Entry but the Freehold and possession does remain alwaies to the Defendants being Heirs to the Recovery as appears by Litt. Warrant 158. If one be seised of Land and another who hath no right doth enter into the Land and continues possession yet doth he gain nothing thereby but the possession doth alwaies continue in him that hath right and so in the 3. Ed. 4. 2. Woolocks Case and in the Comment 233. Barkleys Case Execution is taken to be no plea in Bar to an Ejectment because it was shewed that the Lord Barkley did enter as in his Remainder and was seised in Fee untill the Lessor of the Plaintiff did eject him and did demise to the Plaintiff which is not good because it is not alledged that he disseised the Lord Barkley for otherwise he had no Estate to make the Lease and the Entry doth not imply any disseisin or doth gain any possession and 11 Edw. 4. 9. B. 12 H. 6. 43. B. And the Court did agree that the plea was insufficient But then it was moved that the Writ of Error was nought for the Writ was that Quidem Recordum processus Dom. Regina Elizabeth nuper Regina Angliae causa erroris interven venire sec and it appears by the Record that although the Recovery was removed by Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. at the Suit of the Father of the Plaintiff yet the Plaintiff did purchase a new Writ of Error Mich. 9 Jacob. and had a Scire facias against the Heirs of the Recover or who appeared Mich. 10. Jacob. and also the Writs of Habeas Corpus tales Distringas wherefore the Writ is naught for all the Recovery was not in the time of the Queen but part in her time and part in the Kings time But I conceive that it is good enough for first the Recovery and Processe is satisfied by transmitting the body of the Recovery as it is proved by the usuall form of all Writs of Error which is to certifie the Record and Processe and yet they do certifie only the Declaration and the Pleas omitting the Writs Also the Record shall be intended the principall Record and not the Writ and Proces Coke Rep. 11. Metcalfes Case the words of the Writ of Error Si judicium inde redditum sit this shall be taken to be the principall Iudgment 39 Ed. 5. 1. In a Scire facias brought by John Duke of Lancaster and Blanch his Wife to execute a Fine levied to them in the time of Ed. 2. and the Writ did recite the Fine to be levied Tenendum de nobis c. but it was adjudged good by Iudgment of Parliament and 2 R. 3. 4. Bough brought an Action of Debt against Collins who pleaded a forreign Attachment in L. by custome and did mistake the Custome and it was traversed that there was no such Custom and the major certified it so and all this was in the time of King Edw. the first and it was adjourned over to another Term before which time the King died and resumed in the time of King Richard the third and Iudgment given whereupon Collins did bring a Writ of Error which was Rex Dei gratia c. quia in Recordo processu in redditione Judicii loquela quae fuit coram nobis per breve nuper inter B. c. error c. And the question was if it was good And some said that there was no Warrant for such a Writ and some said that the Writ ought to have been speciall reciting how c. But the Masters of the Office said that in a Writ of Error before the Iustices of the Bench there is but a generall form in the Writ And after it was adjudged that the Writ of Error was good John Vandlore Plaintiff Cornelius Dribble Defendant Trinit 14 Jacob. Rot. 1062. IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of two hundred pounds made the eleventh of Febr. the 12th of King James upon condition that the Defendant shall perform the agreement of William Holliday Thomas Moulson Robert de la Bar and Humphrey Burlemacke Arbitrators elected c. to arbitrate of and for all Actions Suits Accounts and Demands had moving or depending in variance between the parties before the date of the said Obligation so that the agreement of the premisses be made and put into writing before the twentieth of March next The Defendant pleaded that there was no such Arbitrement The Plaintiff replyed that the eighteenth of March 12 Jacob. they did make an Arbitrement c. of and concerning the Premisses that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff fifty pounds viz. twenty pounds at April next and twenty five pounds at _____ and the twentieth of July next twenty five pounds in full satisfaction and discharge of all such monies as the Plaintiff did claim or demand of the Defendant by reason of the administration of the Goods c. of John Stadsell or by any other means whatsoever And that each of the parties upon payment of the said fifty pounds shall make generall Acquittances one to the other of all Actions Debts and Demands unto the day of the making of the said Acquittances And alledged breach to be made in the payment of the said twenty five pounds the twentieth of
April And whereupon the Defendant demurred in Law And I conceive that the Action will not lie for the Arbitrement is bond because the Arbitrators have exceeded their authority First because they have no power to discharge any action or duty accrued to any of the parties as Administrators Secondly because that by the Release the Obligation it self to stand to the Arbitrement is discharged Cook 10 Rep. 131. where Moor brought an Action against Bedell upon a promise to stand to the Arbitrement of A. and B. concerning all matters then in difference between them and that was the last day of Novemb. 24 Elizab. And the 10 of Decemb. the 24 of Eliz. they did agree that Moor should pay to Bedell certain monies and that Bedell should release all demands until the 15 of June 24 Eliz. and the Defendant in consideration of this submission did assume that he would not sue any Execution upon a Iudgment And the Plaintiff there assigned two Breaches one that he did not Release the other that he sued Execution And this was found for the Plaintiff upon a non assumpsit and entire damages given and then after it was reverst by Error because that the agreement as to the Release was voyd and therefore the damages being entire the Iudgment was erroneous And Michaelm 11 Jacob. Rot. 155. Staires against Wilde wherein an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award of and concerning all matters c. And they made an Award that one should pay to the other 3 l. and that each should release all Actions and Demands and the breach was assigned in not paying the 3 l. adjudged to be a voyd Arbitrement in all because it was to release all Actions at the time of the Release which is not within the submission And Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 211. Knap against Mâ—w where the condition was to perform an Award of certain things c. who did award that one should pay 20 l. to the other and that each should release all Actions and Demands and the breach was assigned in non-payment of the mony and it was adjudged that the Award was voyd And at last all the Court agreed that the Award was good as to all that was submitted to and voyd for the others and that the breach being assigned in a matter submitted to does give a sufficient cause of Action to the Plaintiff Wherefore it was adjudged that the Plaintiff should recover c. Hillar 13 Jacob. Smith against Whitbrook IN an Action on the Case for words viz. for saying to the Plaintiff the 4 Septemb. 12 Jacob. Thou meaning the Plaintiff art a Traytor and an Arch-traytor and I meaning the Defendant will hang thee or be hang'd for thee and after the 15 Septemb. 12 Jac. the Defendant did procure the Plaintiff to be brought before Sir Robert Cotton Knight and Robert Castle Esq two Iustices of Peace of the said County for Oyer and Terminer c. and did complain to the said Iustices that the Plaintiff had said and published divers Traytorous words of the King by reason whereof the Plaintiff was committed to the Goal of the said County by the said Iustices and there was imprisoned and did so remain until the next Sessions of Peace of the said County holden the 4 of Octob. 12 Jacob. before Robert Bell Knight Robert Payn Knight and other Iustices c. and the Plaintiff was compelled to finde Sureties for his appearance against the next Sessions to answer to such things as should be objected against him on the behalf of the King and in the mean time to be of good behavior c. At which next Sessions holden the 10 Janu. 12 Jac. before the said Iustices and other Iustices the Plaintiff did appear upon which the Defendant the same day and year in the publique Sessions did say of the Plaintiff I meaning the Defendant do accuse Robert Smith meanining the Plaintiff absolutely whereupon the Plaintiff was committed to the Gaol by the said Iustices and there remained in prison for the space of a month whereas the Plaintiff did never speak and Traytorous words against the King nor had committed any Treason against the King and this he layd to his damage of 1000 l. The Defendant pleaded that before the time wherein the said words are supposed to be spoken viz. the third of Septemb. the 12 Jacob. the Plaintiff having speech of the King did speak of him these Traytorous words The King meaning our Lord the King is a scupry King and so justified the several words and also the procurement of the Plaintiff to be brought before the said Iustices The Plaintiff by Protestation saith that he did not speak the said words of the King and for plea did demur in Law and the Defendant joyned Judicium And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without reading the Record or having any argument because that the justification was insufficient and the Record was not read because it imported Scandal to the King Cooper against Smith IN an Action on the Case for words scil Thou and Waterman did kill thy Masters Cook meaning one Yarnton late Servant of Francis Dingley Esq and thou wast never tryed for it and I will bring thee to thy Tryal for it The Defendant pleaded Nor guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it was not averred that the Plaintiff had a Master and that Francis Dingley was his Master but resolved that it need not be aveâ—â—â—d for if he had no Master yet it is a Scandal as if one should say Thou hast stoln the Horse of I. S. there is no need to aver that I. S. had a Horse and if everment be necessary it is averred here when he said Thy Masters Cook and there it is averred that the Cook was servant to Francis Dingley and it follows also that Francis Dingley was Master to the Plaintiff Judgment Wherefore Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Trinit 14 Jacob. Weal against Wells IN an Action on the Case for that the Defendant the 22 of Novemb. the 13 of King James crimen Felonie querenti false malitiose imposuit and did cause him to be arrested and taken for the Felonious taking and stealing of five Heifers of the Defendant and caused him to be brought before Sir Thomas Bennet one of the Iustices of Peace c. and out of malice also at the Sessions of Peace at the Guild-hall London before the Major and other the Iustices of Peace c. did cause him to be indicted maliciously and falsly for the Felony of stealing of five Steers the 23 Octob. 13 Jacob. and did cause him to be detained in the Gaol of Newgate until he was legally acquitted at the Gaol delivery the first of December the 13 Jacob. to his damage c. 100 l. and did aver the matter in the indictment to be false The Defendant said that the 18 Novemb. 13 Jacob. he was possessed
Also the Bar is not good because the Defendant says he was possessed of five Steers and doth not say of the aforesaid 9 H. 6. 16. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King of a Chantery in the Chappel of St. Thomas in D. and made title to it and the Defendant pleaded that there was a Chantery in the said Chappel and made title to it and traversed the title of the King and adjudged to be no plea because he did not answer to the Chantry whereof the King had declared And Pasch 14 Elizab. Downing against Hayward In a false imprisonment in Suffolk the Defendant did justifie as servant to A. to whom a Commission of Rebellion of Chancery was directed and the Plaintiff pleaded De son tort Demesne and found for the Plaintiff and reversed again by Error in the Star Chamber because that when the matter of justification is upon matter of Record and matter in fact or of matters done in two Counties that cannot joyn the Issue ought to be upon one only And Pasch 15 Jac. Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff by the opinion of Mountague Crook and Doderidge because that all that was done after Sir Thomas Buriets Warrant was illegall but they agreed that the Plaintiff might have an Action for the charging of Felony and for all that was done before the said Warrant But Haughton disagreed who conceived that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff because the Plea of the Defendant was no justification for what was done before the warrant but at last Iudgment was given for the Defendant Judgment Mills against Marshall IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given for the now Defendâ—nt against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas upon an Action of Debt on a Bond of twenty pounds Hil. 11 Jac. Ror 1109. And the Bond was made the twentieth of Jan. in the sixth year of King James and it was on Condition to stand to the Award of George Cockrell Edward Sureton and William Wasse to arbitrate of and concerning all matters then depending between â—hem so that the said Award be made and delivered to the parties under the hands and Seals of the said Arbitrators before the twenty ninth of January next The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators the twenty fourth of January in the sixth year of King James did make their Award of the Premisses by Indenture under their hands and Seals 1. That all Controversies and Suits between them unto the date of the written Arbitrement should cease and that the Plaintiff should have liberty to drive his Cattell to the River Eâ—ke c. and that the Plaintiff and Defendant should work and maintain at all times from thence forward a sufficient Hedge by the top of the Scar Sicut terrae praedicti Querentis Defendentis extendunt Anglice as their own Ground goes for security of the Cattell and Sheep which said Hill doth extend to the Land of Henry Facherly unto the Pale which then was between the Land of the Defendant and if any Trees or Woods growing in or neer the Woods of either party shall fall in controversie at any time that it shall be arbitrated by the said Arbitrators three or two of them which Arbitrement was delivered to the parties the same day and the Defendant pleaded that he had performed c. The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant did not make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Scarr Prout terra sua extendit the Defendant said that before the Writ purchased viz. the fourth of April 12 Jacob. at Eshdayle in the County aforesaid he did make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Hill aforesaid prout terra sua extendit and so they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and the Defendant brought this Writ of Error And I conceive Iudgment ought to be affirmed Coke 5 Rep. Slingsbles Case If one let white Acro to I.S. and B. Acre to I. D. and covenant with them Et quemlibet eorum that he is Owner each of them may have an Action and Coke 5. Rep. Hurgots Case Submission to an Award so as it be delivered to either of the parties ought to be delivered to each of them 39 H. 6. 7. And all the Court did agree that each of them ought to inclose against his own Land only and so the breach was well assigned wherefore the Iudgment was well assigned wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Hilar. 13 Jac. Crawley against Marrow IN an Ejectment upon a Lease by Robert Faldoc dated the one and thirtieth day of August the thirteenth year of King James of two Houses two Orchards forty acres of Land ten of Meadow and fifty of Pasture in Bridgenorth Habendum from the tenth day of the said month for three years whereupon the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant the eighth of October in the same year did enter and eject him ad damnum c. Vpon not guilty pleaded The Iury found the Defendant not guilty for all except one House and five acres of Land and found further that before the said time the twentieth day of Decemb. 11 Eliz. Rowland Hayward Knight was seised in Fee of the said one house and five acres of Land and ten of Meadow and being so seised thereof did enfeoff John Day and Robert Marshall in Fee to the use of John Whitbrooke and Margaret his Wife in Taile the remainder to the right Heirs of John Whitbrooke and that the last of January 12 Eliz. John Whitbrooke did enter into a Recognizance of a thousand pounds in the Chancery to Richard Faldoe which money was not paid to Richard in his life time That John Whitbrooke and Margaret had issue John Whitbrooke Knight and after and before the fourteenth of January 8. Jacob. died and before the said day Richard Faldoe made his Will and did make Amphillis his Wife his Executor and died and Amphillis did make Robert Faldoe Esquire and Thomas Shepheard Knight her Executors and died who undertook the Executorship 14. Jan. 8. Jac. Robert Shepeard and Faldoe had a Scire facias to the Sheriff of Middlesex to have execution of the Recognizance whereupon John Whitbrook was returned dead whereupon they had a Scire facias against the Heir and the Ter-tenant whereupon John Whitbrook was returned Heir and Ter-tenant who pleaded that he had no Land that was the Conusors at the time of the Recognizance or ever since by hereditary descent from the Conuzor in Fee and said that he ought not to be charged as Ter-tenant because he hath no Freehold that was the Conusors The Plaintiff replyed that the said John Whitbrook had divers lands by descent from the said Conuzor viz. A house called the Hospitall thirty seven Tenements or Messuages five Cottages one Tost one Dove-house thirty nine Gardens six Barns fifty four acres of Land thirty nine of Meadow and thirty six of Pasture in Bridgnorth and that the said John Whitbrook was Tenant of the Premisses
of age or not 29 Assise 67. In an Assise against Husband and Wife the Husband did answer as Tenant and the Wife would not but the Husband said that his Wife was within age and that she was taken away but did not say by whom and he did appear for himself and his Wife as her Guardian and pleaded in Bar and one of the Counsell said that the Wife had made default which is the default of the Husband and because that he answered as Guardian without Warranty by Record in this Court to do the same Iudgment c. And there Thoâ—â— said that he ought to have a Warranty in such case wherefore the Assise was awarded 35 H. 8. 56. In a Writ of Right by the Husband and Wife the wife being within age and she appeared by her next of Kin and was admitted by the Court. New Book of Entries 256. In a writ of Error to reverse a Fine by Maurice Pierce and Joane his wife and John Pierce and Elizab. his wife the three first appeared in person and Elizabeth being within age by one Laurence Gibson her Guardian and admitted by the Court. And so in this Case forasmuch as the Land is the Inheritance of the wife which is demanded which she will lose by this Recovery she ought to appear by her Guardian notwithstanding the full age of the husband who is joyned only for form sake with his wife 30 31 Eli. Morseby against Charnock The husband and wife levied a Fine and after this was reversed by Error because that the wife was within age the husband shall not have the Land for all the Estate passeth from the wife and the husband joyned only for conformity Coke 2. Rep. Cromwels and Beckwiths Case But it may be objected also Object that this Error concerning the nonage of the wife is so appropriated to her person in privity that no stranger can take any advantage thereof I conceive not so Answer for the constituting of an Attorney is utterly void as to the wife and therefore every stranger shall take advantage there as is not like the Case where an Infant makes a Feoffment which is but voidable and therefore the Lord by escheat nor any stranger shall not avoid it 22 H. 6. 31. The Plaintiffs within age did sue by an Attorney and there it was ruled that the Defendants might have a Writ of Error and placit 37. Eliz. Rot. 253. Bartholomew brought a Writ of Error against Dighton for that Dighton recovered against him in an Action of false Imprisonment in which he being within age did sue by an Attorney and adjudged that Iudgment should be reversed And this Case is not to be resembled to the Case of a Fine levied by an Infant which cannot be reversed by any but by the Infant himself and the same Law is of a Recognizance by an Infant and the reason of these Cases is because it is the Act of the Court to admit him to levy a Fine or to acknowledge a Recognizance and therefore this ought to be reformed by the Court and that must be by inspection of the Infant and therefore it ought to be done during nonage But the nonage in this Case ought to be tryed per pais as it was adjudged in the said cases of Bartholomew and Dighton and the case of Hobbs in which case the Infant was brought to the Bar to be inspected but adjudged by the Court that it should not be so because the matter was tryable per pais and 10. Rep Mary Portingtons case A common Recovery against an Infant although he appears by his Guardian shall not bind him for an Infant hath not such a disposing power of his Land as the Husbands wife have but is utterly disabled by the Law to transfer or convey his Inheritance or Freehold to others during his minority And of late daies a common Recovery does appear to be a common conveyance and assurance of Land The third part of the Case is If the two matters pleaded in Bar of Part. 3 the Writ of Error or any of them be sufficient or not I conceive not And first as to the Fine with Proclamations levied before the Recovery had which is the Plea of Mary Taylor one of the Ter-tenants I conceive that it is utterly insufficient as well for the manner as the matter of the Plea for she hath disabled her self to plead this Plea for she sets forth that the twentieth of May 31 Eliz. Thomas Leigh and Katherine his wife did let to the said Mary a Cottage and three acres of Land parcell of the Tenements expressed in the Fine and Recovery for life but doth not shew in what Town the said Cottage and three acres do lye wherefore the Plea is altogether uncertaine and insufficient for the Tenements in the Recovery do lye in two Towns viz. In Alkington and Prestwick and it doth not appear by this Plea in which of these the Cottage and three acres do lye 5 Ed. 4. 116. b. In a Formedon in Discender of a house and forty acres of Land and six of Wood in three Towns and the Issue being to be tryed the Tenant said that the Demandant had entred into the house and thirty acres of Land and three of wood And by the Court the Plea was naught because it did not appear in which Town the Entry was And in Moore and Hoskins case in the Exchequer 8 Jacob. In an Ejectment of Land in Overkiddington and Netherkiddington the Defendant pleaded not guilty and when the Issue came to be tryed by Nisi prius in the County of Oxon the Defendant pleaded an Entry of the Plaintiff in three acres of the Land contained in the Declaration since the last Declaration whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged that the Plea was insufficient and thereupon the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Secondly for the matter this Fine being precedent to the Recovery whereby the cause of this Action is given cannot extinguish it for it is a Rule in Law that one cannot give or grant that which one hath not 22 H. 7. Kelway 84. If the eldest Son in the life-time of his Father infeoffs another it is void as to bind the Land and Littleton Releases 106. These words in a Release Quae quo vis modo in futuro habere potero are void in Law for no Right doth passe but only the Right which the Releasor had at the time of the Release as if the Son release to the Disseisor of his Father all the right which he hath or may have and the Father dye the Son may enter because that he had no right in the life of his Father but only a descent to him after the Release by the death of his Father 13 Ed. 1. 10 Ed. 2. and 4 H. 7. cap. 24. It is enacted that Fines with Proclamations shall conclude as well Privies as Strangers saving to the strangers such right claim and interest as they had at the time ingrossed so as they
way Cum sepibus Januis and did not say praedict so that it might not be of the same Gates in the Declaration and that is there said to be a fault incurable And although we are not in the nature of a Plea in our case but of a speciall Verdict yet as I have shewed before that is all one where it wanteth matter of substance Thirdly the Confirmation is utterly defeated and avoided by the Remitter to Sir Richard Knightley and therefore the Fine cannot revive it 14. Assise 3. Tenant in Taile doth charge the Land and dies and the Issue does enfeoff a stranger he shall hold the Land discharged because the Land was once discharged by his Entry and so shall the Issue do that re-purchaseth the Land 19 Ed. 3. Resceit 112. Tenant in tail acknowledgeth a Statute and dies and the Issue enfeoffs a stranger against whom the Conusee sues out execution and adjudged there good but yet it was denyed in 11 H. 6. 26. b. by Paston and Comment 437. Smith and Stappletons case And Trin. 15 Jac. This Case was argued by Sir Tho. Coventry the Kings Solicitor for the Plaintiff by Sir Hen. Yelverton the Kings Attorney for the Defendant And Hil. 15. Jac. by Serjeant Chidborn for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Harvy for the Defendant And Pasch 16. Jac. without any argument by the Iudges agreed for the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment Judgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Mich. 14 Jac. Ashfeild against Wrendford IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment given in the Common Pleas for the now Defendant against the Plaintiff in an Action of Debt upon a Bond of two hundred Marks made the first of October 9 Jac. In which the now Plaintiff then Defendant did plead that Gregory Havard was possessed of five Cowes thirteen Sheep and of certain Hay Wheat Rye Pease Barley Oates and Fetches not Threshed And some speech being had between the said Gregory and one John Ashfeild for the buying thereof whereupon the said Gregory did affirm the same to be twenty Loads of Hay thirty of Wheat a hundred of Rye c. whereupon before the making of the Bond viz. the last of September the 9 Jacob. It was agreed between the said Gregory and the said John that the said John should pay for the said goods seventy five pounds and that a Bond should be made in which should be contained that the said now Plaintiff with the said John Sturet were bound to Cuidam Edward Wrensford in two hundred Marks upon condition for the payment of the said seventy five pounds which writing was to be delivered to the said Gregory as a Schedule to be kept upon condition that the said Gregory before the said day of payment should go to the house of the said John in Pixley to account with him for the said Goods and if thereupon any of the said Goods should be wanting if the said Gregory shall be content to make the same up that then the Writing should be delivered to the said Edmund otherwise it should remain as a Schedule whereupon the said Writing mentioned in the Declaration was made and sealed and delivered to the said Gregory upon condition aforesaid And after the measuring of the Hay there wanted eight Loads c. and the said Gregory did not come to the House of the said John c. And so pleaded it was not his Deed. And found for the Defendant c. And I conceive that Judgment ought to be reversed For Cuidam Edward Wrensford cannot be intended the Plaintiff in the first Action but a stranger of that name as in Dyer 5 Ed. 6. Case of Isham and Wither And then the aforesaid Edward to whom the Obligation is made and who joyned Issue and appeared at the tryall and at the return of the Postea and for whom Judgment was given ought to be referred to Cuidam Edward Wrensford whereof mention is last made in the Plea and not to the Plaintiff in the Action and so Issue is joyned by a stranger and Judgment given for him and not for the Plaintiff Judgment confirm'd But all the Court held that the Issue shall be intended to be joyned by the Plaintiff himself and upon the Bond whereon the Declaration is made wherefore Judgment was affirmed c. Hil. 14 Jac. Newsham against Carew Knight In the Exchequer IN an Ejectment the Case was this A Bishop makes a Lease of a Rectory to I.S. for 21. years and dies the Successor before the Statute 1 Eliz makes a Lease of this to I. N. habend from the 20. Decemb. 1. Eliz. being the day of the date for 56. years from thence next ensuing the end of the Lease to I S. and dies and the 56. years are expired from the 20. of Decemb. 1 Eliz. And if this second Lease be ended or not is the Question And I conceive that the Lease shall begin from the 20 of December and so it is ended before the Lease made to I. S. For the argument of which case the true sence and meaning of this ill pen'd Habendum is to be considered for thereupon all the difficulty of this case doth depend and as to that I conceive there are but four ways to expound this Habendum and if it be taken in any of these constructions this Lease shall begin by computation from the 20 of December 1 Elizab. and so shall end the 20 of December 12 Jacob. which is before the Lease made to the Lessor of the Plaintiff And the first way is to observe the first part of the Habendum scil from the 20 day of December then next following to be onely material and good and the last part being repugnant thereto is voyd The second way is to take the first words of the limitation of the begining of the Estate to be voyd and the last words scil next following the determination and end of the term of I. S. c. to be good The third way is to construe as well the first as the last words of the Commencement to be voyd by reason of the direct repugnancy in them And the fourth and last construction is to make such construction as all these words by a reasonable exposition may agree together And according to any three of these constructions viz. the first the third or the fourth it is apparent that the Lease to I. N. under whom the Defendant claims did end the 20 of December 12 Jacob. which was before the entry of Anthony Rudd the last Bishop and the Lease made to the Lessor of the Plaintiff and then this Lease is good and therefore my endeavor is to prove that this Habendum ought to be taken in any of these three ways viz. the first third or fourth and to disprove that it cannot be taken in the second way For the argument whereof I shall speak to the first and second together for that that I will speak of the first will be a manifest
a Lease for four years the Lessee entred and the Lessor did grant the Land habendum from Midsomer next for life the Lesses after Midsomer did attorn and adjudged that the Grant was void and in Barkwicks Case 5 Rep. the reason thereof is given because that if the Grant should be good the Grantor should have a particular Estate scil during the first day of the date or in the mean time untill the Grant did begin to take effect without any Donor or Lessor which is against the Rules of Law And although this Grant of the Reversion be but for years yet is it all one for the diversity is between a Lease for years made Tenant in Fee or for life to commence in future and a grant of a Reversion for in the first Case it is but a future Charge upon the Land so that the Lessor hath his former Estate untill the Lease doth begin and the Lessee hath no Term but only interesse termin and therefore Hil. 38. Eliz in the Common Pleas between Row and White it was agreed that if the Lessor be disseised before the Lease begins the Lessee after the day of the Commencement may grant the term otherwise where a Lessee for yeares in possession is outed by an estranger for there his Term is turned into a Right but in the first Case he hath not any Term in esse and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right nor any wrong done thereunto And for direct Authorities in this Case 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas the Countesse of Kents Case Where one having a Reversion in Fee does grant this Habendum after the death of I. S. for years and it was adjudged a void Grant And Trin. 39 Eliz. Johnson and Somerset in the Common Pleas Lessee for life grants the Reversion Habendum a die dat for ten years and adjudged a void Grant And in the Comment 155. by Brown If one having a Reversion does grant it habendum after a day to come for years this is a void Grant for if it may be granted from a day to come the Grantor shall have a particular Estate in the mean time by his own making which cannot be that one may be Lessor to himself or diminish his own Estate and there it is taken for a Rule that when there is a Rent in Esse or a Reversion c. a man cannot make this to be in esse for a time and to cease for another time or to grant it to another after the death of any or from a day to come relinquishing to himself an Estate in the mean time And in the Comment 197. b. Adams against Wortesbey agreed there that a Reversion cannot passe as a Reversion according to the common understanding thereof from a day to come But Haughton conceived that this Case being a bargain and sale whereby the use doth passe first this may well passe from a day to come Quod nullus dedixit Thirdly It is not averred that the twenty acres in which the Distresse was taken was not part of the Closes excepted so that it may be part of them and then no Distresse for the Rent can be taken there And although it may be gathered by some words in the Bar to the Avowry that the place where c. was parcell of the Land devised to Wiseman yet this shall not help the Conusans as in Cokes 7. Rep. fol. 24 25. where one having Land in Fee and another Land for years did grant a Rent for life out of both the Grantee distrained for the Rent and avowed that the Rent was granted out of the Lease land amongst other lands whereas he ought to have alledged the Rent to be granted out of the Land in Fee only and although the Plaintiff in his Bar to the Avowry hath shewed the truth of the Case yet this will not make the Avowry which wants substance to be good Judgment And all the Court did agree the Avowry to be naught for this exception Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Replevin Mich. 14 Jac. Webb and Jucks Case against Worfeild Rot. 266. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas for the now Defendant against the now Plaintiffs In which the Plaintiff did declare that the Defendants the fourteenth of Febr. 9 Jac. at Ponick in a place called Brancefords Court did take an Oxe from the Plaintiff ad damnum forty pounds The Defendants did acknowledge the taking of the said Oxe as Bayliffs to Elizabeth Ligon Widow for that the place where c. contained two acres of Land and that one Anne Ligon was seised in Fee of the Scite of the Mannor of Bransford and of seven Messuages three Gardens and a hundred and fifty acres of Land forty two of Meadow sixty six of Pasture five of Wood and seventy of Furzes and Heath in Ponick aforesaid Bransford Leigh Newland and Wick whereof the place where c. is parcell That the sixth of September the twenty fourth of H 8. Anne Ligon did devise this to John Parsons and Anne his Daughter for seventy years after the death of Elizabeth his wife if they or either of them shall so long live rendring five pounds four shillings eight pence Rent at the Annunciation Christmas Midsummer and Michaelmas That the eleventh of August 1554. Elizabeth Parsons died whereupon John and Anne Parsons entred And Ligon dies whereby the Reversion descended to Sir Rich. Ligon her Son and Heir and Sir Richard died wherby the same descended to William Ligon his Son and Heir who died also whereby the same descended to Richard Ligon his Son and Heir who died also and the same descended to Sir Richard Ligon his Son and heire who Hil. 33 Eliz. did levy a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Elizabeth Ligon then his Wife for life the Remainder to the Heirs of the body of Sir William the Remainder to the right Heires of Sir William 10 May 4. Jac. John Parsons died Pasch 6 Jac. Sir William Ligon and Elizabeth his wife did levy a Fine to the Plaintiff to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of Sir William the Remainder to the said Elizabeth for her life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee Sir William dies whereby the Reversion does remain to Elizabeth his Wife And for seventy eight pounds six pence of the said Rent for three quarters of a year ending at Christmas 9 Jacob. they did acknowledge c. and they averred the lives of the said Elizabeth Ligon and the said Anne Parsons Bar. The Plaintiff said that the Fine levied by Sir William and Elizabeth his wife was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs and justified the putting in of the said Oxe by the license of the said Anne Parsons Absque hoc that the said Fine was to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of
in Bar to wit the Fine with proclamations pleaded by Mary Taylor and the warranty pleaded by Robert Leigh and 28 others of the Ter-tenants or by any of these pleas or not And as to the first If he in remainder depending upon an estate in Tayl may maintain a Writ of Error to reverse a Recovery against the first Tenant in Tayl after his death without issue And I conceive clearly that he in the remainder shall have a Writ of Error for the Writ of Error doth always pursue the nature of the Land and not the privity of the blood And therefore 5 H. 8. the Writ of Error shall go with the Land and therefore the Heir in special tayl shall have it although there be another Heir at the Common-Law And so in Fitz Herb. N. B. 21 K. He who is Heir to the Land that is lost shall have a Writ of Error and not the Heir at Common-Law as if Land in Borough-English be lost by erroneous Iudgment the younger Son shall have a Writ of Error and 3 H. 4. 19. The Heir in special tail shal have the Writ of Error although there be another Heir at the Common Law And 1 Mariae Dyer 90. Verneys Case The Writ of Error shall be brought by him who had the thing whereon erroneous Iudgment was given And as the especial Heir shall have the Writ of Error so shall he also in remainder or reversion upon an Estate for life after the death of the Tenant for life 4 H. 8. 21 H. 6. 29. But the sole Objection that hath any coulor against this was Object that this Writ of Error ought to be given to him in remainder by the Common-Law for it is not given by the Statâ—te of the 9th of Rich. 2. and then there can be no remainder upon an Estate tail at the Common-Law and therefore he in such remainder cannot have any Writ of Error But this is easily answered for the Common-Law being Answer that when an erroneous Recovery is had against a pâ—rticular Tenant that he in the Reversion or Remainder shall have a Writ of Error after the determination of the particular Estate it follows that when this new particular Estate is made by the Statute of Westm 2. he in the remainder shall have the same remedy And this is proved by the case of the Tenant in Tayl for although that his Estate was not at the Common-Law yet now he shall have all Actions which the Common-Law gives to a Tenant in fee which may stand with his Estate and therefore he shall have a Writ of Escheat a Quod permittat Nat. B. 124. 4 Ed. 5. 48. Nat. B. 212. and so he shall have an Assize and many other Writs which lie for a Tenant in fee at the Common-Law And for Authorities in this point Dyer 188. That he in the remainder after the Estate-tail spent shall have a Writ of Error and so is it in Dyer 40. in Verneys Case And in the 3 Rep. fol. 3. B. if is resolved that he who hath a remainder expectant upon an Estate in Tayl shall have a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given against the Tenant in Tayl although there were no such remainder at the Common-Law for when the Statute de Donis Conditionalibus does enable the Donor to limit a remainder upon the Estate-tail all actions which the Common-Law doth give to the privies in Estate are by the same act as incidents tacitly given also according to the rule of the Common-Law and therefore as he in Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate for life shall have a Writ of Error by the Common-Law upon a Iudgment given against a Tenant for life although that they were not parties by Hyde Pryer Voucher c. so since the Statute de Donis conditionalibus shall he have who hath a Reversion or Remainder expectant upon an Estate in Tayl. And therefore I conceive the Writ of Error is good notwithstanding that Objection But now it is to be considered if this Plea of non-tenure shall avoyd the Writ of Error and I conceive it will not for three Reasons 1. I conceive that it is no plea to abate the Writ for the Plaintiffs might have reversed the Recovery against the Lessors of the Reversion onely without having made the Ter-tenants parties for the Writ of Error being grounded upon the Recovery does always lie against the parties to the Iudgment and their Heirs and may be reversed against them although they have nothing in the Land and this is clear by Nat. Brev. 107. and 26 Assis 12. A Writ of Error does lie against him who recovers and after the Error found a Scire facias shall issue against the Tenant and 42 Assis 22. and 44 Ed. 3. and 10 Ed. 4. 13. Non-tenure is no plea in a Writ of Error for the party to the Iudgment or his Heir And here in this case if those who have pleaded Non-tenure are not Tenants they are at no loss for they can lose nothing but this plea does discharge themselves onely and the Scire facias remains good against the Heirs and the other Ter-tenants 2. If Non-tenure could be a good Plea for the Ter-tenants in a Scire facias yet at the least it ought to be in such a Scire facias wherein the Ter-tenants are named and not in such a general Writ as this is For here the Plaintiffs have pursued their Scire facias in as good a form as may be viz. generally against the Heirs and the Ter-tenants and if there be any default it is in the Sheriff who hath returned those to be Tenants who indeed are not so and it shall be very hard if the Writ should abate for default of the Sheriff 20 Ed. 3. Scir facias 121. In a Scire facias on a Recognizance against the Ter-tenants it was said that one of them that ware warned had but a Lease for years of such a one who had the Freehold Iudgment of the Writ c. And there Birton said That the Sheriff had a general command to warn the Ter-tenants wherefore this is no Plea to the Writ And Hill and Wilby answered that it was otherwise for that the Plaintiffs at their peril should name the Ter-tenants in their Writ whereupon there was a new Writ Whereupon I observe that if the Writ be special naming the Ter-tenants as it was anciently then it ought to be so but of late such course hath been changed as appears by the 8 of H. 4. 18. and the Writ awarded generally and therefore such special Non-tenure shall be a good Plea for it is the default of the Plaintiff to pursue his Writ against one who is not Tenant but when the Writ is general Non-tenure is no Plea to the abatement of the Writ 48 Ed. 3 15. 8 H. 18. 48 Assis 2. and the 2 H. 4. 18. B. In a Writ of Account against the Sheriff of Northumberland of a Receit in Newcastle upon Tine and it was pleaded that Newcastle was
Sir William the Remainder to the said Elizabeth for life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee as the Defendants alledged and so they were at Issue And the Iury found the Lease and the descent of the Reversion and the Fine 33 Eliz. and the use and the death of John Parsons ut supra And that the one and twentieth of September 5 Jac. Sir William Ligon and Elizabeth his wife did make a Deed of Indenture of the said Tenements in these words This Indenture made c. between them of the one part and the Plaintiff on the other part whereby Sir William for seven hundred pounds before the ensealing and delivery paid to Sir William by the Plaintiff did covenant that he and Sir William before Christmas next should levy to the Plaintiff a Fine with Proclamations of the said Tenements which Fine and all Fines and Assurances to be had within seven years should be to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs upon Condition that if Sir William and Elizabeth or any of them or the Heirs or Assigns of Sir William should pay to the Plaintiff or his Assigns nine hundred forty three pounds at the Annunciation 1611. that the Estate of the Plaintiff should cease and that Sir William and Elizabeth and his Heirs should enter and the Fine should be to the use of Sir William and Elizabeth and the heirs of Sir William And Sir William covenanted with the Plaintiff that he and his Heirs untill the nine hundred forty three pounds be to be paid should have and enjoy to their use under the said Condition and according to the meaning of the said Indenture and if default of payment should be made then after such default the Premisses and the Rents and Profits thereof if such default should be shall be taken and enjoyed to their use without any interruption of Sir William and Elizabeth c. and discharged and saved harmlesse of all Incumbrances c. made by Sir William c. except the said Lease and Sir William covenanted that if the nine hundred forty three pounds should be paid to pay to the Plaintiff the charge of the assurance Pasch 5 Jac. The Fine was levied by Sir William and his wife to the Plaintiff and they found that the sixteenth of April 6 Jac. the Conusance of the Fine was made at M. in the County of Wilts and that after the said Conusance and before the said fifth of September Pasch 20. Martii 5 Jac. the said Sir William made another Indenture between him and his wife of the one part and the Plaintiff of the other part whereby Sir William and Elizabeth for seven hundred pounds before paid to them by the Plaintiff Sir William and Elizabeth did bargain sell and grant to the Plaintiff and his heirs the said Tenements upon the like Condition as aforesaid and Sir William did covenant that he and his wife should make a further assurance by Fine c. and that all such assurances should be to the Plaintiff and his Heirs under the said Condition untill default of payment and after such default to the use of the Plaintiff and his heirs absolutely and if payment be made to the use of Sir William and Elizabeth and the heirs of Sir William and the Plaintiff did covenant that Sir William and Elizabeth and their heirs untill the Annunciation 1611. should have all the Rents and Profits of the Premisses without interruption of the Plaintiff or his heirs That the eighth of December 6 Jac. Sir William Ligon died after whose death scil the aforesaid time quo c. the Defendants as Bayliffs to Elizabeth did take the said Oxe in the said place for the said seventy eight pounds six pence of the said Rent for three quarters ending at Christmas 9 Jac. But whether the Distresse was well or not they prayed the advice of the Court c. And upon this Verdict it was adjudged in the Common Pleas after many Arguments that the Plaintiff should recover For all the Iustices did agree that the said Fine was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs whereupon the Defendant brought this Writ of Error and assigned the Error in the point of Iudgment only And it was objected by the Councell of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error that that it was apparent upon this assurance that it was made for the assurance of the payment of seven hundred pounds lent by the Plaintiff to Sir William and Sir William was to repay nine hundred forty three pounds which was full Interest according to the rate of ten in the hundred and then by the expresse Covenant in the first Indenture the Defendant in the Writ of Error was to have the Rents and Profits of the Land also whereby Worfeild should have more then ten pounds in the hundred and then the assurance is void by the Statute of Vsury then although by the last Indenture it is provided that Sir William and his wife should have the Rents and Profits untill the day of payment yet this shall not bind the wife for it is found expresly that she did disagree to this Indenture But I conceive that the Distresse was not well taken but that the Fine was to the use of William Worfeild and his heirs and so the Rent belonged to him And first as to the Objection that the assurance is void by reason of the Statute of Vsury that cannot be 1. Because it was not found that there was any lone of mony or usurious Contract and therefore it may be and so it shall be intended that the seven hundred pounds was paid bona fide after the purchase of this conditionall Estate made to William Worfeild 2. The Consideration is for seven hundred pounds paid before the ensealing and delivery of the Indenture so that if it be admitted that the seven hundred pounds was lent as Interest yet it may be that this was tent so long before the making of the Indenture that the nine hundred forty three pounds to be paid with the Profits of the Land does not exceed the principall debt according to the rate of ten pounds in the hundred And that Vsury shall not be intended without it be expresly found by the Iury vide Coke 10. Rep. the Case of the Chancellor of Oxford fol. 56. Covin shall not be intended or presumed in Law unlesse that it be expresly averred and so was it agreed in the Case between Tyrer and Littleton in the Common Pleas for the taking of an Oxe The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found that Thomas Tyrer held certain Land of John Littleton by Rent and Herriot and the 42 of Eliz. did enfeoff John Tyrer his Son and heir who made a Lease to Thomas Tyrer for forty years if he should so long live to the intent that Joyce whom he intended to marry should not have her Dower during his life Thomas died possessed of the Oxe and the Defendant took it for a Herriot And they found
the Parsons Chancel in the said Church and also whereas on the said day and time out of minde there were divers Seats in the said little Chancel and that the Plaintiff and those whose Estate he hath time out of minde have repaired at their charges the said little Chancel and the Seats from time to time as often as was needful and by reason thereof the Plaintiff and all those whose Estate he hath have for all the said time aforesaid onely power liberty and priviledg to sit in any of the said Seats in the said little Chancel to hear Divine Service in the said Church and also to bury the dead bodies of any person whatsoever in the said Chancel at the pleasure of the Plaintiff and those whose Estate he hath and for all the said time have made convenient Graves in the said Chancel for the said bodies at their will and pleasure And that no other person from any time since the memory of man have used to sit in any of the said Seats or to bury any dead bodies in the said Chancel without License of the Plaintiff or those whose Estate he hath Nevertheless the Defendants intending to dis-inherit the Plaintiff and to hinder and deprive him of the said liberty the said day and from thence until the first of May 18 Jacobi at Petworth aforesaid Praedictum Henricum ad sedendum in sedibus in Cancellula praedicta tunc existentem ad intrandum in Cancellulam praedictam ad Divina Servitia in praedicta Ecclesia de Petworth celebrata audiendum fraudulenter malitiose impediverunt per quod idem Henricus Dawtrey in Cancellula praedicta intrare vel in eisdem sedibus ad Divina Servitia in eadem Ecclesia durante tempore illo celebrata audiendum per totum idem tempus sedere non potuit ad damnum 40 l. The Defendants plead That Henry Earl of Northumberland the fifth of July and long before and always after until now hath been and yet is seised in fee of the Honor of Petworth and of the said little Chancel as parcel of the said Honor and that the Defendants as servants to the said Earl lived in the said Honor and by the said Earls command the said fifth day of July and for divers other days and times between the said fifth day of July and the first of May as often as Divine Service was celebrated in the said Church did sit in the said seats at the celebration of Divine Service which are the Impediments the Plaintiff did complain of To which the Plaintiff demurred 1. In this case it was argued for the Defendants That the Declaration was not good because that the Plaintiff did not set forth the manner of the Disturbance whereupon issue might be taken thereupon but onely declares that the Defendants did hinder him from sitting in the Seats or to enter into the Chancel which allegation is too general to take any certain issue upon And so in the 10 Ed 3. 39 A and B. where one lets Land for twelve years and for security of the term makes a Charter of Feoffment upon condition that if the Lessee was disturbed within the term that he should hold the Estate to him and his heirs And all this matter was found by the Recognitors in an Assise upon the general issue and that the Lessee was disturbed And this Verdict was adjudged insufficient because they did not finde how the disturbance was made Vid. 8 Rep. Francis Case and the Commentaries 84. Stranges Case That every Declaration ought to have such certainty as the Defendant may know what matter to make answer unto Vid. Comment 202. ad 3 H. 7. 12. Return of a Rescous ought to be certain to every intent for that is in nature of a Declaration And in the 22 Ed. 4. 47. Trespass for divers trespasses is not good because of the incertainty 2. Admitting the Declaration is good It seemeth that the Plea in Bar is good because the Defendants have made a good Iustification viz. That the Chancel is the Earls Inheritance and that they did sit there by his commandment for although it might be true that a Liberty to sit and to bury there yet he cannot restrain the owner of the soyl from the usage of it As if one hath Common in the Land of another or a Way or other Easment yet he cannot for these things restrain the owner of the Land from making use of it 21 H. 7. 39. If the Defendant in a Trespass Quare clausum fregit the first of May does justifie the second of May which was the same Trespass this is a good Plea because it may be the same Trespass because the day is not material And 3 H. 6. 12. in a Trespass for entry into his Warren the Defendant pleaded that it was his Franktenement and adjudged a good Plea as to the entry because he cannot enter into his own Land vi armis but he was put to plead further as to the Chasing 21 H. 6. 26. In a Trespass for Battery in L the Defendant justified for keeping his possession in S which is the same Trespass and adjudged a good Plea without Travers because it is Transitory But the Court agreed the Declaration was good and particular enough as in a Quare Impedit Judicium The Plaintiff did alledg generally that the Defendant hindered him to present and that was good And all the Iudges agreed that the Plea in Bar was utterly insufficient for one cannot have the Free-hold of a Church or any part thereof And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Davison against Culier In the City of Norwich THe Plaintiff at the Sessions of Peace held at Norwich 16 Jacobi did inform for the King and himself That the Defendant being a Grocer the first of September then last past at Norwich did Ingross and get into his hands by buying contract or promise of divers persons unknown 400 Quarters of Wheat each Quarter at the price of 40 s. to the intent to sell the same again contrary to the form of the said Statute Wherefore he prayed that the Defendant might forfeit the value of the Corn and that he might have half the value c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty The Iury finde that 5 Ed. 6. it was Enacted That every person who after the first of May thence next ensuing shall get into their hands by buying contract or promise c. otherwise then by Devise Grant or Lease of Land or Title any Corn growing in fields or any other grain butter c. or dead victuals to the intent to sell them again shall be taken to be an Ingrosser and for the first offence shall be imprisoned two months without Bayl and shall forfeit the value of the things ingrossed And as to 380 Quarters of the said Wheat they found the Defendant not guilty and as to the twenty Quarters residue they found that the Defendant the first of September 10 Jacobi and continuing after till the
tenth of August next following at the said City did use the art and trade of Starch-making and that he the 21 of September 15 Jacobi did get into his hands by buying and not by Devise Grant or Lease twenty Quarters of Wheat residue of the said 400 Quarters to the intent to convert the same into Starch and the 20 October in the same year did convert the same into Starch and the 26 of October did sell the same to several persons and that every one of the said Quarters at the 21 of September was of price 36 s. But whether the Defendant were guilty of the Ingrossing aforesaid according to the form of the Statute the Iury knew not and therefore desired the Opinion of the Court but if otherwise c. And this Record was removed into the Kings-Bench by a Certiorare Judicium And Iudgment was given against the King and the Informer Moor against Sir George Reynel Marshal of the Marshalsee IN an Action of the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares That he the 15 Jacobi did recover in the Common-Pleas 240 l. Debt against one Gilbert Alsop and 20 l. damages and that the Plaintiff in execution of the said Debt did prosecute the said Gilbert by several Iudicial Writs issuing out of the said Court. And that he by a Writ of Exigi Facias issuing out of the said Court the next Term after the said Iudgment directed to the Sheriff of the City of Exceter and Returnable before the said Iustices Quindena Martini that the said Gilbert the 28 Octob. 15 Jacobi was Out-lawed in the said City at the Suit of the Plaintiff in the Plea of Debt aforesaid unde tunc convictus fuit c. That Michaelmas 15 Jacobi the Plaintiff took out of the said Court a Capias ut lagatum against the Defendant then to the said Sheriff directed returnable Octabis Purificationis That the 8 Octob. 15 Jacobi the said Writ was delivered to the said Sheriff That the 20 January 15 Jacobi the Sheriff took the said Gilbert and held him in his Custody That the 23 Januarii 15 Jacobi a Habeas Corpus was awarded to have the Dâ—â—â—ndâ—nt cum causa c. Lunae proxim post crastinam purificationis At which day he came to the said Court in the Custody of the said Sheriff who returned the said Writ That the twelfth of February the Defendant was committed by the said Court to the Marshalsey the Defendant then and yet being Marshall nevertheless the Defendant the thirteenth of April 18. Jacobi at Westminster did suffer the said Gilbert to escape against the will of the Plaintiff he being unsatisfied his said Debt and damages whereupon the said Plaintiff hath lost his said Debt and damages ad damnum 300 l. The Defendant pleaded that the said Gilbert was committed to him by vertue of the said Writ but said further that he remained in his Custody from the aforesaid twelfth of Febr. untill the twenty seventh of Febr. the 16. Jac. during all which time the Plaintiff never prayed to have the said Gilbert in execution neither was the said Gilbert ever committed at the request of the Plaintiff to the Marshalsey in execution for the said debt and damages And pleaded further that the twenty seventh of Febr. 16. Jac. the said Gilbert did escape against the will of the Defendant which is the same escape whereon the Plaintiff doth declare Upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demur Bridgman for the Plaintiff I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for when the Defendant Alsop in the first Action was taken by the Capias utlagatum after Iudgment he was in execution for the Plaintiff Vide Cokes Rep. Vernons Case for in asmuch as the King by the originall Suit of the party is entitled to have all the Goods and Chattels and the Profits of the Land with his body also by reason of the Outlawry it is good reason that if the Defendant be taken at the Suit of the King that as the King shal have benefit by the suit of the party so the party should have some benefit by the suit of the King Resolved by the Court that when he was taken by the Capias utlagatum issuing out of the Kings Bench he shall be in execution for the Plaintiff presently after the Arrest if the Plaintiff will although his body was never brought into the Court and although the Court did not commit him in execution for the party Note that in all Cases when the Defendant may have a Capias ad satisfaciendum and the party Defendant is taken by a Capias pro fine there the Defendant is in execution presently if the Plaintiff wil without any Prayer of the party but when the Plaintiff hath Iudgment and le ts pass his time so that he cannot presently neither by Capias nor by Fieri facias but is driven to his Scire facias there if the Defendant be taken by a Capias pro fine the Plaintiff must pray that he may remain in execution for him but this cannot be done without such Prayer Vide 5. Rep. Frosts Case 22. Assise 74. If one condemned for a Disseisin with force or fees be taken for the Fine yet he shall not go at large if the party prayes that he may remain for his execution and in 11. H. 7. 15 when the party may have execution without a Scire facias the execution for the King shall be prayed for the party and it is not materiall whether there were a Capias in the Originall but otherwise if it be after a year 2. Rich. 3. If one be taken for a fine to the King within the year and the King pardons him yet he may remain for the party And so in this Case I conceive that Gilbert was in execution for the party and if he was not yet the Plaintiff hath proved him in execution from whence he escaped by the default of the Defendant so this Action doth well lye Also the Plaintiff doth charge the Defendant with an escape 13. April 18. Jacobi and the Defendant pleads an escape the 27. Febr. 16. Jacobi which was a year and two daies before the escape alledged by the Plaintiff to which the Defendant hath made no answer and although he concludes that it was the same escape which makes the plea good where the time is not materiall yet it is not in this case for here it is admitted by the Defendant that the Plaintiff might have prayed him in execution so long as he remained in prison but it may be he made his prayer afterwards viz. between the 27. Febr. 16. Jac. and the 13. April 18. Jac. as it may very well be in this case and then the averment of the Defendant is nothing to the purpose Also the Defendant saith that he remained in Prison from the twelfth of February 15. untill the seven and twentieth of February 16. Jacobi during which time the Plaintiff did not pray him in execution in which case
the day is excluded by this word Quousque Crook contra Who said that the Declaration was insufficient for it ought to have been Tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso because here is a contempt to the King But upon full debate of the Case and upon shewing a President to the Court which was Plt. Jacobi Rot. 308. in the Common Pleas between King and Monlenax where the Declaration was for the party onely and all the Prothonotaries did certifie the Court that the greater part of Presidents of such Actions brought in the Common Pleas were for the party only and not Tam pro Domino Rege quam seipso whereupon it was adjudged that it was good either way Judicium and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And note that in this case the Iudgment was Quod Defendans sit in misericordia and not Quod capiatur vide 27. Assise 11. 42. Assise 17. Dyer 238. 40 41. Eliz. New Book of Entries 44 45. Bassett against Jefiock and Johnson IN an Ejectione the Iury gave a speciall Verdict to this effect That Queen Elizabeth was seised in fee in Jure coronae of the Mannor of Watton in the County of York and that King James the 15. Martii 2. Jac. did grant the same to William Brown and Robert Knight and their Heirs who the twenty seventh of April 3. Jac. did bargaine and sell the same to Michael Feilding and his heirs who entred and died seised and after whose death the same descended to Basill Feilding as his Brother who made a Lease to the Plaintiff Bridgman It seemeth to me that the Plaintiff hath made a good Title But it was objected that there was no good Title for that it is not found that the Queen died seised or that the Lands descended to the King But it was answered that when the Queen was seised in Fee in Jure Coronae that shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed for when an Estate of Inheritance is once alledged it shall be intended still to continue till the contrary be shewn Plow Com. 193. 43 1. and 202. Judicium And afterwards viz. 19. Jacobi Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without any argument at the Bench. Trin. 19. Jac. Samborne against Harilo IN an Action of Trespasse for that the Defendant 10. Octob. 44. Eliz the Plaintiffs free Warren at Mouldford in certain places there called Harecombe Harcombe Coppice and the Down did break and enter and did therein hunt without the license of the Plaintiff and three Hares and three hundred Conies did take and carry away Continuando as to the said Hunting and taking and carrying away the said Hares and Conies from the said tenth day of October to the first of November And further declared that the tenth of April 1. Jac. the Defendant the said Warren in the said places did break and enter and therein without the license of the Plaintiff did hunt and twenty Hares did take and carry away continuing the said hunting untill the first of March next after c. And further declared that the tenth of April 2. Jac. the said Defendant the said Warren in the said places did break and enter and therein without the license of the Plaintiff did hunt and forty Hares and four hundred Conies did take and carry away continuing the said hunting untill the first of March following contra pacem c. ad damnum c. The Defendant as to the Vi armis and to the first Trespasse except the entring and hunting in the said place called the Down and the taking and carrying away the three hundred Conies pleaded not guilty And as to the entry hunting and carrying away the said Conies he saith that the said place called the Down is and hath been time out of mind Communis fundus containing by estimation two hundred acres of Land and Pasture and that before the said tenth day of September and before the said Trespasse and at the said time the Defendant was seised of a Messuage and six Yard Land containing a hundred and sixty acres called the Mannor of Southbery in Mulford aforesaid and that the Defendant and all those whose estate he hath in the premisses time out of mind have had Common of Pasture in the said Down for 200. and 40. Sheep Levant and Couchant upon the said Messuage and six Yard Land and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. have used for preservation of the said Common as often as the said Common hath been oppressed and troubled with Conies have used of custome to have liberty to hunt and to take the Conies wherefore the Defendant the aforesaid time of the aforesaid first Trespasse and for preservation of the said Common from such oppression and diminution aforesaid into the said Down did enter and there hunted and the said Conies did take and carry away according to the said custome and continuing the said hunting all the said time And as to the second Trespasse besides the entry and hunting in the said places called Harecombe Harecombe Coppice and the Down and the taking and carrying away two hundred Conies he pleaded not guilty And as to the entry and hunting in the said places c. he saith that the said places called Harecombe and Harecombe Coppice are Woodland containing by estimation ten acres and that he was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and six Yard Land and made the same prescription as aforesaid for all his Horses Cowes Heifers Bullocks and two hundred and forty Sheep levant and couchant upon the said Tenements viz. for the Horses Cowes c. at the Feast of S. George and from that time untill the Corne growing in the Feilds of Moulford were carried away and after the Corne carried away for the Sheep untill the fourth of March next after and made the former prescription for the Sheep in the Down And the same prescription also for hunting and taking away the Conies as abovesaid and so did justifie the taking of the said two hundred Conies And as to the third Trespasse besides the entry and hunting in the said places and the taking and carrying away of the said four hundred Conies he pleaded not guilty and as to this plea he made the same prescription as before upon which plea the Plaintiff demurred in Law And if this matter pleaded in Bar was sufficient to bar the plaintiff of his Action was the question And it seemeth to me that there is nothing in the Defendants plea to hinder the Plaintiff from having Iudgment And the better to argue upon this matter I will first endeavour to shew what interest a Commoner hath in the Soile and what things he may do upon the Soile for preservation of the said Common 2. Whether this be a good usage and custome to enable the Defendant to hunt and kill Conies in the Plaintiffs free Warren And as to the first I conceive that he that hath Common in
173. Judicium And after many arguments in this Case Hillar 20 Jacob. the Court agreed that the Demise was good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Periman against Pierce and Margaret his Wife TEnant in Socage had issue by his first Wife Joan Elizabeth and Agnes and Alice and Elizabeth by his second Wife Katherine Mary William and Joan by his third Wife and by his Will did Devise his Land to Joan the younger for her life rendering 13 s. 4 d. Rent to William the remainder to William in Tayl the remainder to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder propinquo sanguinitatis of the Devisor for ever William dyes without issue Joan the younger dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue William Stokes and dyes Mary had issue William Pierce and dyes Joan the elder dyes having issue John Periman and William Periman Agnes and Alice dye without issue John Periman had issue John Periman the Lessor and dyes Elizabeth and Mary dye Katherine dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue George Dean and John Dean Elizabeth deviseth her Land to John Dean and his Heirs and dyes John Dean hath issue John Dean and dyes the Lessor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who enters and is ejected by the Defendants by commandment of the said John Dean the son upon which the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment And it seemeth to me that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for all the Land or at least for part thereof And therefore in the first place I conceive that when William the son dyed without issue the remainder in fee did vest in John Perriman who was the eldest son of Joan the elder who was the eldest daughter of the Devisor for although the Devisor had many daughters yet his intent appeared in the Will to a single person and not to divers also it appears that he doth not intend that this remainder should vest in William his son for he deviseth to him a Rent during the life of Joan the younger and afterwards an Estate Tail cannot be in Joan the younger or any of her issues because that an express Estate for life is limited to her nor in Elizabeth or Mary for he deviseth a remainder to them for life nor in any other of his daughters for then he would have named them either by their proper names or as his daughters and not by such circumlocution as is pretended in this Case Also the words of Remainder in fee cannot extend to those daughters for they are proximae consanguinitatis which does clearly exclude his own sons and daughters for they cannot properly be termed to be of consanguinity of the blood of the father as it is said in Sir William Herberts Case Cooks Rep. 3. that filius est pars patris and this is proved by the usual pleading of a Descent for if the Plea be by any except son or daughter the form is to say That the Land descends to him as Cosin and Heir and shall shew how but if by the son or daughter then to plead as before And 30 Assis 47. Land was devised to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum of the Devisor there it is agreed that the sons and daughters are excluded by that Devise And so here in this Case neither William the son nor any of the daughters of the Devisor can take any thing by this Devise for they cannot be said de Consanguinitate de sanguine of the Devisor but the Issues of the Children of the Devisor are comprized within these words And then I conceive that the limitation being in the singular number viz. proximo consanguinitat all the issues of those Children shall not take but one onely and that as I conceive shall be the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the Devisor which was John Periman father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff as in the 20 H. 6. 23. In an Account supposing the Defendant to be his Receivor from the Feast of St. Michael it shall be taken to be the principal Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and not the Feast of St. Michael in Monte Teneb And 13 H 4. 4. 21 H. 68. 37 H. 6. 29. If father and son be of one name scil of J. S. If J. S. be named generally in a Writ Recovery or Deed it shall be intended the father for that he is most worthy And so Pladwels Case in this Court Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. If a woman hath a Bastard and two legal issues and Land be given to one for life the remainder to the eldest issue of the woman the eldest legal issue shall take and not the bastard although he be the eldest issue for general words shall always be taken in the most worthy sence And so here the Devisor did dispose of his Estate to Joan the younger rendering Rent to William his son the remainder to William in Tail the remainder to two of his daughters scil to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder proxim consanguin c. in fee By which words it is apparent that the Devisor intended that for the default of the issues of William and after the death of Elizabeth and Mary the Estate should remain to one who was next of blood to him and that is John Periman the eldest son of his eldest daughter But admitting that all the issues of the daughters shall be in equal degree to take by this remainder as well as the eldest son of Joan the eldest daughter yet I conceive that those daughters who had an Estate devised to them by Will are excluded Cooks 8 Rep. 95. B. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor and Director of his words and therefore if Land be devised to one in perpetuum this shall pass a fee although it be otherwise in a Grant So if one deviseth Land to another to dispose of or sell at his pleasure this is a fee to the Devisee Litt. 133. 19 H. 8 9. B. And so in our Case the intent of the Devisor appears to dispose of his Land among his Children and their issues as in Trin. 38 Eliz. Ewre and Heydons Case Heydon was seised of a Messuage in D and of three houses and certain Land in Watford did devise his Messuage in D and all his Land in Watford it was judged the houses in Watford did not pass in regard of the express mentioning the houses in D. and this was affirmed in a Writ of Error Edmund Meskin against John Hickford Administrator of Henry Machin IN an Audita Querela because that the 11 Ed. 1. it was Enacted That in regard that Merchants which heretofore had lent their goods to divers persons were fallen into poverty because they had not such speedy remedy provided for them for the Recovery of their Debts Ac ratione inde multi Mercatores desistebant venire in hanc terram cum Merchandizis
himself his boy and his horse Item The Defendant is to deliver the said house to the Plaintiff with all the appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining Tenantable and in good repair Item The Defendant is to make as good a Lease as can be devised by Councel unto the Plaintiff and his Assigns And the Defendant pleaded performance of these Articles Plea Replication The Plaintiff did reply that the said 23 of April 1610. there was not any Demise made by the said John Sowdley of the said Mannor-house and of the houses called Sowdley Hall and of the Land lately in the Tenure of the aforesaid Reynold Sowdley and that the Plaintiff since the making of the said Articles viz. 9 Maii 10 Jacob. at great Sowdley aforesaid did require the Defendant to make a Lease of the said Mannor-house and houses with the aforesaid Land late in the Tenure of the said Reynold Sowdley scituate in great Sowdley aforesaid in the Parish aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to one Walter Welden Thomas Welden and John Welden for their lives according to the effect of the said Articles and that the said Walter Thomas and John were there and then ready to accept of the said Demise of the premisses of the Defendant and yet the Defendant did refuse to make the said Demise of the premisses to the said Walter Thomas and John Demurrer Vpon which the Defendant demurred in Law And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment And fist to answer the Objections that are made against the Plaintiff upon the Articles Object 1 That the Lease ought to have been made to the Plaintiff himself for three lives and not to any other Answer I answer The words are plain That the Lease shall be made to the Plaintiff or his Assigns in the disjunctive and therefore it is in his election either to take the Lease to himself for three lives or to take it to his Assigns for three lives and so should it be if the words were to the Plaintiff and his Assigns as it is resolved in the Comment fol. 288. Chapman against Dalton where a man did let Land to another and did covenant at the end of the term to make such another Lease to the Lessee and his Assigns the Lessee made his Executor and dyes and the Executor does make his Executor and dyes and there it was adjudged that the Lease ought to be made to the Executor of the Executor for he is the Assignee in Law to the first Testator and the word and shall be taken for the word or and there it is clearly agreed that if the Lessee had named any in his life-time to take the said Lease it ought to be made to him and so as it is there said if I be obliged to make a feoffment to you or your Assigns such as you name to take the feoffment are your Assigns indeed and so in our Case these three persons named by the Plaintiff are his Assigns to whom the Lease ought to be made 21 Ed. 3. 29. Object 2 The other Objection is that the Lessee named by the Plaintiff ought to be ready upon the Land to take the Lease for a Lease for life cannot be made off the Land Answer I answer That when a man is bound to infeoff the Obligee and no time is limited he ought to do this upon request 27 H. 8. 6. B. and the same Law of a feoffment upon condition to re-infeoff him 44 Ed. 3. 9. 14 H. 8. 21. 18 Assis 18. 17 Assis 20. but yet the Obligor at his peril ought to do it during his life otherwise the condition is broken So in our Case the Plaintiff ought first to require the Defendant to make the Lease and this of necessity ought to be done where he can finde the Defendant for it is impossible to do it on the Land unless the Defendant be there and the Plaintiff cannot compel him to be there But when the Plaintiff hath made his request the next action is then to be done by the Defendant and therefore he ought to go to the Land and to be ready there to make the Lease And in the 22 Ed. 4. 43. A. is bound to B. on condition that C. shall infeoff B. by such a day and did shew that C. was there ready on the Land and B was not there to receive the Feoffment and there it was argued whether the issue should be upon the being of C. upon the Land who ought to make the Lease or of B. who was to take the Lease and in fine it was adjudged that the issue should be whether C. were there or not for he ought to be there or else the Bond was forfeit So that the Defendant upon request ought to go to the Land and there to attend a convenient time to make the Estate and then if the persons named do not come thither he is excused but when he goes not to the Land but does utterly refuse to make the Estate it is to no purpose for the Assigns to come to the Land and admitting the Law would enforce them to attend there then I demand how long they ought to attend for in all places where the attendance of one is required in a place certain by the Law the time of his attendance is limited 18 and 19 Eliz. Dyer 354. The third Objection is that the Article for making of the Lease Object 3 is to make a Lease of the said Mannor whereas no Mannor is mentioned before and the request is to make a Lease of the houses and of the Land late in the Tenure of Randolph Sowdley To this I answer That the Demise in the first Article Answer is of the Mannor-house and all the Lands which were in the Tenure of Randolph Sowdley with all the appurtenances thereto belonging then when he agrees to make a Lease of the said Mannor it shall be intended the Mannor mentioned before and although it be not in verity a Mannor yet in reputation it may be a Mannor and that is enough to make it to be put in the agreement 22 H. 6. 39. a. where one pleaded a Feoffment of eight Acres of Land by the name of the Mannor of D. and adjudged by the Court to be a good Feoffment although the acres were not set forth and in the 27 of H. 6. 2. a Plough-land may pass by the name of a Mannor The request is made too late for the time limited to enter is the Object 4 Anunciation 1612. and the request is not until the ninth of June next after and that is too late for the Lessor ought to have 20 l. fine upon the entry and making of the Lease and therefore the request ought to be made at the time that the entry was to be made and for that purpose Andrews Case and the Lord Cromwels Case in L. Cooks Rep. were cited To which Objection Cook and all the Court did seem to incline But I
conceive that the request is made in good time enough Answer for two Reasons The Estate here is to be made by the Defendant and although he be not bound to do it without request yet may he do it or at least he may offer to do it without any request and therefore if there be any loss in the not doing of it it is his own fault because he did not offer to make the Estate and is not the Plaintiffs fault and if he had offered to make the Estate and the Plaintiff had refused he had been excused And therefore the rule is given in the Lord Cromwels Case aforesaid that when a woman or a Grantee upon condition is to make an Estate to the Grantor and no time is limited he hath time for his life unless the party who is to have the Estate do hasten it by request but if an advowson be granted on such condition the Regrant ought to to be before the Church becomes voyd so if the condition be to grant Rent payable at certain days the Grant ought to be before any day of payment for otherwise he shall lose the Presentation and the Rent which will incur before the Grant made And in the 14 Ed. 3. Debt 138. In a Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded the Condition viz. That if he granted twelve marks Rent the Bond should be voyd and demanded Iudgment c. because no time was limited so that he might do it when he would and said that he was always ready to grant the twelve marks Rent and because he demurred not issue was joyned c. If this not making request shall be any damage to the Plaintiff it must be because the Defendant suffers loss by it as in the cases above cited but in this case the Defendant hath the same remedy for the 20 l. although no Estate be made as he should have had if the Estate had been made for by the fourth Article it is agreed that if there be no Estate made of the Land the Plaintiff shall enter at the Anunciation 1612. And I conceive that this payment ought to be made at the time limited for the entry for it is a mutual agreement that doth binde both parties and therefore it lies not in the power of the Plaintiff for his want of entry to defeat the Defendant of his 20 l. agreed to be payd to him but when he enters it shall be intended that he entered when it was agreed he should enter viz. at the Anunciation 1612. And if he payd it not then the Defendant might have had his Action of Covenant whether any Lease were made or not And in Sir Andrew Corbets Case Cook Rep. 4. 81. certain Land is devised to A. B. until 800 l. pound be levyed that is until it may be levyed and so in case of a Lease or limitation of a use for otherwise it should be in their power to hold out the Lessor for ever and so in case of an Elegit upon the Statute of Westm the 2d. cap. 18. and of Retinue for the double value of a Marriage by the Statute of Merton cap. 6. Opinion of the Court. And the whole Court was of Opinion that the request came too late whereupon they were of Opinion to give Iudgment against the Plaintiff but I prayed that the Plaintiff might discontinue his Suit which was granted Rot. 609. Michaelmas 13 Jacob. Smalman Plaintiff against John Agborrow and Edmund Agborrow Defendants IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants the 13 Maii 13 Iacob six Heifers of the Plaintiff of the price of 20 l. at Dodenham in a place called Well-Marsh did take chase and drive away to the damage of 10 l. c. The Defendants to all except the chasing did plead Not guilty And as to the chasing they said that the place where c. is and at the time wherein c. was the Freehold of one Francis Agborrow and so did justifie as his servants for damage feasant c. Replication The Plaintiff replyed that before the said Francis Agborrow had any thing c. the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Mary the Virgin in Worcester were seised in fee of the Mannor of Aukerden and Dodenham whereof the place where c. is and at the time whereof c. was parcel c. And that the 25 of November 10 Elizab. the said Dean and Chapter by their Indenture did Demise the said Mannor to William Agborrow and Jane his Wife and to the said Francis Agborrow for their lives And that the 20 Febru 39 Elizab. William Agborrow dyed seised and that the 21. of Decemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry with Robert Hawkins And that the 25. Febr. 40. Eliz. Robert Hawkins and the said Jane by their Indenture did demise the said Mannor to William Hawkins and William Heaven for sixty years from the date c. if the said Jane and Francis Agborrow or either of them should so long live rendring twenty pounds rent and that the 25. of Mar. 13. Jac. William Hawkins and William Heaven did grant their Estate to the Plaintiff whereby he was possessed and put in his Cattel there to grase which were there untill the Defendant took them away c. And did aver the life of Francis Agborrow The Defendants rejoyn and say that the said Jane did die the 14. Rejoynder of Mar. 12. Jac. and that Francis Agborrow did hold himself in c. Per jus accresendi Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law A man and a woman are Ioynt-tenants for life the woman marries The Case the Husband and Wife by Indenture do let their moyety for years rendring Rent and after the woman dies And the question was whether the surviving Ioynt-tenant could avoid this Lease And I conceive he cannot And for the Argument of this Case I shall observe these two things thereof That if the woman who made this Lease had been sole at the time of the making this Lease had been good during her life and the life of her Companion the other Ioynt-tenant That this Lease being made by the Husband and Wife is not void but voidable And as to the first Point Littleton fol. 63. and 64. saies that if two Part. 1 Ioynt-tenants in Fee be and one grants a Rent-charge and dies the Survivor shall hold the Land discharged but if one makes a Lease for years and dies the Lease is good against the Survivor and in Hales Case in the Comment If two Ioynt-tenants be for years and one of them does grant to I.S. that if he payes twenty pounds at Michaelmas he shall have his moyety and the Grantor dies and I. S. does pay the money yet shall not he have the Land because the Condition precedes the Estate but if he make a Lease for yeares to commence at a day to come and dies before the day yet is the Lease good against the Survivor and so in Trin. 37. Eli. Harbury and
13. H. 4. 17. B. If one makes a Feoffment in Fee rendring Rent upon condition to re-enter for non-payment and dies the Rent being arrear the Heir cannot demand the Rent or enter for non-payment because that the Rent is not due to him and as he cannot dispence with the Condition for acceptance of the Rent so cannot he enter for non-payment thereof And I argued this Case again on Fryday being the first day of Trinity Term 14. Jac. 31. Maii at which day Daston did also argue for the Defendant but the Court did not then give any direct Opinion but seemed to incline very much for the Plaintiff And Hil. 14. Jac. the case was argued by Chilborne Serjeant for the Plaintiff and Davenport for the Defendant at which time all did agree that the Lease continued But Davenp took exceptions to the replication For he said that the marriage of Jane with Rob. Hawkins is alledged to be 21. of No. 39. Eli. and the death of William Agborrow her first Husband the 20. of Febr. 39. Eliz which is after the marriage but that was held not materiall for it is said that William Agborrow died the twentieth of Febr. 39. Elizab. and that atferwards viz. the one and twentieth of Novemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry Thomas Hawkins so that the afterward is sufficient Trin. 37. Eliz. Rot. 206. Butler against Wallis In a Trespasse the Defendant justified by vertue of an Extent upon a Statute and did shew the Extent and that the 28. of Febr. a Liberate was awarded by vertue whereof the Sheriff the 27. of Octob. delivered the land to him c. yet adjudged sufficient for when he said Virtute brevis the mistake of the day afterward is not materiall And at last in the said Term of S. Hillary Judgment all the Court agreed that the Lease continued good against the Survivor and cannot be avoided by him and that the acception to the pleading was not materiall And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 668. Pasch 11. Jacob. Between Thomas Palmer Knight Plaintiff Richard Greenwill and Edward Greenwill Executors of John Greenwill Defendants IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of fifty pound entred into by the Testators the 20. of Novemb. 5. Jac. The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was that if the Testator his Heires Executors and Assignes did perform all the Covenants comprised in certain Indentures bearing date with the Obligation made between the Plaintiff on the one part and the Testator of the other part that the Obligation shall be void And the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff by the said Indenture did let to the Testator a House and the moyety of his land amounting to about thirty Rods of land in Pollicote to have c. from Michaelmas last past for seven years rendring twenty pounds Rent and shewed that the Testator did covenant by the same Indenture for him his Executors and Assignes with the Plaintiff his Heires and Assignes within two years after the beginning of the said Lease to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Plaintiff or his Assigns a Map or Plot made in distinct manner by men of skill as well of all the land in little Pollicot as was then in his occupation and in the occupation of Thomas Cocker and John Crooke parcell of the Demise of the Plaintiff in Pollicot aforesaid as of all the land in the occupation of the Testator by a lease of Lincoln Colledge in Pollicot aforesaid which are all the Covenants c. And pleaded that the Testator in his life time and the Defendants after his death had performed all the Covenants c. Replication The Plaintiff replied that the Testator within two years after the beginning of the Lease did not deliver or cause to be delivered to the Plaintiff or his Assignes a Map or Plot made in distinct manner by Surveyors and men of skill of all the land in little Pollicot aforesaid in his occupation and in the occupation of the said Thomas Cocker and John Crooke parcell of the aforesaid Demise of the Plaintiff in Pollicot aforesaid Secundum formam effectum Indenturae praedict Vpon which Replication the Defendants demurred in Law And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for them against the Plaintiff First the Plaintiff replies that the Testator did not deliver the Plot and it may be that it was delivered by the Defendants who were his Executors which is a good performance of the Covenant and if so then the Plaintiff has no cause of action and where the matter is left doubtfull in the Replication it shall be taken most strongly by the Plaintiff who pleads it And in the Comment 104. a. Fulmerstone against Steward If a man be bound to pay twenty pounds about Christmas it is no plea for him to say he hath paid it but he must shew when or otherwise it shall be intended that he paid it after the Feast and before the Suit And so in a Dum fuit infra aetatem if the Tenant do plead a Release of the Demandant it is no plea without saying that he was of full age for the plea shall be taken most strong against himself and that is that it was made when he was within age and 3. H. 7. 2. If the Defendant in a Trespasse does plead a release it is not sufficient without shewing that it was made after the Trespasse for otherwise it shall be taken to be done before And 26. H. 8. Pleading 147. If in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant does plead Warranty collaterall of the Ancestor of the Demandant and he replies that he entred and so does avoid the Warranty it is not good without saying that he entred in the life of the Ancestor for otherwise it shâ—ll be intended that he entred after the descent of the Warranty and in Dyer 89. and 96. The Plaintiff in an Ejectment declared on a Lease for years to begin at Michaelmas after the death of Thomas Boydon and M. his Wife and set forth that they died and he entred and adjudged insufficient for it might be that he entred after this death and before Michaelmas and Dyer 28. H 8. 27. A Covenant that the Lessee and his Assigns shall pay all Rents pleading that the Lessee hath paid them is not sufficient because the Assignes are omitted In his Occupation are words uncertain sc whether they shall be referred to the Plaintiff who iâ— last named or to the Testator 7 H. 7. 7. Ed. 6. Dyer 84 a. In a Trespasse brought by the Husband and Wife for breaking their Close bona sua capt and pleaded of a Trespasse made to the Woman Dum sola fuit for which the Writ abated The Plaintiff ought to shew that â—ome land was in the possession of Kocker and Crooke for otherwise it is impossible that a Map should be made thereof 12. H. 7. 8. a. 6. H. 7. 6. a. If I am bound to
infeoff another of all the Lands whereof my Father died seised in an Action agâ—inst me I ought to set forth the certainty of the Land whereof he died seised And although the Executor does represent the person of the Testator yet the Act of the Executor is not the Act of the Testator not like to the Case of an Attorney 32. Ed. 3. Bar 264. If one be bound to enfeoff another it is sufficient if the Attorney be ready to make the Feoffment and so in the 19. H. 6. the same Law to confesse an Action but when an Executor does an Aâ—â— for the Testâ—tor it is otherwise as if the Executor sell Land it must be so pleaded for a dead person cannot sell Land And afterwards the Plaintiff discontinued his Suit Hillar 13. Jac. Norris Plaintiff against Henry Baker and Elizabeth Baker Defendants IN an Action of Trespasse for that the Defendants the 28. Octob. 13. Jac. by force and armes c. upon one Thomas Davis and Nicholas James Servants and Workmen of the Plaintiff did make an assaâ—â—t and them there labouring in the service of the Plaintiff did wound c. whereby the Plaintiffs lost their Service to his damage of forty pounds c. The Defendants as to the forme and according did plead not guilty whereupon issue was joyned And as to the residue of the Trespasse they say that at the time of the Trespasse the said Henry was and yet is possessed of an ancient House with the appurtenances in Worcester for divers years to come the which house doth joyn to a void peice of land in Worcester against the South and that at the time wherein c. and also time out of mind there were ancient Windows or Lights in and upon the South-side of the aforesaid house against the said peice of land through which the light did enter into the said house and the said Henry did enjoy great and necessary Easements and Commodities by reason of the open Ayre and light shining and entring into the said house by reason of the said Windows and Lights aforesaid and the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones maliciously plotting and intending to deprive the said Henry of all the Easement and commodity of the aforesaid Windows and Lights Et Messuagium illud horrida tenebritate obscurare the said day and year did intend to build a house upon the said peice of land and did there then erect divers peices of Timber for the building of the said house which house if it had been built the said Henry should have lost the said easements and commodities wherefore the said Henry and the other Defendant who was his Servant by his commandment the said time wherein c. being in the said house did hinder the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones from building the said house and the Defendants with a Staff did thrust down the said peices of Timber wherewith the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones would have built the said house and did thrust and put away the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones least they should build the said new house Prout eis bene licuit which is the same Assault and Battery of the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones whereof the Plaintiffs complain Vpon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred in Law And I conceive the Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Because the Defendants have made no answer to the first matter of the Action which is the losing of the Service for it is not shewne throughout the Bar that the said Davis and Jones did make the building as Servants to the Plaintiff or by his commandment and 2. H. 6. 13. In a Trespasse for cutting of Trees where the Defendant pleaded that the place where c. was the Freehold of I. S. who let the same to the Defendant at Will and adjudged no plea by the Court unlesse he had said by which he entred and cut the Trees and so justified the Action 3. H. 6. 54. In a Trespasse for beating of his Tenant the Defendant said he was his Servant and the Issue was whether he was his Servant or not 31. H. 6. 12. B. 5. H. 7. 3. 20. H. 7. 4. and 20. H. 7. 5. A Master shall not have an Action for beating of his Servant unlesse he saies Per quod servitium amisit The cause of Iustification is because the Servants did endeavour to erect a Building which is not issuable There is no cause of Iustification for how can the Defendant know that the building will be to his hurt or nusance to him untill the building be erected and if it be to his nusance he may abate the same by Law The Plea is double for first they set forth that they had Lights c. and then they alledge that the new house was built for the word if is wanting and 33. H. 6. 26. In an Action on the Case the Writ was good Cum ipse habeat quoddam Cheminum ratione tenurae c. the Defendant levavit murum per quod querens Cheminum habere non potest c. It was holden by Prisoit that the Writ was not good by reason of the Repugnancy And this Case was argued again by Barcley for the Defendant and by me for the Plaintiff Judgment Tr. 14. Jac. And all the Court held the Plea in Bar to be insufficient for which Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 256. Hillar 13. Jacob. Edward Smith for the King and himself against Stephen Bointon IN an Information because the Defendant between the twentieth of June 12. Jac. and the fourth of July next after at Westminster in the County of Middlesex did buy ingrosse and obtain into his hands by buying and contracting of divers persons unknown three hundred quarters of Barley of the value each quarter of twenty pounds a hundred quarters of Beans of the value of twenty pounds every quarter Ad revendendum contra formam statuti c. whereupon an Action accrued to the King and the Informer to have of the Defendant foure hundred pounds viz. the value of the Barley and Beans whereof the Informer prayed a moyety c. The Defendant as to the Ingrosment between the twenty second of May 13. Jac. and the said fourth of July next after pleaded not guilty And as to the Ingrosment between the said twentieth day of July 12. Jac. and the said twenty second of May next after The Defendant saith that before the exhibiting of the said Information sc the twenty second of May 13. Jac. one Robert Beadow did exhibite an Information in the Exchequer for the King and himself against the Defendant because the Defendant between the first of June last and the day of the said Information did ingrosse five hundred quarters of Wheat of price every quarter thirty pounds five hundred quarters of Barley of price every quarter twenty pounds five hundred quarters of Oates of price every quarter twenty shillings and five hundred quarters of Beans and Pease
of price every quarter twenty shillings Ad revendendum contra formam statuti c. And did aver that Stephen Bointon named in the first Information and Stephen Bointon named in the last Information are one person and not divers and that the said three hundred quarters of Barley and a hundred quarters of Beans specified in the last Information are parcell of the aforesaid Barly and Beans in the first Information Unde petit judicium of the said last Information the said first Information depending determinable Vpon which Plea Mr. Attorney demurred in Law And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the King and the Informer for two reasons The offence in the first Information is alledged to be between the first of June 12. Jac. and the two and twentieth of May 13. Jac. so that for any thing appears to the contrary this may be done between the first of June 12. Jac. and twentieth of July next which is not any part of the time contained in the last Information and then that is no answer to the ingrossing between the twentieth of July 12. Jac. and the two and twentieth of May next unlesse he had averred in fact that it was within the time contained in the last information The twenty second of May 13. Jac. is not answered to at all and it may be that the Ingrosment was on that day for the plea of Not guilty goes only between the two and twentieth of May 13. Jac. and the fourth of July next and the last information is between the first of June 12. Jac. and the twenty second of May so that the twenty second of May is utterly excluded and that is part of the time contained in the last information The first Information is for ingrossing of Beans and Pease being a mixt Grain and the last Information is for Beans only and Beans by themselves cannot be parcel of Beans and Pease being a mixt Graine And after Iudgment was given for the King and the Informer Judgment and that principally for the second exception Michalm 14. Jacob. Frosett against Walshe IN an Ejectment of one Messuage ten acres of Land six of Meadow and thirty of Pasture in Mansell Lacy upon a Lease made by Hen Hering the younger the twenty fourth of October 13. Jac. to have from the twenty third of October last past unto the twenty second of October next c. The Defendant pleaded not guilty And the Iury found that the said Tenements were Copyhold parcell of the Mannor of Mansell Lacy devisable in Fee and that there is a Custome within the said Mannor that every customary Tenant of the said Mannor of any Inheritance may surrender the said Tenements out of Court into the hands of two customary Tenants of the aforesaid Mannor to the use of any person or persons and their Heirs and that the said surrender by the Custome of the said Mannor ought to be presented at the next Court to be holden within the said Mannor otherwise the surrender to be void And they found that one Thomas Herring was seised in Fee at the will of the Lord according to the custome of the Mannor of the said Tenements and that he and Anne his Wife the twenty second of Decemb. the 28. of Eliz. at Mansell aforesaid did surrender the said Tenements out of Court into the hands of William Garrows and Hugh Ireland then being two customary Tenants of the said Mannor to the use of Rowland Whittington George Whittington and Robert Whittington and their Heirs and that the said Rowland George and Robert by vertue of the said surrender did enter into the said Tenements and held the same and paid the Rents thereof that were due to the Lord and that the said Thomas Herring before the Ejectment died and that no Court was holden within the said Mannor during his life nor ever since and that the said Rowland Whittington afterwards and before the Ejectment died and the said William Garnar and Hugh Ireton also died before the Ejectment and that the said Henry Herring is the Son and Heir of the said Thomas Herring and that the said Henry the twenty fourth of October the 13. Jac. did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who did enter and was possest untill the Defendant as Servant of the said Rowland and Robert Whittington the twenty sixth of October the same year did enter and oust the Plaintiff And if it seemed to the Court that the Defendant was guilty the Iury found for the Plaintiff and if otherwise for the Defendant And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff The Custome is precisely found that the surrender which is made out of Court is good so it be presented at the next Court so that here is a perfect assurance made according to the custome of the Mannor which the Copyholder that surrenders cannot avoid unlesse something fall out afterward that may avoid the surrender for as to the Cases that have been put by the other side that every Custome shall be taken strictly and therefore the custome of Rent that saves the Land of him that is hanged for Felony does not extend to an Attainder by Outlawry nor the custome that an Infant of the age of fifteen years may make a Feoffment does not warrant a Lease and Release I agree all these to be Law but I cannot conceive how any of them can be applyed to the present question for I do not endeavour to extend this custome in any point beyond the true expresse Letter of the custome viz. That the surrender shall be good if it be presented at the next Court. Object 1 But there have been two things objected to impeach this surrender That Herring who made the surrender is dead And as to that I conceive that the surrender is good notwithstanding for every Copyholder of Inheritance hath as good power to dispose of his land according to the Custome as a Tenant in Fee-sipmple hath by the Rules of the Common-law for although he that comes in by surrender ought to be admitted by the Lord yet all the Estate passeth from the Copyholder who surrenders and the Lord is but an instrument to make the admittance and he gives not the Estate and therefore it follows that the Estate is given by the Copyholder himself Cooks Rep. 4. Charls Pennifathers Case That Copyholders derive not their Estates from the Estate of the Lord and therefore if a Disseisor or Tenant at sufferance do make an admittance upon a surrender or upon a descent this shall binde the Disseisee and if Tenant for years of a Mannor or a Tenant at will does make a voluntary Grant according to the custom this shall binde him in the Reversion and the same Law of a Feoffee upon Condition Dyer 342. And so if there be Lord of a Mannor wherein are Copyholds for life and the Lord marries and grants Copies the Wife shall not avoyd this 9 Rep. Swans Case and 4 Rep.
years not expired at the time of her marriage she should have the Messuage then in his tenure being his Mansion-house which house now is in the tenure of the Plaintiff and an Annuity of 20 l. out of all his other Lands Tenements and Houses of the Devisor in the said Parish with a clause of distress and to detain the same until the said Annuity were payd to the said Ellinor and if Ellinor did marry he did devise all his said Lands except the said Mansion-house to the said Thomas Butler and his Children and made the said Ellinor his Executrix and dyed possessed And the said Ellinor entered claiming the Devise and the 16 of January 1606. marryed the Plaintiff and the 30 of April 1606. the Plaintiff and his Wife did agree to have the said Mansion-house and the said Annuity and Thomas Butler by their assent did enter into the residue And the 12 Jan. 1606. Elianor dyed And at our Lady-day 12 Jacob. 10 l. of the said Annuity was behinde wherefore the Plaintiff the 26 of May 12 Jacob. did enter and take certain goods for the said 10 l. and would have deteined them in the name of a Distress and the Defendants rescued them ad damnum 40 l. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty The Iury found the Lease made by the Bishop and the confirmation with the several Assignments and the Devise as in the Declaration is set forth saving the Devise to the said Thomas Butler from the day of the death of the said Ellinor which clause was not found and they found also that John Butler the 3 Novemb. 3 Jacob. dyed and that Ellinor did enter claiming by the Devise and that she married the Plaintiff and also their agreement to have the Mansion-house and Rent as a Legacy and the entry of Thomas Butler in the residue by the assent of the Executor and the death of Ellinor and that the 10 l. was behinde and that the Plaintiff took the goods and would have detained them as a Distress and that the Defendants rescued them And if the Defendants were guilty they found for the Plaintiff if not they found for the Defendant c. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendants For first I conceive that the Wife of John Butler had not any Rent at all out of the house in which the Distress was taken If she had any Rent yet it is determined by her death And I conceive the Case to be thus Lessee for years of two houses does devise them to his Wife for 28 years which is all the term if she live so long unmarryed and after her death to Thomas Butler and if the woman marries that she shall have one Messuage for the residue of the term and 20 l. Rent ex omnibus aliis terris suis with a clause of Distress and then Thomas Butler shall have the other Messuage The Devisor makes his Wife Executrix and dyes and the Wife enters claiming by the Devise and then marries the Plaintiff and then they agree to have the house that was devised to her after her marriage with the Rent and Thomas Butler by their assent does enter into the residue the Wife dyes and the Plaintiff distrains for Rent behinde after her death and the Defendants rescue the Distress whereupon the Plaintiff brings his Action And as to the first I conceive that the Wife can have no Rent by this Devise and that for three Reasons Because the Wife did take the entire term as Executrix and therefore she cannot have a Rent out of the same term and therefore I conceive it will not be denyed that if Lessee for years deviseth a Rent to I. S. and makes him his Executor and dyes I. S. shall have no Rent for in as much as he hath the term as Executor he shall have no Rent as Legated for it is extinct in the term and although he hath one in his own right and the other as Executor yet cannot he have both together 4 Ed. 6. B. Surrend 52. If one hath a term as Executor and purchase the Reversion the Lease is extinct And although the term in our case is devised to a stranger yet by the Law it does first vest in the Executor and the Devisee cannot have it without the delivery or consent of the Executor And if a Devisee does enter into a term or takes goods without the delivery of the Executor the Executor may have an Action of Trespass against him 20 Ed. 49. 2 H. 6. 16. 11 H. 4. 84. 37 H. 6. 30. although in the 27 of Henry the 6. 8. a. diversity is taken between a thing certain and uncertain for it is there said that if the thing devised be certain and a stranger takes it the Executor shall have an Action of Trespass but in old Nat. Bre. 87. there is no diversity So that it is clear that the term first vesteth in the Executor and so the Rent which the Executor had is extinguished by unity of possession Object And whereas it hath been objected That although the term does first vest in the Executor yet when he assents to the Devise he is then immediately in by the Devisor and therefore the Rent is not extinct Answer I answer That there the agreement does divest all the Estate that the Devisor had gained by his entry but in our case the woman hath as high and right an Estate in the Land as she hath in the Rent and although there be a possibility of severing the Land from the Rent yet that cannot revive the Rent being extinct as if one hath Land of the part of his Father and hath a Rent out of the said Land of the part of his Mother the Rent is extinct and cannot be divided although he dye without issue And that the Wife hath as high Estate in the Land as she hath in the Rent appears in Cook 6 Rep. Sanders Case where if an Executor commits waste before he assent to the Legacy an Action of waste lies against him which proves that the Executor hath the term And although the Devisee after his assent is in by relation by the Devisor yet this will not ayd the Rent no more then if a Son having Rent out of his Fathers Land and the Father dyes and the Son endows his Wife this shall not revive the Rent which was extinct before yet is the Wife in as of the Estate of her Husband and the Estate and possession of the Son is utterly defeated But admit that the Rent be not extinct yet here is no agreement to have the Rent for here are two Devises 1. Of the Land to the Wife if she continue unmarryed the remainder to Thomas Butler and the other of twenty pounds Rent to commence after her marriage wherefore the assent of the Executrix to the Devise of the Land is no execution of the Devise of the Rent Comment 5. 21. B. Welden and Elkingtons Case If a Termor deviseth a Rent or a
of five Steers and that certain Malefactors unknown to him did steal them from him at Broughton in the County of Bucks and that the 22 of Novemb. 13 Jacob. the Defendant pursued them to London and there did search for the Steers and found them in the possession of the Plaintiff and did require the Plaintiff to shew them unto him and how they came into his possession and because that the Plaintiff did deny to deliver them unto him and did refuse to permit him to see them and to shew how he came by them and that the Plaintiff gave him such incertain answers that the Defendant did suspect the Plaintiff had committed the Felony and the Defendant for better examination of the promisses and restitution of the said Cattel did inform the said Sir Thomas Bennet of the premisses and did procure a Warrant from him to bring the Plaintiff before him to be examined concerning the said Cattel whereupon the Plaintiff was brought before him and examined and because he could not make it appear how he came by them and for that he gave very uncertain answers and for that the said Sir Thomas did suspect him he did therefore binde him in a Recognizance of 50 l. to appear at the next Goal delivery and did binde the Defendant in a Recognizance of 20 l. to prosecute whereupon the 29 Novemb. 13 Jacob. the Defendant did exhibit a Bill of Indictment and did give evidence to the Iury that the Cattel were stoln from him and that he found them in the Plaintiffs possession and that he denyed the Defendant the view of them or to shew how they came to his hands whereupon the Iury found the Bill and thereupon the Plaintiff did appear at the next Goal-delivery the first Octob. 13 Jacob. and was there imprisoned until he was legally acquited which is the same imprisonment for Felony and procurement to be indicted and detainment in prison whereof the Plaintiff complains The Plaintiff confessed the Felony Replication but says that the 23 Octob. 13 Jacob. Thomas Burley was possessed of the said five Steers at Barnet in the County of Hertford and did then and there sell the said Cattel in open Market to the Plaintiff for 17 l. being a Butcher and that the said sale was entered in the Toll-book and the Toll payd wherefore the Plaintiff was possest of them and did drive them to his house in London the 24 Octob. 13 Jacob. and that the 21 Novemb. 13 Jac. he killed four of the said Cattel and then the said 22 of November the Defendant came to his house to search for the said Cattel and the Plaintiff did acknowledg to him that he had the said Cattel and that he had killed four of them and that he had bought them as aforesaid and did then also shew unto him the Steer that was then living and that the Defendant had sufficient notice that the Plaintiff had bought the Cattel in the Market and that although the Defendant did know that the Plaintiff had bought them and was not guilty of the Felony yet the Defendant out of malice and against his knowledg did charge the Plaintiff with Felony c. as he hath declared absque hoc that the Plaintiff did refuse to permit the Defendant habere visum of the said five Steers or to shew how he came by them Whereupon the Defendant demurred in Law Demur and shewed that the matter of Inducement to the Travers was insufficient and that the Travers was insufficient and the matter not traversable And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment For in the 7 Ed. 4.20 In a false Imprisonment The Defendant said that before the imprisonment one B was killed by certain persons in whose company the Plaintiff was and the report of the County was that the Plaintiff was party to the Felony whereupon he arrested the Plaintiff for suspicion and did commit him to the Sheriff And Bryan did Travers the Indictment without that that the Plaintiff was in their company and without that that the report was so c. And Nidkam said there that issue could not be taken upon the report but upon the matter in fact For if men say in the Country that I am a Thief that is no cause to arrest me but matter in fact ought to be shewed which is Traversable whereupon issue was taken upon the first matter onely and in the ninth of Ed. 4. it is holden that a man ought to shew some matter in fact to prove that the Plaintiff is suspected And 11 Ed. 4. 46. in a false Imprisonment The Defendant who justifies upon a false imprisonment for Felony ought to shew some matter in fact to induce his suspicion or that his goods were in his possession of which the Country may take notice And in the 17 Ed. 4. 5. in a false imprisonment the Defendant justified because that A. and B. did rob another and did go to the house of the Plaintiff whereupon the Constable did suspect him and did require the Defendant to assist him in arresting him c. and holden there that they ought to surmise some cause of suspicion or otherwise the plea was not good 7 H. 35. Suspicion cannot be tryed because it is but the imagination of a man which lies in his own conceit 5 H. 7. 4. In a false Imprisonment the Defendant justified because that A. was poysoned and the common voyce and fame was that it was done by the Plaintiff whereupon he was taken and there it was argued if this were sufficient cause some said that he ought to shew some special cause but it was agreed in conclusion that it was but all agreeo that suspicion only is not enough without alledging cause of suspicion and says 2 H. 7. 16. and 7 Elizab. Dyer 236. In an action on the Case for calling one Thief the Defendant justified for common voyce and fame and adjudged insufficient but this with suspicion had been sufficient cause to arrest one and carry him to the Goal And Michaelm 38 and 39 Elizab. In the Common-Pleas in an Action on the Case by Damport against Symson for giving a false testimony adjudged that the intent of the swearers cannot be put in issue or tryed 2 H. 4. 12. B. 46 Ed. 3. 4. 2 H. 7. 3. In a Trespass the Defendant justified that he was robbed in the County of B. and did suspect the Plaintiff in the County of Stafford The Plaintiff pleaded De son tort demesne c. and it was there agreed that all the case was in issue And Tow said that it should be tryed by both Counties if they could joyn but he doubted if they could joyn but in the 16 of H. 7. 3. B. this case is reported to be adjudged that if the Counties could not joyn it was no plea because it ought to be tryed by both And so de son tort demesne shall be full of multiplicity and therefore it is no plea as in Crogates Case
as of his Freehold whereupon Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiffs and adjudged that they should have execution against Sir John Whitbrook whereupon the Sheriff was commanded to deliver the said lands to the Plaintiffs in execution and the sixteenth of June 12 Jacob. the said Tenements were found to the value of eighty shillings and were delivered to the said Executors in execution The twenty seventh of March 11 Jacob. Hanging the Writ of Scire facias the said Sir John Whitbrook did demise to the Defendant one Messuage and ten acres of Meadow parcell of the premisses Habendum from the said twenty seventh day for the term of three years by force whereof he entred and was possessed The sixteenth of June 12 Jacob. the said Executors did enter into the Tenements in the Inquisition mentioned whereof the said Messuage five acres of Land and ten of Meadow are parcell and did out the Defendant The one and thirtieth of August 13 Jacob. Robert Faldoe made the Lease to the Plaintiff and they found the Ejectment and prayed the advice of the Court. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff For that a Tenant in Taile cannot charge the Land no more then he can alien 3 Ed. 3. 46. so in the 18 Ed. 4. 5. 21. If Tenant in Taile do sell the Trees and dye the Vendee cannot have them and the 17 Ass 21. Tenant in Tail acknowledgeth a Statute and dies the Issue enters and the Conusee does sue execution and enters and the Issue brings an Assise and recovers because this is a Disseisin to him and 11 H. 7. 21. 31 Ed. 3. 22. 14 Ass 3. Tenant in Tail grants a Rent and dies and the Issue enfeoffs a stranger adjudged that he shall hold the Land discharged for it was discharged by the entry of the Issue and 26 Ass 38. If Tenant in Tail doth charge the Land and dye and the Issue enters and pâ—yes the Rent and then after confirms the Rent this is good But in Brook Grants 73. contrary for the charge was avoided by the entry of the Issue But admit that this Recognizance shall bind the Issue in Tail yet it shall not bind the Termer but he shall avoid it 1 H 7. 9 7 H. 7. 11. and in the 30 Assise 10. the Tenant pleads recovery by Action tryed against a stranger and did aver the Estate of the Ancestor of the Demandant to be between his Title and the Recovery the Demandant said that the stranger was enfeoffed with Warranty and did not plead this and so did Fauxesie and Iudgment was awarded for him And although that this Lease was made after the Teste of the Scieri facias it is not materiall because the Lessor had good power to make a Lease and the Land was not subject to the execution and therefore the Lease here is good and cannot be avoided but only by the default of the Lessor in not pleading the Estate-tail and that is especially aided by the Statute because the Statute does aid the Lessee against such fâ—igned Recoveries against the Lessor and it is no Recovery untill the Iudgment had at which time the Lessee had a good Lease not subject to the execution 21. H. 6. 13. 14. He who comes to the Reversion hanging the Praecipe quod reddat against the Tenant for life shall be received by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 3. and 16 H 7. 5. In a Writ of Entry or Disseisin he in the remaiâ—der does pray to be received the Demandant traverseth that he hath nothing in Reversion at the time of the Writ purchased and could not for if he purchased the Remainder hanging the Writ he shall be received And Hill 14 Jacob. All the Court did agree Judgment that the Lessee for the Lease made after the Verdict against the Issue in Tail could not falsifie wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Penson against Mootham IN an Action of Covenant for that by Indenture Tripartite dated the fifth Decemb. 12. Jacob. It was between Abraham Baker by the name of Abraham Baker Owner of the moyety of a Ship called the Grissell of L. and of the Ship called the Peregrine of L. and of a Pinnace called the Hopewell of L. on the first part and the Plaintiff by the name of H. P. Owâ—er of the other moyety of the said Ships and Pinnace on the second part and the Defendant by the name of Ja. Mortham Nautestrategi dicti Itineris Anglice generall of the said Voyage N. N. B. W. and D. E. by the names of N.G. Naute magister dictae navis vocat le Peregrine B. W. Naute magister dict navis vocat the Grissell and D. E. Naute Magister of the said Pinnace and severall persons named in a Schedule annexed to the said Indenture on the third part It is testified and doth appeare that the said Owners had furnished and set forth and the said Victualer had victualed the said Ships as well for Trade as for Discovery and had delivered them to the said Generall Masters and Officers pro itinere faciend in such manner and to such an Island in the West-Indies or otherwise as it should be most profitable to the said parties at the discretion of the said Generalls and according to certain Articles of the Commissioners bearing date with the said Indenture and after their Voyage to return to the Port of London And that the said Generalls and each of the said Masters and Officers severally for each ones proper and severall part and not the one for the other did Covenant for themselves their Executors and Administrators with the said Owners severally and their severall Executors c. in manner c. and that they the said Generalls or the severall Masters and Officers their Executors or Assignes at any time during the said Voyage should go beyond the Cape of Good hope nor should do or commit any spoyle or losse to any of the Subjects of our Lord the King nor to any other person or persons being subject or in subjection to any Prince or Principality being in league or amity with our King nor shall do any thing whereby any detriment prejudice trouble or damage may come to the said Ships or Pinnace or any of them or to the said Owners or any of them respectively Breach 1 And that although the Plaintiff had performed all c. yet the said D.E. and the Commissioners aforesaid in the said Ship called the Hope-well during the said Voyage to wit the eighth day of March upon the high Sea neer the Isle of Saint Jago by force and armes did take and spoyle one Spanish Frigot laden with Rice c. which Sip and Goods were the Ship and Goods of divers persons who were Subjects to the King of Spaine the which King then was and yet is in amity and league with the King and the Defendant and the other Commissioners comming to the said Island did divide the said Goods amongst
themselves Breach 2 And that after Viz. the ninteenth day of June 13 Jacob. at a Port called Cape Corants beyond the Seas one Matthew Navale did joyne with the Defendant and the sayd Commissioners and they together did saile to the Coast of Champeach in the West-Indies and did there put a shoare the said Hope-well and three other Ships and there then upon the high Sea by force and arms did take and spoyl another Spanish Frigot laden with 100 Hides which Ship and the goods in her was the Ship and goods of divers persons subject to the King of Spain then and yet in league with the King And that after to wit the 20 Junii 13 Jacob. at the Town of River Breach 3 de Garta in the West-Indies the said Defendant and the others c. by force and arms did take and spoyl another Spanish Frigot laden with 150 Hides which Ship and goods were the Ship and goods of divers persons subject to the King of Spain then and yet in league with the King And that also then the said persons by force and arms did take and Breach 4 spoyl a certain Town beyond the Seas and from thence did take and carry away twenty Iars of Hony of the Goods and Merchandize of the Inhabitants of the said Town being subjects of the King of Spain and then and yet in league with our King And also there by force and arms did take and spoyl another Spanish Breach 5 Frigot laden with 63 Chests of Coucheneal and 700 Hens c. of the goods of divers persons being subjects of the said King of Spain then and yet in league with our King And that the Defendants did not come to the Port of London after their return c. And concluded that the Defendant did not keep his Covenant to make no spoyl or to do any act whereby any detriment should come c. ad damnum 3000 l. c. The Defendant as to the said five first Breaches did demur in Law because they were not alledged in such manner as any issue or tryal may be had And as to the other he pleaded that the Plaintiff did prohibit him from coming to London And it seems that Iudgment ought to be given upon the demur against the Plaintiff For first there is no covenant to binde the Defendant for the words are praedictus State-General doth covenant and there is no other name in the Covenant given to the Defendant and that is not sufficient to binde him 1. Because he is not named State-General before but Naute Stratageneral 2. This is no parcel of his name before or addition but is as his title or is a pronomen and that is not sufficient for the pronomen is but as an alius dictus 5 Ed. 4. 141. Alexander Cock Clericus alius dictus A. C. nuper de D. in Comitatu c. Clerico is no good addition because there is no addition but in the alius dictus And Dyer 119. Robert Thrower brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond by the name of Robert Thrower otherwise called Robert Throner Keeper of the Kings Gaol at Ludgate and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. 1. And it was adjudged that it shall not be presumed that he was Gaoler for it may be false As a Bond of I. S. Son and Heir of I. S. yet he may be a Bastard and a Bond by A. the Wife of I. S. who is sole is good notwithstanding And Dyer 304. B. in an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease of 100 acres of Land by the name of the Mannor of D. habendum the Mannor and the premisses c. whereupon he entered into the Mannor and premisses Quaere If it be good and agreed to be sufficient by the word premisses There is no breach assigned for as to the first breach that is onely that D. E. and his company did take c. a Spanish Frigot and that is no breach of covenant in the Defendant for that the covenant is not several as in the 5 Rep. Slingsbies Case If a Lease be made of W. acre to I. S. and a Lease of B. acre to I. D. and the Lessor covenants with them and either of them that he is owner c. each of them shall have an Action of Covenant according to their several interests so in case of a warranty but otherwise where the interest is joynt Vide 5 Rep. Mathewsons Case And so here the Covenant of the Defendant doth extend onely to himself and his Ship and not to D. E. and his company and the allegation that the Defendant and his company did come to the said Island and divided the goods is nothing to the purpose for it may be they bought a moyety thereof or any part of them and so they might lâ—wfully divide them 27 Assis 69. In an Appeal for that one did receive stoln goods knowing of the Felony adjudged not good And as to the second breach it is not alledged that the spoyl was made during the Voyage and if it were not during the Voyage it is no breach and in as much as the Plaintiff hath not set forth that it was done during the Voyage it shall be taken most strongly against himself 26 H. 8. Pleadings 6. 3 H. 7. 2. Dyer 89. And so in all the other three breaches it is not alledged that it was done during the Voyage It does not appear that these goods thus taken were the goods of the Subjects of the King of Spain at the time of the taking of them but onely quod fuerunt bona which doth denote a time past and doth not import any present property and it may be very probable that they were their goods and that they were bought of them by some persons under the obedience of a King not in amity with our King and then it is no breach for fuerunt is so uncertain that it may be 20 or 40 years past Also it is declared Quod fuerunt bona diversarum personarum existentium subditorum Regis Hispaniae the which word existens doth refer to the time of the Declaration and not to the time of the taking for although in the 27 of H. 8. 15. and 28. that the word existens in Deeds may in respect of the subject matter be applyed to the future time yet in all course of pleading it shall be taken for the present time as in an Indictment upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for forcible entry into Land Existens liberum Tenementum I. S. is not good because it doth refer to the time of the Indictment and not of the entry And so in the 21 H. 7. 30. A condition to discharge one of all Escapes of all Prisoners in the Goal this shall extend onely to Prisoners at the time of the Oligation made And it may very well be that they were the Subjects of one who was not in league with the King at the time of the taking and yet may be
pursue their claim by entry or action within five years next after the Proclamations and saving such Action Right Title Claim and Interest as first Shall grow remain descend or come after the Fine and proclamations by force of any Gift in Tail or by any other course and matter had and made before the said Fine levied so as they pursue within five years c. By which it appears that nothing is saved to the strangers but rights actions and interests arising by force of any cause or matter before the Fine and therefore nothing is barred by the Statute but former rights for what ever right is barred as to the Privies is saved to the strangers so as they pursue their claim within c. Sir Richard Shuttleworths Case between Barton and Lever 37 Eliz. Tenant in Tail levied an erronious Fine with Proclamations and then as Vouchee did suffer an erronious Recovery and died the Issue brought a writ of Error to reverse the Fine the Defendant pleaded the recovery afterwards and the Plaintiff to maintain the writ did alledge a default in the Recovery whereby he conceived the same to be void but resolved that it was but voidable by a writ of Error and therefore so long as it was in force the Issue was barred to reverse the Fine And therefore it was agreed there that the Issue ought first to reverse the Recovery by writ of Error and then he may reverse the Fine And so in our Case if the Plaintiffs should be barred in the writ of Error by the Fine they shall be without remedy although that the Fine be erroneous as I conceive it to be for if they bring a writ of Error to reverse the Fine first the Recovery although it be erroneous will be a clear Bar to them as it is adjudged in the said Case of Burton and Lever 7 H. 4. 40. a. One brought a writ of Error to reverse an Outlawry the Attorney said he was outlawed at the Suit of another Hulls said there that he could not be received for when one is to adnull an Outlawry he shall not be disabled by another Outlawry although he be twenty â—imes outlawed for then it will follow that there shall be delay infinite 26 Ed. 3. 66. Tenant in ancient Demesne levies a Fine at the Common Law and after does levy another and the Queen being seignioresse of the Mannor did bring a Writ of deceit to reverse one of them she shal not be barred by the other especially by the first to reverse the second And as to the Warranty 2. Matter of the Bar. I conceive that it is no Bar for many reasons 1. Because Warranties do bind only Rights and Actions which are in esse at the time of the warranty made and not Rights and Actions which do accrue after the Warranty created but this Writ of Error is given to the Plaintiffs in respect of the erroneous Recovery which wâ—s suffered after the creation of the warranty and therefore the warranty is no Bar to the Plaintiffs to have this writ of Error 30 H. 8. Dyer 42. B. All the Iustices did agree that when a man does bind him and his Heirs to warranty they are not bound to warrant new Titles of any Actions accrued since the warranty but only such Actions as are in esse at the time of the warranty made 12 Assise 41. The Tenant in a Praecipe quod reddat made a Feoffment hanging the writ and after the Demandant had recovered by erroneous Iudgment notwithstanding that the Feoffment had excluded the Tenant from his Right to the Land yet this shall not exclude him from his writ of Error which is accrued to him since the Iudgment given after the Feoffment Vide 18 19 Eliz Dyer 353. But it may be objected that this warranty shall bind the Right of the Plaintiffs to the Land for although the Recovery be reversed Object yet the Plaintiffs shall be put to their Formedon to recover this Land in which they shall be bâ—rred by this warranty and so it shall be in vaine for them to reverse the recovery for by the warranty they shall be barred to have the Land I answer That notwithstanding the Collaterall warranty Answer yet a Right doth remain in the Plaintiffs which is bound by the warranty which Right is taken away from the Plaintiffs by this Recovery by which the Law would have given to them a Remedy which is by writ of Error to be restored to their Right for a collaterall warranty doth not extinguish the right of him who is bound by the warranty but only does bind the Right for the time that the warranty remains undefeated and this is proved by many Authorities 34 Ed. 3. Droit 29. If the Tenant in a writ of Right hath collaterall warranty of the Ancestor of the Demandant he ought to plead it and not to conclude upon the Right for if he conclude upon the Right it shall be found against him because the warranty doth not give or extinguish the Right but only binds it 43 Assise 44. A collaterall warranty may be defeated by a Deed of Defeasance made after the creation of the warranty by which it appears that the Right is not extinguished for if so it could not be revived by the Defeasance and with this agrees 43 Ed. 3. 20. Earle of Staffords Case 19 H. 6 59. B. Fortescue A collaterall warranty does not give Right for if Land be given to one and the Heirs Males of his body and he hath two Sons and doth alien and the collaterall Ancestor to the Son doth release with warranty to the Alinee and dies and the Donee dies now is the eldest Son barred but if he die without Issue Male leaving Issue a Daughter the younger Son shall not be barred by the warranty 24 H. 8. B. Formedon 18. If Tenant in Tail hath two Sons by severall venters and dies and the Ancestor collaterall of the elder Son doth release with warranty and dies without Issue and the elder Son dies without Issue the younger Son shall recover by a Formedon because he is not Heir to the warranty And Littleton 160. B. Tenant in Taile hath three Sons and discontinues the second Son Releases to the Discontinuee with warranty the Tenant in Taile and the second Son dies now is the eldest Son barred because the warranty is collaterall to him but if he die without Issue the younger may have a Formedon and shall not be barred by the warranty because that the warranty as to him is lineall and to this purpose is the 8. of Rich. 2. Warranties 101. By which Book it does appear that the Estate-tail is not extinct by the warranty for if it could be so it can never be revived again This Warranty is executed and determined for it was made to the Conusees against whom the Writ of Entry whereupon this Recovery was had was brought and they did vouch to Warranty Thomas Lea and Katherine his wife who made
this warranty and thereupon they have recovered in value wherefore this Warranty is utterly determined 23 Edw. 3. Recover in value 12. If one upon a warranty vouch and recover in value and then is impleaded of the Land recovered in value he shall not vouch againe because the warranty wâ—s once executed The warranty is determined by the reverting of the Estate to whom it was annexed for when Katherine died Thomas Lea was to warrant the Land to the Conusees and after his death he had the Entire Fee-simple of the Land 22 of Edward the third 1. In Dower by Nicholas Powes and his wife the Tenant vouched A. who was ready in Court demanded what he had to bind him to warranty who said that the said A. B. his wife had rendred to him the said Tenements by Fine and obliged them and the Heirs of the wife to warranty and said that the wife was dead and had a Son and Heir who was liable to the warranty before him Iudgment of the Voucher and the Court held the Vouchment good Whereby it appears that after the death of Katherine Thomas was bound to this warranty and by his death he had a Fee-simple whereby the warranty is destroyed Littleton 169. If Tenant in Taile enfeoffs his Vncle who enfeoffs A. with warranty A. re-enfeoffs the Vncle in Fee who enfeoffs a stranger in Fee and dies without Issue the Tenant in Taile dies the Issue shall not be barred by the warranty of the Vncle because he does re-take to him as great an Estate of his first Feoffee to whom the warranty was made as the said Feoffee had from him and the cause why the warranty is defeated in this Case is because if the Warranty be in force then the Vncle shall warrant it to himself which cannot be And in one Case the Ter-tenants do claime the Estate which Thomas Lea had and therefore they cannot have a greater advantage by the warranty then he had Nat. B. 135. If one enfeoffs another with warranty and the Feoffee enfeoffs another and re-takes the Estate in Fee the warranty is determined and the 22 H. 6 22. b. accords with this because he is in of another Estate And depending the Writ of Error Viz. Trinit and Michaelm 14 Jacob. One of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error did dye which was pleaded by the Defendants Michaelm 14 Jacob. whereupon the Writ of Error was abated Hillar 13 Jacob. Robinson against Matthew Francis Administrator of Alban Francis Rot. 542. IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of 100 l. made the first of August 10 Jacob. The Defendant pleaded that the Intestate 20 November Plea the 11 Jac. was bound to Elizabeth Francis in 100 l. which was unpayd at the death of the Intestate and that Elizabeth marryed John Pennial John and Elizabeth brought a plea of Debt against the Defendant before the Major of London for the said 100 l. and recovered by default and had Execution of 55 l. 8 s. 5 d. and so acknowledged satisfaction c. and did further plead that the Intestate the 12 Janua 7 Jacob. did acknowledg in Chancery that he owed to the Lord Chancellor and to the Master of the Rolls 500 l. which Recovery and Recogniâ—â—nce did amount to 600 l. 8 s. 6 d. And that the Defendant for the said Execution and for payment of divers Debts of the Intestate before this Action plene administravit omnia bona Intestatoris praeterquam bona ad valentiam 100 l. which were lyable for the residue of the said Recovery and for 100 l. parcel of the said 500 l. and that he hath not nor had at the day of the Writ purchased any other goods c. saving to the value of the said 55 l. 8 s. 5 d. and the said 100 l. and did aver that the Debt recovered before the Major c. was a true and a just Debt and that the said Recovery as to 45 l. and 1 d. residue of the said 100 l. 8 s. 6 d. and the said Recovery did remain in force The Plaintiff as to the Recovery said That the said Obligation Replication upon which the said Recovery was had was made for security of the payment of 55 l. and that the said John Pennial and Elizabeth did accept the said 55 l. 8 s. 5 d. in full satisfaction of the said Iudgment and were content therewith and offered therefore to make a Release or to acknowledg satisfaction but the Defendant to defraud the Plaintiff of his just Debt did defer to have satisfaction acknowledged or to have a Release of the residue of the Iudgment and suffered the Iudgment to remain in force by fraud and covin to the intent aforesaid c. The Defendant as to the residue of the Debt Rejoynder and the acceptance of the said 55 l 8 s. 5 d. in satisfaction of the Iudgment and to the offer of Release and acknowledgment of satisfaction did demur in Law And as to the Recognizance he said that a Condition was annexed to it scil That if the Intestate his Executors or Assigns should pay 100 l. with the increase thereof to William Francis an Infant when he shall come to the age of 21 years and in the mean time shall imploy it to the benefit of the Infant according to the Will of William Francis that then the Recognizance shall be voyd and did aver that William Francis was alive and within age and that the said 100 l. was not yet payd And the Plaintiff to this did joyn in Demurrer And to the other Plea did demur in Law and the Defendant did joyn And I conceive that as to the first Demur the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment for now it is acknowledged by the Defendant that he hath 100 l. in his hands besides the 55 l. 8 s. 5 d. delivered in Execution and he hath not shewed any sufficient cause for retaining it for when those who recovered 100 l. upon the Bond did accept 55 l. 8 s. 5 d. in full satisfaction of the Iudgment and did offer to release and acknowledg satisfaction this Iudgment in truth is discharged and cannot charge the Executor and therefore he cannot return riens en ses maines to satisfie because he is not bound to pay it Cook 8 Rep. Turners Case who brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 100 l. against Laurence and others Administrators of Booker The Defendants pleaded in Bar divers former Recoveries against them in Debt had that they had not Assets praeterquam bona catalla quae non attingunt ad valorem of the said Debts recovered The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendants since the Recoveries did pay part of the Debts in full satisfaction wherewith they held themselves content and offered to acknowledg satisfaction but the Defendants did refuse to agree to that to the defrauding of the Plaintiff And adjudged that the Plaintiff should recover for an Executor ought to execute his office truly Object
But it may be objected That there is no place mentioned where the payment or acceptance was Answer I answer that it is not material for it is not issuable but onely evidence to prove the fraud which is the substance of the Plea and that is proved by the said Case of Turner And 42 Ed. 3. 14. Conspiracy shall be brought where it was done and not where the Indictment was And 44 Ed. 3. 31. Attachment upon a Prohibition lies where the summons is although the Plea be held in another County 1 H. 7. 15. B. Payment with Acquittance pleaded in an Action of Debt upon a Bond is not double because that acquittance onely is issuable and the payment is but evidence Then the Recognizance is no cause of the retaining the 100 l. as in Cook R. 5. Harrisons Case Green brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 40 l. against H. Administrator of Thomas Sydney the Defendant pleaded that the Intestate was bound in a Statute besides which he had no goods c. The Plaintiff replyed that there was an Indenture of Defeasance for performance of Covenants which hitherto were performed whereupon the Defendant demurred and it was adjudged against him for a Debt upon a Bond shall be payd before a Statute to perform Covenants when none of them then were nor perhaps ever shall be broken but are future and contingent things and therefore such possibilities which peradventure shall never happen shall not bar present and due Debts upon a Bond. And although the Condition of the Recognizance be to pay mony yet is it to be payd to a stranger and therefore it is not any Debt but the Debt is onely by the Recognizance Also it is not to be payd but upon a contingency to wit if the Infant comes to full age but if he dye before it shall never be payd 36 H. 8. Dyer 59. One devised 20 l. to his Daughter to be payd at her marriage or 21 years of age and she dyed before marriage yet it shall be payd 7 Ed. 4. 3. and 18. 36 H. 6. 9. Cook 9 Rep. fol. 108. In an Action of Debt against an Administratrix who pleaded Statutes and further that she had not sufficient c. The Plaintiff replyed that for one of the Statutes a lesser sum was accepted in satisfaction and as to the other that it was for performance of Covenants and that none was broken and the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff and that the general averment of payment and acceptance and that the Statute was for performance of Covenants was good because the Plaintiff was a stranger thereto And this case was argued again by me for the Plaintiff and by Crook for the Defendant Saturday the 24 of May Pasch 15 Jacob. at which day Mountague Doderidge and Haughton did agree that for the first matter Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff but as to the last Mountague held for the Defendant but the other two on the contrary And Doderidge and Haughton agreed that the Plea of the Defendant was naught because he said that a Condition was annexed to the Recognizance and did not say that it was upon condition and Mountague replyed not Vide Com. Browning and Beestons Case 21 Ed. 4. 49. 28 H. 6. 3. Hillar 12 Jacob. Robinson against Greves Rot. 744. IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendant the 6 of May 12 Jac. the House and several Closes of the Plaintiff did break and enter c. ad damnum c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty The Iury found that the said Tenements were Copyhold parcel of the Mannor of Ecclesfield grantable time out of minde by the Lord or his Steward by Copy in Fee in Tayl or for life or years according to the Will of the Lord and according to the Custom of the Mannor And that before the Trespass Thomas Shercliff was seised in fee at the will of the Lord according to the custom c. And that the first of January 14 Elizab. by the hands of Nicolas Shercliff and Thomas Jepson two of the Customary Tenants Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury then and yet being Lord of the said Mannor out of Court and according to the Custom of the said Mannor did surrender to the use of Nicolas Stanniland and his Heirs which Surrender at the next Court 11 Janua 40 Elizab. by the hands of the said N. S. and Tho. J. was delivered into the said Court and there by the homage of the said Court was presented and by William West then Steward was accepted and entered in the Rolls of the said Court and that a Copy of the Surrender under the hand of the said Steward was delivered to the said Nicolas Stanniland which Copy was found verbatim viz. Ad hanc curiam compertum est per homagium quod Tho. S. sursum reddidit ad usum N. St. haeredibus suis but they said that the said N. St. was no otherwise admitted By force of which the said Nicolas entered and the 6 Decemb. 1 Jac. out of Court by the hands of Thomas Jepson and Richard Shercliff did surrender according to the custom of the Mannor to the use of the said N. St. for life the remainder to William Stanniland and his Heirs which Surrender at the Court of the Mannor held the 17 May 14 Jac. was delivered into Court by the hands of the said Thomas Jepson and Robert Shercliff and was presented by the homage at the said Court and was there accepted and entered in the Roll by the Sheriff and that a Copy of the said Surrender under the hand of the Steward was delivered to the said N. St. which Copy was found verbatim in the said words with the former and found that there was no other admittance The sixth of November 2 Jacob. Nicolas St. dyed Thomas Shercliff entered at the Court 6 Maii 12 Jacob. did surrender to the use of the Plaintiff for ten years and payd his Fine and was admitted c. whereby the Plaintiff did enter upon whom the Defendant by the commandment of William Stanniland did enter and made the Trespass c. And so prayed the Opinion of the Court. And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment And in this case are two matters considerable First if this Presentment of the Lord and the entry into the Roll and the delivery of a Copy entred by the Steward be any admittance or not And I conceive that it is no admittance For an admittance is a ceremony requisite to make a Copyhold Estate and is so necessary that before admittance he to whose use the Surrender is made hath no Estate as in Bracton 2. cap. 8. Si ipse ad alium transferre voluerit prius illud restituet domino vel servienti si dominus praesens non fuerit de manibus illorum fiat translatio ad alium c. And before admittance this is no perfect assurance but onely begins then as in Peryams Case Cook 5
James of a house in the Parish of St. Mary Abchurch in the Ward of Candlewick-street Habendum from Michaelm last past for three years and layd the Ejectment to be the 28 Octob. in the same year The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And the Iury found that William Say was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and of two other Messuages in the Parish of St. Johns in Walbrook London and held them in Socage And that the 8 Octob. 1562. the said William having issue Francis his Son and Margaret Agnes and Alice by his Will in writing did devise the said Messuage in these words I bequeath to Francis my Son all my three Houses after the death of my Wife Barbara and his Mother and if Margaret Agnes and Alice and either of them do out-live their Mother and their Brother Francis and his Heirs then they to enjoy the three Houses for their lives and the three Houses then I give freely to my Sisters Sons Iohn Wittinbury and Roger Wittinbury and they to pay unto the Wardens of the Batchelors Company of the Merchant-Taylors 6 l. 10 s. yearly to be given to the poor and needy Brethren of the same Company for ever and if the said Iohn and Roger and their Successors do deny the said payment of 6 l. 10 s. it shall be lawful that the said Wardens to enter into the three Houses and to discharge them for ever William Say the Devisor dyes Barbara enters Francis Agnes and Alice dye without issue Barbara dyes Margaret enters John Wittinbury dyes without issue Roger Wittinbury dyes without issue and the Lessor is Cosin and Heir to him viz. Son of Margaret Pierson Sister of the said Roger. The 18 of August 13 Jacob. Margaret dyed seised having issue John Savage her Son and Heir who entered which Son the 17 February 13 Jacob. did infeoff Edward Jackson in Fee who the second of September 13 Jacob did infeoff Richard Slydhurst in Fee who the third of September 13 Jacob. did make the Lease to the Defendant for four years who entered upon whom the Lessor did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant did enter And prayed the Opinion of the Court c. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant But first as to the Question that hath been made scil What Estate John and Roger Wittingbury shall take if they shall take any Estate at all by this Will I shall not argue for I agree that if they have any Estate it is a Fee-simple in respect of the continual and perpetual charge imposed upon them for the payment of 6 l. 10 s. to the Wardens c. for that is to have a perpetual continuance in respect of the persons to whom it is to be payd scil the Poor And also the persons to pay are the two Wittingburies and their successors who in the Exposition of the Will shall be taken for their Heirs and Assigns and also in respect of the limitation of the payment scil for ever which in a Will makes a Fee-simple and â—â—â—â—s much as the charge is to continue for ever it follows also that the Estate ought to continue for without the Estate the charge cannot be But I conceive that John and Roger shall take nothing by this will or at least that they shall take but a future Estate to begin after the death of Francis without Heir and then their time will never come for John Savage under whom the Defendant doth derive his Estate is Heire to Francis and therefore the Plaintiff nor his Lessor being Heire to Robert Wittingb the Survivor cannot have this house And to prove this here is an Estate limited by expresse words to Francis and his Heirs and no apparent intent by the Devisor that the word Heirs shall be restrained to the Heirs of his body unlesse by reason of the limitation of the Remainders afterwards which cannot be as hath been said if Francis had a Fee-simple But as to this I say that the same reason may be given when a man deviseth Land to A. and his Heires and if he die without Heire that it shall remain to B. and his Heires in which case if the Devise to A. shall be restrained to an Estate in Taile the Remainder to be is good but no such intent can be collected against expresse words and therefore the Remainder is utterly void as in 19 H. 8. 8. B. where the Rule is given that when the intent of the Testator does not agree with the Law his intent shall be void and this is a certain Rule And West 2. cap. 1. where it is provided Quod voluntas donatoris observetur yet it ought alwaies to agree with the Rules of Law as is proved by the 8. Assise 33. where was a Gift in Taile to two and if one dies that the Survivor shall have all to him and the heirs of his body now doth the Law say that they have severall Inheritances but the will of the Donor was that the Survivor should have all which being repugnant to the Rule of Law was adjudged to be a void Clause 35 H. 8. 6. Estates 75. Estates given to the husband and wife for their lives the Remainder to the heires of their bodies is an Estate-taile executed notwithstanding the expresse will of the Donor because an Estate for life and of Inheritance cannot be distinct in one and the same person without a mean Estate in another So that in Wills if the intent be against Law they are void And so is it if the intent be ambiguous and not manifestly to be collected out of the words of the Will And in our Case no manifest intent does appear to make the Estate of Francis an Estate in Tail Câ—ke 6. Rep. Wildes Case One devised land to A. for life the Remainder to B. in Taile the Remainder to R. and his wife and after their deaths to their Children who then had two Children the Devisor dies and A. dies and B. dies without Issue and and it was adjudged that the Children of R. and his wife should have only an Estate for life because that by Iudgment of Law they have but an Estate for life and if R. and his wife should have an Estate in Taile it ought to be by the intent of the Devisor which intent ought to be manifest and certain and so expressed in the Will and in this case no such intent does appear for perhaps his intent was to accord with the Rule of Law 15 16 Eliz. 9. a. A. having three Houses having three Sons and a Daughter did devise to B. his first Son a House paying ten pounds to his Sister and he to enter after the death of the wife of the Devisor and did devise to his second Son another Houses paying to the Daughter ten pounds and he to enter at the age of one and twenty years and did devise the third House to the third Son paying ten pounds to his
immediately to the King Judgment And for these Reasons the Defendant was outed of his ayd by Iudgment of the Court. Michaelm 14 Jacob. Lightfoot against Lerret and others IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants 20 Novemb. 13 Jacob. two Heifers of the Plaintiff of price 6 l. at Bentley and Sprodburgh did take chase and drive away c. Richard Lerret did plead not guilty and the other Defendants viz. William Lerret and Edward Taylor as to one of the Steers did plead Not guilty and for the other that the King was seised in Fee of the Mannors of Doncaster Arkse and Sprodburgh whereof the Bridges called Wilcomb-Bridg and St. Mary-Bridg are and time out of mind c. were within the said Mannors That the 14 of January 13 Jacob. the King did grant to Edmund Duffield and John Babington and their Heirs Tolnetum omnium singulorum pecudum that did pass and repass upon the Water and River of Dun in the County aforesaid at and by the said Bridges to have and receive for the same as there the Kings of this Realm were used for such Toll or passage rendering 10 s. Rent to the King And they said that before and at the time of the making of the Grant the Toll was used to be taken at a Bridg called Burrow-Bridg in the County aforesaid for every twenty Cattel that past by that Bridg 6 d. That the 28 Junii 13 Jacob. Duffield and Babington by Deed enrolled and for a sum of mony did bargain and sell the said Toll to John Richardson and his Heirs That the third of June in the said year John Richardson did bargain and sell the Toll to the said William Lerret and his Heirs And the Plaintiff before the Trespass was possest as well of the said Steer as of thirty nine others and that the said Plaintiff at the time aforesaid did drive the said Cattel by the said Willow-Bridg and St. Mary-Bridg whereupon the said William Lerret did demand of the Plaintiff 12 d. for Toll of the said fourty Cattel which the Plaintiff did refuse whereupon the said William in his own right and the other as his servant did take the said Steer by distress for the said 12 d. And prayed ayd of the King c. The Plaintiff replyed that the said Willow-Bridg and St. Mary-Bridg were common Bridges for passage for all the Kings Subjects of the City of York and other Cities and Towns in the North parts to Doncaster and from thence to London and to the Cities and Towns in the South parts at their pleasure with Carts c. and that neither at the making of the Letters Patents nor at any time before any Toll was taken or received for any passages over the Bridges aforesaid Whereupon the Defendants demurred in Law and the Plaintiffs joyned And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff The Grant is of Toll for Cattel passing and repassing upon the River of Dun by the said Bridges and it is not alledged that the Cattel did pass over the said River It is alledged that the two hedges are within the Mannor but it is not aledged that they are parcel of the Mannor so that it may be upon the Land of a Freeholder and if so the King cannot grant the Toll No certainty is granted but onely to take and receive c. and it is not alledged that at any Bridges any Toll was taken but onely at Burrowbridg No Town is alledged in which Burrow-Bridg is And Pasch 15 Jacob. It was agreed by all the Court that the Grant was utterly voyd for the â—ncertainty viz. to take such toll as was taken there and otherwhere within the Realm of England c. And also that the Plea of the Defendant was utterly insufficient for the other causes aforesaid wherefore it was adjudged that the Defendants should be outed of their ayd and that they should plead in chief c. Pasch 14 Jacob. Parker against Sanders IN an Information upon the Statute of 39 Eliz. cap. the 2d. as well for the King as for himself for that one hundred acres of Land in Nether-Winchenden in the County of Bucks 17 Novemb. 1 Eliz. and before the 24 of Octob. 29 Eliz. were converted from tillage to sheep-pasture and grasing of Cattel which 100 acres were arable Land such as were used in tillage for twelve years together next before the said conversion according to the nature of the soyl and course of tillage in that part of the Country and that the said 100 acres were not restored to tillage nor layd for tillage before the first of May 1599. nor ever since And that the Defendant the 26 of March the 13 of King James was occupier of the said hundred acres and did so continue until the 27 Martii 14 Jacob. and that the Defendant the 27 of March did not restore nor lay to tillage the said hundred acres but for the said time converted them into pasture contrary to the form of the Statute c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And the Iury for the fifty acres of Land did finde the conversion after the 17 of November 1 Elizab. and before the 24 of October the 39 of Elizabeth and that they were used in tillage for twelve years together before the said conversion and that they were not restored to tillage before the first of May 1599. nor ever since and that the Defendant the 26 Martii 13 Jacob. was occupier of the said fifty acres from that time unto the 27 Martii 14 Jacob. continuing his occupation thereof and was not occupier thereof before the 26 Martii 13 of King James And that the Defendant nor any other before the 27 Martii 14 Jacob. restored or layd the said fifty acres to tillage but continued them in Pasture during the said time And prayed the advice of the Court. And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the King and the Informer for 50 l. viz. twenty shillings for every one of the said fifty acres And to this purpose the Statute hath two clauses the first is a commandment and this doth consist of two parts 1. That all Land converted from tillage to pasture since the 7 of Novemb. and before the 24 of Octob. 39 Eliz. being before used in tillage for twelve years together shall be restored to tillage before 1599. so as the whole according to the nature of that soyl and course of husbandry uses within that part of the Country be within three years at the least turned to tillage by the occupiers and possessors therof 2. And so shall be continued for ever The second clause doth contain the forfeiture viz. That if any shall offend against the premisses every such person shall forfeit for every acre not restored or not continued as is aforesaid 20 s. for every year that he so offends And Iudgment Judgment was given for the King and the Informer for otherwise the Statute shall be utterly
defrauded for if no information be for the conversion within one year after or if the Convertor pay the penalty of 20 s. for the converting he may let it out to another And by pretence of the Defendants Councel he shall not be subject to penalty for the continuance But the Court agreed that he who made the conversion should be punished and so should every other occupyer of the Land who does not keep the Land in tillage Rot. 386. Michaelm 12 Jacob. Perryn against Audrey Barry IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench for the said Audrey against the said Perryn in Debt upon a Bond of 100 l. made the 28 of April 5 Jacob. In which Action the said Perryn demanded Oyer of the said Bond and of the Condition which was That if the Defendant Iohn Perryn his Executors and Administrators should perform the Award of Thomas Clyff Roger Glover Robert Goodwin and Thomas Piborn Arbitrators as well for the said Perryn as the said Audrey Barry elected to Arbitrate of for and upon all and all manner of Actions cause and causes of Actions Suits Trespasses Debts Duties c. and all other demands whatsoever which between the said parties at any time until the date of the Obligation have been had moved or now depending so that the same Award c. of the said Arbitrators or any three of them of the premisses be made and given up in writing indented under their hands and seals on or before the last of May next that then the Obligation shall be voyd And the Defendant did plead that the said Arbitrators did not make any Award The Plaintiff did reply that the said Roger Glover Robert Goodwin and Thomas Piborn three of the said Arbitrators the 30 of May. fifth of King James did make their Award by writing indented That the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 57 l. viz. upon or before the 16 of June next 10 l. and the 29 of September next 17 l. and the 25 of Novemb. next 20 l. and the 25 of March next 10 l. And whereas the Defendant and Stephen Perryn were bound to the Plaintiff in 12 l. upon condition to pay 6 l. at certain days that the said Obligation should be to the Plaintiff in force as then it was and that she should have such benefit thereby as she might have had before and that the Plaintiff should acquit and save indemnified the Defendant from all Debts Duties and mony for which the Defendant with the Plaintiff was indebted or bound to Dingley Numan Clark Cater or any of them And that all Actions depending between the parties in any of the Kings Courts and all other Actions and causes of Action for any matter between them except the matters contained in the Arbitrement and the Obligation to perform the Award should cease c. And that if any controversie or doubt should happen between the parties for or about any word sentence or thing in the Arbitrement or of or touching the Award or any thing contained therein that the parties and their Executors shall perform such explanation and construction thereof as the said three Arbitrators should make in writing under their hands concerning the same And that the Plaintiff shall pay to George Write for drawing and ingrossing the said Arbitrement 6 s. 8 d. which Agreement the said three Arbitrators shall deliver to the parties the same day And although the Plaintiff did perform all yet the Defendant did not pay the 10 l. the 16 of June next And hereupon the Defendant demurred in Law and the Plaintiff joyned and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff whereupon the Defendant brought this Writ of Error And assigned the first Error because the submission was to four and Error 1 the Arbitrement was by three onely But all the Iustices and Barons did hold that the Agreement was well made notwithstanding for it shall be taken now to be a submission to four or any three of them and so was it agreed in the Kings Bench where this point hath been argued at the Bar oftentimes The second was that the Arbitrators did not make any Award for Error 2 the Bond of 12 l. in which the said Plaintiff and St. Perryn were bound to the now Defendant upon condition to pay 6 l. at certain days and the submission is conditional sc That the Award be made of all things c. and therefore they ought to have determined these matters For it may be that this was the principal cause why the Plaintiff did submit himself to the Award sc to be discharged of this Bond which perhaps was forfeited for not performing the condition with the penalty whereof he shall be now charged And although the Bond was made by the Plaintiff and another yet was it a cause of action depending between the Plaintiff and Defendant for she may sue him 2 R. 3. 18. b. If three men and another do refer themselves to an Arbitrement of all demands between them the Arbitrators may make an Award of all matters which the three had against the other joyntly and of each matter which every one of the three hath against the fourth and may award that every one of the three shall pay mony to the fourth Vide Comment 389. Chapmans Case 21 H. 7. 296. In debt by a woman as Executrix the Defendant said that I. S. her husband and the Defendant did refer themselves to Arbitrament who made an agreement and the husband dyed and the Court held that the debt of the woman as Executrix was extinct by this Arbitrement The clause that the now Defendant should acquit the Plaintiff of Error 3 all Debts wherein he was bound with the Defendant to Dingley c. is insufficient because there is no Christian name The breach is assigned for that the Defendant did not pay the 10 l. Error 4 upon the sixth day of June whereas the Award was that it should be payd upon or before the 16 day of June But all did agree that this was well assigned because that when it is alledged that it was not payd upon the 16 day it was not payd before the day The Arbitrators have awarded that the parties shall stand to their Error 5 Award for construction of the Arbitrement and of all things in the Award and of all matters concerning them for the future which is not in their power for all the Award ought to be made before the last of May. They award 6 s. 8 d. to be payd by Audrey to George Write for ingrossing Error 6 of the Award which is not within the submission 1. Because Write is a stranger 2. Because it is a thing agreed on after the submission Judgment And Hill 14 Jac. The Iudgment was affirmed and they agreed the last agreement to be void but that was not materiall for the Award was void only for that and good for the residue Rot. 100. Hillar 13 Jacob. Mande against French IN
Court of the Kings Bench was on the contrary But afterwards the case was resolved upon another point viz. That the Lease was voyd because that the words a die confectionis c. were razed by the Lessee himself But admitting that in this case the Lease should not begin until the end of the first Lease yet that is no proof that in our case the Lease shall not begin presently for in this case of the 9 of Elizab. the true Grant in the premisses does shew the intent of the parties to make a Lease in Reversion and that shall controul the words in the Habendum a die confectionis also these words are qualified by other words in the Habendum viz. termino praedict finito Thirdly the former Lease is recited as a good Lease without doubt but in our case the first Lease is not received as a Lease in truth but is termed a pretended Lease and yet in this case there were diversities of Opinions if the Lease shall commence presently or not And Mich. 10 Jacob. Thomas Moor brought an Ejectment against John Musgrave upon a Lease made to him by William Moor the fifth of May 10 Jac. of a Messuage c. in C. in the County of Cumberland habendum from the Feast of the Anunciation last past for 21 years whereby he entred and was possest until the Defendant the same day did eject him To which the Defendant pleaded Not guilty And the Iury found that William Moor was seised in Fee and made a Lease to the Plaintiff habendum from the Anunciation of the Virgin Mary last past for the term of 21 years next ensuing the date hereof c. And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff whereby it appears that the term shall begin from the first limitation And after the Case was argued on the Bench by all the Iudges Judgment and Denham Bromley and Tanfield were of Opinion for the Defendant wherefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Michaelm 14 Jacob. Standish against Short in the Exchequer IN an Ejectment on a Lease made by George Walker Parson of the parish of S. John Evangelist in London 14 Junii 14 Jac. of a Messuage called the Swan in the said Parish habendum from the Anunciation last past for three years whereupon the Plaintiff was possest until he was ejected by the Defendant the 15 Junii in the same year And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found That the said Messuage did lie within the City of London and that it was an ancient City and that by the Custom every Citizen being a Freeman of London by his Will in writing may devise all his houses and Lands and any part thereof in the said City as well in Mortmain without license as in any other manner in Fee in Tayl for life or for years c. and that the said Custom and all other Customs of the said City the 7 of Richard the second were confirmed by Act of Parliament And they found that William Daringre Citizen and Freeman of London the tenth of May 34 of Ed. the third was seised in Fee as well of the said Messuages as of other Lands in London in Fee and the tenth of May 1360. and in the 34 of Ed. 3. made his Will in writing and thereby did devise the said Messuages by the name of his Tenements in these words following And first he devised a Quit Rent of 40 s. a year to the Parson of St. John Evangelist and his successors to pray for Souls and he did devise to the said Parson and his successors a Chamber with two Cellars thereupon lying on the North-side of his Tenement to pray for Souls And then followed this clause Item lego ordino quod unus capellanus celebret in Ecclesia Sancti Johannis praedict statim post decessum meum pro anima mea animabus praedictis quod idem capellanus percipiet annuatim de Tenemento meo 8 Marks pro stipendio volo quod idem capellanus ad matutinas missas omnibus aliis horis Canonicis in Ecclesia praedict intersit per dispositionem Rectoris ejusdem qui pro tempore fuerit de residuo si quod clarum fuerit ultra solutionem dict tenementi Volo quod Richardus filius Elizabethae uxoris meae scolatizando adjuvetur quousque ad legitimam aetatem pervenit ad ordines Sacerdotales percipiend cum Sacerdos fuerit volo quod idem Richardus dictum cantarium occupet pro termino vitae suae si voluit si non de residuo praedicti tenementi neque de cantario nihil percipiet sed Rector antedictus qui pro tempore fuerit 4 magistri sufficient Parochiam praesentent invenient unum capellanum ad dictum Cantarium occupandum in perpetuum de tenementis meis in dominica Parochia non legatis salvo quod lego de dictis tenement meis Rectoribus Successor suis illam mansionem quam Johannes Sherman modo tenet reddend inde annuatim tot quiet reddit de omnibus tenementis meis exeunt Item volo quod si dominica Cantuaria pro defectu dicti Rectoris vel Successor suorum retardavit ultra 40 dies inoccupat fuerit quod dict camer solarii mansiones erunt Gardianis de ponte Et id quod clarum fuerit residuum ultra solutionem reparationem praedict volo quod ponatur sub custode Rectoris 4 Parochianorum ad providend ornamentum libros dominicae Ecclesiae And the Devisor dyed the same day seised of the said Tenements And they further found that the Messuages wherein c. is parcel of one of the Tenements in the Will out of which the Testator did ordain that the said Chaplain should have eight Marks for his stipend and that Henry Tyting was Parson of the said Church at the time of the death of the Devisor and that the Church was voyd by his death and that the Lessor was presented admitted instituted and inducted and that he entered into the said Messuages upon the Defendant and did expel him and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who entered and was possest until the Defendant ejected him And whether the Defendant was guilty or not they prayed the Opinion of the Court. And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment And the Question is Whether the Parson by this Devise shall have the houses the said eight Marks are limited to be payd to the Chaplain or not And I conceive that the Parson shall have it In the Comment 4136. It is taken for a Rule that in expounding of Wills the Law shall interpret the words of the Devisor and shall direct their operation according to the intent of the Devisor so that to the matter form and order limited in last Wills the Law does submit to them and wills that they should be observed And although that in Conveyances or Deeds executed by men in their life-times the Law doth require apt words to make
cannot be First because that the Land devised to them is onely a Chamber and a mansion of little value and that is to repair the Bridg and that is a work of such charge that no surplussage can be intended Secondly The clause is Id quod clarum fuerit ultra solutionem reparationem c. which are the very words in the clause used for the disposing of the residue to R. for the time and cannot be referred to the Devise of the Wardens of the Bridge because that the things devised to them are apparently to be for the reparation only and no payment is limited out of it but the Tenement out of which the Stipend is to be payd is first charged with this payment and then with the reparation of the Tenement and then with the Ornaments and Books for the Church And afterwards this Case was argued by Coventrey the Kings Sollicitor for the Plaintiff and by S. Chibborne for the Defendant And Mich. 16. Jac. The Barons viz. Tanfeild Bromley and Denham did openly declare their opinion that the Land was not demised to the Parson by this Will and thereupon they commanded Iudgment to be entred for the Defendant which was entred accordingly Trinit 15 Jacob. John Adams against Roger James Knight and others IN a Replevin for taking of twelve Cowes and two Calves the twenty fourth of May the 14. of King James at Upminster in a place called Nelfeild alias Newfeild ad damnum 10 l. The Defendants did justifie the taking c. as Bayliffs of Thomas James and Moily Deale for that the place contained twenâ—â— acres of Pasture And that William Latham was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Upminster whereof the said twenty acres are parcell and the twenty fifth Maii 13 Eliz. devised the same to George Wiseman excepting one Close of Land or Pasture called Crouckfeild containing by estimation fifty acres and a parcell of a Close called Ecrowchfeild containing by estimation sixty acres and all Woods and Frees and Profits of Court Leets Waifes Estrayes Escheats Hermots Reliefs Goods and Chattels of Felons and Fugitives Deodands and Treasure Trove Habendum from Michaelm 1576. for sixty one years rendring forty pounds Rent at the Annunciation and Michaelmas The first of Octob. 1576. George Wiseman entred The twentieth of August 35 Eliz. William Latham by Deed inroled for the consideration of two thousand pounds did bargain and sell the Mannor to Roger James Father of the Defendant Roger in Fee and the 15 Decemb. 39 Eliz. Roger James the Bargaines did devise the third part of the Mannor to John his Son after whose death John was seised of the third part in Fee The seventh of August 11 Jacob. John James by Indenture for a thousand pounds paid by Thomas Fryth did bargain and sell to the said Thomas Fryth and Moyle Deale the said Reversion of the said third part Habendum from the said seventh of August for a hundred years ex intentione that they should grant or assign the said term to Thomas Fryth or his Assignes upon condition that he should pay a thousand pounds to the said Roger James viz. five hundred pounds the seventeenth of August 1614. and five hundred pounds the seventeenth of Febr. next after And because sixty pounds thirteen shillings foure pence was behind to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale for halfe a yeare ending at Mich. 12 Jac. they did well justifie the taking c. The Plaintiff said that after the seventh of August Bar. 11 Jac. and before the said Mich. 12 Jac. viz. the ninth of August the 11 Jac. the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale did bargain and sell to the said Thomas Fryth all their Estate in the said third part whereby he was and yet is possessed Replication The Avowants replyed that the Bargain and Sale was upon Condition to pay the said thousand pounds to the said Roger James at the said days of payment and that Thomas Fryth did not pay the said five hundred pounds the seventeenth of August 1614. Rejoynder The Plaintiff rejoyned that after the said ninth of August 11 Jac. scil 10. August 11 Jac. the said John James was seised in Fee of the Reversion of the third part expectant upon the estate of the said George Wiseman And that the tenth of August 11 Jacob. John James by Indenture inroled did bargain and sell the said Reversion to the said Thomas Fryth and his heires That the seventeenth of August 11 Jac. John James by Indenture dated the aforesaid seventh of August 11 Jac. fâ—r a thousand pounds did bargain and sell the said third part to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale Habendum from the said seventh of August 11 Jac. for a hundred years and that they after scil the aforesaid seventeenth of August 11 Jac. did bargain and sell to the said Thomas Fryth upon condition before expressed Absque hoc that the said John James did bargain and sell to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale the said Reversion before the said tenth of August 11 Jac. and absque hoc that the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale before the said tenth of August 11 Jac. did bargain and grant the said Reversion to the said Thomas Fryth on condition as aforesaid Vpon which the Avowants demurred and shewed for cause that this is a departure from the Bar and that the said Rejoynder is in it self repugnant And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff in the Replevin for that the Conusance is utterly insufficient for three causes 1. The Defendants make Conusance as Bayliffs to Thomas James and Moyle Deale and do endeavour to entitle themselves to a third part of the Reversion and Rent upon the Lease to Wiseman by the Devise of Roger James and it doth not appear in all the Conusance that Roger James was dead before the Grant made by John James to the said Thomas James and Deale for it is not set forth that he died but only by implication scil the bargain and sale by Latham is pleaded to Roger James lately dead which doth refer to the time of the plea which was long after the Grant to Thomas James and Deale and after the Rent due and the taking of the Distresse then it is alledged that after the death of Roger James the Devisor John James entred which is not sufficient because it is not alledged in fact that he dyed or when he diâ— dye And all the Court agreed the Avowry insufficient as to this exception Secondly the bargain and sale of the Reversion by John James to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale is pleaded to be made the seventh of August 11 Jac. Habendum from the aforesaid seventh of August for a hundred years whereby the day it self is excluded and so the Grant is to take effect in the future which cannot be by the Rules of Law as in Bucklers Case 2. Rep. where Buckler Tenant for life in Mich. Term 20 Eliz. made
portion not payd then if the Defendant shall pay to the said Susan the said 400 l. within six weeks after the said first of May to such person to whom the said Elizabeth by the said Will ought to pay the same and shall procure good and sufficient discharge to the said Elizabeth of the said sum of and from all persons to whom the same shall be due that then all the said Obligations shall be voyd and delivered up to the Defendant cancelled and made voyd And the said Elizabeth did covenant that until manifest default was made in the premisses and the said Elizabeth shall be thereof damnified and upon reasonable request no satisfaction shall be given to her she will not take any advantage by reason of the said Obligation nor will prosecute any Suit against the Defendant or any other bound in the said Obligation And the Defendants said that the Plaintiffs nor any of them was not damnified by reason of the said Obligation in the Declaration or by reason of any of the said other Obligations and did aver the said Obligation in the Declaration and the said Obligation of 120 l. in the Indenture to be all one and that the said several days of payment limited by the Indenture nor any of them at the time of the Writ purchased were incurred Vpon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred and the Defendant did joyn And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffs for the Plea is utterly insufficient for divers causes And yet I do agree that although the Obligation be upon a condition yet is the Indenture a Defeasance thereof so that it is sufficient to the Defendant to perform the one or the other But the Indenture is of two parts 1. That if the Defendant shall pay to Elizabeth the daughter 500 l. and shall perform the other things mentioned in the Plea that all the Obligations shall be voyd and delivered up 2. The Plaintiff Elizabeth did covenant that until the Defendant should make default in the premisses and she should be damnified and upon request no satisfaction given to her she should not take any advantage of the Obligation nor shall prosecute any Suit against the Defendant or any other bound in the said Obligation And as to the first part I do agree that this is a good defeasance of the Obligation but the last clause is onely a Covenant and cannot be pleaded in bar of this Action brought upon this Obligation as in the 21 H. 7. 30. John de Pusetoes Case The said John and others were bound to T. who by Deed did grant to the said John that he should be quite discharged of the duty and if he be vexed or sued that the Bond shall be voyd which Case is there very largely argued but I conceive the better Opinion to be that the Bond is discharged because that the words are in effect as the words in the first part of this Indenture scil That if such act be made the Obligation shall be voyd But there Fineux said That if I grant to my Tenant for life that he shall not be impeachable for waste he shall not plead this in Bar but shall have an Action of Covenant thereupon And Brudnell put this case That if I grant to one against whom I have cause of Action that I will not sue him within a year this is not any suspension of the Action Vpon which case it is to be observed that I may sue and the other is put to his Action of Covenant And the Plea is first insufficient because he pleads that the Plaintiffs nor any of them were damnified by reason of the Bond in the Declaration or by reason of any of the aforesaid Writings obligatory in the said Indenture specified but he does not answer to the damnification by reason of the 500 l. to be payd to Elizabeth the daughter which is the principal matter to be done by the Defendant for the defeasance and in truth this Portion was due and not payd before this Suit begun The Defendant did aver that the several days of payment limited by the Indenture are not incurred and there is not any day limited for the payment of 500 l. and the truth was that it is payable at the time of the marriage of Elizabeth the daughter but this is not limited by the Indenture nor any time for the payment thereof and therefore this a verment is not good The Indenture of the Defeasance is if the Defendant shall pay the 500 l. or procure to the Plaintiff Elizabeth sufficent discharge for the same and shall provide fit maintenance for Elizabeth the daughter Whereupon I conceive that the Defendant ought to pay 500 l. and provide maintenance for the daughter or otherwise that he should procure a discharge from the Plaintiff Elizabeth and shall also provide maintenance for the daughter for her maintenance is as necessary if the mony be payd as it will be if the discharge be procured And the Defendant hath made no answer to the providing of maintenance Judgment And Michaelm 15 Jacob. Iudgment by all the Court was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 590. Trinit 16 Jacob. Margaret Evans against Wilkins IN an Action on the Case for that the Plaintiff the 12 September 15 Jacob. did retain the Defendant to be her Shepherd c. and that the Defendant in consideration of 6 d. to him payd by the Plaintiff and of 33 s. 4 d. of his Sallery to be payd to him for a year and in consideration that the Plaintiff did assume to pay the 33 s. 4 d. to the Defendant and to finde him meat drink and lodging for the said year and to permit the Defendant to have Pasture for twelve Sheep with the Sheep of the Plaintiff Did assume to serve the Plaintiff as a Shepherd for one year from Michaelmas next c. and to keep her Sheep To which the Plaintiff giving credit did not retain any other Shepherd and the Plaintiff did aver that she was ready to pay the Defendant the said 33 s. 4 d. and to provide him meat c. and to permit him to have Pasture for twelve Sheep with the Sheep of the Plaintiff yet the Defendant did not feed the Sheep of the Plaintiff although required the 4 Octob. 15 Jacob. whereby many of her Sheep dyed ad damnum 40 l. The Defendant pleaded the Statute of the 5 Elizab. whereby it is enacted That the Justices of Peace of every County or the greater part of them then resident in the County and also the Sheriff if it may be and every Major Bayly or other chief Officer of any City or Town Corporate in which there shall be any Justice of Peace within the limits of the said Town before the tenth of Iune next coming and afterwards shall yearly at every general Sessions first held and to be kept after Easter or any convenient time after Easter shall meet together and after such meeting shall call
50 l. for every month after such conviction and if default shall be made in any such payment that the Queen may by Proces out of the Exchequer take seise and enjoy all the goods and two parts as well of the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms of such Offendor as of all other Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seisures or penalties leaving a third part onely of the said Lands Leases and Farms for the relief of such Offendor his Wife Children and Family And for the more speedy conviction of such Offendors it was enacted That upon the Indictment of such Offendor proclamation shall be made at the Assises or Gaol-delivery where such Indictment shall be made whereby it shall be commanded that the body of such Offendor shall be rendered to the Sheriff of the same County before the next Assises and Gaol-delivery and if such Offender does not appear at the said next Assises and Gaol-delivery that then upon such default recorded the same shall be sufficient conviction of such Offendor as if a Tryal by Verdict had been had and recorded And the Defendants further said that the 19 of March the first of King James the Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery at the Assises and the Iustices of Peace at the Quarter Sessions have authority to enquire and determine of all Recusants as well for not receiving the Communion as for not repairing to Church according to the form of the Lawes in such manner and form as the Iustices of Assises and Gaol-delivery may do and also shall have power to make proclamation whereby a Precept shall be had for the rendring the body of the Offender to the Sheriff before the next Assises or Gaol-delivery or the next quarter Sessions c. And they said that before the Information viz. at the Assises and Gaol-delivery held at Westminster 8. August 12 Jac. before Sir Henry Hobard chief Iustice of the Bench and Sir Laurence Tanfeild chief Baron of the Exchequer Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery in the County of Southampton the said Katherine by the Oath of Robert Pawlet Esquire c. scil nineteen in all which were sworn and charged to enquire for the King and the body of the County was indicted for that the said Katherine the first of April 11 Jac. was of sixteen years of ago and did not repair to the Parish Church of Porthchalford nor to any other Church Chappell or usuall place of Common Prayer and was there at the Common Prayer and Divine Service at any time within one month next ensuing the said first of April 11 Jac. but did abstain from the same from the said first of April for amonth contrary to the form of divers Statutes c. upon which Indictment at the said Assises and Gaol-delivery publick Proclamation was made that the said Katherine should render her body at the next Assises and Gaol-delivery to render to the King according to the Statute c. at which next Assises and Gaol-delivery the sixth of March 12 Jac. before the said Iustices the said Katherine did not render her body according to the said Proclamation nor appear upon Record whereupon the said Katherine of the Premisses whereof she was indicted was lawfully convicted and yet stands convicted according to the Statute And the Defendants further said that they the aforesaid Term of Easter next after the conviction aforesaid the said Katherine did not pay nor any of them did pay into the Exchequer according to the rate of twenty pounds for every week contained in the said Indictment nor did after the conviction in the said Exchequer so much as then did remain not payd according to the rate of twenty pounds for every month after such conviction but thereof made default which conviction afterwards viz. in the Term of S. Michael then next after the conviction as aforesaid by the said Sir Henry Hubbert and Laurence Tanfeild Iustices c. was extreated and certified into the Exchequer and so there did remain according to the form of the Statute c. and the said conviction yet does remain in full force and this they are ready to aver with that also that the said Katherine named in the Information and the said Katherine named in the Indictment are one and the same person Vpon which Plea Mr. Attorney demurred in Law and the Defendants did joyn And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the King and the Informer against the Defendants In which first it is to be considered that neither the Statute of 28 Eliz. nor the Statute 35 Eliz. which give severall remedies to the King for the monthly forfeiture of twenty pounds given by the 23 Eliz. doe not restrain the Informer but that notwithstanding those Statutes any one may inform against any Recusant for not repairing to Church against the Statute of 23 Eliz. unlesse the King hath first taken his remedie against him for the same offence for that was adjudged by all the Court in Dr. Fosters Case 11 Rep. And as I beleive this will be granted and by the Defendants Councell so I will agree with them that if the Recusant be once convicted and punisht at the suit of the King he shall not be punisht for the same offence again at the suit of the Informer or otherwise for it is unjust to punish an Offender twice for one Crime And therefore the chief matter to be considered in this Case is the nature and force of this conviction against the wife and whether it be such a conviction as will bar the Informer of his Information or not And as to that first the woman is indicted here of Recusancy and proclaimed according to the Statute of 28 Eliz. and she did not render her body whereby she is convicted by this Statute but this conviction is not any Iudgment for the true words of the Statute are That if the party indicted shall not appear but make default after such Proclamation that then upon such default recorded this shall be a sufficient conviction in Law of such Offender as if a Tryall by Verdict had been had and recorded so that such default of appearance is made equivalent to a Verdict by that Statute but not to a Iudgment so that now it is to be understood that the woman in this Case is convicted by Verdict of Recusancy but no Iudgment is given And I conceive that such conviction is no Bar to the Informer For that this is a fruitlesse conviction and such a one as the King can take no advantage of and every conviction that shall make a discharge to the person convicted ought to be a legall and absolute conviction and such a one as thereby the party convicted may suffer the penalty imposed by the Law for such offence And that the King can have no benefit of this conviction is apparent for the remedy given to him by the 28 Eliz. for the penalty is to seise all the Goods and two parts of the Lands and
Leases of the Recusant but the woman here being married hath no Lands or Goods and therefore the King cannot have any thing and the Goods or Lands of her Husband cannot be taken for his wifes offence she being convicted by Indictment only to which the husband is no party Object But it may be objected that the wife may perhaps survive the husband and then she may have Goods and Lands and the King may seise them I answer that first it may be also that the husband may survive and then the King shall never have any thing Answer as it is resolved in Dr. Fosters Case 2. This Objection is upon two possibilities 1. That the husband may first dye 2. That the wife then shall have Lands and Goods And I have alwaies taken it for a Rule that a possibility shall never take away a present Action or Suit as is proved by divers Cases as in 5. Rep. Harisons Case and 9. Rep. fol. 108. 109. And as it is said in Elmers Case 5. Rep. that two possibilities cannot maintain hospitality or repair a Churche so I say in this case that one such possibility to recover this penalty for the King cannot hinder the Informer of his Suit nor oppose the good reformation of Recusants intended by the Statute for then all marryed women addicted to Popery will be Recusants upon confidence that if they be once convicted by Indictment the which they themselves may procure to be done then they shall not be subject to any penalty during the lives of their husbands who peradventure may survive them and as it was well observed in Dr. Fosters Case that married women are the most dangerous Recusants because that they have the education of their Children and the government of their Servants But it may be objected Object that if the Informer may sue and recover against the husband and wife then if the wife does survive the King shall have these Lands and goods according to the 28 Eliz. or may sue the husband and wife according to the 35 Eliz. for these penalties and so shall be two waies punished for the same offence No such inconvenience can happen Answer for as it is resolved in Dr. Fosters Case the recovery of the Informer being legall shall bar the King as in the 19 Ed. 2. where the Testator was bound in a Recognizance for performing of Covenants this was no bar in debt upon an Obligation but that the Plaintiff may recover and if after such recovery the Statute be forfeited and execution thereupon the Executor shall have an Audita Querela for that he had lawfully administred the goods before for payment of the Bonds And after viz. Mich. 17 Jac. I moved the Court that the Plea of the Defendants was insufficient for that the Statute did ordain that upon every Indictment of Recusancy proclamation should be made and that the body of the Offender should be rendred to the Sheriff of the County before the next Assises or Gaol-delivery and if such Offender so proclaimed does not appear but makes default that he shall be convicted c. And the Defendants have pleaded that Proclamation was made that the body of the said Katherine should be rendred at the next Assises or Gaol-delivery c. and therefore she is not convict at all because she was not proclaimed according to the Statute for this Proclamation differs in two materiall circumstances from the form prescribed by the Statute first in omission of the Sheriff to whom the body is to be rendred 2. In the time for the Statute limits it to be done before the next Assises c. but this Proclamation gives a larger time scil at the Assises Whereupon all the Court agreed that the Plea was insufficient for the causes aforesaid and that now the wife was not convicted by proclamation Wherefore Iudgment Judgment was given for the King and the Informer John Mitton Administrator of George Mitton of Goods not Administred by Alice Mitton against John By. IN an Action of Debt for twenty five pounds for that William Marquess of Winchester the twentieth of October 30 Eliz by Indenture did devise to John By the Father of the Defendant three parts of the Mannor of Newnham in the County of Southampton excepting all Fines Reliefs Amerciaments Courts Woods Copies Fishings and Royalties Habendum from Michaelmas next for one and twenty years rendring six shillings ten pence Rent at the Annunciation and Michaelmas The twentieth of January 1. Jac. John By the Father made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and died possessed The fourteenth of Novemb. 2 Jacob. the Defendant granted the Term to the Intestate The sixteenth of Novemb. 2 Jac. The Intestate did grant all the Term by Indenture to the Defendant rendring fifty nine pounds Rent at the Annunciation and Michaelmas whereby be entred and had possession of the Land and twenty five pounds of the said Rent for half a year ending at Michaelmas 15 Jacob. was behinde to the Plaintiff after the death of the Intestate which yet the Defendant doth not pay ad damnum c. The Defendant says that the Intestate the twenty sixth of June 5 Jac. did release by Deed to the Defendant all Actions Suits Debts Duties from the begining of the world until the day of the date of the said writing Whereupon the Plaintiff demurred in Law And I conceive that Judgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff For that in Littleton 118. If one doth release to another all Demands this is the best Release that may be and shall enure to the most advantage of him to whom it is made For by such Release all Actions Reals and Personals and Appeals and Executions are gone and extinct and if a man hath title to enter into any Land by such Release his title is gone and 20 Assis 5. where in an Assise for Rent a Release of all Demands was pleaded and the common Opinion was that it was good wherefore the Plaintiff was non-suited and 5 Edw. 4.42 by Danby A Release of all Demands by a Lord to his Tenant is a good bar and extinguishment of his Seigniory for although no Rent was behinde at the making of the Release yet is the Rent always in Demand and 6 H. 7. 15. If the King releaseth all Demands yet as to him the Inheritance shall not be included But in case of Rent or right of Entry by a common person and every thing therein implyed is gone by such Release And 14 H. 8. 9. by Pollard By Release of all Demands the Rent is extinct for Rent is to be had by Demand and if one doth determine the means he hath to come by a thing he doth determine the thing it self And Litt. 118. If a man hath a Rent-service or Rent-charge or Common of Pasture by such Release of all Demands all is gone from the Land from whence the Service or Rent is issuing or the Common of Pasture But if one lets Land to another
did deliver them to the said William Sadock and that it was then well known to the said William that the said Iewels were artificial and counterfeit and that the Defendant did command the said William that he should transport the said Iewels into Barbary where he knew the Plaintiff did reside and did further give authority to the said William to sell the said Iewels to the then King of Barbary or to any other person that would buy them And the Iury found that the said William went into Barbary and there knowing the said Iewels to be artificial and counterfeit did shew them to the Plaintiff for good and true Iewels and did request the Plaintiff to sell and utter them to the said Mully Sydan for good and right Iewels for the Defendant affirming to the Plaintiff that the said Iewels were worth 14400 Ounces of Barbary Mony amounting to 810 l. English Mony and that the Plaintiff not suspecting the said Iewels to be artificial and counterfeit but conceiving them to be good and true Iewels did receive them of the said William and presented them to be sold to the said King as good and true Iewels and procured the said King to buy them not being of the value of 3000 Ounces of Barbary Mony amounting to 168 l. 15 s. of English Mony for 14400 Ounces of Barbary Mony amounting to 810 l. English Mony and the Plaintiff then and there did receive the said sum of the said King for the said Iewels for the Defendant and payd the same to the said William who after the receit thereof immediately conveyed himself out of Barbary to London and did there pay the said sum to the Defendant and that afterwards the said King perceiving the said Iewels to be artificial and counterfeit caused the Plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned and detained him in prison three months until he had repayd to the said King the said 14400 Ounces of Barbary Mony for the said Iewels and that the Plaintiff did give notice to the Defendant of all the said premisses and requested him to repay him the said sum as the Plaintiff had alledged But they said that the Defendant did not command the said William that he should conceal the pravity or counterfeiting of the said Iewels or that he should repair to the Plaintiff and shew him the said Iewels for good and true Iewel and to require the Plaintiff to sell or utter the said Iewels to the said King or other person that would buy them and that he received the price for them as for good and true Iewels as by the Declaration is supposed And if it seem to the Court upon the whole matter that the Defendant is guilty they found for the Plaintiff and did assign 642 l. damages and four Marks costs and if not then they found for the Defendant And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff and that this Action does not lie against the Defendant for four Reasons It does appear by the Plaintiffs own Declaration that these Iewels were not counterfeit but onely of a less value then the mony for which they were sold for although the plaintiff in his declaration termeth them to be counterfeit Iewels yet he acknowledgeth them to be worth 168 l. 15 s. or as neer that value as may be for in as much as he averred them not to be of the value of 168 l. 15 s. this being his own averment it shall be taken most strongly against himself scil that they were very near that value and if they were of that value it appears to the Court that they could not be counterfeit although they were not of so great value as was payd for them And the value and estimation of Iewels is always as the Buyer will account of them and esteem them as Michaelm 38 and 39 Elizab. Common Bench where Davenport brought an Action on the Case against Sympson wherein the Plaintiff declared that he was possest of an Ewer of silver to the value of 500 l. and did give the same to A. to transport beyond Sea and to sell the same there and to give an account thereof to him and that A. had broken it and converted it to his own use whereupon the now Plaintiff brought his Action on the Case against A. ad damnum 500 l. whereupon they were at issue and the Defendant did maliciously depose that it was worth but 180 l. whereupon the Iury gave but 200 l. damages And adjudged that the Action would not lie and chiefly because that the value of such things are so uncertain that some value them higher then others Also the Verdict doth vary from the Declaration in three material points 1. The Defendant doth not direct his Servant to the Plaintiff 2. The Defendant did not command him to conceal the counterfeitness of the Iewels 3. He did not command the Servant to sell them as good Iewels No Action on the Case lies although this fact had been done by the Defendant himself as 11 Ed. 4. 6. If one sells Clothes and doth warrant them to be so long and they are not an Action on the Case lies but there ought to be an express warranty and that ought to be made at the time of the sale or else no Action lies And F. N. B. 94 C. If one doth sell a Horse and warrant him to be sound and he is not an Action lies so if one sells corrupt Wine and warrants it to be good an Action lies but unless he warrant the Horse or Wine to be good no Action lies for the Buyer is at his peril and his eyes and his taste must be his judges in this case and in 7 H. 4. 14. The Plaintiff declared that the Defendant sold corrupted Wine to him knowing the same to be corrupted the Defendant said that he gave the Plaintiff a taste of the Wine and that he agreed that it was good Wine and adjudged the Action would not lie and 13 H. 4. 1. If one sells a Horse that is blinde and warrants him to be sound no Action lies because I may see whether he be blinde or not but otherwise where he hath a disease in his body which I cannot discern Montague He ought to have shewed that he was legally imprisoned and compelled to pay the Mony for otherwise he cannot have an Action as in 13 H. 4. 6. A diversity in sale of things between those things that are necessary and not necessary as Iewels also the said William was authorized by the Defendant to sell the Iewels and he cannot authorize another and therefore that which the Plaintiff hath done was without any warrant from the Defendant The Defendant did not require his Servant to conceal the counterfeitness of the said Iewels nor to request the Plaintiff to sell them and therefore all that the Servant did to the Plaintiff was of his own voluntary act for which he must answer and not his Master for a Master shall answer for no
acts of his Servant but those which he does by his commandment as 9 H. 6. 53. by Rolphe If I have a Servant who is my Merchant and he goes to the Fair with an unsound Horse or other Merchandize and sells them the Vendee can have no Action against me Martin You say true for you do not command him to sell the Horse to him nor to no other person in certain Vide Doctor and Student 138. It does not appear that the Plaintiff was lawfully indemnified for it is onely alledged and found that he was imprisoned by the King until c. but it is not alledged or found that this was done by a legal course or according to the Law of that Country but onely by the absolute power of that King and therefore the Plaintiff can have no remedy although there had been a Warranty as Cook 5 Rep. Noke and Anders Case If Lessee for years be outed by a stranger without title he shall not have an Action of Covenant And this Case was argued by Crook for the Plaintiff and by me for the Defendant 29 Janua 15 Jacob. at which time the Court seemed to incline against the Plaintiff And Trinit 16 Jacob. The case was argued by Davenport for the Plaintiff and by Coventry the Kings Solicitor for the Defendant at which time Montague Doderidge and Haughton agreed that the Action would not lie and Crook was absent Judgment And afterwards Michaelm 16 Jac. Iudgment was given by all the Court Quod querens nihil capiat per Billam Trinit 15 Jacob. Lingen against Payn. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 400 l. made the third of October 12 Jacob. and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Obligation and of the Condition which was That whereas the Plaintiff had devised to Robert Hawkins the Farm of Williamsthorp in the County of Glocester until the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel next if the said Robert upon the said Feast day or any time after upon request made by the Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns should deliver the possession of the said Farm to the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns and permit the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns to have and enjoy the same after such request and also if the said Robert in the mean time shall not give nor sell any Wood nor commit any waste in the said Farm that then the Obligation should be voyd The Defendant said that the Plaintiff or his Assigns Bar. upon the said Feast or at any time after and before the Bill did not require the said Robert to deliver to the Plaintiff the possession of the said Farm and that the said Robert from the time of the making of the said Bond unto the said Feast did not give or sell any Wood nor make any waste upon the premisses That the 13 of June Replication 12 Jacob. the said Robert being possest of the said Farm and the Plaintiff being seised in Fee of the Reversion of the said Farm the Plaintiff together with John Welford by Indenture made at W. between the Plaintiff and the said John Welford of the one part and Richard Powle and Henry Powle of the other part and inrolled in this Court within six weeks for 1700 l. payd to the Plaintiff did bargain and sell to the said Richard and Henry Powle the Reversion of the said Farm habendum to them and their Heirs And the 30 of Septemb. 13 Jacob. being the next day after the said Feast the said Richard and Henry Powle as the Assigns of the said Plaintiff at the said Farm in W. aforesaid did request the said Robert to deliver the possession of the said Farm to the said Richard and Henry which he did refuse That the said Richard and Henry Powle did not require the said Robert to deliver to them the possession of the said Farm the said 30 of September the 13 Jac. upon which they were at issue Rejoynder The Iury found the possession of the said Robert Hawkins and the seisin of the Plaintiff and the bargain and sale and that Henry Powle 31 Septemb. 13 Jac. did alone come to the capital Messuage of the said Farm without any notice given before of his coming to the said House and there then as Assignee of the Plaintiff did require the said Robert Hawkins to deliver the possession of the said Farm according to the effect of the condition aforesaid and that the possession of the said Farm was not delivered according to the tenor of the said writing but the possession of the said Farm was kept from the said Richard and Henry Powle And if it seems to the Court upon this matter that the said Richard and Henry did require the said Robert to deliver to them the possession of the said Farm then they found it so and did assess costs and damages and if not they found for the Defendant And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff For in Tookers Case 2 Report by Popham Every act made by one Ioynt-tenant for the benefit of him and his companion shall binde the other as payment by one discharges the other and one may prejudice the other in the profits as where a Ward does happen to two Ioyn-tenants and one distrains for the services which is a waver of the Wardship by 1 Ed. 3. this shall binde the other And if two Ioynt-tenants be disseised and one enters this is in Law the entry of both and so it shall be pleaded for when an act is made by one the Law shall adjudg this to be made by him in whose right it is made as in 32 Ed. 3. Bar 264. If one be bound to infeoff another such a day if he be ready by his Attorny to do it it is sufficient for the Law takes the act of the Attorny to be the act of the party and so in the 19 H. 6. 78. to continue an Action and so in 10 Edw. 2. Dower 130. and 9 Ed. 3. 38. If there be two Ioynt-tenants in Fee and one seised in right of his Wife of Land to which the Wife hath title of Dower the one Ioynt-tenant or the Husband may assign the Dower and the reason is given because that when the Husband or one Ioynt-tenant does any thing out of Court that they are compellable to make it shall be intended to be the Deed of the one and the other And so if a Lord by Fealty onely does distrain for Rent and the Tenant brings a Trespass and the Lord justifies because he holds of him by Fealty and Rent and so justifies the Writ and the Tenant says that he does not hold of him moda forma c. and it is found that he holds by fealty onely yet shall the Plaintiff be barred for the matter of the issue is whether the Tenant held of him or not for then the Action lies And so here the matter of the issue is whether a legal request of the
delivery of the possession was made or not and if it were made by the Attorneys of the Bargainees that in Law shall be taken to be the act of themselves and so shall be pleaded and so was it adjudged in this Court Hillar 37 Eliz. in Jordans Case Vide Dyer 354. Object But it may be objected That Hawkins had notice of the Bargain and Sale and therefore the Defendant shall forfeit the Obligation as in Mallories 5 Rep. and Francis Case 8 Rep. 92. in an Entry on condition Answer I answer That the Defendant hath bound himself by the Obligation that Hawkins should deliver the possession to his Assigns and therefore he must take notice thereof at his peril as in 18 Ed. 4. 24. An Obligation upon condition that the Defendant should account before an Auditor to be assigned when he should be required and to pay the Arrearages and it was pleaded that he did account before such an Auditor assigned by the Plaintiff and was ready to pay the Arrearages if the Auditor would give notice c. and it was held insufficient for he ought to take notice at his peril also it is pleaded and found that Henry Powle as Assignee of the Plaintiff did make the request and if notice had been material the Defendant ought to have pleaded that he had no notice but by his Plea notice is implyed Judgment And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff by all the Court. Rot. 459. Michaelm 15 Jacob. Agard against Wilde and others IN an Action on the Case for that the Plaintiff is and was of good name and fame and yet the Defendants maliciously intending to cause the Plaintiff to be reputed a Common Barretor the 27 of November the 14 Jacob. did falsly and maliciously procure the Plaintiff to be indicted in this Court that he was a Common Barretor and a Disturber of the Peace at Edmonton in the County of Middlesex ad communem disturbationem inquietationem omnium inhabitantium ibidem To which Indictment the Plaintiff Jovis post Octab. Hillar 14 Jac. did plead Not guilty whereupon issue c. and the now Plaintiff was acquitted by Verdict and Iudgment to his damage of 500 l. c. The said John Wilde said That at the time of the Indictment he and William Smith were impannelled in the great Inquest for the said County and then in this Court were sworn to inquire upon their oaths of all Felonies Trespasses and misdemeanors done within the said County and so being sworn having evidence upon oath of good and loyal men given to the said Defendant and the rest of his Fellow-Iurors The said John Wilde and the other Iurors there and then upon their oaths for the Indictment mentioned in the Declaration did indict the Plaintiff for the said Offence mentioned in the said Declaration as they might very well do Vpon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred in Law And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff for in as much as the Defendant was sworn of the Inquest and he and the other Iurors upon good evidence did indict the Plaintiff it cannot be presumed that he did this on malice but it was done in zeal to Iustice by reason of his oath and although it be true that he and the other Defendants did procure the Plaintiff to be indicted of malice without just cause yet now the oath of the Defendant hath discharged himself of the precedent wrong as may be proved by many Books 21 Edw. 3. 17. a. In a Conspiracy for indicting the Plaintiff of Felony the Defendant pleaded that he was sworn of the Inquest to enquire at the Leet of the Lord Zouch and that he and the rest of the Iury did indict the Plaintiff upon their oath and there Thorp said That Conspirators are always in fault and when one is of the Inquest and sworn to speak the truth that which he saith then is upon his oath and not of Conspiracy and there is no reason to accuse one of Conspiracy where he does nothing 7 H. 4. 31. In a Conspiracy to procure the Plaintiff to be indicted of a Trespass the Defendant said That they were impannelled for the King before the Iustices of Peace in the County of Norfolk and that which they did was upon their oaths Iudgment c. The Plaintiff replyed that there was no such Record and because the Defendants failed of the Record for two days Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff 8 H. 4. 6. The Defendants pleaded that they were indicted the Plaintiff replyed that they procured the Sheriff to return them Gascoigne There is no question but that the Iurors shall be excused of Conspiracy by reason of their oaths Vide 20 H. 6. 5. and 19 H. 6. 19. 4 H. 6. 23. And Nat. Brevium 115. C. and D. it is put for a rule that a Writ of Conspiracy will not lie against the Indictors themselves and if Iurors be sworn to enquire c. and after some of them be discharged by the Iustices they shall not be punished for any such matter because it was when they were sworn but if they conspire afterwards they may be charged with a Conspiracy And Stamford 173. if after the Conspiracy the Conspirators are sworn on the Inquest to enquire c. and they with the others of the Iury do indict him against whom they do conspire no Writ of Conspiracy will lie against them because such thing cannot be intended false or malicious because they do it on their oaths and that with others besides themselves The same Law where after the Conspirators are sworn and have spoken with their companions they are discharged by the Iustices yet by reason that they were once sworn and the Conspiracy therefore discharged And Old Book of Entr. 122. a. In a Writ of Conspiracy to procure the Plaintiff to be indicted of Felony one of the Defendants pleaded Not guilty and the other that he was one of the Indictors in the same manner as our Plea is without any Travers and the Plaintiff replyed nul tiel Record upon which they were at issue c. and in the same Book are four other presidents in all which the same Bars are pleaded And there is also another president where the same Bar is pleaded to which the Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant after the conspiracy of his Covin did procure the Sheriff to impannel and return him to be one of the Iury to the intent that he should indict the Plaintiff Also this Indictment is insufficient in other respects 1. The conclusion is ad communem disturbationem inquietatem omnium inhabitantium ibidem the which word ibidem does refer onely to Edmonton and so there is no common nusance but particularly to them of that Town 2. There is no place alledged where he was a common Barretor 3. The Indictment is that he was a common Barretor ita quod verisimilis fuit facere homicidium lites discordia alia gravamina
inter vicinos suos apud Edmunton praedict which is not sufficient for that it ought to be alledged in fact that he made or caused lites discordia and not that he was like to make them And if an Indictment be insufficient although that the party does plead Not guilty and be acquitted yet he shall not have a Conspiracy or an Action on the Case for by such Indictment he cannot be in any danger and 9 Ed. 4. 12. If one be indicted on an insufficient Indictment and he does not take advantage thereof but pleads not guilty and is acquitted and brings a Writ of Conspiracy the Defendants may show how that the Indictment was insufficient so that the Plaintiff was not duly arraigned and they shall have advantage thereof Vide Cook 4 Rep. Vaux Case And 34 H. 6. 9. If the party indicted be misnamed and be acquitted he shall not have a Conspiracy because the Indictment was voyd as to him And Dyer 286. If the offence in the Indictment be pardoned by a general pardon and yet the party pleads Not guilty and is acquitted he shall not have a Conspiracy because he was in no jeopardy And this Case being moved by Chilborn Serjeant and George Crook for the Plaintiff the fourth of February 15 Jacob. I shewed to the Court that the Plea was good for the reasons and authorities afore cited and also that the Indictment was insufficient for the Reasons afore shewed Judgment And therefore Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil caperet per Billam Michaelmas 15 Jacob. Thomas Muschamp Knight and Margaret his wife and Thomas Lock Esq and Jane his wife against Colan Bluet Michael Sampson Edward Jenny and Elizabeth his wife In the Exchequer IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants the first of January 14 Jacob. by force and arms the Close of the Plaintiff at Tottenham did break and enter possessionem tenementorum praedict a praedicto primo Januarii usque diem billae scil 20 Maii 15 Jacob. habuerunt tenuerunt custodierunt ad damnum 40 l. Quo minus c. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty The Iury found that before the Trespass Sir William Lock Knight was seised in Fee of the said Tenements and held them in Socage and that he and Matthew Lock his son were Ioynt-tenants in Fee of other Copyhold Lands in Tottenham and that he had issue Thomas Matthew John Henry and Michael That the 15 Martii 1549. Sir William made his Will in writing and thereby did devise these Tenements to Henry and Michael in these words I give to Thomas Matthew Iohn Henry and Michael my five Sons my dwelling House in Bow-lane and my House at the Lock in Cheap and my House at the Bell in Cheap to the intent that they or some of them may dwell in them and keep the Retaining Shop still in my name to continue there Item I give to Iohn Lock my House that Paris dwelleth in I give to Henry Lock my House that Iohn Edwards dwelleth in I give to Michael Lock the three Houses wherein W. B. and P. dwell I give to Henry Lock the House that Kew dwelleth in I give to Matthew Lock the two Houses wherein S. and T. dwell I give to Henry and Michael Lock all my Houses in the Poultry Bucklersbury and St. Iohns and a House that Goodman dwelleth in I give to Matthew Lock all my Houses at Dowgate and in the Vintry I give to Thomas Lock all my Houses in Cheap lying in St. Peters Parish I give to Thomas Lock my Land at Martin and Wimbleton that I may give him except one Farm called Martin Holts which I give to Henry and Michael Lock I give to all my five Sons the half of the Leg Entry which I purchased of late And as touching my Lands at Tottenham my Son Matthew is joyned Purchaser with me of the most and the rest of all my Houses and Land there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael Lock upon this condition that if they shall sell it to any man but to Matthew Lock my Son then he to enter upon it as of my Gift by this my Will Item All the Houses and Lands that I have given joyntly betwixt my Sons is That they shall bear part and part-like going out of all my Houses and Lands upon my Blessing as well Freehold as Copyhold to pay to my Wife Elizabeth for Dowry 40 l. every year during her life out of all my Lands and Houses as well Copyhold as Freehold for which Sum I am bound as appeareth by certain Indentures c. and which of my Sons refuseth to bear his part of the aforesaid Sum of 40 l. I will that he or they shall enjoy no part of my Bequest by me to them given in this my Will but my Gift given to him oâ— them to go to the rest of my well-willing Sons which be content to fulfil this my Will and Bond that I am bound in to be performed Sir William Lock dyed seised and Elizabeth his Wife did survive him Henry and Michael did enter into the said Tenements and payd their parts of the said 40 l. to the said Elizabeth Henry dyes and Michael payd his part of the said 40 l. Thomas Lock was Son and Heir of the said Sir William and had issue Matthew Lock his Son and Heir and dyes Matthew the Son of Thomas deviseth the said Tenements to the Plaintiffs habendum from the death of the said Michael for seven years The 28 of July 15 Jacob. Michael Lock dyed seised of the said Tenements And the said Colan Bluet Michael Sampson and Elizabeth Jenny the Defendants are the next Heirs of the said Michael and that the said Bluet Sampson and Jenny in the right of the said Elizabeth his Wife after the death of the said Michael Lock did enter upon whom the Plaintiffs did enter upon whom the Defendants re-entred and made the Trespass But whether the Entry of the Plaintiffs was legal or not the Iury did doubt and if legal they found for the Plaintiff if not for the Defendants And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffs for I conceive that Henry and Michael Loâ—k had but an Estate for their lives by this Devise which by their deaths is ended so that nothing can descend to the Heirs of Michael being the survivor and by consequence the Lease made to the Plaintiffs by Matthew Lock the Heir of the Devisor is good and the Entry of the Plaintiffs is lawful The Case And the Case upon the whole matter I conceive to be this Sir William Lock being seised of certain Land in Fee and being Ioynt-tenant with Matthew Lock one of his Sons of Copyhold Land within the same Town had issue Henry Michael Thomas and two other Sons and by his Will did devise to his Sons divers Lands severally And after says Touching my Lands at T. my Son Matthew is joyned Purchaser with me already
d. imposed the third of December the same year by the Master and Wardens and nine Assistants All which sums do amount to 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. That the sixth of December the 15 Jacob. the Plaintiff had notice of the said sums so imposed and although he thereupon payd 19 s. parcel thereof yet he did refuse to pay the residue which refusal the 16 of December was duly proved before the said Master and Wardens wherefore the 16 of December 15 Jacob. the Master Wardens and Assistants taking with them John Sowland a Serjeant of the Mace did take the said ten Hides in the said City in the name of a Distress and took them away detained them for thirty days after the said Distress and because the Plaintiff did not pay the residue of the said 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. nor agreed for the same the said Master and Wardens and T. B. C. G. M. A. T. K. J. G. M. B. K. J. W. T. and R. T. being the major part of the Assistants after the said thirty days viz. 17 Jan. 15 Jacob. at the said City did cause the said Hides to be appraised by the oaths of R. S. c. six approved men of the said City who appraised them at 7 l. and the said Defendants and Thomas Payn and the major part of the said Assistants did sell them for 7 l. and they said that the surplusage amounted to 25 s. 8 d. and no more which the said William and Thomas Payn with the assent of the Master and greater part of the Assistants before the Suit to wit the seventh of January in the same year at the said City did offer to pay to the Plaintiff but he refused to accept thereof Absque hoc that the Defendants are guilty at Tiverton or any other place out of the said City of Exeter Vpon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff And herein I will not stand at this time to argue whether the Custom will warrant this By-law because there hath been a resolution in the Case in the 8 Rep. fol. 125. for London onely I observe that the Customs of London are confirmed by Act of Parliament but so are not the Customs of Exeter But admitting that the Custom will warrant this By-law to restrain a legal Trade or Art within the said City yet I conceive this By-law is utterly voyd for three causes and if it were good yet have not the Defendants pursued the same in taking and selling of the goods and that for two causes And as to the first the Defendants have exceeded their Custom in the extent of this By-law as to the place for the Society of the Art is alledged to be within the City of Exeter and then they alledg the Custom to be That they have used to make By-laws for the better Government and profit of the said City so that all the Custom is confirmed to the City but the By-law does exceed this for it is That none shall make sell or offer to sell any Shooes c. within the City or the County of Exon the which is not warranted by the Custom as in 5 Rep. Chamberlain of London's Case it was ordained That if any Citizen or stranger should send any Cloth to sell within the City before it shall be brought to Blackwell-Hall to be viewed and searched this is resolved to be good although it do binde a stranger but the reason thereof is given because the offence is committed within the City whereupon I observe that they can make no Order to extend without the City This By-law does exceed their power in the things prohibited and that in two things First That none shall make any Boots Shooes c. within the City or County whereby every man is restrained to make such things for his own use or for his Master or Family and such restraint is clearly against Law and Reason for although that Companies of Trades in Cities and Towns are allowed by the Law yet they cannot by any Custom restrain a man from making any thing pertaining to their Art for his private use and therefore if this By-law had been That none should use the Art of a Shoomaker within the City this had been good but to restrain any that he may not make Shooes for himself within the City this is voyd Vide Cooks 8 Rep. 129. Wagons Case where it was resolved That he might make Candles for his own use and so every one may bake and brew for their own use Furthermore the Defendants have not alledged any Custom That none shall make any Shooes c. within the City c. except those of the Society but onely that they may make By-laws for the good government and profit of the Society of the Art and the making of Shooes for ones private use is nothing concerning their Society and this is proved by the resolution in the said Case and by the Statute of the fifth of Elizab. That none shall use any Art in which he hath not been educated as Apprentice for seven years yet it is lawful for any to bake or brew or to make any manufacture for his private use without any offence to the Statute So Cooks 8 Rep. 125. Sir George Farmers Case He as Lord of the Mannor of Torcester did prescribe to have a Bakehouse and no other Baker should sell bread there this was a good Custom but to restrain any from baking for himself cannot be a good Custom And the Case of the Taylors of Ipswich 11 Rep. fol. 55. Order That none should use the Trade of a Taylor until he be presented to the Master and Wardens and allowed by them yet one may make Clothes for his Master and Family in case the said constitution were good This By-law does restrain other persons to use their Arts for it is That none shall do any thing pertaining to the Art of Shoomakers and it is apparent that many things do pertain to the Art of a Shoomaker which are to be done by other Artificers for all things belong to the Art which of necessity must be used with the Art and without which the Art cannot be used as Leather which is to be made by the Tanner Lasts which are to be made by the Last-maker Auls by the Smith Threed and divers other things and all these by this By-law are prohibited not onely to be sold but also to be made by any not being of their Society The penalty imposed by this By-law is not warranted by the Law nor by their Custom for that ought to be reasonable and ought to be exprest to the end that the Court may judg whether it be reasonable or not and therefore it is resolved in Wagons Case That the Pain ought to be reasonable 1. In respect of the manner thereof and therefore it ought not to be by imprisonment for that is against Magna Charta cap. 29. as it was adjudged in Clarks Case
5 Rep. fol. 64. 2. In regard of the quality and therefore it is much debated in Wagons Case if the penalty of 5 l. were reasonable or not but here no certain penalty is set down but left to the discretion of any of the Shoomakers of Exeter and that is against the course of all Laws for when a Law is made it is necessary that the penalty thereof should be known to the end men might not offend But admitting this Order to be good yet have not the Defendants pursued the same in the taking of this Distress and that for two Reasons They have distrained before their time for the Order is That if any refuse to pay the sum assessed that then upon due proof thereof they may distrain c. and then they plead that the refusal of the Plaintiff to pay the same was duly proved before the Master and Wardens which is insufficient for when it is said upon due proof this is intended upon proof by Verdict as in 10 Ed. 4. 11. On a Bond with condition that if the Obligor proves that it was the will of A. that B. shall make an Estate to the Obligor c. this proof must be by Verdict but if it be to be proved before J. S. there it is sufficient to produce witnesses that will testifie the same and so in the fourth and fifth of Queen Mary where Buckland was bound to the Lord Ewers to produce before the said Lord sufficient witnesses to discharge a certain debt due by B. to the Lord and he pleaded that he produced W. and A. before the said Lord and that they proved that he did not ow the said Debt and agreed to be no good Plea because he did not shew how the proof was made before the said Lord. So that this Plea is utterly insufficient 1. Because no such proof can be made before the Master and Wardens as is intended by the Order 2. Because the Defendants have not shewn how the proof was made so that the Court might judg whether it were sufficient or not and so in 22 Ed. 4. 40. the Lord Lisles Case upon a Bond that if the Defendant shewed sufficent discharge of a Rent c. who pleaded that he did offer to shew a sufficient discharge and agreed to be no Plea for he ought to shew what discharge that the Court might judg thereof So in the ninth Report Case of the Abbot of Strata Marcella fol. 34. in a Quo Warranto the Defendant pleaded that the Abbot had and used divers liberties which he could not have without a Charter and resolved no Plea unless by reason of the Statute of the 32 of H. 8. cap. 20. for reviving of Liberties The Order is That upon refusal to pay the penalty and upon proof thereof the Master c. may enter into the House Booth Shop Ware-house or Cellar of the Offendor and there to distrain any of his goods c. And the Defendants have not averred that these goods were taken in any of the said places but onely at the City of Exeter Judgment And at last it was adjudged that the Plea was not good A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS Contained in this BOOK Action and what words bear Action ACtion brought by a Master for beating his servant not good without saying per quod servitium amisit 48 Where no particular averment need to be in a Declaration for scandalous words 60 Thou and Waterman did kill thy Masters Cook good action ib. Grant to one against whom an action lies not to sue him within a year not good 117 Advowson The nature of it and how and in what manner to be granted 95 96 Affinity and Consanguinity Who shall be taken to be proximus Consanguinieus in a Devise 15 Appearance Where to be in person and where by Attorney 73 74 Where the Husband shall appeare alone and where with his Wife 74 Arbitrement Where the Arbitrement in part shal be a good award for that part although the agreement be to end all controversies 90 91 Authority and Licence To revoke how to be performed 21 Authorities and Licenses strictly to be performed 114 115 License not to be assigned over ib. Ayd Who shall have ayd of the King 87 88 89 Baron and Feme WHere the Husband shall appear alone his Wife being within age and where she shall appear by her Guardian with her husband 74 75 Vid. Appearance Buying and selling Things sold and warranted by the Vendor to be good In what cases good 127 Diversity between things necessary and not necessary as to the warranting of them 128 By-Law How a Custom to make By-Laws to restrain a legal Trade or Art shal be good and how not 140 141 Common WHat priviledge the Owner of the soil hath in a Common and what priviledge the Commoner hath 5 10 Vid. Prescription Remedy for him that is disturbed of his Common 10 Commoner may distraine damage feasant ib. Prescription to hunt and kill Conies in a Common not good 11 Prescription of Common in a Forest Vid. Prescription Condition and Limitation WHat time shall be limited in Law to make an estate upon Condition 41 Conspiracy Where Jurors cannot be said to be guilty of Conspiracy Vid. Jury Conspiracy cannot be where the Indictment is insufficient 132 Copyhold What shall be taken to imply an admittance 82 Copyholder necessary to be admitted and what estate he hath without admittance 82 83 Where the estate surrendred remains until admittance 84 Court and Processe in Courts Records of a Court the effectuall proofs of the Law of things tried in that Court 21 Presidents and Costome of a Court makes a Law in that Court ib. Devises Testator and Executor c. WHere words of limitation comming after the estate in a Devise shall abridge the estate devised 1 2 3 Devise to a man and his heirs quod si contingat c. where those words shall make a limited fee or estate Tail or other estate 3 Where the Act of the Executor shal not be said to be the Act of the Testator 47 Where an Executor shall not have choice to take as a Devisee 54 Where the assent of the Executor to the devise of the Land shall not be accounted any Execution as to the Devise of the Rent out of the same Land and where otherwise 55 Where a perpetual charge devised to be paid out of Land shall make the party that is to pay the same tenant in fee-simple 85 How far the intent of the Devisor shall be admitted and how largely observed 85 105 106 135 Dower Certainty ought to be in the demand of Dower as wel as in the writ 56 Ecclesiastical Persons WHere the confirmation of the Patron and Ordinary of a charge made by the Incumbent is good and where not 95 Leases made by the Incumbent and confirmed by Patrons or others where good and where not ib. Leases made by the Incumbent which are void and what are voidable and
Common tâ—â—ne and the Term to another and dies and the Executor payes the Rent or suffers the Devisee of the Common to put in his Cattell this is no assent as to the Term for the Term is one thing and the profit out of it is another thing but there in the principall Case the assent of the Executor of the Devise to occupy the Land was a sufficient assent to the Remainder of the Term because the occupation of the Land and the Land it self is all one and Comment 541. the same agreed and that the first assent doth go to all And it is no assent to the Term neither can it be taken by Implication to be any assent to the Devise of the Rent for every Act that does enure to another Act by Implication ought to be such as of necessity ought to enure to the other Act which cannot be taken to be otherwise and therefore 2 R. 2. Attornment the 8th A Woman grants a Reversion to which a Rent was incident and afterwards marries the Grantee to whom the Tenant payes the Rent this is no Attornment for it is indifferent whether he payes the Rent to him as Grantee or in right of his Wife Dyer 302. Vivors Case que recover Rents of severall Tenants as Bayly and then they be granted to him and after the Grant they be paid to him this is no Attornment for they may be paid to him as he is Baily as well as he is Grantee But if the Lessee do surrender to him in the Reversion then it is a good Attornment for a Surrender cannot be to any but to him that hath the Reversion And so in our Case it is cleer that the assent to the Legacy of the Land it self is not any expresse assent to the Rent nor any implyed assent for there may be an assent to the one and not to the other and where the Wife had assented to the Devise of the Term she hath utterly dismist her self of the Term as Executor notwithstanding the assent to the Rent but having once assented to the Devise of the Term she hath no more to do with it and therefore in such Case the Legatee of the Rent ought to sue in the Court Christian for his remedy against the Executor in the same manner as if a Term were devised to one and the Executor will not assent to it but sells the Term to another And in this case if the Testator were indebted after this assent to the Devisee of the Term the Term cannot be put in execution for this Debt but the assent of the Wife is in her a Devastavit 21 Ed. 4. 21. 37 H. 6. 30 2 H 6. 16. Also here is no Rent devised out of this house for the Devise is Ex omnibus aliis terris suis which word all excludes all the Lands wherof any mention was made before And Coke Rep 1. Mildmayes Case There Sir H.S. did covenant for a Ioynture for his life and for the advancement of his Issue Male if he had any and for advancement of his three Daughters and for continuance of his Land in his blood to be seised to the use of himself for life and then of part to the use of his Wife for her life with other remainders to his Issues Males and Females Proviso that it should be lawfull for him to limit any part to any person for life or years for payment of Debts or Legacies preferment of his Servants or other reasonable considerations And then he did limit the part of one of his Daughters to another for the term of a thousand years and this was adjudged a void limitation and one principall reason was because that the word other cannot comprehend any consideration mentioned in the Indenture before the Proviso and the advancement of his Daughter was mentioned before Object 2 But it may be objected that other Lands shall be understood such as shall be demised after her marriage and so will not relate to the house whereof there was mention made before Answer That this Obligation is against the recited resolution for it may as well be said in this Case that other considerations shall be other then what are mentioned in the said Proviso but it was resolved that other shall exclude all considerations mentioned before the said Indenture and so he excludes in this case all mention before in this Writ And this Case was argued at the Bench Pasch 14. Jac. And all the Iustices did agree that all the exceptions taken by the Counsell of the Defendant as well to the matter as to the pleading to be of no force saving the principall point sc If the Rent shall be determined by the death of the Wife or not and herein the Court was divided viz. Haughton and Crook held that it was determined but Coke and Doderidge on the contrary Et sic pendet c. Hillar 12. Iac. Iohn Harry and Lewis Howell against Grace Harry IN a Writ of Errour brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Writ of Dower brought by the said Grace of the endowment of Richard Harry her Husband And the Error assigned was because the demand amongst other things was De tertia parte de uno Horreo uno pomario and the Tenants pleaded Ne unques accouple in legall matrimony which was certified against them whereupon Judgment was given against them whereupon the Demandant did surmise that her husband died seised and so prayed her Dower with damages Et petit breve tam de habere facias seisinam quam de inquirendo de damnis and the Writ of Error was purchased before the return of the said Writ or any Judgment given thereupon And I conceive that it is Error for the Demand ought to be as certain and formall as a Writ for the Writ of Dower being generall De libero tenemento the Demand ought to make it certain and therefore it is of the same nature as the Writ is 8. Ass 29. 13. Ass 2. 13. Ed. 3. br 265. A Chappell or an Hospitall shall not be named but by the name of a Messuage and 8 H. 6. 3. Praecipe quod reddat does not lye of a Cottage and Cokes 11. Rep. Serbes Case in an Ejectione firmae of a Close called Dumote Close containing three acres adjudged insufficient for the name and quantity will not serve without the quality and certainty ought to be comprised in the Court because the possession is to be recovered And it was adjudged that the Error would not lye Loyde against Bethell HUmphrey Loyde brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench against Bechell and others to reverse a Recovery had at Cardiff in the County of Flynt by Nicholas John ap Robert Loyde to whom the Defendants are Heires against John ap De ap Robert Loyde for the now Plaintiff of Land in the County of Flynt which Assise did begin in the time of Queen Mary and did continue untill the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the third year