it was said that the Act of Parliament only takes away a Writ of Error in such case but there is no day in Bank to plead It was order'd to stand in the paper Corporation of Darby THe Corporation of the Town of Darby prescribe to have Common sans number in grosse Sanders I conceive it may be by prescription what a man may grant may be prescribed for Co. Lit. 122. is express Keel In a Forest the King may grant Common for Sheep but you cannot prescribe for it And if you may prescribe for Common sans number in grosse then you may drive all the Cattel in a Fair to the Common Sanders But the prescription is for their own Cattel only Twisd If you prescribe for common sans number appurtenant to Land you can put in no more Cattel then what is proportionable to your Land for the Land stints you in that case to a reasonable number But if you prescribe for common sans number in grosse what is it that sets any bounds in such case There was a case in Glyn's time betwéen Masselden and Stoneby where Masselden prescribed for common sans number without saying levant couchant and that being after a Verdict was held good but if it had been upon a Demurrer it would have been otherwise Livesey said he was agent for him in the case Bucknall Swinnock INdebitat Assumpsit for money received to the Plaintiffs use the Defendant pleads specially that post assumptionem praedictam there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant that the Defendant should pay the money to J. S. and he did pay it accordingly The Plaintiff demurrs Jones This plea doth not only amount to the general issue but is repugnant in it self It was put off to be argued Hall versus Wombell THe question was whether an Action of Debt would lie upon a Iudgment given by the Commissioners of Excise upon an Information before them Adjornatur Vaughan Casewell A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given at the grand Sessions in Wales in a Writ of Quod ei deforciat Sanders The point in Law will be this whether a Tenants vouching a Vouchee out of the line be peremptory and final or that a Respondeas ouster shall be awarded Mr. Jones In an Assise the Tenant may vouch another named in the Writ 9 H. 5. 14. and so in the Com. fo 89. b. but a voucher cannot be of one not named in the Writ because it is festinum remedium In Wales they never allow foreign vouchers because they cannot bring them in If there be a Counterplea to a Voucher and that be adjudged in another Term it is always peremptory otherwise if it be determined the same Term. An Action of Trover and Conversion was brought against husband and wife and the wife arrested Twisd The wife must be discharged upon Common bail so it was done in the Lady Baltinglasse's case And where it is said in Crook that the Wife in such case shall be discharged it is to be understood that she shall be discharged upon Common bail So Livesey said the course was It was said to be the course of the Court That if an Attorney be sued time enough to give him two Rules to plead within the Term Iudgment may be given otherwise not Russell Collins AN Assumpsit was brought upon two several promises and entire damages were given Moved by Mr. Sympson in arrest of Iudgment that for one of the promises an Action will not lie It was a general indebitatus pro opere facto which was urged to be too general and uncertain But per Cur ' it is well enough as pro mercimoniis venditis pro servitio without mentioning the Goods or the Service in particular And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Dyer versus East AN Action upon the Case upon a promise for Wares that the wife took up for her wearing Apparel Polyxfen moved for a new Trial. Keel The husband must pay for the wives Apparel unless she does elope and he give notice not to trust her that is Scott Manby's case which was a hard Iudgment but we will not impeach it The Plaintiff had Iudgment Beckett Taylor DEbt upon a Bond to submit to an Award Exception was taken to the Award because the concurrence of a third person was awarded which makes it void They award that one of the parties shall discharge the other from his undertaking to pay a Debt to a third person and it was pretended that the third person being no party to the submission was not compellable to give a discharge But it was answered that he is compellable for in case the debt be paid him he is compellable in equity to give a Release to him that had undertaken to pay it Rolls 1 part 248. Giles Southwards case Mich. 1653. Judgment nisi Seventéen Serjeants being made the 4th of November a day or two after Serjeant Powis the Junior of them all coming to the Kings Bench bar the Lord Chief Iustice Keeling told him that he had something to say to him viz. That the Rings which he and the rest of the Serjeants had given weighed but 18 s. apiece whereas Fortescue in his book de laudibus legum Angliae says That the Rings given to the Chief Iustices and to the Chief Baron ought to weigh 20 s. apiece and that he spake this not expecting a recompence but that it might not be drawn into a president and that the young Gentlemen there might take notice of it Clerke versus Rowell Phillips A Trial at bar in Ejectment for Lands settled by Sir Pexall Brockhurst The Court said a Trial against others shall not be given in Evidence in this cause And Twisden said that an Entry to deliver a Declaration in Ejectment should not work to avoid a Fine but that it must be an express Entry Vpon which last matter the Plaintiff was non-suit Redmans Case IT was moved that one Redman an Attorney of the Court who was going into Ireland might put in special Bail Twisd A Clerk of the Court cannot put in bail You have filed a Bill against him and so waved his putting in bail Keel You may remember Woolly's case that we discharged him by reason of his priviledge and took Common bail Twisd You cannot declare against him in custodia But though we cannot take bail yet we may commit him and then deliver him out by mainpernancy Jones If he be in Court in propria persona you cannot procéed against his bail The Court agréed that the Attorney should not put in bail Grafton GRafton one of the Company of Drapers was brought by Habeas Corpus In the Return the cause of his Imprisonment was alledged to be for that being chosen of the Livery he refused to serve Per Cur ' they might have fined him and have brought an Action of Debt for the sum but they could nor imprison him Keel The Court of Aldermen may imprison a
receive the bodies of James Earl of Salisbury Anthony Earl of Shaftsbury and Philip Lord Wharton Members of this House and keep them in safe custody within the said Tower during his Majesties pleasure and the pleasure of this House for their high Contempt committed against this House And this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that behalf To the Constable c. John Browne Cler ' Parl ' The Earl of Shaftsbury's Counsel prayed that the Retorn might be Filed and it was so And Friday following appointed for the debating of the sufficiency of the Retorn and in the mean time directions were given to his Counsel to attend the Iudges and the Attorny-General with their Exceptions to the Retorn and my Lord was remanded till that day And it was said that though the Retorn was Field the Court could remand or commit him to the Marshal at their Election And on Friday the Earl was brought into Court again and his Counsel argued the insufficiency of the Retorn Williams said That this cause was of great consequence in regard the King was touched in his Prerogative The Subject in his Liberty and this Court in its Iurisdiction The cause of his Commitment which is retorned is not sufficient for the general allegation of high Contempts is too uncertain for the Court cannot judge of the Contempt if it doth not appear in what act it is Secondly It is not shewed where the Contempt was committed and in favour of Liverty it shall be intended they were committed out of the House of Peers Thirdly The time is uncertain so that peradventure it was before the last Act of general Pardon 1 Roll 192 193. and 219. Russells case Fourthly It doth not appear whether this Commitment were on a Conviction or an Accusation only It cannot be denied but that the Retorn of such Commitment by any other Court would be too general and uncertain Moore 839. Astwick was bailed on a Retorn Quod commissus fuit per mandatum Ni. Bacon Mil. Domini Custodis magni Sigilli Angliae virtute cujusdam Contempt ' in Curia Cancellariae fact ' and in that book it appears that divers other persons were bailed on such general Retorns and the cases have been lately affirmed in Bushells case repeated by the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan where it is expresly said that on such Commitment and Retorns being too general and uncertain the Court cannot believe in an implicite manner that in truth the Commitment was for causes particular and sufficient Vaughans Rep. 14. accord 2 Inst 52 53 55. and 1 Roll 218. And the Commitment of the Iurors was for acquitting Pen and Mead contra plenam manifestam Evidentiam and it was resolved to be too general for the Evidence ought to appear as certain to the Iudge of the Retorn as it appeared before the Iudge authorized to Commit Russells case 137. Now this Commitment being by the House of Peers will make no difference for in all cases where a matter comes in Iudgment before this Court let the question be of what nature it will the Court is obliged to declare the Law and that without distinction whether the question began in Parliament or no. In the case of Sir George Binion in C. B. there was a long debate whether an Original might be Filed against a Member of Parliament during the time of priviledge and it was urged that it being during the Sessions of Parliament the determination of the question did belong to the Parliament But it was resolved an Original might be Filed and Bridgman then being Chief Iustice said That the Court was obliged to declare the Law in all cases that come in Iudgment before them Hill 24 E. 4. Rot. 4. 7. 10. in Scacc ' in Debt by Rivers versus Cousin The Defendant pleads he was a Servant to a Member of Parliament and ideo capi seu arrest ' non debet and the Plaintiff prays Iudgment and quia videtur Baronibus quod tale habetur privilegium quod magnates c. et eorum familiares capi seu arrestari non debent Sed nullum habetur privilegium quod non debent implacitari Ideo respondeat oustr ' So in Treymiards case a question of priviledge was determined in this Court Dyer 60. In the 14 E. 3. in the case of Sir John and Sir Geoffrey Staunton which was cited in the case of the Earl of Clarendon and is entred in the Lords Iournal an Action of Waste depended between them in the Common-Pleas and the Court was divided and the Record was certified into the House of Parliament and they gave direction that the Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff Afterwards in a Writ of Error brought in this Court that Iudgment was reversed notwithstanding the Objection That it was given by Order of the House of Lords for the Court was obliged to proceed according to the Law in a matter which was before them in point of Iudgment The construction of all Acts of Parliament is given to the Courts at Westminster And accordingly they have adjudged of the Validity of Acts of Parliament They have searched the Rolls of Parliament Hob. 109. Lord Hudsons case They have determined whether the Iournals be a Record Hob. 110. When a point comes before them in Iudgment they are not foreclosed by any Act of the Lords If it appears that an Act of Parliament was made by the King and Lords without the Commons that is Felo de se and the Courts of Westminster do adjudge it void 4 H. 7. 18. Hob. 111. and accordingly they ought to do If this Retorn contains in it that which is fatal to it self it must stand or fall thereby It hath been a question often resolved in this Court when a Writ of Error in Parliament shall be a Supersedeas And this Court hath determined what shall be said to be a Session of Parliament 1 Roll 29. and if the Law were otherwise there would be a failour of Iustice If the Parliament were Dissolved there can be no question but the Prisoner should be discharged on a Habeas Corpas and yet then the Court must examine the cause of his Commitment and by consequence a matter Parliamentary And the Court may now have cognisance of the matter as clearly as when the Parliament is Dissolved The party would be without remedy for his Liberty if he could not find it here for it is not sufficient for him to procure the Lords to determine their pleasure for his Imprisonment for before his enlargement he must obtain the pleasure of the King to be determined and that ought to be in this Court and therefore the Prisoner ought first to resort hither Let us suppose for it doth not appear on the Retorn and the Court ought not to enquire of any matter out of it that a supposed contempt was a thing done out of the House it would be hard for this Court to remand him Suppose he were committed to a Forreign prison during the
Will because he hath not put it out of him there arises an Vse and a Trust for himself But in our case he hath put the Vses out of himself for there are several Vses declared But there is a further difference if Simon Mayne had declared the Vse to others absolutely and had reserved liberty to himself to have altered it by his Will that might have altered the case But here the Proviso is That if at the time of his death he shall have a Son c. so that it is reduced to him upon a Condition and Contingency As to the power of Revocation he cited the Duke of Norfolks case in Englefields case which Twisd said came strongly to this Adjourned V. infr An Information was exhibited against one for a Libel Coleman The party has confessed the matter in Court and therefore cannot plead not guilty Twisd You may plead not guilty with a relicta verificatione Horne Ivy. TResp for taking away a Ship The Defendant justifies under the Patent whereby the Canary-Company is incorporated and granted that none but such and such should Trade thither on pain of forfeiting their Ships and Goods c. and says that the Defendant did Trade thither c. the Plaintiff demurs Polynxfen He ought to have shown the Deed whereby he was authoriz'd by the Company to seize the Goods 26 H. 6. 8. 14 Ed. 4. 8. Bro. Corp. 59. though I agree that for ordinary Imployments and Services a Corporation may appoint a Servant without Deed as a Cook a Butler c. Plo. Com. 91. A Corporation cannot Licence a stranger to sell Trees without Deed 12 H. 4. 17. Nor can they make a Diuessor without Deed nor deliver a Letter of Attorney without Deed. 9 Ed. 4. 59. Bro. Corp. 24. 34. 14 H. 7. 1. 7 H. 7. 9. Rolls 514. tit Corporation Dr. Bonhams case Again the plea is double for the Defendant alledgeth two causes of a breach of their Charter viz. their taking in Wines at the Canaries and importing them here which is double Then there is a clause that gives the forfeiture of Goods and Imprisonment which cannot be by Patent 8 Rep. 125. Waggoners case Noy 123. in the case of Monopolies This Patent I take also to be contrary to some Acts of Parliament viz. 9 Ed. 3. c. 1. 2 Ed. 3. cap. 2. 2 Rich. 2. cap. 1. 11 Rich. 2. cap. 2. and these Statutes the King cannot dispence withall by a Non obstante Twisd For the first point I think they cannot seize without Deed no more then they can enter for a Condition broken without Deed. Keel We desire to be satisfied whether this be a Monopoly or not It was ordered to be argued Pryn versus Smith SCire Facias in this Court upon a Recognizance by way of Bail upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff did after Iudgment sue forth a Capias ad satisfaciend out of this Court to the Sheriff of Middlesex whereupon he was taken in Execution and suffered to escape by the Plaintiffs own consent Jones We have demurred because they do not lay a place where this Court was holden nor where the Plaintiff gave his consent Redman Pyne AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words of the Plaintiff being a Watch-maker viz. He is a bungler and knows not how to make a good piece of work but there was no colloquium laid of his Trade Pemberton The Iury have supply'd that having found that he is a Watch-maker And it is true that words shall be taken in mitiori sensu but that is when they are doubtful Caudry's case 1 Cro. 196. Twisden I remember a Shoe-maker brought an Action against a man for saying that he was a Cobler And though a Cobler be a Trade of it self yet held that the Action lay in Glyn's time Saunders If he had said that he could not make a good Watch it would have béen known what he had meant but the words in our case are indifferent and perhaps had no relation to his Trade Ordered to stay Vere Reyner AN Action upou the Case upon a promise to carry duas carectatas c. Rotheram It s uncertain whether carectata signifies a Horse-load or a Cart-load Judgment nisi c. Twisd I have known if a Iudgment be given and there is an agréement betwéen the parties not to take out Execution till next Term and they do it before that the Court has set all aside One brought up by Habeas Corpus out of the Cinque-Ports upon an Information for breaking Prison where he was in upon an Execution for Debt Barrell moved against it Twisd Suppose a man be arrested in the Cinque-Ports for a matter arising there and then another hath cause to arrest him here is there not a way to bring him up by Habeas Corpus Barrell It was never done but there has béen a Habeas Corpus thither ad faciend recipiend Keel If a man be in Prison in the Fléet we bring him up by Habeas Corpus in case there be a Suit against him here Twisd Where shall such a man be sued upon a matter arising out of the Cinque-Ports Barrell If it be transitory he must be sued there if local elsewhere Twisd Then you grant if local that there must be a Habeas Corpus And so it was allowed in this case Two Iustices of Peace made an Order in Session-time against one Reignolds as reputed Father for the kéeping of a Bastard-child Reignolds appealed to the same Sessions where the Iustices made an Order that one Burrell should kéep it Jones moved to set aside this Order though an Order of Sessions upon an Appeal from two Iustices because he said the first Order being made in Session time that Sessions could not be said to be the next within the Stat. of 18 Eliz. and because the Iustices at the Sessions did not quash the Order made by two Iustices Keel They ought to have done that Twisd They may vacat the first Order and refer it back to two Iustices as res integra The Order being read one clause of it was that Burrell should pay 12 d. a wéek for kéeping the Child till it came to be twelve years of age which Twisden said was ill for it ought to be so long as it continues chargeable to the Parish The parties were bound over to appear at the next Assizes in Essex Darby-shire versus Cannon SYmpson moved that the Defendant having submitted to a Rule of Court for referring the matter and not performing the Award an Attachment might be granted against him Which was granted but when the party comes in upon the Attachment he may alledge that the Award is void and if it appear to be so he shall not be bound to perform it Owen Hannings IN a Trial at Bar upon a Scire facias to avoid a Patent of the Office of Searcher exception was taken to a Witness that he was to
Hales in that case said that upon a penalty you need not make a demand as in case of a nomnine poenae as if I bind my self to pay 20 l. on such a day and in default thereof to pay 40 l. the 40 l. must be paid without any demand Hales If a man cut and carry away Corn at the same time it is not Felony because it is but one Act but if he cut it and lay it by and carry it away afterwards it is Felony Hales If a Declaration be general Quare clausum fregit and doth not express what Close there the Defendant may mention the Trespass at another day and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment But if he say Quare clausum vocat Dale fregit c. there the conclusion Quae est eadem transgressio will not help Fitz-gerard Maskall ERror of a Iudgment in the Kings Bench in Ireland the general Error assigned Offered 1. That the Eject was brought de quatuor molendinis without expressing whether they were Wind-mills or Water-mills Hales That is well enough The Presidents in the Register are so Secondly That it was of so many Acres Jampnor ' bruer ' not expressing how many of each Cur ' That hath always been held good It was then objected that the Record was not removed upon which it was ordered to stay Pemberton moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court for that they cited the Minister of Mary-bone which is a Donative to take a faculty of Preaching from the Bishop Hales If the Bishop go about to visit a Donative this Court will grant a Prohibition But if all the pretence be that it is a Chappel and the Chaplain hired and the Bishop send to him that he must not Preach without Licence it may be otherwise Twisden Fitzherbert saith if a Chaplain of the Kings Free-Chappel keep a Concubine the Bishop shall not Visit but the King Hales Indeed whether there be all Ornaments requisite for a Church the Bishop shall not enquire nor shall he punish for not Repairing Originally Free-Chappels were Colledges and some did belong to the King and some to private men And in such a Chappel he that was in was entituled as Incumbent and not a Stipendiary To hear Counsel Moved by Stroud for a Prohibition to the Bishops Court of Exeter because they proceeded to the Probate of a Will that contained Devises of Lands as well as bequests of personal things Hales Their proving the Will signifies nothing as to the Land Stroud urged Denton's case and some other Authorities Hales The Will is entire and we are not advised to grant a Prohibition in such case Hales It is the course of the Exchequer in case of an Outlawry to prefer an Information in the nature of a Trover and Conversion against him that hath the Goods of the party Outlawed Parsons Perns TWo Women were Ioyntenants in Fée One of them made a Charter of Feoffment and delivered the Déed to the Feoffee and said to him being within view of the Land Go enter and take possession but before any actual entry by the Feoffee the feoffor and feoffee entermarry And the question was whether or no this Marriage coming between the delivery of the Deed and the Feoffees Entry had destroyed the operation of the Livery within the view Polynxfen It hath not for the power and authority that the Feoffee hath to enter is coupled with an Interest and not countermandable in Fact and if so not in Law If I grant one of my Horses in my Stable nothing passeth till Election and yet the grant is not revocable so till attornment nothing passeth and yet the Deed is not revocable If the Woman in our case had married a Stranger that would not have been a revocation Perk. 29. I shall compare it to the case of 1 Cro. 284. Burdet versus Now for the interest gotten by the Husband by the Marriage he hath no Estate in his own right If a man be seized in the right of his Wife and the Wife be attainted of Felony the Lord shall enter and oust the Husband he gains nothing but a bare perception of profits till Issue had after Issue had he has an Estate for life Where a man that hath title to enter comes into possession the Law doth execute the Estate to him 7 H. 7. 4. 2 R. 2. tit Attornment 28 Ed. 3. 11. Bro. tit Feoffment 57. Moor fol. 85. 3 Cro. 370. Hales said to the other side you will never get over the case of 38 Ed. 3. My Lord Coke to that case saith that the Marriage without Attornment is an execution of the grant but that I do not believe for the attendance of the Tenant shall not be altered without his consent The effectual part of the Feoffment is Go enter and take possession Twisden Suppose there be two Women seized one of one Acre and another of another Acre and they make an exchange and then one of them marries before Entry shall that defeat the Exchange Hales That is the same case So Iudgment was given accordingly Zouch Clare THomas Tenant for life the Remainder to his first second and third son the Remainder to William for life and then to his first second and third son and the like Remainders to Paul Francis and Edward with Remainders to the first second and third son of every one of them William Paul Francis and Edward levy a Fine to Thomas Paul having Issue two Sons at the time Then Thomas made a Feoffment And it was urged by Mr. Leak that the Remainders were hereby destroyed Hales Suppose A. be Tenant for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to C. for life the Remainder to a Contingent and A. and B. do joyn in a Fine doth not C's right of Entry preserve the contingent Estates If there had béen in this case no Son born the contingent Remainders had béen destroyed but there being a Son born it left in him a right of Entry which supports the Remainders and if we should question that we should question all for that is the very basis of all Conveyances at this day And Iudgment was given accordingly Term. Pasch 24 Car. II. 1672. in B. R. Monke versus Morris Clayton AN Action was brought by Monke against the Defendants and Iudgment was given for him They brought a Writ of Error and the Iudgment was affirmed Jones moved that the money might be brought into Court the Plaintiff being become a Bankrupt Winning ' This case was adjudged in the Common-Pleas viz. a man brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond and had a Verdict and before the day in Bank became a Bankrupt it was moved that that Debt was assigned over and prayed to have the money brought into Court but the Court refused it Coleman We have the very words for us in effect for now it is all one as if Iudgment had been given for the Assignées of the Commissioners Twisden How can we
take notice that he is a Bankrupt any Execution may be stopped at that rate by alledging that there is a Commission of Bankrupts out against the Plaintiff If he be a Bankrupt you must take out a special Scire facias and try the matter whether he be a Bankrupt or not Which Jones said they would do and the Court granted Twisden If a Mariner or Ship-Carpenter run away he loses his wages due which Hales granted Henry L. Peterborough vers John L. Mordant A Trial at Bar upon an Issue out of the Chancery whether Henry Lord Peterborough had only an Estate for Life or was seized in Fee-tail The Lord Peterborough's Counsel alledged that there was a settlement made by his Father 9 Car. 1. whereby he had an Estate in Tail which he never understood till within these three years but he had claimed hitherto under a Settlement made 16 Car. 1. And to prove a Settlement made 9 Car. 1. he produced a Witness who said that he being to purchase an Estate from my Lord the Father one Mr. Nicholls who was then of Counsel to my Lord gave him a Copy of such a Deed to shew what title my Lord had But being asked whether he did see the very Deed and compare it with that Copy he answered in the negative whereupon the Court would not allow his Testimony to be a sufficient Evidence of the Deed and so the Verdict was for my Lord Mordant Cole Forth A Trial at Bar directed out of Chancery upon this Issue whether Wast or no Wast Hales By protestation I try this cause remembring the Statute of 4 Henr. 4. And the Statute was read whereby it is Enacted That no Iudgment given in any of the Kings Courts should be called in question till it were reverst by Writ of Error or Attaint He said this cause had been tried in London and in a Writ of Error in Parliament the Iudgment affirmed Now they go into the Chancery and we must try the cause over again and the same point A Lease was made by Hilliard to Green in the year 1651. afterwards he deviseth the Reversion to Cole and Forth gets an under-Lease from Green of the premisses being a Brew-house Forth pulls it down and builds the ground into Tenements Hales The question is whether this be Wast or no and if it be Wast at Law it is so in Equity To pull down a House is Wast but if the Tenant build it up again before an Action brought he may plead that specially Twisden I think the Books are pro and con whether the building of a new House be Wast or not Hales If you pull down a Malt-mill and build a Corn-mill that is Wast Then the Counsel urged that it could not be repaired without pulling it down Twisden That should have been pleaded specially Hales I hope the Chancery will not Repeal an Act of Parliament Wast in the House is Wast in the Curtelage and Wast in the Hall is Wast in the whole House So the Iury gave a Verdict for the Plaintiff and gave him 120 l. damages Term. Mich. 25 Car. II. 1673. in B. R. AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond in an inferiour Court the Defendant cognovit actionem petit quod inquiratur per patriam de debito This pleading came in question in the Kings Bench upon a Writ of Error but was maintain'd by the Custom of the place where c. Hales said it was a good Custom for perhaps the Defendant has paid all the Debt but 10 l. and this course prevents a Suit in Chancery And it were well if it were established by Act of Parliament at the Common Law Wild. That Custom is at Bristow Randall versus Jenkins 24 Car. 2. Rot. 311. REplevin The Defendant made Conusance as Bayliff to William Jenkins for a Rent-charge granted out of Gavel-kind Lands to a man and his Heirs The question was whether this Rent should go to the Heir at Common Law or should be partible amongst all the Sons Hardres It shall go to the eldest Son as Heir at Law for I conceive it is by reason of a Custom time out of mind used that Lands in Kent are partible amongst the Males Lamb. Perambulat of Kent 543. Now this being a thing newly created it wants length of time to make it descendible by Custom 9 H. 7. 24. A feoffment in Fee is made of Gavel-kind Lands upon Condition the Condition shall go to the Heirs at Common Law and not according to the descent of the Land Co. Litt. 376. If a warranty be annex'd to such Lands it shall descend only upon the eldest Son Now this Rent-charge being a thing contrary to common right and de novo created is not apportionable Litt. Sect. 222. 224. it is not a part of the Land for if a man levy a Fine of the Land it will not extinguish his Rent unless by agreément betwixt the parties 4 Edw. 3. 32. Bro. tit Customs 58. if there be a Custom in a particular place concerning Dower it will not extend to a Rent-charge Fitz. Dower 58. Co. Litt. 12. Fitz. Avowry 207. 5 Edw. 4. 7. there is no occasion in this case to make the Rent descendible to all for the Land remains partible amongst the Males according to the Custom And why a Rent should go so to the prejudice of the Heir I know not 14 H. 88. it is said that a Rent is a different and distinct thing from the Land Then the language of the Law speaks for general Heirs who shall not be disinherited by construction The grand Objection is whether the Rent shall not follow the nature of the Land 27 H. 8. 4. Fitzherb said he knew four Authorities that it should Fitz. Avowry 150. As for his first case I say that Rent amongst Parceners is of another nature than this for that is distreynable of Common right As for the second I say the rule of it holds only in cases of Proceedings and Trials which is not applicable to his Custom His third case is that if two Coparceners make a feoffment rendring Rent and one dies the Rent shall not survive To this I find no answer given Litt. Sect. 585. is further objected where it is said that if Land be deviseable by Custom a Rent out of such Lands may be devised by the same Custom but Authorities clash in this point He cited farther these books viz. Lamb. Peramb of Kent and 14 H. 8. 7 8. 21 H. 6. 11. Noy Randall Roberts case 51. Den. cont I conceive this Rent shall descend to all the Brothers for it is of the quality of the Land and part of the Land it is contained in the bowels of the Land and is of the same nature with it 22 Ass 78. which I take to be a direct Authority as well as an instance Co. Lit. 132. ibid 111. In some Boroughs a man might have devised his Land by Custom and in those places he might have devised a Rent
persons who were all capable that there was no difference betwixt that case and this Ellis said that in Floyd Gregories case reported in Jones it was made a point and that Jones in his argument denied the case of Hunt Singleton he said that himself and Sir Rowland Wainscott reported it and that nothing was said of that point but that my Lord Coke followed the Report of Serjeant Bridgeman who was three or four years their puisne and that he mistook the case Milword Ingram THe Plaintiff declares in an Action of the case upon a quantum meruit for 40 shillings and upon an Indebitat Assumpsit for 40 shillings likewise The Defendant acknowledged the promises but further says that the Plaintiff and he accounted together for divers sums of money and that upon the foot of the Account the Defendant was found to be endebted to the Plaintiff in 3 shillings and that the Plaintiff in consideration that the Defendant promised to pay him those 3 shillings discharged him of all demands The Plaintiff demurred The Court gave Iudgment against the demurrer 1. They held that if two men being mutually endebted to each other do account together and the one is found in arrear so much and there be an express agréement to pay the sum found to be in arrear and each to stand discharged of all other demands that this is a good discharge in Law and the parties cannot resort to the original Contracts But North Ch. Just said if there were but one Debt betwixt them entring into an account for that would not determine the Contract 2. They held also that any promise might well be discharged by paroll but not after it is broken for then it is a Debt Jones Wait. SHrewsbury Cotton are Towns adjoining Sir Samuel Jones is Tenant in Tail of Lands in both Towns Shrewsbury Cotton are both within the Liberties of the Town of Shrewsbury Sir Samuel Jones suffers a Common Recovery of all his Lands in both Vills but the Praecipe was of two Messuages and Closes thereunto belonging these were in Shrewsbury and of c. mentioning those in Cotton lying and being in the Ville of Shrewsbury in the Liberties thereof And whether by this Recovery the Lands lying in Cotton which is a distinct Ville of it self not named in the Recovery pass or not was the question Serjeant Jones argued against the Recovery He cited Cr. Jac. 575. in Monk Butler's case Cr. Car. 269 270. 276. he said the Writ of Covenant upon which a Fine is levied is a personal Action but a Common Recovery is a real Action and the Land it self demanded in the Praecipe There is no President he said of such a Recovery He cited a case Hill 22 23 Car. 2. Rot. 223. Hutton 106. Marche's Reports one Johnson Baker's case which he said was the case in point and resolved for him But the Court were all of Opinion that the Lands in Cotton passed And gave Iudgment accordingly Ellis said if the Recovery were erroneous at least they ought to allo 〈…〉 t till it were reversed Lepping Kedgewin AN Action in the nature of a Conspiracy was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in which the Declaration was insufficient The Defendant pleaded an ill plea but Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff upon the insufficiency of the Declaration Which ought to have been entred Quod Defendens eat inde sine die but by mistake or out of design it was entred Quia placitum praedictum in forma praedicta superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem contenta bonum sufficiens in lege existit c. ideo consideratum est per Cur ' quod Quer ' nil capiat per billam The Plaintiff brings a new Action and declares aright The Defendant pleads the Iudgment in the former Action and recites the Record verbatim as it was To which the Plaintiff demurred And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff nisi causa c. North Chief Justice There is no question but that if a man mistakes his Declaration and the Defendant demurs the Plaintiff may set it right in a second Action But here it is objected that the Iudgment is given upon the Defendants plea. Suppose a Declaration be faulty and the Defendant take no advantage of it but pleads a plea in bar and the Plaintiff takes issue and the right of the matter is found for the Defendant I hold that in this case the Plaintiff shall never bring his Action about again for he is estopped by the Verdict Or suppose such a Plaintiff demur to the plea in bar there by his demurrer he confesseth the fact if well pleaded and this estops him as much as a Verdict would But if the plea were not good then there is no Estoppel And we must take notice of the Defendants plea for upon the matter as that falls out to be good or otherwise the second Action will be maintainable or not The other Iudges agreed with him in omnibus Atkinson Rawson THe Plaintiff declares against the Defendant as Executor The Defendant pleads that the Testator made his Will and that he the Defendant suscepto super se onere Testamenti praedict c. did pay divers sums of money due upon specialties and that there was a Debt owing by the Testator to the Defendants Wife and that he retained so much of the Testators Goods as to satisfie that Debt and that he had no other Assets The Plaintiff demurred because for ought appears the Defendant is an Executor de son tort and then he cannot retain for his own debt The Plaintiffs naming him in his Declaration Executor of the Testament of c. will not make for him for that he does of necessity he cannot declare against him any other way and of that Opinion was all the Court viz. that he ought to entitle himself to the Executorship that it may appear to the Court that he is such a person as may retain And accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Term. Hill 27 28 Car. II. in Com. Banco Smith's Case A Man dies leaving Issue by two several Venters viz. by the first three Sons and by the second two Daughters One of the Sons dies intestate the elder of the two surviving Brothers takes out Administration and Sir Lionel Jenkins Iudge of the Prerogative Court would compell the Administrator to make distribution to the Sisters of the half-blood He prayed a Prohibition but it was denied upon advice by all the Iudges for that the Sisters of the half-blood being a kin to the Intestate and not in remotiori gradu then the Brother of the whole blood must be accounted in equal degree Anonymus AN Action was brought against four men viz. two Attornies and two Solicitors for being Attornies and Solicitors in a cause against the Plaintiff in an inferiour Court falso malitiose knowing that there was no cause of Action against him and
Defendant should be charged to the value of the whole personal Estate or only for as much as he converted Serjeant Barrell argued That he ought to be charged for the whole because 1. He is made Executor by the Will and he is thereby compleat Executor before Probate to all intents but bringing of Actions 2. He has possession of the Goods and is chargeable in respect of that 3. He caused some to be sold and paid a Debt which is a sufficient administration There is found to discharge him 1. His refusal before the Ordinary But that being after he had so far intermeddled avails nothing Hensloe's case 9 Co. 37. An Executor de son tort he confessed should not be charged for more then he converted and shall discharge himself by delivering over the rest to the rightful Executor But the case is different of a rightful Executor that has taken upon him the burden of the Will The second thing found to discharge him is the granting of Administration to another but that is void because here is a rightful Executor that has administred in which case the Ordinary has no power to grant Administration Hob. 46. Keble Osbaston's case The third thing found to discharge him is the delivery of the Goods over to the Administrator but that will not avail him for himself became responsible by his having possession and he cannot discharge himself by delivering the Goods over to a stranger that has nothing to do with them If it be objected that by this means two persons will be chargeable in respect of the same Goods I answer that payment by either discharges both Cr. Car. Whitmore Porter's case The Court was of Opinion that the committing of Administration in this case is a mere void act A great inconvenience would ensue if men were allowed to Administer as far as they would themselves and then to set up a beggarly Administrator they would pay themselves their own Debts and deliver the residue of the Estate to one that 's worth nothing and cheat the rest of the Creditors If an Administrator bring an Action it is a good plea to say that the Executor made by the Will has administred Accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Major Stubbing versus Birde Harrison REsolved that a plea may be a good plea in abatement though it contain matter that goes in bar they relyed upon the case in 10 H. 7. fol. 11. which they said was a case in point and Salkell Skelton's case 2 Rolls Reports and Iudgment was given accordingly Term. Trin. 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco PEr North Chief Iustice if there are Accounts betwéen two Merchants and one of them becomes Bankrupt the course is not to make the other who perhaps upon stating the Accounts is found endebted to the Bankrupt to pay the whole that originally was entrusted to him and to put him for the recovery of what the Bankrupt owes him into the same condition with the rest of the Creditors but to make him pay that only which appears due to Bankrupt on the foot of the Account otherwise it will be for Accounts betwixt them after the time of the others becoming Bankrupt if any such were Wing Jackson TRespass Quare vi armis the Defendant insultum fecit upon the Plaintiff was brought in the County Court and Iudgment there given for the Plaintiff But it was reversed here upon a Writ of false Iudgment because the County Court not being a Court of Record cannot fine the Defendant as he ought to be if the cause go against him because of the vi armis in the Declaration but an Action of Trespass without those words will lie in the County Court well enough Anonymus A Vicar libell'd in the Spiritual Court for Tythes of of young Cattle and surmised that the Defendant was seised of Lands in Middlesex of which Parish he was Vicar and that the Defendant had Common in a great Waste called Sedgemore-Common as belonging to his Land in Middlesex and put his Cattle into the said Common The Defendant prayed a Prohibition for that the Land where the Cattle went was not within the Parish of Middlesex The same Plaintiff libelled against the same Defendant for Tythes of Willow-Faggots who suggests to have a Prohibition the payment of 2 d. a year to the Rector for all Tythes of Willow The same Plaintiff libelled also for Tythes of Sheep The Defendant to have a Prohibition suggests that he took them in to feed after the Corn was reaped pro melioratione agriculturae infra terras arabiles non aliter As for the first of these no Prohibition was granted because of that clause in 2 Edw. 6. whereby it is enacted that Tythes of Cattle feeding in a Waste or Common where the Parish is not certainly known shall be paid to the Parson c. of the Parish where the owner of the Cattle lives For the second they held that a modus to the Rector is a good discharge against the Vicar For the third they held that the Parson ought not to have Tythe of the Corn and Sheep too which make the ground more profitable and to yield more Per quod c. Ingram versus Tothill Ren. REplevin Trevill leased to Ingram for 99 years if Joan Ingram his wife Anthony John Ingram his Sons should so long live rendring an Heriot or 40 shillings to the Lessor and his Assigns at the election of the Lessor his heirs and Assigns after their several deaths successive as they are named in the Indenture Trevill deviseth the Reversion John dyes and then Joan dies and the question was whether or no a Heriot were due to the Devisee upon the death of Joan. The Court agreed that the Avowry was faulty because it does not appear thereby whether Anthony Ingram was alive or not at the time of the distress taken for if he were dead the Lease would be determined North. Though Anthony were alive the Devisee of Trevill could not distrain for the Heriot for that the reservation is to him and his Assigns and although the Election to have the Heriot or 40 shillings given to the Lessor his heirs or Assigns yet that will not help the fault in the reservation Ellis There is another fault in the pleading for it is pleaded that Trevill made his Will in writing but it is not said that he dyed so seized for if the Estate of the Devisor were turned to a right at the time of his death the Will could not operate upon it Also it is said that the Avowant made his Election and that the Plaintiff habuit notitiam of his Election but it is not said by whom notice was given for these causes Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff It was urged likewise against the Avowant that no Heriot could be due in this case because Joan did not die first but the course of succession is interrupted and that a Heriot not being due of
desirous to have the money paid before the day took another Bond for the same sum payable sooner and that this was in full satisfaction of the former Bond upon this plea the Plaintiff took issue and it was found against him And Serjeant Maynard moved that notwithstanding this Verdict Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for that the Defendant by his plea has confessed the Action and to say that another Bond was given in satisfaction is nothing to the purpose Hob. 68. so that upon the whole it appears that the Plaintiff has the right and he ought to have Iudgment 2 Cr. 139. 8 Co. 93. a. and day was given to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment Vide infra hoc eodem Termino Savill against the Hundred of THe Plaintiff in an Action upon the Stat. of Wint. had a Verdict and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Felonious taking is not said to be in the High-way 2 Cro. 469 675. North. An Action lies upon the Stat. of Winton though the Robbery be not committed in the High-way to which the Court-agreed and the Prothonotaries said that the Entries were frequently so Per quod c. Calthrop Philippo ONe J. S. had recovered a Debt against Calthrop and procured a Writ of Execution to Philippo the then Sheriff of D. but before that Writ was executed Calthrop procured a Supersedeas to the same Philippo who when his year was out delivered over all the Writs to the new Sheriff save this Supersedeas which not being delivered J. S. procures a new Writ of Execution to the new Sheriff upon which the Goods of Calthrop being taken he brings his Action against Philippo for not delivering over the Supersedeas After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie for that the Sheriff is not bound to deliver over a Supersedeas 1. Because it is not a Writ that has a return 2. Because it is only the Sheriffs Warrant for not obeying the Writ of Execution The Prothonotaries said that the course was to take out a new Writ to the new Sheriff Serjeant Strode argued that the Supersedeas ought to be delivered over because the Kings Writ to the old Sheriff is Quod Com' praedict ' cum pertinentiis uno cum rotulis brevibus memorandis omnibus officium illud tangentibus quae in custodia sua existunt liberet c. Reg. 295. 3 Co. 72. Westby's case Besides the Supersedeas is for the Defendants benefit and there is no reason why the Capias should be delivered over which is for the Plaintiffs benefit and not the Supersedeas which is for the Defendants And he said an Action will lie for not delilivering over some Writs to the new Sheriff though those Writs are not returnable as a Writ of Estrepement The Court inclined to his Opinion but it was adjourned to a further day on which day it was not moved Bascawin Herle versus Cooke THo Cook granted a Rent-charge of 200 l. per annum to Bascawin Herle for the life of Mary Cook habend ' to them their heirs and assigns ad opus usum of Mary and in the Indenture covenanted to pay the rent ad opus usum of Mary Bascawin Herle upon this bring an Action of Covenant and assign the breach in not paying the Rent to themselves ad opus usum of Mary The Defendant demurs 1. Because the words in which the breach is assign'd contain a negative pregnant Baldwin for the Plaintiff we assign the breach in the words of the Covenant Cur ' accord 2. Because the Plaintiff does not say that the money was not paid to Mary it would satisfie the Covenant 3. This Rent-charge is executed to Mary by the Stat. of Uses and she ought to have distrained for it for she having a remedy the Plaintiffs out of whom the Rent is transferred by the Statute cannot bring this Action Hereupon two questions were made 1. Whether this remedy by Action of Covenant be transferred to Mary by the Stat. of Uses or not And 2dly if not whether the Covenant were discharged or not North Wyndham When the Statute transfers an Estate it transfers together with it such remedies only as by Law are incident to that Estate and not collateral ones Atkyns accordant There is a clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. c. 10. which gives the Cestuy que use of a Rent all such remedies as he would have had if the Rent had been actually and really granted to him but that has place only where one is seized of Lands in trust that another shall have a Rent out of them not where a Rent is granted to one to the use of another They agreed also that the Covenant was not discharged And gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Higden versus VVhitechurch Executor of Dethicke A Udita Querela The Plaintiff declares that himself and one Prettyman became bound to the Testator for the payment of a certain sum that in an Action brought against him he was Outlawed that Dethick afterward brought another Action upon the same Bond against Prettyman and had Iudgment that Prettyman was taken by a Cap. ad satisfaciend ' and imprisoned and paid the Debt and was released by Dethick's consent upon this matter the Plaintiff here prays to be relieved against this Iudgment and Outlawry The Defendant protestando that the Debt was not satisfied pleads the Outlawry in disability The Plaintiff demurs Baldw. for the Plaintiff Non datur exceptio ejus rei cujus petitur dissolutio He resembled this to the cases of bringing a Writ of Error or Attaint in neither of which Outlawry is pleadable 3 Cr. 225. 7 H. 4. 39. 7 H. 6. 44. Seyse contra Outlawry is a good plea in Audita querela 2 Cr. 425. 8 Co. 141. this case is not within the maxime that has been cited a writ of Error and Attaint is within it for in both them the Iudgment it self is to be reversed But in an Audita querela you admit the Iudgment to be good only upon some equitable matter arising since you pray that no Execution may be upon it Vide 6 Ed. 4. 9. b. Jason Kite's case Mich. 12 Car. 2. Rot. 385. Adj. Pasch 13. Cur ' accord ' If the Iudgment had been erroneous and a writ of Error had been brought the Outlawry which was but a superstructure would fall by consequence but an Audita querela meddles not with the Iudgment the Plaintiff here has no remedy but to sue out his Charter of Pardon Blythe Hill supra 221. THe case being moved again appeared to be thus viz. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against the Defendant as heir to the Obligor The Defendant pleaded that the Obligor his Ancestor dyed intestate and that one J. S. had taken out Letters of Administration and had given the Plaintiff
feigned names The first cause thereof was the ignorance of Sheriffs who being to make a return looked into some Book of Presidents for a form and finding the names of John Doo and Rich. Roo put down for examples made their return accordingly and took no care for true Sumners and true Manucaptors For Non-appearance at the return of the great Distress in a plea of Quare Impedit final Iudgment is to be given and our right bound for ever which ought not to be suffered unless after Process legally served according to the intention of the Statute In a case Mich. 23. of the present King Iudgment was entred in this Court in a plea of Quare impedit upon non-appearance to the great Distress but there the party was summoned and true Summoners returned upon non-appearance an Attachment issued and real Sumners return'd upon that but upon the Distress it was return'd that the Defendants districti fuerunt per bona catalla manucapti per Joh. Doo Rich. Roo and for that cause the Iudgment was vacated Cur ' The design of the Statute of Marlebridge was to have Process duly executed which if it were executed as the Law requires the Tenant could not possibly but have notice of it For if he do not appear upon the Summons an Attachment goes out that is a command to the Sheriff to seize his body and make him give Sureties for his appearance if yet he will not appear then the great distress is awarded that is the Sheriff is commanded to seize the thing in question if he come not in for all this then Iudgment final is to be given Now the issue of this Process being so fatal that the right of the party is concluded by it we ought not to suffer this Process to be changed into a thing of course It is true the Defendant here had notice of the Suit but he had not such notice as the Law does allow him And for his fourching in essoyn the Law allows it him Accordingly the Iudgment was set aside Anonymus FAlse Judgment out of a County Court the Record was vitious throughout and the Iudgment reversed and ordered that the Suitors should be amerced a Mark but the Record was so imperfectly drawn up that it did not appear before whom the Court was held and the County Clark was fined Five pounds for it Cessavit per biennium the Defendant pleads Non-tenure He commenceth his plea quod petenti reddere non debet but concludes in abatement Serjeant Barrell He cannot plead this plea for he has imparled Cur̄ Non-tenure is a plea in bar the conclusion indeed is not good but he shall amend it Barrell Non-tenure is a plea in abatement The difference is betwixt Non-tenure that goes to the tenure as when the Tenant denies that he holds of the demandant but says that he holds of some other person which is a plea in bar and Non-tenure that goes to the Tenancy of the Land as here he pleads that he is not Tenant of the Land and that goes in abatement only The Defendant was ordered to amend his plea. Addison versus Sir John Otway TEnant in tail of Lands in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marleston in the Towns of A. B. C. Tenant in Tail makes a Deed of bargain and sale to J. S. to the intent to make J. S. Tenant to the Praecipe in order to the suffering of a common Recovery of so many Acres in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marlestone Now in those Parishes there are two Towns called Rippon Kirby-Marlestone and the Recovery is suffered of Lands in Rippon Kirby-Marlestone generally all this was found by special Verdict and further that the intention of the parties was that the Lands in question should pass by the said recovery and that the Lands in question are in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marlestone but not within the Townships and that the bargainor had no Lands at all within the said Townships The question was whether the Lands in question should pass by this Recovery or not Shaftoe They will pass The Law makes many strained constructions to support common Recoveries and abates of the exactness that is required in adversary Suits 2 Rolls 67. 5 Rep. Dormer's case Eare Snow Plo. Com. Sir Moyle Finche's case 6 Rep. Cr. Jac. 643. Ferrers Curson In Stork Foxe's case Cr. Jac. 120 121. where two Villes Walton Street were in the Parish of Street and a man having Lands in both levied a Fine of his Lands in Street his Lands in Walton would not pass but there the Conusor had Lands in the Town of Street to satisfie the grant but in our case it is otherwise He cited also Rolls Abridgm Grants 54. Hutton 105. Baker Johnson The Deed of bargain and sale and the Recovery make up in our case but one assurance and construction is to be made of both together as in Cromwells case 2 Report The intention of the parties Rules Fines and Recoveries and the intention of the parties in our case appears in the Deed and is found by the Verdict Rolls Abridgm 19. 2 part Winch. 122. per Hob. Cr. Car. 308. Sir George Symond's case betwixt which last case and ours all the diffreence is that that case is of a Fine and ours of a Common Recovery betwixt which Conveyances as to our purpose there is no difference at all He cited Jones Wait's case Trin 27 Car. 2. in this Court and a case 16 Reg. nunc in B. R. when Hide was Chief Iustice betwixt Thynne Thynne North. The Law has always stuck at new niceties that have been started in cases of Fines and Common Recoveries and has gotten over almost all of them I have not yet seen a case that warrants the case at Bar in all points Nor do I remember an Authority expresly against it and it seems to be within the reason of many former resolutions But we must be cautious how we make a further step Wyndham I think the Lands in question will pass well enough and that the Deed of bargain and sale which leads the uses of the Recovery does sufficiently explain the meaning of the words Rippon Kirby Marlestone in the recovery I do not so much regard the Iuries having found what the parties intention was as I do the Deéd it self in which he expresses his own intention himself and upon that I ground my Opinion Atkyns agreed with Wyndham Indeed when a place is named in legal proceedings we do prima facie intend it of a Ville if nothing appears to the contrary stabitur praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium In this case the Evidence of the thing it self is to the contrary The reason why prima facie we intend it of a Ville is because as to civil purposes the Kingdom is divided into Villes He do not intend it of a Parish because the division of the Kingdom into Parishes is an Ecclesiastical distribution to Spiritual purposes
Milwood and Ingram 205 Monke versus Morrice and Clayton 93 Moor and Field 229 Lord Mordant versus the Earl of Peterborough 114 Moreclack and Carleton 73 Mors and Sluce 85 Mosedel the Marshall of the Kings Bench. 116 N. NAylor against Sharply and others 198 Norman and Foster 101 Nosworthy and Wildeman 42 O. OGnel versus the Lord Arlington Gardian of c. 217 Osburn and Walleeden 272 P. PAge and Tulse 239 Parker and Welby 57 Parten and Baseden 213 Parsons and Perns 91 Henry Lord Peterborough versus John Lord Mordant 94 Doctor Poordage 22 Porter and Fry 86 Prin and Smith 19 Pybus and Mitford 121 159 R. RAndal and Jenkins 96 Rawlin's Case 46 Redman and Edelfe 4 Redman 10 Redman and Pyne 19 Dominus Rex versus Vaws 24 Dominus Rex versus Turnith 26 Rich and Morrice 36 Richards and Hodges 43 Roberts and Mariot 42 289 Rogers and Danvers 165 Rogers and Davenant 194 Russel and Collins 8 S. SAvil against the Hundred of 221 Scudamore and Crossing 175 Searl and Long. 248 Sedgewicke and Gofton 106 Earl of Shaftsbury's Case 144 Slater and Carew 187 Smith and Wheeler 16 38 Smith and Bowin 25 Smith Lluellin al. Commissioners of Sewers 44 Smith's Case 209 Smith versus Smith 284 The Chapter of the Collegiate-Church of Southwell versus the Bishop of Lincoln 204 Southcote and Stowell 226 237 The Company of Stationers versus Seymor 256 Stead and Perryer 267 Strode versus the Bishop of Bathe and Wells and Sir George Hornet and Masters 230 T. TAylor and Wells 46 Taylor and Rowse Church-Wardens versus their Predecessors 65 Lord Tenham versus Mullins 119 Thredneedle and Lynham 203 Sir John Thoroughgood 107 Tildell and Walter 50 Tomlin and Fuller 27 Lord Townsend versus Hughes 232 Troy 5 Turner and Benny 61 Turner and Davies 62 V. VAughan and Casewell 7 Vaughton versus Atwood alios 202 Vere and Reyner 19 W. WAldron versus 78 Warren and Prideaux 104 Warren and Sayer 191 Watkyns and Edwards 286 Wayman and Smith 63 Wilbraham and Snow 30 Williams and Lee. 42 Williamson and Hancock 192 Wilson and Robinson 100 Wing and Jackson 215 Wood and Davies 289 Wootton and Heal. 66 Wootton and Penelope 290 Worthy and Liddal 21 Y. YArd and Ford. 69 Z. ZOuch and Clare 92 Errata PAge 40. line 2. a Conveyance with power lege a Conveyance reserving a power p. 50. l. 23. to Nicholas Love the Father if he should so long live lege to Nicholas Love the Father for a term of years if the Cestuy qui vies or any of them should so long live p. 54. l. 22. tenant for life dele for life p. 63. l. 26. pro Quer ' lege pro Defendent ' p. 109. l. 20. if tenant in tail grant a Rent lege if tenant be rendring a Rent p. 112. l. 9. of the month next year lege of the same month p. 127. l. 20. ab inconventi lege ab inconvenienti p. 128. l. 2. and lining thereupon lege and linnen Thereupon c. p. 136. l. 7. left lege lost l. 28. left lege lost p. 145. l. 20 21. repeated lege reported p. 170. l. 2. joyntly to lege joyntly and severally to p. 190. l. 31. A's ground lege B's ground p. 193. l. 5. a stranger a tenant in possession lege a stranger tenant in possession p. 206. l. 20. Shrewsbury the Liberties lege Shrewsbury and the Liberties p. 217. l. 8. shillings given lege shillings be given p. 223. l. 13 Mary it would lege Mary for if it were it would c. p. 245. l. 12. if he had lege that he had p. 262. l. 13. a verbal request lege a verbal discharge p. 271. l. 12. Heley lege Offley p. 285. l. 24. upon the Merchants lege upon the custom of Merchants The Cases of Trin. Term 29 Car. 2. in Com. B. end with page 270. and from that page to page 299. through a mistake of the Composer it 's printed C. B. instead of B. R. which the Reader is desired to to amend with his Pen. REPORTS Of divers Select Cases In the Reign of CAROLI II. Term. Mich. 21 Car. II. 1669. in Banco Regis ONe Mynn an Attorney entred a Iudgment by colour of a Warrant of Attorney of another Term then was expressed in the Warrant The Court consulting with the Secondary about it he said That if the Warrant be to appear and enter Iudgment as of this Term or any time after the Attorney may enter Iudgment at any time during his life but in the case in question the Warrant of Attorney had not those words or at any time after Wherefore the Secondary was ordered to consider the charge of the party grieved in order to his reparation Which the Court said concluded him from bringing his Action on the Case The Secondary said That in Trin. Hil. Term they could not compel the party in a Habeas Corpus to plead and go to Trial the same Term but in Michaelmas and Easter Term they could Mr. Solicitor moved for a new Writ of Enquiry into London and to stay the filing of a former because of excessive damages given but it was denied An Affidavit for the changing of a Venue made before the party was Arrested and allowed Moved in Battery for putting an Arm out of joint that the party might be held to special Bail but denied Twisd Follow the course of the Court. Mr. Sanders moved to quash an Order made by the Iustices of Peace for putting away an Apprentice from his Master and ordering the Master to give him so much Money Keeling The Statute of 5 Eliz. leaves this to their discretion An Indictment was preferred in Chester for a Perjury committed in London For which Keeling threatned to have the Liberties of the County Palatine seized if they kept not within their bounds Goodwin Harlow ERror to reverse a Iudgment in Colchester there being no appearance by the party but Iudgment upon thrée defaults recorded Revers'd Twisd If there be a Iudgment against thrée you cannot take out Execution against one or two Vpon a motion for a new Trial Twisden said That in his practice the Heir in an Action of Debt against him upon a Bond of his Ancestor pleaded riens per discent the Plaintiff knew the Defendant had levied a Fine and at the Trial it was produced but because they had not a Déed to lead the uses it was urged that the use was to the Conusor and his heirs and so the heir in by descent whereupon there was a Verdict against him and it being a just and due Debt they could never after get a new Trial. Gostwicke Mason DEbt for Rent upon a Lease for a year and so from year to year quamdiu ambabus partibus placuerit there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff for two years rent Sanders moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff alledges indeed that the Defendant entred and was possest the first year but mentions no entry as
to the second Twisd The Iury have found the Rent to be due for both years and we will now intend that he was in possession all the time for which the Rent is found to be due A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court at Chester to stay procéedings upon a Libel against one William Bayles for teaching School without Licence but it was denied Redman Edolfe TRespass and Ejectment by Original in this Court Sanders moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon a fault in the Original for a bad Original is not help'd by Verdict But upon Mr. Livesey's certifying that there was no Original at all the Plaintiff had Iudgment though in his Declaration he recited the Original In an Action of Assault and Battery and Wounding the Evidence to prove a Provocation was That the Plaintiff put his hand upon his Sword and said If it were not Assize time I would not take such Language from you The question was if that were an Assault The Court agreed that it was not for he declared that he would not Assault him the Iudges being in Town and the intention as well as the act makes an Assault Therefore if one strike another upon the hand or arm or breast in discourse it s no Assault there being no intention to Assault But if one intending to Assault strike at another and miss him this is an Assault so if he hold up his hand against another and say nothing it is an Assault In the principal case the Plaintiff had Iudgment Medlicott Joyner EJectione firmae The Plaintiff at the Trial offer'd in Evidence a Copy of a Déed that was burnt by the Fire the Copy was taken by one Mr. Gardner of the Temple who said he did not examine it by the Original but he writ it and it always lay by him as a true Copy and the Court agréed to have it read the original Déed being proved to be burnt Twisd Feoffée upon Condition is disseised and a Fine levied and five years pass then the Condition is broken the Feoffor may enter for the Disseisor held the Estate subject to the Condition and so did the Conizee for he cannot be in of a better Estate then the Conizor himself was Dawe Swayne AN Action upon the Case was brought against one for suing the Plaintiff in placito debiti for 600 l. and falsly and maliciously affirming to the Bailiff of Westminster that he did owe him 600 l. whereby the Bailiff insisted upon extraordinary Bail to his Damage c. The Defendant traverses absque hoc that he did falsly and maliciously affirm to the Bailiff of Westminster that he did owe him so much Winnington moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie But the Plaintiff had Iudgment Keel If there had béen no cause of Action an Action upon the Case would not lie because he has a recompence by Law but here was a cause of Action If one should arrest you in an Action of 2000 l. to the intent that you should not find Bail and keep you from practice all this Term and this is found to be falsly and maliciously shall not you have an Action for this this Twisden said he knew to have been Serjeant Rolls his Opinion Morton Foxley's case is That if a man be outlaw'd in another County where he is not known an Action upon the Case will lye so an Action lies against the Sheriff if reasonable Bail be offered and refused Twisd If three men bring an Action and the Defendant put in Bail at the Suit of four they cannot declare but if he had put in Bail at the suit of one that one might declare against him Iudgment was entred as of Trinity Term for the Queen Mother and a Writ of Enquity of damages was taken out returnable this Term and she died in the Vacation-time Resolved that the first was but an interlocutory Iudgment and that the Action was abated by her death Twisd Some have questioned how you shall come to make the death of the party appear between the Verdict and the day in Bank and I have known it offer'd by Affidavit and by suggestion upon the Roll and by motion Troy an Attorney AN Information of Extortion against Troy an Attorney It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That Attorneys are not within any of the Statutes against Extortion and therefore the Information concluded ill the conclusion being contra formam Statuti Twisd The Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 7. is express against Attornies Keel I think as thus advised that Attornies are within all the Statutes of Extortion It was afterwards moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Information was insufficient in the Law for Sir Tho. Fanshawe informed that Mr. Troy being an Attorney of the Court of Common Pleas did at Maidstone cause one Collop to be impleaded for 9 s. 4 d. debt at the suit of one Dudley Sellinger c. and this was ad grave damnum of Collop c. but it is not expressed in what Court he caused him to be impleaded and that which the Defendant is charged with is not an offence for he saith that he did cause him to be impleaded and received the money the same day and perhaps he received the money after he had caused him to be impleaded Then it is not sufficiently alledged that he did illicite receive so much and Extortion ought to be particularly alledged Nor is there any Statute that an Attorney shall receive no more than his just Fées The profession of an Attorney is at Common Law and allowed by the Statute of Westm 1. cap. 26. and the Statute of 3 Jac. does not extend to this matter Non constat in this case if what he received was for Fees or no besides the suit for an offence against that Statute must be brought by the party not by Sir Tho. Fanshawe Keel If the party grieved will not sue for the penalty of treble damages given by that Statute yet the King may prosecute to turn him out of the Roll. Twisd I doubt that nor is it clear whether an Information will lie at all upon that Statute or not for the Statute does not speak of an Information Keel Whenever a Statute makes a thing criminal an Information will lie upon the Statute though not given by express words Twisd It appears here that this money was not received of his Client for he was against Collop But he ought to shew in what Court the impleading was for otherwise it might be before Mr. Major in his Chamber To which the Court agreéd So the Information was quash'd Burnet Holden THere were these two points in the case 1. If the Defendant dye after the day of Nisi prius and before the day in Bank whether the Iudgment shall be said to be given in the life of the Defendant 2. Admit it shall yet whether the Executor shall have the advantage taken from him of retaining to satisfie his own debt To the first
man that shall refuse to accept the Office of Alderman because they are a Court of Record and they may want Aldermen else So he was released It was moved for the Plaintiff that a person named in the simul cum being a material Witness might be struck out and it was granted Keel said That if nothing was proved against him he might be a Witness for the Defendant Clerke Heath EJectione firmae The Plaintiff claims by a Lease from Th. Prin Clerke Objected That Prin had not taken the Oath according to the Act for Vniformity whereupon he produced a Certificate of the Bishop that had only a small bit of Wax upon it Twisd If it were sealed though the Seal be broken off yet it may be read as we read Recoveries after the Seal broken off and I have seen Administration given in Evidence after the Seal broken off and so Wills and Déeds Accordingly it was read Obj. The Church is ipso facto void by the Act of Vniformity if the Incumbent had no Episcopal Ordination So they shewed that Prin was ordained by a Bishop It was likewise proved that he had declared his assent and consent to the Common Prayer in due time before St. Bartholomew's day Then it was urged that the Act does not confirm the Plaintiffs Lessor in this living for that it is not a living with Cure of Souls for it has a Vicarage endowed Twisd If it be a living without Cure the Act does not extend to it Mr. Solicitor The Presentation does not mention Cure of Souls So they read a Presentation of a Rector and another of a Vicar in neither of which any mention was made of Cure of Souls but the Vicars was residendo If both be presentative the Cure shall be intended to be in the Vicar Keeling Why may not both have the Cure Sol. If the Vicar be endow'd the Rector is discharged of Residence by Act of Parliament Twisd Synodals and Procurations are duties due to the Ordinary which Vicars when the Parsonages are impropriated always pay but I question whether they that come into a Church by Presentation to and Institution by the Bishop have not always the Cure of Souls It is true in Donatives where the Ministers do not come in by the Bishops Institution there is no Cure but they that come in by Institution of the Bishop have their power delegated to them from him and generally have Cure of Souls Solic There are several Rectories without Cure Twisd When came Rectories in Morton After the Counsel of Lateran and Vicars came in in the Seventeenth year of King John Moreton Before the Councel of Lateran the Bishop did provide Teachers and received the Tythes himself but since he hath appointed others to the charge and saith accipe curam tuam meam Keeling Twisden It is said so by my Lord Coke but not done Twisden Wherever there is a Cure of Souls the Church is visitable either by the Bishop if it belong to him if to a Lay-man he must make Delegates if to the King my Lord Kéeper does it And where a man comes in by Presentation he is prima facie visitable by the Bishop Keeling I take it that whoever comes in under the Bishops Institution hath the Cure Twisden Grendon's Case is expresly That the Bishop hath the Cure of Souls of all the Diocess and doth by Institution transfer it to the Parson so that prima facie he that is instituted hath the Cure The Vicarage is derived out of the Parsonage and if the Vicar come to poverty the Parson is bound to maintain him Twisd There is an Appropriation to a Corporation the Corporation cannot have Cure of Souls being a body Politick but when they appoint a Vicar he coming under the Bishop by Institution hath Cure of Souls and a Donative when it comes to be Presentative hath Cure of Souls Keeling agreed Twisd We hold that when the Rector comes in by Institution the Bishop hath power to visit him for his Doctrine and his life for he hath the particular Cure but the Bishop the general and that the Bishop hath power to deprive him Abbot Moore THe Plaintiff declares That whereas one William Moore was indebted to him 210 l. and whereas the said William Moore had an Annuity out of the Defendants Lands That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had agréed that the Defendant should pay so much money to the Plaintiff the Defendant did promise to pay it After a Verdict it was objected in arrest of Iudgment that here was not any consideration and the Court was of that opinion Then the Plaintiff would have discontinued but the Court would not suffer that after a Verdict Sir Edward Thurland moved to quash an Order made by the Iustices of the Peace for one to serve as Constable in Homeby Moreton If a Leet neglect to chuse a Constable upon complaint to the Iustices of Peace they shall by the Statute appoint a Constable Twisd In this case there are Affidavits that there never was any Constable there And I cannot tell whether or no the Iustices of Peace can erect a Constablewick where never any was before if he will not be sworn let them indict him for not executing the Office and let him traverse that there never was any such Office there Keeling Go and be sworn or if the Iustices of the Peace commit you bring your Action of False Imprisonment Twisd If there be a Court Leet that hath the choice of a petty Constable the Iustices of Peace cannot chuse there And if it be in the Hundred I doubt whether the Iustices of Peace can make more Constables then were before High-Constables were not ab origine but came in with Iustices of the Peace 10 H. 4. Keel Morton cont Moreton The book of Villarum in the Exchequer sets out all the Vills and there cannot be a Constablewick created at this day In this case the Court ordered him to be sworn Thurl If they chuse a Parliament-mans Servant Constable they cannot swear him Twisd I do not think the priviledge extends to the Tenant of a Parliament man but to his Servant Blissett Wincott TWo persons committed for being at a Conventicle were brought up by Habeas Corpus Twisd To meet in Conventicles in such numbers as may be affrighting to the people and in such numbers as the Constable cannot suppress is a breach of the Peace and of a persons Recognizance for the good behaviour Note this was after the late Act against Conventicles expired Lee Edwards AN Action upon the Case was brought upon two promises 1. In consideration the Plaintiff would bestow his labour and pains about the Defendants Daughter and would cure her he did promise to pay so much for his labour and pains and would also pay for the Medicaments 2. That in consideration he had cured her he did promise to pay c. Raymond moved in arrest of Iudgment that he did not aver
that he had cured her the consideration of the first promise being future and both promises found and entire damages given Twisd It is well enough for now it lies upon the whole Record whether he hath cured her or no if it had rested upon the first promise it had been nought And in the second promise there is an averment that he had cured her So that now after a Verdict it is help'd and the want of an averment is holpen by a Verdict in many cases Iudgement nisi c. Twisd If a man be in prison and the Marshal dye and the Prisoner escape there is no remedy but to take him again Twisd Pleas in abatement come too late after imparlance Hall Sebright AN Action of Trespass wherein the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant on the 24th of January did enter and take possession of his house and did keep him out of possession to the day of the exhibiting the Bill The Defendant pleads that ante praedict tempus quo sc c. the Plaintiff did licence the Defendant to enjoy the house until such a day Saunders The plea is naught in substance for a licence to enjoy from such a time to such a time is a Lease and ought to be pleaded as a Lease and not as a Licence it is a certain present Interest Twisd It is true 5 H. 7. fo 1. is That if one doth licence another to enjoy his house till such a time it is a Lease but whether it may not be pleaded as a Licence I have known it doubted Judgment nisi c. Coppin versus Hernall TWisden said upon a motion in arrest of Iudgment because an Award was not good that the Vmpirage could not be made till the Arbitrators time were out And if any such power be given to the Vmpire it s naught in its constitution for two persons cannot have a several Iurisdiction at one and the same time The Law allows the Defendant a Copy of the Pannel to provide himself for his challenges Fetyplace versus ACtion upon the Case upon a promise in consideration that the Plaintiff would affeerere instead of afferre c. it was moved in arrest of Iudgment Cr. 3 part 466. was cited Bedel Wingfield Twisd I remember districtionem for destructionem cannot be help'd so neither vaccaria instead of vicaria So the Court gave directions to see if it were right upon the Roll. Holloway THe Condition of a Bond for performance of Covenants in an Indenture doth estop to say there is no such Indenture but doth not estop to say there are no Covenants Keel The course of the Court is that if a man be brought in upon a Latitat for 20 l. or 30 l. we take the bail for no more but yet he stands bail for all Actions at the same parties suit otherwise if a stranger bring an Action against him Twisd They cannot declare till he hath put in Bail and when we take bail it is but for the sum in the Latitat perhaps 30 l. or 40 l. but when he is once in he may be declared against for 200 l. Smith versus Wheeler A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas upon a special Verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Iury found that one Simon Mayne was possest of a Rectory for a long term and having conveyed the whole term in part of it to certain persons absolutely he conveyed his term in the residue being two parts in this manner sc in trust for himself during life and afterwards in trust for the payment of the Rent reserved upon the original Lease and for several of his Friends c. Provided that if he should have any issue of his body at the time of his death then the trusts to cease and the Assignment to be in trust for such issue c. and there was another Proviso that if he were minded to change the uses or otherwise to dispose of the premisses that he should have power so to do by writing in the presence of two or more Witnesses or by his last Will and Testament They further find that he had Issue male at the time of his death but made no disposition pursuant to his power and that in his life time he had committed Treason and they find the Act of his Attainder The question was whether the rest of the term that remained unexpired at the time of his death were forfeited to the King The points made were two 1. Whether the Deed were fraudulent 2. Whether the whole term were not forfeited by reason of the trust or the power of revocation Pemberton argued that the Deed was fraudulent because he took the profits during his life and the Assignees knew not of the Deed of trust The Court hath in these cases adjudged fraud upon circumstances appearing upon Record without any Verdict the case that comes nearest to this is in Lane 42. c. The King against the Earl of Nottingham and others 2dly He argued that there was a Trust by express words and if there be a Trust then not only the Trust but the Estate is vested in the King by the express words of the Stat. of 33 Hen. 8. The King indeed can have no larger Estate in the Land then the person attainted had in the Trust and if this Conveyance were in Trust for Simon Mayne only during his life the King can have the Land no longer but he conceived it was a Trust for Simon Mayne during the whole term A Trust he said was a right to receive the profits of the Land and to dispose of the Lands in Equity Now if Simon Mayne had a right to receive the profits and a present power to dispose of the Land he took it to be a Trust for him and that consequently by his attainder it was forfeited to the King Coleman contra As for the matter of Fraud first there is no Fraud found by the Iury and for you to judge of Fraud upon Circumstances is against the Chancellor of Oxfords case 10th Rep. As for the Trust it must be agreed that if there be any either Trust or Condition by construction upon these Provisoes in Simon Mayne in his life between Mich. 1646. and the time of making the Act the Trust will be vested in the King but whether will it be vested in the King as a Trust or as an Estate For I am informed that it hath been adjudged between the King and Holland Styles Reports That if an Alien purchase Copy-hold Lands the King shall not have the Estate but as a Trust and the particular reason was because the King shall not be Tenant to the Lord of the Mannor Keeling The Act of Parliament takes the Estate out of the Trustees and puts it in the King Coleman But I say here is no Trust forfeitable By the body of the Déed all is out of him If a man makes a feoffment in Fée to the use of his
be Deputy to the party that would avoid the Patent Twisd If a man promise another that if he recover his Land the other shall have a Lease of it he is no good Witness so neither is this man But by the Opinions of the thrée other Iudges he was allowed because the Suit here is between the King and the Patentée Worthy Liddall SAunders moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court in a Suit there for calling the Plaintiff Whore Twisd Opinions have been pro and con upon this point The Spiritual Court has a Iurisdiction in cases of Whoredom and Adultery but if Suits there were allowed for such railing words they would have work enough from Billingsgate Saunders relyed upon this that they were only words of heat Keel They are Iudges of that Saunders In Mich. 11 Jac. Rot. 664. Cryer versus Glover in Com. B. The suggestion was that she struck him and he said thou art a Whore and I was never struck by a Whores hand before there a Prohibition was granted and I conceive the reason was because there was a provocation so in our case it appears that they were Scolding According 15 Jac. Rot. 325. Short versus Cole 15 Car. 2. between Loveland Goose The Court refused to grant a Prohibition Maddox WAllop moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court for one Maddox Incumbent of a Donative within the Diocess of Peterborough who was cited into the Spiritual Court for marrying there without a Licence and cited Fairechilds case Yel 60. But per Keeling Moreton Rainesford the Prohibition was denied Twisden doubted but said if they might punish him in the Ecclesiastical Court pro reformatione morum at least they could not deprive him Doctor Poordage BArtue moved for a Writ of Priviledge for him he being a practising Physitian in Town and chosen Constable in a Parish The Court said if the Office go by Houses he must make a Deputy But upon consideration the motion was refused and a difference made between an Attorney or Barrister at Law and a Physitian the former enjoy their Priviledge because of their attendance in publick Courts and not upon the account of any private business in their Chambers and a Physitians Calling is a private Calling Wherefore they would not introduce new Presidents Sir John Kirle versus Osgood AN Action for words viz. Sir John Kirle is a forsworn Justice and not fit to be a Justice of Peace to sit upon the Bench and so I will tell him to his face Moved in arrest of Iudgment because to say a man is forsworn is not Actionable for it may be understood of swearing in common discourse Jones They are Actionable because applied to his Suite Stukely's case 4 Rep. Fleetwood's case in Hob. Though a mans Office is not named yet if the words do refer in themselves or are applyed to it they are Actionable so in our case Winnington They are not Actionable for they admit of a construction in mitiori sensu in Stukely's case that has béen cited corruption in his Office is necessarily implyed but not in this case Rolls 56. Keeling He calls him in effect a corrupt Iustice and that supplies the communication concerning his Office words must be construed according to common acceptation Morton I sée little difference betwéen this and Sir John Isam's case 1 Cro. 14. Sir William Massam's case Rainsford accorded He cited 1 Rolls 53. 4 Rep. Stukelies case Twisden was of the same Opinion for the words read to disgrace him in his Office Iudgment for the Plaintiff Hastings Attorny of the K. B. WInnington complained to the Court an his behalf that he being an Attorney of this Court was not suffered to appear for his Clyent in the Court at Stepney That Court he said was erected by Letters Patents within these two years and the Attornies of this Court being an ancient Court ought not to be excluded On the other side it was urged that they had a certain number of Attornies appointed by their Charter as there is at the Marshals Court Keeling This is a new Court and for my part I think our Attornies cannot be excluded Hastings may bring his Action If a Patent erecting a new Court may limit a certain number of Attornies that shall practise there it may as well limit a certain number of Counsel Coleman They have so in the Marshalsey and in London Keeling Their Courts in London are ancient and their Customs confirmed by Acts of Parliament The now Court of the Marshalsey is indéed a new erected Court for the old Court of the Verge was another thing and as for their having a certain number of Counsel or Attornies the question is the same with this before us whether they can legally exclude others I do not see how the King by a new Patent can ouâ—â—e any man of his priviledge Twisden said it was a new point and that he had never heard it stir'd before Afterwards being moved again Keeling said they should have their Iudgments quickly if they stood upon it Twisd I have known this ruled if you say you will refer the cause to such a man that ex consequente the cause must stay because that man is made Iudge and that the staying of the cause is implyed in the reference Dominus Rex versus Vaws MOved to quash a Presentment for refusing to be sworn Constable of an Hundred because the Presentment does not mention before whom the Sessions were held which was quash'd accordingly and Twisden said the Clerk of the Peace ought to be fined for returning such a Presentment Birrell Shawe SCire facias against the Bail The Defendant pleads that before the return of the Writ of Scire facias there was a Capias ad satisfaciend against the principal by vertue whereof he was taken and paid the money but alledges no place where the payment was Twisd You cannot make good this fault Dodwell Ux. versus Burford THe Plaintiffs in an Action of Battery declared that the Defendant struck the Horse whereon the Wife rode so that the Horse ran away with her whereby she was thrown down and another Horse ran over her whereby she lost the use of two of her Fingers The Iury had given them 48 l. damages and they moved the Court upon view of the maihem to increase them whereupon the Declaration was read but the Court thought the damages given by the Iury sufficient Smith versus Bowin ACtion upon a promise The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would suffer him to take away so much of the Plaintiffs Grass which the Defendant had cut down promised to pay him so much for it and also to pay him six pounds which he owed him for a Debt After a Verdict for the Plaintiff Williams moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff was an Infant and he not being bound by the agreement that the Defendant ought not to be bound by it
neither Keeling If an Infant let you a House shall he not have an Action against you for the Rent Twisd I have known an Action upon the case brought by an Infant upon a promise to pay so much money in consideration that he would permit the Defendant to enjoy such a House it was long insisted upon that this was not a good consideration because not reciprocal for the Infant might avoid his promise if an Action were grounded upon it against him but it was adjudged to be a good consideration and that the Action was maintainable And in the principal case the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Bear versus Bennett TWisden When a man is arrested and has lain in Prison three Terms and is discharged upon Common bail whether shall the Plaintiff ever hold the Defendant to special Bail afterward for the same cause if he begins anew Keel If he may then may a man be kept in Prison for ever at that rate At last it was agreed that if he would pay the Defendant his Costs for lying so long in prison he should have special Bail Mr. Masters moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court to stay a Suit there against a man for having married his Wives Sisters Daughter alledging the Marriage to be out of the Levitical degrees Cur. Take a Prohibition and demur to it for it is a case of moment Dominus Rex versus Turnith MOved to quash an Indictment upon 5 Eliz. cap. 2. for exercising a Trade in Chesthunt in Hertfordshire not having been an Apprentice to it for seven years because the Statute says they shall proceed at the Quarter-Sessions and the word Quarter is not in the Indictment Twisden That word ought to be in And I believe the using of a Trade in a Country Village as this is is not within the Statute Morton accorded Rainesford It will be very prejudicial to Corporations not to extend the Statute to Villages Twisden I have heard all the Iudges say that they will never extend that Statute further then they needs must Obj. further That there wanted these words sc Ad tunc ibidem onerati jurati for which all the three Iudges Keeling being absent conceived it ought to be quash'd A cause was removed out of London by Habeas Corpus wherein the Plaintiff had declared against the Defendant as a feme sole Merchant and Bartue moved for a Procedendo because he said they could not declare against her here as a feme sole for that she had a Husband Jones contra The Husband may then be joyned with her for he is not beyond Sea Twisd I think a Procedendo must be granted for the cause alledged It was resolved in Langlin Brewin's case in Cro. though not reported by him that if the Wife use the same Trade that her Husband does she is not within the Custom And they are to determine the matter there whether this case be within their Custom perhaps a Victualler as this Trade is is not such a Trade as their Custom will warrant and whether it will warrant it or not is in their Iudgment A Procedendo was granted Tomlin versus Fuller A Special Action on the Case was brought for keeping a passage stopt up so that the Plaintiff could not come to cleanse his Gutter After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there ought to have been a request for the opening of it Answ It s true where the Nusance is not by the party himself there must be notice before the Action brought but in this case the wrong began in the Defendants own time Twisden I know this hath been ruled where a man made a Lease of a House with free liberty of ingress c. through part of the Lessors House the Lessor notwithstanding might shut up his doors and was not bound to leave them open for his coming in at one or two of the Clock at night but he must keep good hours And must the Defendant in this case keep his Gate always open expecting him wherefore it seems he ought to have laid a request Cur. It s aided by the Verdict Twisden It is not good at the Common Law and the Defendant might well have demurred for that cause Judgment pro Querente Butler Play UPon a motion for a new Trial in a cause where the matter was upon protesting a Bill of Exchange Serj-Maynard said the protest must be on the day that the money becomes due Twisden It hath been ruled That if a Bill be denied to be paid it must be protested in a reasonable time and that 's within a Fortnight but the Debt is not lost by not doing it on the day A new Trial was denied Hughes Underwood KEeling The very Sealing of the Writ of Error is a Supersedeas to the Execution Twisd There was once a Writ of Error to remove the Record of a Iudgment between such and such but some of the parties names were left out and by my Brother Wyld's advice that Writ not removing the Record they took out Execution But the Court was of Opinion that though the Record was not removed thereby of which yet they said he was not Iudge whether it was or not yet that it so bound up the cause that they could not take out Execution It is indeed good cause to quash the Writ of Error when it comes up but Execution cannot be taken out Term. Hill 21 22 Car. II. 1669. in B. R. Jefferson Dawson IN a Scire facias upon a Recognisance in Chancery entered into by one Garraway There was a demurrer to part and issue upon part And the question was whether this Court could give Iudgment upon the demurrer Jones The Iudgment upon the demurrer must be given in Chancery The Court of Chancery cannot try an Issue and therefore it is sent hither to be tryed but with the demurrer this Court has nothing to do Indeed the books differ in case of an Issue sent hither out of Chancery whether the Iudgment shall be here or there Keilway says it ought to be given here My Lord Coke in his 4 Inst says it must be given in Chancery But none ever made it a question whether Iudgment upon a demurrer were to be given here or there V. Co. Jurisdiction of Courts fol. 80. Saunders contra When there is a demurrer upon part and Issue upon part the Record being here this Court ought to give Iudgment because there can be but one Execution Keeling If the Record come hither entirely we cannot send it back again I cannot find one Authority that the Record shall be removed from hence He cited Keilway 941. 21 H. 7. Co. 2. 12. Co. Entries 678. 24 Ed. 3. fol. 65. there it is held that Iudgment shall be given here upon a demurrer Now if it must not be given here there must be two Executions for the same thing or else they must loose half for they can
such power nay if he have Children they must be living at his death Further by these Provisoes if the Contingencies do happen he hath but a power to declare the Vses he hath no Interest in him at all Litt. Sect. 463. It is one thing to have a power or possibility of limiting an Interest another to have an Interest vested 7 Rep. 11. Moor's Reports 366. about the delivery of a Ring where they hold that if it had been to have been done with his own hand it had not been forfeited The case of Sir Edward Clere is different from ours for if a man make a feoffment to the use of his last Will or to the use of such persons as shall be appointed by his last Will in this case he remains a perfect owner of the Land But if a man makes a Conveyance with power to make Leases or to make an Estate to pay Debts he hath here no Interest but a naked power The Duke of Norfolk's case is full in the point A Conveyance to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Son in Tail with power to revoke under Hand and Seal adjudged not forfeited and yet he had a power to declare his mind as in our case Pagett's case Moor 193 194. Keeling If this way be taken a man may commit Treason pretty cheaply Twisden Whoever hath a power of Revocation hath a power of Limitation The reason is because else the feoffées would be seized to their own Vse Sir William Shelly's case in Latch Twisden There is no difference betwixt the Duke of Norfolk's case and this only here it is under his hand writing and there under his proper hand writing Afterward Term. Pasch 23 Car. 2. 1671. the Court delivered their Opinions Hales being then Chief Iustice Morton I conceive the Iudgment in the Common-Pleas is well given As for the first point whether this Conveyance made by Sir Simon Mayn be fraudulent or not the Counsel themselves have declined it and therefore I shall say nothing to it For the second I conceive no larger Interest is forfeited then during the Life of the Father If it be objected that the Father had by this Proviso jus disponendi I answer it is true he had a power if he had been minded so to do but it was not his mind and Will Now animus hominis est ipse homo but he must not only be minded so to do but he must declare his pleasure Hobart saith if a man will create a power to himself and impose a Condition or Qualification for the Execution of it it must be observed Now here is a personal and individual power seated in the heart of a man And it seems to me a stronger case then that of the Duke of Norfolk put in Englefield's case where yet the Condition was not given to the King by the Statute of Hen. 8. There was a later case adjudged in Latch betwéen Warner and Hynde a case that walked through all the Courts in Westminster-hall there by reason of the ipso declarante it could not be forfeited Rainsford I hold it is not forfeited My reason is because the Proviso is at an end and determined for when he dyed and made no Will there 's an end of the Proviso The altering of the old Trust is to be done by Sir Simon Mayn and it is inseparable from his person nothing can be more inseparable then a mans Will Moor 193. Twisd I am of the same Opinion Hales was of the same Opinion that nothing was forfeited but during Sir Simon 's life The Proviso he said did not create a Trust but potestatem disponendi which is not a Trust He said he did not understand the difference betwéen the Duke of Norfolk's case and this Accordingly the Iudgment was affirm'd In a cause wherein one Aston was Attorney Keeling said That a man may discontinue his Action here before an Action brought in the Common-Pleas But if he do begin there and then they plead another Action depending here and then they discontinue I take it the Attorney ought to be committed for this practice Twisden When I was at the Bar Error was brought and Infancy assigned when the Man was thirty years old and the Attorney was threatned to be turned out of the Roll. Serjeant Newdigate moved for a Certiorari to remove an Indictment hither from Bedford against several Frenchmen for Robbery Keeling Will it remove the Recognisances there to appear Twisden I never knew such a motion made by any but the King's Attorney or Solicitor Rainsford There is no Indictment yet before a Iudge of Assise Keeling You may have a Certiorari but it must not be delivered till the Indictment be found and then the Iudge hath the Prosecutors there and may bind them over hither and so the Trial may be here Keel A Iury was never ordered to a view before their appearance unless in an Assise Twisd Neither shall you have it here but by consent Nosworthy versus Wyldeman THe Plaintiff declares in an Indeb Assumpsit that the Defendant was endebted to him in 50 l. for so much money received of the Plaintiff by one Thomas Buckner by the appointment and to the use of the Defendant After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff could not have an Action for money received by the Defendant to the use of the Defendant But because it might be money lent which the Defendant received to his own use though he was to make good the value to the Plaintiff the Court will presume after a Verdict that it appeared so to the Iury at the Trial. For where a Declaration will bear two constructions and one will make it good and the other bad the Court after a Verdict will take it in the better sense And accordingly the Plaintiff had Iudgment Willams versus Lee. AN Action of Account It was prayed that the Court would give further day for giving the Account the matter being referred to Auditors Twisden The Auditors themselves must give further day Keeling The Auditors are Iudges whether there be a voluntary delay or not If they find the parties remiss and negligent they must certifie to the Court that they will not account Roberts Mariott MOved to discontinue an Action of Debt upon a Bond. Keeling We will not favour Conditions Ruled that the other side should shew cause why they should not discontinue Buckly versus Turner ACtion upon the case upon a Promise The case was that Edward Turner Brother to the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff for a Quarters Rent and the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff mitteret prosequi praedictum Edwardum Turner so the words are in the Declaration promised to pay the money After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that here is not any consideration for there is no loss to the Plaintiff in sending to prosecute c. nor any benefit but
a disadvantage to the party that owed the money besides there is an uncertainty whither or to whom he should send Twisd Mittere prosequi is well enough for the Plaintiff must be at charge in it Keeling Certainly it ought to have been omitteret and if it be so in the Office-book we will mend it Twisden This being after a Verdict if you mend it they must have a new Trial for then it becomes another promise Jones moved for Iudgment and said he found the word mitto did signifie to send forbear cease or let alone as mitte me quaeso I pray let me alone in Terence And in the Latine and English Dictionary it hath the sense of forbearing Keeling I think the consideration not good unless the word mitto will admit of that sense If it have a propriety of sense to signifie forbear in reference to things as well as persons it will be well Whereupon the Dictionary being brought it was found to bear that sense And Twisden said if a word will bear divers senses the best ought to be taken after a Verdict Court Let the Plaintiff take his Iudgment Richards Hodges DEbt upon a Bond. The Condition was to save a Parish harmless from the charge of a Bastard-child The Defendant pleaded Non damnificatus The Plaintiff replies that the Parish laid out three shillings for keeping the Child The Defendant rejoyns that he tendred the money and the Plaintiff paid it de injuria sua propria Whereupon it was demurred the question being whether this re-joynder were a departure or no from the Bar Saunders It is a good Rejoynder for in our Bar we say that the Parish is not damnified that is not damnified within the intent of the Condition If I am to save a man harmless and he will voluntarily run himself into trouble the Condition of my Bond is not broken And so our Rejoynder is pursuant to our Bar and shows that there is no such damnification as can charge us Twisden The Rejoynder is a departure as in an Action of Covenant for payment of Rent if the Defendant pleads performance and the Plaintiff reply that the Rent is unpaid for the Defendant to rejoyn that it was never demanded is a departure You should have pleaded thus viz. that non fuit damnificat till such a time and that then you offered to take care of the Child and tendred c. Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Smith Lluellyn al. Commission of Sewers THey were brought into Court by Attachment because they proceeded to Fine a person after a Certiorari delivered Twisd Sir Anthony Mildmay was a Commissioner of Sewers and for not obeying a Certiorari was Indicted of a Praemunire and was fain to get the Kings pardon And I have known that upon an unmannerly receit of a Prohibition they have been bound to the good Behaviour Keeling When there are Informations exhibited against you and you are fined a 1000 l. a man which is less then it was in King Edward the Third's time for then a 1000 l. was a great deal more then it is now you will find what it is to disobey the Kings Writ Afterwards they appeared again and Coleman said the first Writ was only to remove Presentments the second to remove Orders and we have made two Returns the one of Presentments the other of Orders A general Writ might have had a general Return Keeling Before you file the Return let a clause of the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 9. be read which being done he said that by the Statute of 23 Henr. 8. no Orders of the Commissioners of Sewers are binding without the Royal Assent now this Statute makes them binding without it and enacts that they shall not be Reverst but by other Commissioners Yet it never was doubted but that this Court might question the Legality of their Orders notwithstanding And you cannot oust the Iurisdiction of this Court without particular words in Acts of Parliament There is no Iurisdiction that is uncontroulable by this Court Sir Henry Hungate's case was a famous case and we know what was done in it Morton Since the making this Statute of Eliz. were those cases in my Lord Coke's Reports adjudged concerning Chester Mills If Commissioners exceed their Iurisdiction where are such matters to be reformed but in this Court If any Court in England of an inferiour Iurisdiction exceed their bounds we can grant a Prohibition Twisd I have known it ruled in 23 Car. 1. That the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 9. where it is said there shall be no Supersedeas c. hath no reference to this Court but only to the Chancery But this is a Certiorari whereby the King doth command the Cause to be removed voluit that it be determined here and no where else So the Court fined them for not obeying two Certioraries but fining them that brought them 5 l. a piece Jones moved That one who was Partner with his Brother a Bankrupt being Arrested might be ordered to put in Bail for the Bankrupt as well as for himself Twisden If there are two Partners and one breaks you shall not charge the other with the whole because it is ex maleficio but if there are two Partners and one of them dye the Survivor shall be charged for the whole In this case you have admitted him no Partner by Swearing him before the Commissioners of Bankrupts So not granted Rawlin's Case MOved by Sergeant Scroggs That Rawlins having personated one Spicer in acknowledging a Iudgment that therefore the Iudgment might be set aside Twisden The Statute that makes it Felony does not provide that the Iudgment shall be vacated One Tymberly escaped with his life very narrowly for he had personated another in giving Bail but the Bail was not filed Then he moved that the Defendant had paid the Fées of the Execution which the Plaintiff ought to have done So the Court granted an Attachment against the Bayliff Taylor Wells TRover Conversion decem parium tegularum valorum Anglice of ten pair of Curtains and Valons Obj. That it is not certain what is meant by a pair whether so many two's or so many Sets and that in Web Washburn's case 1652. four pair of Hangings held not good Twisden I remember that a pair of Hangings has been held naught Trover Convers pro decem Ovibus Agnis not expressing how many Ewes and how many Lambs ruled naught Another Action of Trover de velis not saying how many held to be naught It was urged that ten pair of Curtains and Valons is certain enough for by pair shall be understood two and so there are Twenty in all If it be objected that it does not appear how many of each I answer the words ten pair shall go to both Besides it is after a Verdict and therefore ought to be made good if by any reasonable construction it may If it had been ten Sets or ten Suits then without
best Beast upon the Tenancy it must come on the other side to shew that it was not the Tenants Beast Keel The Cattel of a Stranger cannot be distrained unless they were levant couchant but it must come on the other side to show that they were not so So Judic pro Quer ' Wayman Smith AProhibition was prayed to the Court of Bristol upon this suggestion viz. That the cause of Action did not arise within the Iurisdiction of the Court Winnington There was a case here between Smith Bond Hill 17 Car. 2. Rot. 501. a Prohibition to Marleborough the suggestion grounded on Westm 1. cap. 34. granted And there needs not a Plea in the Spiritual Court to the Iurisdiction for that he cited F. N. B. 49. But he said he had an Affidavit that the cause of Action did arise out of their Iurisdiction Twisden I doubt you must plead to the Iurisdiction of the Court I remember a case here wherein it was held so and that if they will not allow it then you must have a Prohibition Winnington Fitzherbert is full Ruled that the other side shall shew cause why a Prohibition should not go and things to stay Humlock Blacklow DEbt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants in Articles of agreement The Plaintiff covenanted with the Defendant to assign over his Trade to him and that he should not endeavour to take away any of his Customers and in consideration of the performance of these Covenants the Defendant did Covenant to pay the Plaintiff 60 l. per annum during his life Saunders The words in consideratione performationis make it a Condition precedent which must be averred 3 Leon. 219. and those Covenants must be actually performed Twisden How long must he stay then till he can be entitled to his Annuity as long as he lives for this Covenant may be broken at any time That 's an Exposition that corrupts the Text. Judic nisi c. It was moved by one Hunt that the Venue might be changed in an Action of Indebitat Assumpsit brought by Mr. Wingfield Jones I conceive it ought not to be changed being in the case of a Counsellor at Law by reason of his attendance at this Court. Twisd In Mr. Bacon's case of Grays-Inn they refused to change the Venue in the like case So not granted An Indictment against one Morris in Denbigh-shire for Murther was removed into the Kings Bench by Certiorari to prevent the Prisoners being acquitted at the Grand-Sessions and the Court directed to have an Indictment found against him in the next English County viz. at Shrewsbury Vide infra Taylor Rouse Church-wardens of Downham versus their Predecessors THe Action was to make them Account for a Bell. They plead that they delivered it to a Bell-founder to mend and that it is yet in his hands The Plaintiff demurs the cause of his Demurrer was that this was no good Plea in Bar of the Account though it might be a good Plea before Auditors 1 Roll 121. Pemberton I conceive it is a good Plea for wherever the matter or cause of the Account is taken off the Plea is good in Bar. But he urged that the Action was brought for taking away bona Ecclesiae and not bona Parochianorum as it ought to have been Court The Property is not well laid So ordered to mend all and plead de novo Term. Mich. 22 Car. II. 1670. in B. R. AN Inquisition was returned upon the Statute against pulling down Inclosures They took Issue as to the damages only It was moved that before the Trial for the damages there might be Iudgment given to have them set up again having been long down Twisden When you have Iudgment for the damages then one Distringas will serve for setting up the Inclosures and the damages too As in an Action where part goes by default and the other part is traversed you shall not take out Execution till that part which is traversed be tried Vpon a motion by Mr. Dolbin for an Attachment Twisden said if a man has a Suit depending in this Court and be coming to Town to prosecute or defend it here he cannot be sued elsewhere But if a man come hither as a Witness he is protected eundo redeundo Wootton Heal. AN Action of Covenant was brought upon a Warranty in a Fine a term for years being Evicted Saunders I acknowledge that an Action of Covenant does well lye in this case but the Plaintiff assigns his breach in this viz. that one Stowell habens legale jus titulum did enter upon him and evict him which perhaps he did by virtue of a title derived from the Plaintiff himself 2 Cro. 315. Kirby Hansaker Jones contra To suppose that Stowell claimed under the Plaintiff is a foreign intendment and it might as well come on the Defendants side to show it And since that case in 2 Crook the Statute of 21 Jac. and the late Act have much strengthned Verdicts Twisden The Statutes do not help when the Court cannot tell how to give Iudgment The Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to his Action and it is not enough if the Iury entitle him Jones You have waived the title here and relyed upon the Entry of the Issue only which is non intravit c. Cur. advisare vult Lassells Catterton AN Action of Covenant for further assurance the Covenant being to make such Conveyance c. as Counsel should advise they alledge for breach that they tendred such a Conveyance as was advised by Counsel viz. a Lease and Release and set it forth with all the usual Covenants Levings moved in Arrest of Iudgment I conceive they have tendred no such Conveyance as we are bound to execute for we are not obliged to Seal any Conveyance with Covenants nor with a Warranty Besides that which they have tendred has a Warranty not only against the Covenantor but one Wilson 2 Cro. 571. 1 Rolls 424. Again our Covenant is to convey all our Lands in Bomer and the Conveyance tendred is of all our Lands in the Lordship of Bomer Twisden For the last exception I think we shall intend them to be both one And I know it hath been held that if a man be bound to make any such reasonable assurance as Counsel shall advise usual Covenants may be put in for the Covenant shall be so understood But there must not be a Warranty in it though some have held that there may be a Warranty against himself but I question whether that will hold But Weston on the other side said that the Objection as to the Warranty was fatal and he would not make any defence The King versus Morris Vid. sup MR. Attorney Finch shewed cause why a Certiorari should not be granted to remove an Indictment of Murder out of Denbighshire in Wales Twisden In 2 Car. 8 Car. it was held that a Certiorari did lye into Wales Morton By 34 H. 8. the Iustices
of the great Sessions have power to try all Murthers as the Iudges here have and the Statute of 26 H. 8. for the Trial of Murthers in the next English County was made before that of the 34 H. 8. Twisden I never yet heard that the Statute of 34 H. 8. had repealed that of 26 Henr. 8. It is true the Iudges of the Grand Sessions have power but the Statute that gives it them does not exclude this Court. To be moved when the Chief Iustice should be in Court Franklyn's Case FRanklyn was brought into Court by Habeas Corpus and the Return being read it appeared that he was committed as a Preacher at Seditious Conventicles Coleman prayed he might be discharged he said this Commitment must be upon the Oxford Act for the last Act only orders a Conviction and the Act for Vniformity Commitment only after the Bishops Certificate And the Oxford Act provides that it shall be done by two Iustices of the Peace upon Oath made before them and in this Return but one Iustice of Peace is named for Sir William Palmer is mentioned as Deputy Lieutenant and you will not intend him to be a Iustice of Peace Nor does it appear that there was any Oath made before them Twisden Vpon the Statute of the 18th of the Queen that appoints that two Iustices shall make Orders for the keeping of Bastard-children whereof one to be of the Quorum I have got many of them quash'd because it was not exprest that one of them was of the Quorum Whereupon Franklyn was discharged Vpon a motion for time to plead in a great cause about Brandy Twisden said if it be in Bar you cannot demand Oyer of the Letters Patents the next Term but if it be in a Replication you may because you mention the precedent Term in the Bar but not in the Replication Yard Ford. MOved by Jones in Arrest of Iudgment an Action upon the Case was brought for keeping a Market without Warrant it being in prejudice of the Plaintiffs Market He moved that the Action would not lie because the Defendant did not keep his Market on the same day that the Plaintiff kept his which he said is implied in the case in 2 Rolls 140. Saunders contra Vpon a Writ of Ad quod dampnum they enquire of any Markets generally though not held the same day In this case though the Defendants Market be not held the same day that ours is yet it is a damage to us in forestalling our Market Twisden I have not observed that the day makes any difference If I have a Fair or Market and one will erect another to my prejudice an Action will lye and so of a Ferry It s true for one to set up a School by mine is damnum absque injuria Ordered to be moved again Pawlett moved in Trespass that the Defendant pleaded in Bar that he had paid 3 l. and made a promise to pay so much more in satisfaction and said it was a good plea and did amount to an accord with satisfaction an Action being but a Contract which this was Twisden An Accord executed is pleadable in Bar but Executory not Twisden There are two clauses in the Statute of Vsury if there be a corrupt agreement at the time of the lending of the money then the Bonds and all the Assurances are void but if the agreement be good and afterward he receives more than he ought then he forfeits the treble value Bonnefield HE was brought into Court upon a Cap. Excom and it was urged by Pawlett that he might be delivered for that his name was Bonnefield and the Cap. Excom was against one Bromfield Twisden You cannot plead that here to a Cap. Excom You have no day in Court and we cannot Bail upon this but you may bring your Action of False Imprisonment Caterall Marshall ACtion upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares that in consideration that he would give the Defennant a Bond of sufficient penalty to save him harmless he would c. and sets forth that he gave him a Bond with sufficient penalty but does not eppress what the penalty was This was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Jones After a Verdict it is good enough as in the case in Hob. 69. Twisd If it had been upon a Demurrer I should not have doubted but that it had been naught Rainsford Morton But the Iury have judged the penalty to be reasonable and have found the matter of fact Twisden The Iury are not Iudges what is reasonable and what unreasonable but this is after a Verdict And so the Iudgment was affirm'd the cause coming into the Kings Bench upon a Writ of Error Martin Delboe AN Action upon the Case setting forth that the Defendant was a Merchant and transmitted several Goods beyond Sea and promised the Plaintiff that if he would give him so much money he would pay him so much out of the proceed of such a parcel of Goods as he was to receive from beyond Sea The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and doth not say non assumpsit infra sex annos but that the cause of Action did not arise within six years The Plaintiff demurs because the cause is betwéen Merchants c. Sympson The plea is good Accounts within the Statute must be understood of those that remain in the nature of Accounts now this is a sum certain Jones accorded This is an Action upon the Case and an Action upon the Case betwéen Merchants is not within the exception And the Defendant has pleaded well in saying that the cause of Action did not arise within six years for the cause of Action ariseth from the time of the Ships coming into Port and the six years are to be reckoned from that time Twisden I never knew but that the word Accounts in the Statute was taken only for Actions of account An insimul computasset brought for a sum certain upon an Account stated though betweén Merchants is not within the Exception So Iudgment was given for the Defendant The King versus Leginham AN Information was exhibited against him for taking unreasonable Distresses of several of his Tenants Jones moved in arrest of Iudgment that an Information would not lye for such cause Marlebr cap. 4. saith that if the Lord take an unreasonable Distress he shall be amerced so that an Information will not lye And my Lord Coke upon Magna Carta says the party grieved may have his Action upon the Statute but admit an Information would lye yet it ought to have been more particular and to have named the Tenants it is not sufficient to say in general that he took unreasonable Distresses of several of his Tenants And the second part of the Information viz. that he is communis oppressor is not sufficient Rolls 79. Moor 451. Twisden It hath so been adjudged that to lay in an Information that a man is communis oppressor is not good And a Lord cannot be indicted
for an excessive Distress for it is a private matter and the party ought to bring his Action To stay Haman Truant AN Action upon the Case brought upon a bargain for Corn and Grass c. The Defendant pleads another Action depending for the same thing The Plaintiff replies that the bargains were several absque hoc that the other Action was brought for the same cause The Defendant demurs specially for that he ought to have concluded to the Country Polyxfen When there is an affirmative they ought to make the next an Issue or otherwise they will plead in infinitum 3 Cro. 755. and accordingly Iudgment was given for the Defendant Fox alii Executors of Mr. Pinsent Vide supra 47. INdebitat Assumpsit The Defendant pleads that two of the Plaintiffs are Infants and yet they all Sue per Attornatum The question is if there be two Executors and one of them under age whether the Infant must sue per Guardianum and the other per Attornatum or whether it is not well enough if both sue per Attornat Offley spake to it and cited 2 Cro. 541. Pasch 11 Car. 288. Powell's case Styles 318. 2 Cro. 577. 1 Inst 157. Dyer 338. Morton I am of Opinion that he may Sue by Attorney as Executor though if he be Defendant he must appear by Guardian Rainsford I think it is well enough and I am led to think so by the multitude of Authorities in the point And I think the case stronger when Infants joyn in Actions with persons of full age He Sues here in auter droit and I have not heard of any Authority against it Twisden concurred with the rest and so Iudgment was given Moreclack Carleton UPon a Writ of Error out of the Court of Common Pleas one Error assigned was that upon a relicta verificatione a misericordia was entred whereas it ought to have been a capiatur Twisden The Common-Pleas ought to certifie us what the practice of their Court is Monday the Secondary said it was always a Capiatur It s true in 9 Edw. 4. it is said that he shall but be amerced because he hath spared the Iury their pains and 34 H. 8. is accordingly but say they in the Common Pleas a Capiatur must be entred because dedicit factum suum So they said they would discourse with the Iudges of the Common Pleas concerning it The King versus Holmes MOved to quash an Indictment of Forcible Entry into a Messuage passage or way for that a passage or way is no Land nor Tenement but an Easement and then it is not certain whether it were a passage over Land or Water Yelv. 169. the word passagium is taken for a passage over Water Twisd You need not labour about that of the passage we shall quash it as to that but what say you to the Messunge Jones It is naught in the whole for it is but by way of recital with a quod cum he was possessed c. Et sic possessionatus c. but that Twisden said was well enough Jones Then he saith that he was possessed de quodam Termino and doth not say annorum Twisden That 's naught And the Indictment was quash'd An Action was brought against the Hundred of Stoak upon the Statute of Hue and Cry and at the Trial some House-keepers appeared as Witnesses that lived within the Hundred who being examined said they were Poor and paid no Taxes nor Parish Duties and the question was whether they were good Witnesses or not Twisden Alms-people and Servants are good Witnesses but these are neither Then he went down from the Bench to the Iudges of the Common-Pleas to know their Opinions and at his return said That Iudge Wyld was confident that they ought not to be sworn and that Iudge Tyrrell doubted at first but afterwards was of the same Opinion their reason was because when the money recovered against the Hundred should come to be levied they might be worth something Hoskins versus Robins Hill 23 Car. 2. Rot. 233. IN this case these points were spoke to in Arrest of Iudgment viz. 1. Whether a Custom to have a several Pasture excluding the Lord were a good Custom or not It was said that a prescription to have Common so was void in Law and if so then a prescription to have sole Pasture which is to have the Grass by the mouth of the Cattle is no other then Common appendant Daniel's case 1 Cro. so that Common and Pasturage is one and the same thing They say that it is against the nature of Common for the very word Common supposeth that the Lord may feed I answer if that were the reason then a man could not by Law claim Common for half a year excluding the Lord which may be done by Law But the true reason is that if that were allowed then the whole profits of the Land might be claimed by prescription and so the whole Land be prescribed for The Lord may grant to his Tenants to have Common excluding himself but such a Common is not good by prescription The second point was whether or no the prescription here not being for Beasts levant couchant were good or not for that a difference was made betwixt Common in grosse and common appendant viz. That a man may prescribe for Common in grosse without those words but not for Common appendant 2 Cro. 256. 1 Brownl 35. Noy 145. 15 Edw. 4. fol. 28. 32. Rolls tit Common 388. Fitz. tit Prescription 51. a third point was whether or no these things are not help'd by a Verdict As to that it was alledged that they are defects in the Title appearing on Record and that a Verdict doth not help them Saunders contra In case of a Common such a prescription is not good because it is a contradiction but here we claim solam Pasturam Now what may be good at this day by grant may be claimed by prescription As to the Exception that we ought to have prescribed for Cattle levant couchant its true if one doth claim Common for Cattle levant couchant is the measure for the Common unless it be for so many Cattle in number but here we claim the whole Herbage which perhaps the Cattle levant couchant will not eat up Hales Notwithstanding this prescription for the sole Pasture yet the Soil is the Lords and he has Mynes Trees Bushes c. and he may dig for Turfes And such a grant viz. of the sole Pasturage would be good at this day 18 Edw. 3. though a grant by the Lord that he will not improve would be a void grant at this day Twisden My Lord Coke is express in the point A man cannot prescribe for sole Common but may prescribe for sole Pasture And there is no Authority against him And for levant couchant it was adjudged in Stoneby Muckleby's case that after a Verdict it was help'd And Iudgment was given accordingly Anonymus AN Action of
Trespass was brought for taking away a Cup till he paid him 20 shillings The Defendant pleads that ad quandam curiam he was amerced and that for that the Cup was taken Hales We cannot tell what Court it is whether it be a Court-Baron by Grant or Prescription if it be by Grant then it must be coram Seneschallo if by Prescription it may be coram Seneschallo or coram Sectatoribus or coram both Then it does not appear that the House where the Trespass was laid was within the Manor Then he doth not say infra Jur. Cur ' It was put upon the other side to shew cause Jacob Hall's Case ONe Jacob Hall a Rope-dancer had erected a Stage in Lincolns-Inn-fields but upon a Petition of the Inhabitants there was an Inhibition from Whitehall now upon a complaint to the Iudges that he had erected one at Charing-cross he was sent for into Court and the Chief Iustice told him that he understood it was a Nusance to the Parish and some of the Inhabitants being in Court said that it did occasion Broyles and Fightings and drew so many Rogues to that place that they lost things out of their Shops every Afternoon And Hales said that in 8 Car. 1. Noy came into Court and prayed a Writ to prohibit a Bowling-Ally erected near St. Dunstans Church and had it Sir Anthony Bateman's Case IN the Trial at Bar the Son and Daughter of Sir Anthony Bateman were Defendants the Action was an Ejectione Firmae The Defendants admitted the point of Sir Anthony's Bankrupcy but set up a Conveyance made by Sir Anthony to them for the payment of 1500 l. apiece being money given to them by their Grandfather Mr. Russell to whom Sir Anthony took out Administration Hales It is a voluntary Conveyance unless you can prove that Sir Anthony had Goods in his hands of Mr. Russell at the time of the executing it So they proved that he had and there was a Verdict for the Defendants Legg Richards EJectment Iudgment against the Defendant who dies and his Executor brings a Writ of Error and is non-suited It was moved that he should pay Costs Twisden An Executor is not within the Statute for payment of Costs occasione dilationis Hales I am of the same Opinion Harwood's Case HE was brought to the Bar by Habeas Corpus being committed by the Court of Aldermen for marrying an Orphan without their consent Sol. North. We conceive the Return insufficient and that it is an unreasonable Custom to impose a Penalty on a man for marrying a City-Orphan in any place of England Now we marryed her far from London and knew not that she was an Orphan Then they have put a Fine of 40 l. upon him whereas there is no cause why he should be denied Marriage with her there being no disparagement Twisden Mr. Waller of Berkingsfield was imprison'd six months for such a thing So the money was ordered to be brought into Court Vide infra 79. Leginham Porphery REplevin and Avowry for not doing Suit The Plaintiff sets forth a Custom that if any Tenant live at a distance if he comes at Michaelmas and pay eight pence to the Lord and a penny to the Steward he shall be excused for not attending and then says that he tendred eight pence c. and the Lord refused it c. Polynxfen I know no case where payment will do and tender and refusal will not do Hales Have you averred that there are sufficient Copy-holders that live near the Mannor Polynxfen We have averred that there are at least 120. Hales Surely tender and refusal is all one with payment Twisden An Award is made that super receptionem c. a man should give a Release there tender and refusal is enough Iudgment for the Defendant Waldron versus c. HAles It is true one Parish may contain thrée Vills The Parish of A. may contain the Vills of A. B. and C. that is when there are distinct Constables in every one of them But if the Constable of A. doth run through the whole then is the whole but one Ville in Law Or where there is a Tything-man it may be a Ville but if the Constable run through the Tything then it is all one Ville I know where three or four Thousand l. per annum hath béen enjoyed by a Fine levied of Land in the Ville of A. in which are five several Hamlets in which are Tythings but the Constable of A. runs through them all and upon that it was held good for all Here was a case of the Constable of Blandford-Forum wherein it was held that if he had a concurrent Iurisdiction with all the rest of the Constables the Fine would have passed the Lands in all In some places they have Tythingmen and no Constables Polynxfen Lambard 14. is that the Constable and the Tything-man are all one Hales That is in some places Praepositus is a proper word for a Constable and Decemarius for a Tything-man An Indictment for retaining a Servant without a Testimonial from his last Master Moved to quash it because it wants the words contra pacem 2. Becausâ—â—â—ey do not shew in what Trade it was So quash'd Moved to quash another Indictment because the year of our Lord in the Caption was in Figures Hales The year of the King is enough Moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court for that they Sue a Parish for not paying a Rate made by the Church-wardens only whereas by the Law the major part of the Parish must joyn Twisden Perhaps no more of the Parish will come together Counsel If that did appear it might be something Hales A Writ of Error will lie in the Exchequer-Chamber of a Iudgment in a Scire facias grounded upon a Iudgment in one of the Actions mentioned in the 27 of Eliz. cap. 8. because it is in effect a piece of one of the Actions therein mentioned Harwood's Case HE was removed out of London by Habeas Corpus the Return was That he was fined and committed there for marrying a City-Orphan without the consent of the Court of Aldermen Exception 1. They do not say that the party was a Citizen or that the Marriage was within the City and they are not bound to take notice of a City Orphan out of the City for their Customs extend only to Citizens in the City Exception 2. They have not shewed that we had reasonable time to shew cause why we should not be fined Twisden These Objections were over-ruled in one Waller's case Afterward in the same Term Weston spake to it There are two matters upon which the validity of this Return doth depend viz. The Custom and the Offence within the Custom The Custom is laid that time out of mind the Court of Aldermen have had power to set a reasonable Fine upon such as should marry an Orphan without their leave and upon refusal to pay it to imprison him I conceive this Custom as it is laid to
in the continuance of that Estate that is not subject to the Rent but is above all those charges now no recompence can come to such a Rent And therefore there is another reason why a Common Recovery will bar at Common Law upon an Estate Tail which was a Fée-simple conditional a Remainder could not be limited over because but a possibility but now comes that Statute De donis conditionalibus and makes it an estate tail and a Common recovery is an inherent priviledge in the Estate that was never taken away by that Statute De donis the Law takes it as a conveiance excepted out of the Statute as if he were absolutely seised in fee and this is by construction of Law It is true there can be no recompence to him that hath but a possibilitie But the business of recompence is not material as to this charge And the reason of Whites case and other cases put explain this Now what difference between this and Capels case Say they there the charge doth arise subsequent but here the charge doth arise precedent why I say the charge doth arise precedent to the Remainder but subsequent to the Estate tail for it is not to take effect till the Estate tail be determined It was doubted in the Queens time whether a Remainder for years was barred but it hath béen otherwise practised ever since and there is no colour against it Now you do agrée that the Remainder to the right Heirs of one living shall be barred for the Estate is certain though the Person be uncertain So long as the Rent doth not come within the compass and limitation of the Estate tail the Rent is extinct and killed there is nothing to keep life in it But whether doth not the Lease for years preserve it Heretofore it was a question among young men Whether if Tenant in Tail granted a Rent Charge for Life then makes a Lease for three Lives In this case though the Rent before would have dyed with Tenant in Tail yet this Rent will continue now during the three Lives which it will And it hath been questioned if he had made a Lease for years instead of the Lease for lives if that would have supported the Rent Now in our case if the Lease for years were chargeable the Rent would arise out of that But if this Rent should continue then most mens Estates in England would be shaken Wild. The Lease for years doth not preserve the Rent but the Common Recovery doth bar it For Pell Brownes case in that Case the Recovery could not barr the possibility for he was not Tenant in Tail that did suffer the Recovery but he had only a Fee simple determinable and the contingent Remainder not depend upon an Estate Tail nay did not depend by way of Remainder but by way of Contingency It is true Iustice Dodridge did hold otherwise but the rest of Iudges gave Iudgment against him upon very good reason Twisden I never heard that case cited but it was grumbled at Hales But to your knowledge and mine they always gave Iudgment accordingly A man made a gift in Tail determinable upon his non-payment of 1000 l. the Remainder over in Tail to B. with other Remainders Tenant in Tail before the day of payment of the 1000 l. suffers a common Recovery and doth not pay the 1000 l. yet because he was Tenant in Tail when he suffered the Recovery by that he had barred all and had an Estate in Fee by that Recovery At a day after Hales said the Rent was granted before the Lease for years and is not to take effect till the Estate Tail be spent and a common Recovery bars it If there be Tenant in Tail reserving Rent a common Recovery will not bar it so if a Condition be for payment of Rent it will not bar it But if a Condition be for doing a collateeal thing it is a bar And so if Tenant in Tail be with a Limitation so long as such a Tree shall stand a common Recovery will bar that Limitation Lampiere versus Mereday AN Audita Querela was brought before Iudgment entred which they could not do 9 H. 5. 1. which the Court agreed Whereupon Counsel said it was impossible for them to bring an Audita Querela before they were taken in Execution for the Plaintiff will get Iudgment signed and take out Execution on a suddain and behind the Defendants back Thereupon the Court ordered the Postea to be brought in for the Defendant to see if Execution were signed And at a day after Hales said If an Audita Querela was brought after the day in bank though the Iudgment was not entred up yet the Court would make them enter up the Iudgment as of that day So that they shall not plead Nul tiel Record Wyld said a Sheriffs bond for ease and favour was void at Common Law and so it was declared in Sir John Lenthalls case Twisden upon opening of a Record by Mr. Den said It was already adjudged in this Court that a Rent issuing out of Gavelkind Land is of the nature of the Land and shall descend as the Land doth An Action of Debt upon a Bond. Sympson moved in Arrest of Iudgment The Bond was dated in March and the Condition was for payment super vicessimum octavum diem Martii prox ' sequentem It was sequentem which refers to the day which shall be understood of the month next year If it had been sequentis then it had referred to March and then it had beén payable the next year But the Court was of Opinion that it should be understood the currant month Sympson cited a case wherein he said it had been so held Read versus Abington Hales Formerly if Execution was gone before a Writ of Error delivered or shewed to the party it was not to be a Supersedeas Wyld He must not keep the Writ in his pocket and think that will serve At another day Hales said it shall not be a Supersedeas unless shewed to the party and he must not foreslow his time of having it allowed for if it be not allowed by the Court within four days it is no Supersedeas Hales A Writ of Error taken out if it be not shewn to the Clerk of the other side nor allowed by the Court it is no Supersedeas to the Execution And that if a Writ of Error be sued bearing Teste before the Iudgment be given if the Iudgment be given before the Retorn it is good to remove it though at first he said it was so in respect of a Certiorari but not of a Writ of Error And he said that Iudgment when ever it is entred hath relation to the day in bank viz. the first day of the Term So that a Writ of Error retornable after will remove the Record when ever the Iudgment is entred Vpon a motion concerning the amending of Leather-Lane Hales If you plead Not-guilty it goes to the Repair or
she ought not to starve If a woman be of so haughty a stomack that she will chuse to starve rather then submit and be reconciled to her husband let her take her own choise The Law is in no default which doth not provide for such a wife If a man be taken in execution and lye in Prison for Debt neither the Plaintiff at whose suit he is arrested nor the Sheriff who took him is bound to find him Meat Drink or Cloathes but he must live on his own or on the Charity of others and if no man will relieve him let him dye in the name of God says the Law Plow 68. Dive Manningham so say I if a woman who can have no Goods of her own to live on will depart from her husband against his will and will not submit her self unto him let her live on Charity or starve in the name of God for in such case the Law says her evil demeanour brought it upon her and her death ought to be imputed to her own wilfulness As to my Brother Tyrrells Objection it were strange if our Law which gives relief in all cases should send a woman unto another Law or Court to seek remedy to have maintenance I answer It s not sending the wife to another Law but leaving the case to its proper Iurisdiction the case being of Ecclesiastical Conusance Is it any strangeness or disparagement to the Common-Pleas to send a Cut-purse or other Felon taken in the Court to the Kings-Bench to be Indicted or to the Kings-Bench to send a woman to the Common-Pleas to recover her Dower Why is it more strange for the Common Law to send a Woman to the Ordinary to determine differences betwixt her and her husband touching matters of Matrimony then for our Courts at Common Law to write unto the Ordinary to certifie Loyalty of Marriage Bastardy or the like where Issue is joined on these points in the Kings Courts for although the proceeding and process in the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the names of the Bishops yet these Courts are the Kings Courts and the Law by which they proceed is the Kings Law 5 Rep. 39. Caudries case but the reason in both cases is quia hujusmodi causae cognitio ad forum spectat Ecclesiasticum 30 H. 6. b. Old book of Entries 288. according to that of Bracton lib. 3. fo 107. Stamf. 57. Sunt casus spirituales in quibus Judex secularis non habet cognitionem neque Executionem quia non habet coercionem In his enim casibus spectat cognitio ad Judices Ecclesiasticos qui regunt defendunt sacerdotium Hereunto agrees Cawdries case 5 Rep. 9. As in temporal causes the King by the mouth of his Iudges in his Courts of Iustice determines them by the temporal Law so in causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual the Conusance whereof belongs not to the Common Law they are decided and determined by the Ecclesiastical Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws And that causes of Matrimony and the differences between husband and wife touching Alimony or maintenance for the wife which are dependant upon or incident unto Matrimony are all of Ecclesiastical and not of secular Conuzance is evident by the Books and Authorities of our Laws de causa Testamentari sicut nec de causa Matrimoniali Curia Regia se non intromittat sed in foro Ecclesiastico debet placitum terminari Bracton lib. 2. cap. 20. fo 7. All causes Testamentary and causes of Matrimony by the Laws and Customs of the Realm do belong to the spiritual Iurisdiction 24 H. 8. cap. 2. The words of the Writ of Prohibition granted in such cases are placita de Catallis debitis quae sunt de Testamento vel Matrimonio spectant ad forum Ecclesiasticum In a suit commenced by a woman against he husband before the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical causes for Alimony a Prohibition was prayed and granted because it is a suit properly to be brought and prosecuted before the Ordinary In which if the party find himself grieved he may have relief by Appeal unto the superiour Court and that he cannot have upon a sentence given in the high Commission Court 1 Cro. 220. Drakes case But 't is objected by my Brother Tyrrell and Twisden that the remedy in the Ecclesiastical Court is not sufficient for if the husband will not obey the Sentence of the Ordinary it is but Excommunication for his Contumacy and will neither feed nor cloath the wife Are the Censures of the holy Mother the Church grown of so little Accompt with us or the separation a communione fidelium become so contemptible as to be slighted with but Excommunication hath our Law provided any remedy so penal or can it give any Iudgment so fearful as this With us the rule is committitur Marescal ' or Prison ' de Fleet. There the Sentence is traditur Satanae which Iudgment is more penal Take him Gaoler till he pay the Debt or take him Devil till he obey the Church And yet their Iudgment is warranted by the rule of St. Paul whom I have delivered unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5. whereupon the Coment says Anathema ab ipso Christi corpore quod est Ecclesia recidit Causa 3 quest 4 Cam ' Egell trudam and also Nullus cum Excommunicatis in oratione aut cibo aut potis autesculo communicet nec ave eis dicat Causa 2 quest 3 Can. Excommunicat ' Bracton lib. 5. cap. 23. fo 42. As much is said by our Law and it is to the same effect Excommunicat ' interdicitur omnis actus legitimus Ita quod agere non potest nec aliquem convenire cum ipso nec orare nec loqui nec palam nec abscondite vesci licet The second ground of the Law of Excommunication is the Law of England and it is a ground in the Law of England That he which is accursed shall not maintain any Action Doctor Stu. 11. Where a man is excommunicated by the Law of the Church if he sue any Action real or personal the Tenant or Defendant may plead that he is Excommunicated and demand Iudgment if he shall be answered Lit. 201. the Sentence is set forth at large in the old Statute Book of Magna Charta and is intituled Sententia lata super chartas namely Authoritate Dei patris omnipotentis filii spiritus Sancti Excom̄unicamus Anathematizam a liminibus Sanctae matris Ecclesiae sequestram ' omnes illos c. 12 H. 3. fo 146. He which by the Renunciation is rightfully cut off from the Vnity of the Church and Excommunicate ought to be taken by the whole multitude as a Heathen and a Publican until he be openly reconciled by Penance Act 33. confirm ' per 13 Eliz. cap. and this is grounded on the rule of our blessed Saviour dic ' Ecclesiae And if he neglect to hear the Church let him be as an Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Shall a
the case for Wares sold unto him and ought to have declared specially according to the truth of his case for Wares sold to his wife for necessary Apparel In an Action of Battery against the Husband and Wife the Plaintiff counted that they both did Assault and beat him Vpon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found that the Wife alone did make the Assault and not the Husband Yel 106. Darcy Deniers case and the Verdict was against the Plaintiff because now the Plaintiffs Action appeared to be false for the Husband ought not to be joined but for Conformity and there is a special Action for the Plaintiff in that case so this Verdict is against the case because it appears that the Action brought by him is false and that he ought to have brought another Action upon the special matter of his case if any such by Law lye for him Secondly The Iury find that the Defendants wife departed from him against his will and lived from him and that the Defendant before the Wares were sold to his wife did forbid the Plaintiff to trust his wife with any Wares And that the Plaintiff contrary to his Prohibition did sell and deliver those Wares to the wife upon credit and I conceive that this Prohibition doth so far bar or bind the Plaintiff that he shall never have any Action against the Defendant for Wares sold and delivered to his wife after he was prohibited by the husband It is agreéd by all that a Feme Covert cannot generally make any Contract which shall charge or discharge her husband without the authority or consent of the husband precedent or subsequent so that the authority or consent of the husband is the foundation or ground which makes the contract good against him but when the husband forbids a particular person to trust his wife this Prohibition is an absolute Revocation or Countermand as to the person of the general authority which the wife had before and puts him in the same plight as if the wife had never any authority given her It is said by my Brother Twisden and Tyrrell that the Prohibition of the husband is void for says Tyrrell the husband is bound to maintain his wife notwithstanding her departure from him and therefore he cannot prohibit others to do it And Twisden says it is a right vested in her by the Law and therefore the Prohibition of the husband shall not devest or take it away from her I have already answered and disproved these reasons on which they ground their Opinions and will not repeat them here again but admit that the husband were by Law bound to maintain his wife notwithstanding her departure from him against his will and that the Law doth give her or vest a right in the wife to bind or charge the husband by her Contract for necessary Apparel will this be a good consequence thereupon Therefore the husband cannot forbid this or that particular person to trust his wife A man makes a Feoffment in Fée upon condition that the Feoffee shall not Alien this Condition is void Litt. Sect. 360. Were it not a strange conclusion to say thereupon If a man maks a Feoffment in Fée upon Condition that the Feoffee shall not Alien to J. S. that this Condition is likewise void The reason given by Littleton why the Condition is void in the former and not in the later part of this second case is applicable to our case namely the Condition in the first case ousts the Feoffee of all the power which the Law gives unto him which should be against reason and therefore the same is void but in the latter case the Condition doth not take away all the power of Aliening from the Feoffee and therefore it is good so in our case if the Prohibition were so general that the wife were thereby disabled altogether to Cloath her self peradventeur it might be reasonable to say that the Prohibition was void but it being a restriction only to one particular person there is no colour to say that it is not good 'T is true as my Brother Tyrrell says that I cannot discharge others to deal with my wife although I may forbid my wife to deal with them but it follows not thereupon but that my Prohibition to a particular person doth make his dealing with or trusting my wife to be at his own peril so that he shall not charge me thereby in an Action as in case of a Servant who buys Provision for my Houshold by my allowance If I forbid a Butcher or other Victualler to sell to my Servant without ready money and he delivers meat to my Servant afterwards upon trust it is at his peril he shall have no Action against me for it It appears not by this Declaration or Verdict that the Defendants Wife did want Apparel that she ever desired her husband to supply her therewith that he refused to allow her what was fit that the Wares sold to her by the Plaintiff were for necessary Apparel or of what nature or price the Wares were so that the Court may Iudge of the necessity or fitness thereof but only that the Plaintiff did sell and deliver upon credit divers of the Wares mentioned in the Declaration unto the wife whereas none are mentioned therein for 43 l. that this was a reasonable price for these Wares and the same Wares were necessary for her and suitable to the degree of her husband and for these reasons the Defendant ought to have Iudgment in this particular case against the Plaintiff be the Law what it will in general I will conclude all as the seven Princes of Persia who knew Law and Iudgments did in the case of Queen Vasthi Esther 1 Ca. This Deed that this woman hath done in departing from her husband against his will and taking of Clothes upon trust contrary to his Prohibition shall come abroad to all women and if it shall be repeated that her husband by the Opinion of the Judges must pay for the Wares which she so took up whilst she lived from him then shall their husbands be despised in their Eyes But when it shall be known throughout the Realm that the Law doth not charge the husband in this case all the Wives shall give to their Husbands honour both great and small Iudgment for the Defendant Tyrrell Twisden and Mallett dissenting Term. Trin. 29 Car. II. 1677. in B. R. The Earl of Shaftsbury's Case HE was brought to the Bar upon the Retorn of an Habeas Corpus directed to the Constable of the Tower of London The effect of the Retorn was that Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury in the Writ mentioned was committed to the Tower of London 16 Feb. 1676. by virtue of an Order of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled The tenour of which Order followeth in these words Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That the Constable of His Majesties Tower of London his Deputy or Deputies shall
cannot deprive us of the benefit of the Common Law and in the Vice-Chancellors Court they proceed by the Civil Law If you allow this demand there will be a failer of Justice for the Defendants being a Corporation cannot be arrested they can make no stipulation the Vice-Chancellors Court cannot issue Distringas's against there Lands nor can they be excommunicated Presidents we find of Corporations suing there as Plaintiffs in which case the afore-mentioned inconvenience does not ensue but none of Actions brought against Corporations Maynard contra Servants to Colledges and Officers of Corporations have been allowed the priviledge of the Vniversity which they could not have in their own right and if in their Masters right a fortiori their Masters shall enjoy it The word persona in the demand will include a Corporation well enough Vaughan Chief Justice Perhaps the words atque confirmat ' c. in the demand of Conisance are not material for the priviledges of the Vniversity are grounded on their Patents which are good in Law whether confirm'd by Parliament or not The word persona does include Corporations 2 Inst 536. per Coke upon the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 7. of Cottages and Inmates A demand of Conisance is not in derogation of the Common Law for the King may by Law grant tenere placita though it may fall out to be in derogation of Westminster-Hall Nor will there be a failer of Justice for when a Corporation is Defendant they make them give Bond and put in Stipulators that they will satisfie the Iudgment and if they do not perform the Condition of their Bond they commit their Bail They have enjoyed these priviledges some hundreds of years ago The rest of the Iudges agreed that the Vniversity ought to have Conisance But Atkyns objected against the form of the demand that the word persona privilegiata cannot comprehend a Corporation in a demand of Conisance howsoever the sense may carry it in an Act of Parliament Ellis Wyndham If neither Schollars nor priviledged persons had been mentioned but an express demand made of Conisance in this particular cause it had then been sufficient and then a fault if it be one in Surplusage and a matter that comes in by way of Preface shall not hurt Atkyns It is not a Preface they lay it as the foundation and ground of their claim The demand was allowed as to matter and form Rogers Danvers DEbt against S. Danvers and D. Danvers Executors of G. Danvers upon a Bond of 100 l. entred into by the Testator The Defendants pleaded that G. Danvers the Testator had acknowledged a Recognisance in the nature of a Statute Staple of 1200 l. to J. S. and that they have no assets ultra c. The Plaintiff replied that D. Danvers one of the Defendants was bound together with the Testator in that Statute to which the Defendants demur Baldwin pro Defendente If this plea were not good we might be doubly charged It is true one of us acknowledged the Statute likewise but in this Action we are sued as Executors And this Statute of 1200 l. was joynt and several so that the Conisee may at his Election either sue the surviving Conisor or the Executors of him that is dead so that the Testators Goods that are in our hands are lyable to this Statute It runs concesserunt se utrumque eorum if it were joynt the charge would survive and then it were against us It is common for Executors upon pleinment administer pleaded to give in Evidence payment of Bonds in which themselves were bound with the Testator and sometimes such persons are made Executors for their security The Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff whereupon he prayed leave to discontinue and had it Amie Andrews ASsumpsit The Plaintiff declares that whereas the Father of the Defendant was endebted to him in 20 l. for Malt sold and promised to pay it that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would bring two Witnesses before a Iustice of Peace who upon their Oaths should depose that the Defendants Father was so endebted to the Plaintiff and promised payment assumed and promised to pay the money then avers that he did bring two Witnesses c. who did swear c. The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit which being found against him he moved by Sergeant Baldwin in Arrest of Iudgment that the consideration was not lawful because a Iustice of Peace not having power to administer an Oath in this case it is an extrajudicial Oath and consequently unlawful And Vaughan was of Opinion that every Oath not legally administred and taken is within the Statute against prophane swearing And he said it would be of dangerous consequence to countenance these extrajudicial Oaths for that it would tend to the overthrowing of Legal proofs Wyndham Atkins thought it was not a prophane Oath nor within the Statute of King James because it tended to the determining of a controversie And accordingly the Plaintiff had Iudgment Horton Wilson A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court commenced by a Proctor for his Fees Vaughan Wyndham No Court can better judge of the Fees that have been due and usual there then themselves Most of their Fees are appointed by constitutions Provincial and they prove them by them A Proctor lately libell'd in the Spiritual Court for his Fees and amongst other things demanded a groat for every Instrument that had been read in the cause the Client pretended that he ought to have but 4 d. for all They gave Sentence for the Defendant the Plaintiff appealed and then a Prohibition was prayed in the Court of Kings Bench. The Opinion of the Court was that the Libell for his Fees was most proper for the Spiritual Court but that because the Plaintiff there demanded a customary Fee that it ought to be determin'd by Law whether such a Fee were customary or no and accordingly they granted a Prohibition in that case It is like the case of a modus for Tythes for whatever ariseth out of the custom of the Kingdom is properly determinable at Common Law But in this case they were of Opinion that the Spiritual Court ought not to be prohibited and therefore granted a Prohibition quoad some other particulars in the Libell which were of temporal cognisance but not as to the suit for Fees Wyndham said if there had been an actual Contract upon the Retainer the Plaintiff ought to have sued at Law Atkyns thought a Prohibition ought to go for the whole Fées he said had no relation to the Iurisdiction of the Spiritual Court nor to the cause in which the Proctor was retain'd No Suit ought to be suffered in the Spiritual Court when the Plaintiff has a remedy at Law as here he might in an Action upon the case for the Retainer is an implied Contract A difference about the grant of the Office of Register in a Bishops Court shall be
tried at Common Law though the Subjectum circa quod be Spiritual 2 Rolls 285. placito 45. 2 Rolls 283. Wadworth Andrewes Shall a six-Clark prefer a Bill in Equity for his Fees But a Prohibition was granted quoad c. Glever versus Hynde alios GLever brought an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery against Elizabeth Hynde and six others for that they at York-Castle in the County of York him the said Plaintiff with force and arms did Assault beat and evil entreat to his damage of 100 l. The Defendants plead to the Vi armis not-guilty to the Assault beating and evil entreating they say that at such a place in the County of Lancaster one _____ Jackson a Curate was performing the Rites and Funeral obsequies according to the usage of the Church of England over the body of _____ there lying dead and ready to be buried and that then and there the Plaintiff did maliciously disturb him that they the Defendants required him to desist and because he would not that they to remove him and for the preventing of further disturbance molliter ei manus imposuerunt c. quae est eadem transgressio absque hoc that they were guilty of any Assault c. within the County of York or any where else extra Comitatum Lancastriae The Plaintiff demurs Turner pro Querente The Defendants do not show that they had any Authority to lay hands on the Plaintiff as that they were Constables Church-wardens or any Officers nor do they justifie by the Authority of any that were If they had pleaded that they laid hands on him to carry him before a Iustice of Peace perhaps it might have alter'd the case The Plaintiff here if he be faulty is lyable to Ecclesiastical Censure and the Statute of Ph. Ma. ann 1. cap. 3. provides a remedy in such cases Jones contra If the Statute of Ph. Ma. did extend to this case yet it does not restrain other ways that the Law allows to punish the Plaintiff or keep him quiet Our Saviour himself has given us a President he whipt buyers and sellers out of the Temple which act of buying and selling was not so great an impiety as to disturb the worship of God in the very act and exercise of it Court The St. of 1 Ph. Ma. concerns Preachers only but there is another Act made 1 Eliz. that extends to all men in Orders that perform any part of publick Service But neither of these Statutes take away the Common Law And at the Common Law any person there present might have removed the Plaintiff for they were all concern'd in the Service of God that was then performing so that the Plaintiff in disturbing it was a Nusance to them all and might be removed by the same rule of Law that allows a man to abate a Nusance Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Nisi causa c. Anonymus ACtion sur le Case The Plaintiff declares that whereas the Testator of the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff at the time of his death in the sum of 12 l. 10 s. that the Defendant in consideration of forbearance promised to pay him 5 l. at such a time and 5 l. more at such a time after and the other 50 shillings when he should have received money then avers that he did forbear c. and saith that the Defendant paid the two five pounds but for the 50 shilllings residue that he hath received money but hath not paid it The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit which was found against him Wilmot moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff doth not set forth how much money the Defendant had received who perhaps had not received so much as 50 shillings he said though the promise was general yet the breach ought to be laid so as to be adequate to the consideration And secondly that the Plaintiff ought to have set forth of whom the Defendant received the money and when and where because the receit was traversable The Court agreed that there was good cause to demur to the Declaration but after a Verdict they would intend that the Defendant had received 50 shillings because else the Iury would not have given so much in damages and for the other exception they held that the Defendant having taken the general issue had waived the benefit thereof Alford Tatnell GRegory Melchisedec Alford were bound joyntly to Tatnell in a Bond of 700 l. the Obligee brought several Actions and obtained two several Iudgments in this Court against the Obligors and sued both to an Outlawry And in Mich. Term. 18 Car. 2. both were returned outlawed In Hill Term following Gregory Alford was taken upon a Cap. utlagatum by Browne Sheriff of Dorset-shire who voluntarily suffered him to escape Tatnell brought an Action of Debt upon this escape against Browne and recover'd and receiv'd satisfaction notwithstanding which he proceeded to take Melchisedec Alford who brought an Audita querela and set forth all this matter in his Declaration but upon a demurrer the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff for a fault in the Declaration viz. because the satisfaction made to the Plaintiff by the Sheriff was not specially pleaded viz. time and place alledged where it was made for it is issuable and for ought appears by the Declaration it was made after the Writ of Audita querela purchased and before the Declaration The Court said if Tatnell had only brought an Action on the case against the Sheriff and recovered damages for the escape though he had had the damages paid that would not have béen sufficient ground for the Plaintiff here to bring an Audita querela but in this case he recovered his Original debt in an Action of debt grounded upon the escape which is a sufficient ground of Action if he had declared well They gave day to show cause why the Declaration should not be amended paying Costs Anonymus AN Action of False Imprisonment The Defendants justifie by vertue of a Warrant out of a Court within the County Palatine of Durham to which the Plaintiff demur'd The material part of the Plea was That there was antiqua Curia tent coram Vicecomite Comitatus c. vocat The County Court which was accustomed to be held de 15 diebus in 15 dies and that there was a Custom that upon a Writ of questus est nobis issuing out of the County Palatine of Durham and delivered to the Sheriff c. that upon the Plaintiffs affirming quandam querelam against such person or persons against whom the questus est nobis issued the Sheriff used to make out a Writ in the nature of a cap. ad satisfac against him or them c. that such a Writ of questus est nobis issued ex Cur ' Cancellarii Dunelm which was delivered to the Sheriff who thereupon made a precept to his Bayliffs to take the Plaintiff who thereupon was arrested which
with the rest to the reason why the warranty is destroyed viz. because the husband takes back as great an Estate as he warranted for then no use can be made of the warranty If a man that has Land and another warrant this Land to one and his heirs and one of them die without heirs the survivor may be vouched without question The husband never was obliged by this warranty but as to him it was meerly nominal for from the very creation of it it was impossible that it should be effectual to any purpose he cited Hob. 124. in Rolls Osburn's case The whole Court agreeing in this Opinion Iudgment was given for the Tenant Term. Trin. 26 Car. II. in Communi Banco Hamond versus Howell c. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of False Imprisonment against the Mayor of London and the Recorder and the whole Court at the Old-baily and the Sheriffs and Gaoler for committing him to prison at a Sessions there held The case was thus some Quakers were indicted for a Riot and the Court directed the Iury if they believed the Evidence to find the Prisoners guilty for that the Fact sworn against them was in Law a Riot which because they refused to do and gave their Verdict against the direction of the Court in matter of Law they committed them They were afterwards discharged upon a Habeas Corpus And one of them brings this Action for the wrongful Commitment Sergeant Maynard moved for the Defendants that they might have longer time to plead for a rule had been made that the Defendants should plead the first day of this Term. The Court declared their Opinions against the Action viz. That no Action will lie against a Iudge for a wrongful Commitment any more then for an erroneous Iudgment Munday the Secondary told the Court that giving the Defendants time to plead countenanced the Action but granting imparlances did not So they had a special imparlance till Michaelmas Term next Atkyns It was never imagined that Iustices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol-delivery would be questioned in private Actions for what they should do in Execution of their Office if the Law had been taken so the Statute of 7 Jac. cap. 5. for pleading the general Issue would have included them as well as Inferiour Officers Birch Lake A Prohibition was granted to the Spiritual Court upon this suggestion that Sir Edward Lake Vicar-general had cited the Plaintiff ex officio to appear and answer to divers Articles The Court said that the citation ex officio was in use when the Oath ex officio was on foot but that is ousted by the 17th of Eliz. If Citations ex officio were allowed they might cite whole Counties without Presentment which would become a trick to get money And the party grieved can have no Action against the Vicar-general being a Iudge and having Iurisdiction of the cause though he mistake his power Per quod c. Anonymus BAron Feme Administrators in the right of the Feme bring an Action of Debt against Baron Feme Administrators likewise in the right of the Feme de bonis non c. of J. S. The Action is for Rent incurred in the Defendants own time and is brought in the debet detinet The Defendants plead fully administred to which the Plaintiffs demurred Serj. Hardes for the Plaintiff said the Action was well brought in the debet detinet for that nothing is Assets but the profits over and above the value of the Rent he cited Hargrave's case 5 Rep. 31. 1 Rolls 603. 2 Cro. 238. Rich Frank. ibid. 411. ibid. 549. 2 Brook 202. 1 Bulstr 22. Moor 566. Poph. 120. though if an Executor be Plaintiff in an Action for Rent incurred after the Testators death he must sue in the detinet only because whatever he recovers is Assets but though an Executor be Plaintiff yet if the Lease were made by himself he must sue in the debet detinet Then the plea of fully administred is not a good plea for he is charged for his own occupation If this plea were admitted he might give in evidence payment of Debts c. for as much as the term is worth and take the profits to his own use and the Lessor be stript of his Rent in Styles Reports 49. in one Josselyn's case this plea was ruled to be ill And of that Opinion the Court was and said that Executors could not waive a Term though if they could they ought to plead it specially for it is naturally in them and prima facie is intended to be of more value then the Rent if it should fall out to be otherwise the Executors shall not be lyable de bonis propriis but must aid themselves by special pleading For the plea they said there was nothing in it and gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Buckly Howard DEbt upon two Bonds the one of 20 l. the other of 40 l. against an Administratrix the Defendant pleaded that the intestate was endebted to the Plaintiff in 250 l. upon a Statute Merchant which Statute is yet in force not cancel'd nor annull'd and that she has not above 40 shillings in Assets besides what will satisfie this Statute The Plaintiff replies that the Statute is burnt with Fire The Defendant demurs And by the Opinions of Wyndham Atkyns Ellis Iustices the Plaintiff had Iudgment For the Defendant by his demurrer has confessed the burning of the Statute which being admitted and agreed upon it is certain that it can never rise up against the Defendant for the Stat. of the 23 Hen. 8. cap. 6. concerning Recognisances in the nature of a Statute-Staple refers to the Statute-Staple viz. that like Execution shall be had and made and under such manner and form as is therein provided the Statute-Staple refers to the Statute-Merchant and that to the Statute of Acton Burnel 13 Ed. 1. which provides that if it be found by the Roll and by the Bill that the Debt was acknowledged and that the day of payment is expired that then c. but if the Statute be burnt it cannot appear that the day of payment is expired and consequently there can be no Execution If the Recognisee will take his Action upon it he must say hic in Cur ' prolat 15 H. 7. 16. Vaughan differ'd in Opinion he said 1. That it is a rule in Law that matter of Record shall not be avoided by matter in pais which rule is manifestly thwarted by this resolution He said it was a matter of Record to both parties and the Plaintiff could not avoid it by such a plea any more then the Defendant could avoid it by any other matter of fact He cited a case where the Obligee voluntarily gave up his Bond to the Obligor and took it from him again by force and put it in suit the Defendant pleaded this special matter and the Court would not allow it but said he might bring his Action of Trespass
the Wife does but nominate what person shall take by the Will This is a plain case and free from uncertainty and ambiguity which else the word dispose will be liable to But Iudgment was given ut supra Howell versus King TRespass for driving Cattel over the Plaintiffs ground The case was A. has a way over B's ground to Black-Acre and drives his Beasts over A's ground to Black-acre and then to another place lying beyond Black-acre And whether this was lawful or no was the question upon a demurrer It was urged that when his Beasts were at Black-acre he might drive them whither he would Rolls 391. nu 40. 11 H. 4. 82. Brook tit chimin On the other side it was said that by this means the Defendant might purchase a hundred or a thousand Acres adjoyning to Black-acre to which he prescribes to have a way by which means the Plaintiff would lose the benefit of his Land and that a Prescription presupposed a grant and ought to be continued according to the intent of its original Creation The whole Court agreed to this And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Warren qui tam c. versus Sayre THe Court agreed in this case that an Information for not coming to Church may be brought upon the Stat. of 23 Eliz. only reciting the clause in it that has reference to Stat. 1. of the Queen and that this is the best and surest way of declaring Term. Hill 26 27 Car. II. in Com. Banco Williamson Hancock Hill 24 25 Car. 2. Rot. 679. TEnant for life the Remainder in Tail Tenant for life levies a Fine to J. S. and his heirs to the use of himself for years and after to the use of Hannah and Susan Prinne and their heirs if such a sum of money were unpaid by the Conusor and if the money were paid then to the use of the Conisor and his heirs And this Fine was with general warranty The Tenant for life died the money unpaid and the warranty descended upon the Remainder-man in Tail And the question was whether the Remainder-man were bound by this warranty or not Serjeant Maynard argued that because the Estate of the Land is transferred in the Post before the warranty attaches in the Remainder-man that therefore it should be no Bar. He agréed that a man that comes in by the limitation of an use shall be an Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 34. by an equitable construction of the Statute because he comes in by the limitation of the party and not purely by Act in Law but this case of ours is upon a collateral garranty which is a positive Law and a thing so remote from solid reason and equity that it is not to be stretch'd beyond the maxime That the Cestuy que use in this case shall not vouch is confessed on all hands and there is the same reason why he should not rebutt He said the resolution mentioned in Lincoln Colledge case was not in the case nor could be the warranty there was a particular warranty contra tunc Abbatem Westmonasteriensem successores suos which Abby was dissolved long before that case came in question He said Justice Jones upon the arguing of Spirt Bence's case reported in Cr. Car. said that he had been present at the Iudgment in Lincoln Colledge case and that there was no such resolution as is there reported Serjeant Baldwin argued on the other side that at the Common Law many persons might rebutt that could not take advantage of a warranty by way of Voucher as the Lord by Escheat the Lord of a Villain a Stranger a Tenant in possession 35 Ass placito 9. 11 Ass placito 3. 45 Ed. 3. 18. placito 11. 42 Ed. 3. 19. b. a fortiori he said he that is in by the limitation of an use being in by the act of the party though the Law co-operate with it to perfect the assurance shall rebutt The Court was of Opinion that the Cestuy que use might rebutt that though Voucher lies in privity an abater or intruder might rebutt F. N. B. 135. 1 Inst 385. As to Serjeant Maynard's Objection that he is in the Post they said they had adjudged lately in Fowle Doble's case that a Cestuy que use might rebutt So it was held in Spirt Bence's case Cr. Car. and in Jones 199. Kendal Foxe's case That Report in Lincoln Colledge case whether there were any resolution in the case or no is founded upon so good reason that Conveyances since have gone according to it Atkyns said there was a difficult clause in the Statute of Uses viz. That all and singular person and persons c. which at any time on this side the first day of May c. 1536. c. shall have c. By this clause they that came in by the limitation of an use before that day were to have the like advantages by Voucher or Rebutter as if they had béen within the degrees If the Parliament thought it reasonable why was it limited to that time Certainly the makers of that Law intended to destroy Vses utterly and that there should not be for the future any Conveyances to Vses But they supposed that it would be some small time before all people would take notice of the Statute and make their Conveyances accordingly and that might be the reason of this clause But since contrary to their expectations Vses are continued he could easily be satisfied he said that Cestuy que use should rebutt Wyndham was of Opinion that Cestuy que use might vouch he said there was no Authority against it but only Opinions obiter They all agreed for the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly Rogers versus Davenant Parson of White-Chappel NOrth Chief Justice The Spiritual Court may compell Parishioners to repair their Parish-Church if it be out of Repair and may Excommunicate every one of them till it be repaired and those that are willing to contribute must be absolved till the greater part of them agrée to assess a Tax but the Court cannot assess them towards it it is like to a Bridge or a High-way a Distringas shall issue against the Inhabitants to make them Repair it but neither the Kings Court nor the Iustices of Peace can impose a Tax for it Wyndham Atkyns Ellis accorded The Church-Wardens cannot none but a Parliament can impose a Tax but the greater part of the Parish can make a By-Law and to this purpose they are a Corporation But if a Tax be illegally imposed as by a Commission from the Bishop to the Parson and some of the Parishioners to assess a Tax yet if it be assented to and confirmed by the major part of the Parishioners they in the Spiritual Court may proceed to Excommunicate those that refuse to pay it Compton Vx. versus Ireland Mich. 26 Car. 2. Rot. 691. SCire facias by the Plaintiffs as Executors to have Execution of a Iudgment
obtained by their Testator unde Executio adhuc restat faciend The Defendant confesseth the Iudgment but says that a Cap. ad satisf issued against him upon which he was taken and was in the custody of the Warden of the Fleet and that he paid the sum mentioned in the condemnation to the Warden of the Fleet who suffered him to go at large The Plaintiff demurred This the Court held to be no plea but that it was a voluntary escape in the Warden and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Haley's Case PEr Cur ' If a Habeas Corpus be directed to an inferiour Court returnable two days after the end of the Term yet the inferiour Court cannot proceed contrary to the Writ of Habeas Corpus North cited the case of Staples Steward of Windsor who hardly escaped a Commitment because he had proceeded after a Habeas Corpus delivered to him though the value were under five pounds and would not make a Return of it The King against Sir Francis Clerke Ent. Hill 24. 25 Car. 2. Rot. 594. THe case upon a special Verdict was thus viz. The King being seized in Feé of the Mannor of Leyborn in Kent to which the Advowson of the Church of Leyborn is appendant which Mannor came to him by the dissolution of Monasteries having been part of the possessions of the Abbot of Gray-Church granted the Mannor to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Successors saving the Advowson Afterward the King presents to the Church being void J. S. The Archbishop of Canterbury grants the Mannor and the Advowson to the King his Heirs and Successors which grant is confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the King grants the Mannor with the appurtenances and this Advowson naming it in particular which lately did belong to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Abbot of Gray-Church together with all priviledges profits commodities c. in as ample manner as they came to the Kings hand by the grant of the Archbishop or by colour or pretence of any grant from the Archbishop or confirmation of the Dean and Chapter or by surrender of the late Abbot of Gray-Church or as amply as they are now or at any time were in our hands to Sir Edw. North and his heirs c. The question was whether or no by this grant the Advowson passed Serjeant Newdigate The King is not apprised of his title and therefore the grant void 1 Rep. 52. a. for he thought this Advowson came to him by grant from the Archbishop He cited Moor 318. Inglefields case If the King be deceived in Déed or in Law his grant is void Brook Patents 104. 1 Rep. 51 52. 1 Rep. 46 49. 10 Rep. Arthur Legat's case Hob. 228 229 230 c. ibid. 223 243. Dyer 124. 1 Rep. 50. Hob. 170. Moor 888. 1 Rep. 49. 2 Rep. 33. 11 Rep. 90. 9 H. 6. 28. b. 2 Rolls 186. Hob. 323. Coke's Entries 384. Serjeant Hardes contra He laid down four grounds or rules whereby to construe the Kings Letters Patents 1. Where a particular certainty precedes it shall not be destroyed by an uncertainty or a mistake coming after 2 Cr. 34. Yel 42. 2. Cr. 48. 3 Leon. 162. 1 And. 148. 29 Ed. 3. 71. b. 10 H. 4. 2. Godb. 423. Markham's case cited in Arthur Legate's case 10 Rep. 2. There is a difference when the King mistakes his title to the prejudice of his tenure or profit and when he is mistaken only in some description of his grant which is but supplimental and not material nor issuable 21 Ed. 4. 49. 33 H. 7. 6. ◠H. 8. 1. 38 H. 6. 37. 9 Ed. 4. 11 12. Lane's Reports 111. 2 Co. 54. 1 Bulstr 4. 3. Distinct words of relation in the Kings grant are good to pass away any thing Dyer 350 351. 9 Rep. 24. c. Whistler's case 10 Co. 4. When the Kings grants are upon a valuable consideration they shall be construed favourably for the Patentée for the honour of the King 18 Ed. 1. de Quo warranto 2 Inst 446 447. 6 Rep. Sir John Molyn's case 10 Co. 65. a. Then he applyed all these rules to the case in question and prayed Iudgment Afterward Serjeant Maynard argued against the passing of the Advowson He said those two descriptions of the Advowson viz. belonging lately to the Archbishop of Canterbury and formerly to the Abby of Gray-Church are coupled together with a Conjunctive et so that both must be true So here is a falsity in the first and material part of the grant viz. the description of the thing granted though the Advowson of Leyborn be named yet it is so named as to be capable of a generality for there may be more Advowsons then one belonging to that Mannor This falsity goes to the title of the Church No subsequent words will aid this misrecital for the description of the thing granted ends there The following words viz. adeo plene c. and whatever comes after do but set out how fully and amply he should enjoy the thing granted and being no part of its description cannot enlarge it or make it more certain 8 H. 4. 2. Serj. Turner contra cited these books viz. Bacon's Elements 96. 1 Leon. 120. Veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis 29 Ed. 3. 7 8. 1 And. 148. Plowd Comm. 192. 2 Co. Doddington's case 10 Co. 113. 19 Ed. 3. Fitzherb grants 58. 10 H. 4. 2. Sir John L'Estranges case Markham's case 10 Co. in Arthur Legate's case Cr. Car. 548. Ann Needler's case in Hob. 9 H. 6. 12. Brook Annuity 3. Baker Bacon's case Cr. Jac. 48. Bozoun's case 4. Rep. 6 Co. 7. Cr. Jac. 34. 1 Leon. 119 120. 2 Rolls Prerog le Roy 200. 8 Co. 167. 21 Ed. 4. 46. 8 Co. 56. Rolls tit Prerog 201. 10 Co. 64. 9 Co. the Earl of Salop's case 1 Inst 121. b. Moor 421. 2 Rolls 125. This Term the Court gave their Iudgment that the Advowson did well pass In this grant there are as large words and the same words that are in Whistlers case 10 Rep. and the King is not here deceived neither in the value nor in his title And Iudgment was given accordingly Furnis VVaterhouse IT was moved for a Supersedeas to stay proceedings upon a Grand Cape in Dower quia erronice emanavit because the return of the Summons was not according to the Stat. of 31 Eliz. cap. 3. the Stat. is after Summons 2. The Land lieth in a Ville called Heriock and the Return is of a Proclamation of Summons at the Parish-Church of Halyfax and it does not appear that the Land lies within that Parish 3. The Return is proclamari feci secundum formam Statuti and it is not returned to have been made upon the Land Hob. 33. Allen Walter These were all held erronious and the Grand Cape was superseded Term. Pasch 26 Car. II. in Communi Banco Naylor against Sharply and others Coroners of the County Palatine of Lancaster A
to chuse every year two Surveyors to take care that no unwholsome Victuals were sold within the Precinct of that Mannor and that they were sworn to execute their Office truly for the space of a year and that they had power to destroy whatever corrupt Victuals they found exposed to sale and that the Defendants being chosen Surveyors and sworn to execute the Office truly examining the Plaintiffs meat who was also a Butcher found a side of Beef corrupt and unwholsome and that therefore they took it away and burnt it prout eis bene licuit c. The Plaintiff demurs North. This is a case of great consequence and seems doubtful It were hard to disallow the Custom because the design of it seems to be for the preservation of mens health And to allow it were to give men too great a power of seizing and destroying other men's Goods There is an Ale-taster appointed at Leets but all his Office is to make Presentment at the Leet if he finds it not according to the Assize Wyndham Atkyns Ellis It is a good reasonable Custom It is to prevent evil and Laws for prevention are better then Laws for punishment As for the great power that it seems to allow to these Surveyors it is at their own peril if they destroy any Victuals that are not really corrupt for in an Action if they justifie by virtue of the Custom the Plaintiff may take issue that the Victuals were not corrupt But here the Plaintiff has confessed it by the demurrer Atkyns said if the Surveyors were not responsible the Homage that put them in must answer for them according to the rule of respondeat superior Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff unless c. Thredneedle Lynham's Case UPon a special Verdict the case was thus The Iury found that the Lands in the Declaration are and time out of mind had been parcel of the demesnes of the Mannor of Burniel in the County of Cornwall which Mannor consists of demesnes viz. Copy-hold tenements demisable for one two or three lives and services of divers Free-hold Tenants that within the Mannor of Burniel there is another Mannor called Trecaer consisting likewise of Copy-holds and Free-holds and that the Bishop of Exeter held both these Mannors in the right of his Bishoprick Then they find the Statute of 1. Eliz. in haec verba They find that the old accustomed yearly Rent which used to be reserved upon a demise of these two Mannors was 67 pounds 1 s. and 5 d. then they find that Joseph Hall Bishop of Exeter demised these two Mannors to one Prowse for 99 years determinable upon three lives reserving the old and accustomed Rent of 67 l. 1 s. and 5 d. that Prowse living the Cestuy que vies assigned over to James Prowse the demesnes of the Mannor of Trecaer for that afterwards he assigned over all his Interest in both Mannors to Mr. Nosworthy excepting the demesnes of Treacer then in the possession of James Prowse That Mr. Nosworthy when two of the lives were expired for a sum of money by him paid to the Bishop of Exeter surrendred into his hands both the said Mannors excepting what was in the possession of James Prowse and that the Bishop Joseph Hall's Successor redemised unto him the said Mannors excepting the demesnes of Trecaer and excepting one Messuage in the occupation of Robert and excepting one Farm parcel of the Mannor of Burniel for three lives reserving 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. with a nomine poenae and whether this second Lease was a good Lease and the 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. the old and accustomed Rent within the intention of the Statute of 1 Eliz. was the question After several arguments at the Bar it was argued at the Bench in Michaelmas Term Ann. 26 Car. 2. And the Court was divided viz. Vaughan Ellis against the Lease Atkyns Wyndham for it This Term North Chief Justice delivered his Opinion in which he agreed with Atkyns Wyndham so that Iudgment was given in maintenance of the Lease and the Iudgment was affirmed in the Kings Bench upon a Writ of Error The Chapter of the Collegiate Church of Southwell versus the Bishop of Lincoln and J. S. Incumbent c. IN a Qua. imp the Incumbents Title was under a grant made by the Plaintiffs who were seized of the Advowson ut de uno grosso in the right of their Church of the next avoidance one Esco being then Incumbent of their Presentation to Edward King from whom by mean assignments it came to Elizabeth Bley who after the death of Esco presented the Defendant Vpon a demurrer these points came in question 1. Whether the grantors were within the Statute of the 13 Eliz. or not 2. Whether a grant of a next avoidance be restrained by the Statute 3. If the grant be void whether it be void ab initio or when it becomes so And 4. Whether the Statute of 13 Eliz. shall be taken to be a general Law for it is not pleaded Serjeant Jones For the first point argued that the Grantors are within the Statute the words are Deans Chapters which he said might well be taken severally for of this Chapter there is no Dean If they were to be taken joyntly then a Dean were not within this Law in respect of those possessions which he holds in the right of his Deanry but the subsequent general words do certainly include them and would extend even to Bishops but that they are superiour to all that are expressed by name For the second he said the Statute restrains all gifts grants c. other then such upon which the old Rent c. He cited Cr. Eliz. 440. 5. Co. the case of Ecclesiastical persons 10 Co. the Earl of Salisbury's case For the third point he held it void ab initio it must be so or good for ever For here is no Dean after whose death it may become void as in Hunt Singleton's case the Chapter in our case never dies For the fourth point he argued that it is a general Law because it concerns all the Clergy Holland's case 4 Rep. Dumpor's case ibid. 120. b. Willmote contra North Chief Justice Atkyns Wyndham Ellis Iustices all agreed upon the three first points as Serjeant Jones had argued Atkyns doubted whether the 13 of Eliz. were a general Law or not but was over-ruled They all agreed that the Action should have been brought against the Patron as well as against the Ordinary and the Incumbent but that being only a plea in abatement that the Defendant has waived the benefit thereof by pleading in Bar. And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Nisi causa c. Hunt Singleton's case being mentioned Atkyns said he thought it a hard case considering that the Dean and the Chapter were all persons capable that a grant should hold in force as long as the Dean lived and determine then He thought they being a Corporation aggregate of
also for that they sued the Plaintiff in another Court knowing that he was an Attorney of the Common-Pleas and priviledged there Per tot ' Cur ' there is no cause of Action For put the case as strong as you will suppose a man be retained as an Attorney to sue for a debt which he knows to be released and that himself were a witness to the Release yet the Court held that the Action would not lye for that what he does is only as Servant to another and in the way of his Calling and Profession And for suing an Attorney in an inferiour Court that they said was no cause of Action for who knows whether he will insist upon his priviledge or not and if he does he may plead it and have it allowed Fits al. versus Freestone IN an Action grounded upon a promise in Law payment before the Action brought is allowed to be given in Evidence upon non Assumpsit But where the Action is grounded upon a special promise there payment or any other legal discharge must be pleaded Bringloe versus Morrice IN Trespass for immoderately riding the Plaintiffs Mare the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff lent to him the said Mare licentiam dedit eidem aequitare upon the said Mare and that by virtue of this Licence the Defendant and his Servant alternatim had rid upon the Mare The Plaintiff demurs Serj. Skipwith pro Quer ' The Licence is personal and incommunicable as 12 H. 7. 25. 13 H. 7. 13. the Dutchess of Norfolk's case 18 Ed. 4. 14. Serj. Nudigate contra This Licence is given by the party and not created by Law wherefore no Trespass lyeth 8 Rep. 146 147. per Cur ' the Licence is annexed to the person and cannot be communicated to another for this riding is matter of pleasure North took a difference where a certain time is limited for the Loan of the Horse and where not In the first case the party to whom the Horse is lent hath an interest in the Horse during that time and in that case his Servant may ride but in the other case not A difference was taken betwixt hiring a Horse to go to York and borrowing a Horse in the first place the party may set his Servant up in the second not Term. Pasch 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Anonymus A Man upon marriage Covenants with his Wives relations to let her make a Will of such and such Goods she made a Will accordingly by her husbands consent and dyed After her death her Will being brought to the Prerogative Court to be proved a Prohibition was prayed by the Husband upon this suggestion that the Testatrix was foemina viro cooperta and so disabled by the Law to make a Will Cur ' Let a Prohibition go Nisi causa c. North. When a question ariseth concerning the Iurisdiction of the Spiritual Court as whether they ought to have the Probate of such a Will whether such a disposition of a personal Estate be a Will or not whether such a Will ought to be proved before a peculiar or before the Ordinary whether by the Archbishop of one Province or another or both and what shall be bona notabilia in these and the like cases the Common Law retains the Iurisdiction of determining there is no question but that here is a good surmise for a Prohibition to wit that the woman was a person disabled by the Law to make a Will the Husband may by Covenant depart with his right and suffer his Wife to make a Will but whether he hath done so here or not shall be determined by the Law we will not leave it to their decision it is too great an invasion upon the right of the Husband In this case the Spiritual Court has no Iurisdiction at all they have the Probate of Wills but a Feme-covert cannot make a Will If she disposeth of any thing by her Husbands consent the property of what she so disposeth passeth from him to her Legatee and it is the gift of the husband If the Goods were given into anothers hands in trust for the wife still her Will is but a Declaration of the trust and not a Will properly so called But of things in Action and things that a Feme-Covert hath as Executrix she may make a Will by her Husbands consent and such a Will being properly a Will in Law ought to be proved in the Spiritual Court. In the case in question a Prohibition was granted against the Hambrough Company THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in London against the Hambrough-Company who not appearing upon Summons and a Nihil being returned against them an Attachment was granted to attach Debts owing to the Company in the hands of 14 several persons by Certiorari the cause was removed into this Court and whether a Procedendo should be granted or not was the question Serjeant Goodfellow Baldwin and Barrell argued that a debt owing to a Corporation is not attachable Serjeant Maynard Scroggs contra Cur ' We are not Iudges of the Customs of London nor do we take upon us to determine whether a debt owing to a Corporation be within the Custom of forrein Attachment or not This we judge and agree in that it is not unreasonable that a Corporation's debts should be attached If we had judged the Custom unreasonable we could and would have retained the cause For we can over-rule a Custom though it be one of the Customs of London that are confirmed by Act of Parliament if it be against natural reason But because in this Custom we find no such thing we will return the cause Let them proceed according to the Custom at their peril If there be no such Custom they that are aggrieved may take their remedy at Law We do not dread the consequences of it It does but tend to the advancement of Iustice and accordingly a Procedendo was granted per North Chief Justice Wyndham Ellis Atkyns aberat Anonymus PEr Cur ' if a man is indicted upon the Statute of Recusancy Conformity is a good plea but not if an Action of Debt be brought Parten Baseden's Case PArten brought an Action of Debt in this Court against the Testator of Baseden the now Defendant aâ—d had Iudgment After whose death there was a devastavit returned against the Defendant Baseden his Executor he appeared to it and pleaded and a special Verdict was found to this effect viz. that the Defendant Baseden was made Executor by the Will and dwelt in the same house in which the Testator lived and died and that before Probate of the Will he possest himself of the Goods of the Testator prized them inventoried them and sold part of them and paid a Debt and converted the value of the residue to his own use that afterwards before the Ordinary he refused and that upon his refusal administration was committed to the Widow of the deceased And the question was whether or no the
another Bond in full satisfaction of the former Vpon this issue being joyned it was found for the Defendant It was said for him that one Bond might be taken in satisfaction of another and 1 Inst 212. b. 30 Ed. 1. 23. Dyer 29. were cited North Chief Iustice If the second Bond had been given by the Obligor himself it would not have discharged the former but here being given by the Administrator so that the Plaintiffs security is bettered and the Administrator chargeable de bonis propriis I conceive it may be a sufficient discharge of the first Bond. Wyndham accord ' else the Administrator and Heir might both be charged Scroggs accord Atkyns There are many Authorities in the point and all directly that one Bond cannot be given in satisfaction of another So is Cr. Eliz. 623 697 716. 727. and many others But yet I hold that Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant for though it be an impertinent issue yet being found for him he ought by the Statute of 23 H. 8. to have Iudgment If no issue at all had been joyned it would have been otherwise 2 Cro. 44. 575. Serjeant Maynard cites 9 H. 6. but that case was before the Statute so I ground my Iudgment upon that point North. I took it that unapt issues are aided by the Statute but not immaterial ones And so said Scroggs Judic ' pro Defendente Nisi c. Southcot Stowell Intrat ' Hill 25 26 Car. 2. Rot. 1303. COvenant for non-payment of money The case was thus viz. Thomas Southcote had issue two Sons Sir Popham and William and in consideration of the marriage of his Son Sir Popham covenanted to stand seized to the use of Sir Popham and the heirs Males of his body and for default of such issue to the use of the heirs Males of his own body the remainder to his own right heirs Sir Popham dies leaving issue Edward his Son and four Daughters then Thomas the Father died and then Edward died without issue and the question was whether Sir Pophams Daughters or William had the better title Two points were made 1. Whether the limitation of the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the Covenantor were good in its creation or not 2. Admitting it to be good originally whether it could take effect after the death of Edward he leaving Sisters which are general heirs to the Covenantor North Wyndham Atkyns upon admission of the first point were of opinion for William and that he should have the Estate not by purchase but by descent from Edward for after the death of the Father both the Estates in tail were vested in him and he was capable of the remainder by purchase and being once well vested in a purchaser the Estate shall afterwards run in course of descent Scroggs doubted But they all doubted of the first point and would advise V. infr ' Pasch 29 Car. 2. It was said by the Iustices in the Countess of Northumberlands case That if a Knight be but returned on a Iury when a Nobleman is concerned it is not material whether he appear and give his Verdict or no. Also that if there be no other Knights in the County a Serjeant at Law that is a Knight may be returned and his priviledge shall not excuse him Gayle Betts DEbt upon a Bond. The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was to pay forty pounds per annum quarterly so long as the Defendant should continue Register to the Arch deacon of Colchester and says that the Office was granted to A. B. C. for their lives and that he enjoyed the Office so long as they lived and no longer and that so long he paid the said 40 l. quarterly The Plaintiff replies that the Defendant did enjoy the Office longer and had not paid the money The Defendant demurs supposing the replication was double Cur ' The Replication is not double for the Defendant cannot take issue upon the non-payment of the money that would be a departure from his plea in bar so if upon a plea of nullum fecit arbitrium the Plaintiff in his Replication set forth an award and a breach the Defendant cannot take issue upon the breach for that would be an implicite confession of what he had denied before North. If the Defendant plead that he did not exercise the Office beyond such a time till which time he paid the money the Plaintiff may take issue either upon the payment till that time or reply upon the continuance but if he do the latter he must shew a breach for the continuance is in it self no breach Ellis Yarborough ACtion upon the Case against a Sheriff for an Escape The Plaintiff declares that one G. was endebted to him in 200 l. and that the Defendant took him upon a Latitat at the Plaintiffs suit and afterward suffered him to escape The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. and that he let G. out upon Bail according to the said Statute and that he had taken reasonable Sureties A. B. persons having sufficient within the County The Plaintiff replies and traverses absque hoc that the Defendant took Bail of persons having sufficient within the Country the Defendant demurs Skipwith The Sheriff is compellable to take Bail If he take insufficient Bail the course is for the Court to amerce the Sheriff and not for the party to have an Action upon the case Cr. Eliz. 852. Bowles and Lassell's case and Noy 39. if the Sheriff takes no Bail an Action lies against him and all Actions brought upon this Statute are founded upon this suggestion 3 Cro. 460. Moor. 428. 2 Cro. 280. but if he take insufficient bail it is at his own peril and no Action lies the Sheriff is Iudge of the bail and the sum is at his discretion Cr. Jac. 286. Villers Hastings and so are the number of the persons he may take one two or three as he pleaseth He cited Cr. Eliz. 808. Clifton Web's case Besides the traverse is pregnant for it implies that the persons have sufficient out of the County and the Sheriff is not bound to take bail only of persons having sufficient within the County Serjeant Barrell contra The Court not agreeing in their Opinions upon the matter of Law it was put off to the next Term to be argued Baldwin for the Defendant cited 3 Cr. 624. 152. 2 Cr. 286. Noy 39. Rolls tit Escape 807. Moor 428. that the Sheriff is compellable to let him to bail and is Iudge of the sufficiency of the Sureties The Statute was made for the Prisoners benefit for the mischief before was that the Sheriff not being compellable to bail him would extort money from him to be bailed and the word sufficient is added in favour of the Sheriff and so are the words within the County The Sheriff is not compellable to assign the bail Bond and then if the Plaintiff cannot
Windham and Scroggs contr for that the Iury are the sole Iudges of the damages At another day it was moved in arrest of Iudgment That the words are not actionable And of that Opinion was Atkyns But North Windham Scroggs contr And so the Plaintiff had Iudgment Atkyns The occasion of the making of the Stat. of 5 Rich. 2. appears in Sir Robert Cotton's Abr. of the Records of the Tower fol. 173. num 9. 10. he says there That upon the opening of that Parliament the Bishop of St. Davids in a Speech to both Houses declared the Causes of its being summoned and that amongst the rest one of them was to have some restraint laid upon Slanderers and Sowers of Discord which sort of men were then taken notice of to be very frequent Ex malis moribus bonae Leges The Preamble of the Act mentions false News and horrible Lyes c. of things which by the said Prelates c. were never said done nor thought So that it seems designed against telling stories by way of News concerning them The Stat. does not make or declare any new Offence Nor does it inflict any new Punishment All that seems to be new is this 1. The Offence receives an aggravation because it is now an Offence against a positive Law and consequently deserves a greater Punishment as it is held in our Books That if the King prohibit by his Proclamation a thing prohibited by Law that the Offence receives an aggravation by being against the King's Proclamation 2. Though there be no express Action given to the party grieved yet by operation of Law the Action accrews For when ever a Statute prohibits any thing he that finds himself grieved may have an Action upon the Statute 10 Rep. 75. 12 Rep. 100. there this very Case upon this Statute was agreed on by the Iudges So that that is the second new thing viz. a further remedy An Action upon the Stat. 3. Since the Stat. the party may have an Action in the tam quam Which he could not have before Now every lye or falsity is not within the Stat. It must be horrible as well as false We find upon another occasion such a like distinction It was held in the 12 Rep. 83. That the High-Commission Court could not punish Adultery because they had Iurisdiction to punish enormous Offendors only So that great and horrible are words of distinction Again it extends not to small matters because of the ill consequences mentioned Debates and Discord betwixt the said Lords c. great peril to the Realm and quick subversion and destruction of the same Every word imports an aggravation The Stat. does not extend to words that do not agree with this Description and that cannot by any reasonable probability have such dire effects The Cases upon this Statute are but few and late in respect of the antiquity of the Act. It was made Anno 1379. for a long time after we hear no tydings of an Action grounded upon it And by reading it one would imagine that the makers of it never intended that any should be But the Action arises by operation of Law not from the words of the Act nor their intention that made it The first Case that we find of an Action brought upon it is in 13 H. 7. which is 120 years after the Law was made so that we have no contemporanea expositio which we often affect That Case is in Keil 26. the next in 4 H. 8. where the Duke of Buckingham recovered 40 l. against one Lucas for saying that the Duke had no more conscience than a Dog and so he got money he cared not how he came by it He cited other Cases and said he observed That where the words were general the Iudges did not ordinarily admit them to be actionable otherwise when they charged a Peer with any particular miscarriage Serjeant Maynard observed well That the Nobility and great men are equally coucerned on the Defendants part for Actions upon this Statute lie against them as well as against the meanest Subject Acts of Parliament have been tender of racking the King's Subjects for words And the Scripture discountenances mens being made Transgressors for a word I observe that there is not one case to be met with in which upon a motion in arrest of Iudgment in such an Action as this the Defendant has prevailed The Court hath sometimes been divided the matter compounded the Action has abated by death c. but a positive Rule that Iudgment should be arrested we find not So that it is time to make a President and fix some Rules according to which men may demean themselves in converse with great persons Misera est servitus ubi jus est vagum Since we have obtained no Rules from our Predecessors in Actions upon this Statute we had best go by the same Rules that they did in other Actions for words In them when they grew frequent some bonnds and limits were set by which they endeavoured to make these Law certain The Actions now encrease The stream seems to be running that way I think it is our part to obviate the mischief So he was of Opinion That the Iudgment ought to be arrested but the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff North. There are three sorts of Hab. Corp. in this Court 1. Hab. Corp. ad respondendum and that is when a man hath a cause of suit against one that is in prison he may bring him up hither by Hab. Corp. and charge him with a Declaration at his own suit 2. There is a Hab. Corp. ad faciendum recipiendum and that Defendants may have that are sued in Courts below to remove their Causes before us Both these Hab. Corp. are with relation to the suits properly belonging to the Court of Common Pleas. So if an inferiour Court will proceed against the Law in a thing of which we have Conisance and commit a man we may discharge him upon a Hab. Corp. this is still with relation to Common Pleas. A third sort of Hab. Corp. is for priviledged Persons But a Hab. Corp. ad subjiciendum is not warranted by any Presidents that I have seen Term. Pasch 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Hall Booth NOrth In Actions of Debt c. the first Process is a Summons if the Defendant appears not upon that a Cap. goes and then we hold him to Bail The reason of Bail is upon a supposition of Law that the Defendant flies the Iudgment of the Law And this supposition is grounded upon his not appearing at the first For if he appear upon the Summons no Bail is required And this is the reason why it is held against the Law for any inferiour Court to issue out a Capias for the first Process For the liberty of a man is highly valued in the Law and no man ought to be abridged of it without some default in him A Church is in decay the Bishops Court must
the Sheriff because he is compellable to let him to bail but this is an Action at the Common Law for a false Return which if it should not be maintainable the design of the Statute would be defrauded for the Plaintiff cannot controll the Sheriff in his taking bail but he may take what persons and what bail he pleaseth and if he should not be chargeable in an Action for not having the body ready the Plaintiff could never have the effect of his Suit and although the Sheriff be chargeable he will be at no prejudice for he may repair his loss by the bail-bond and it is his own fault if he takes not security sufficient to answer the Debt The last clause in the Statute is That if any Sheriff return a Cepi corpus or reddidit se he shall be chargeable to have the body at the day of the Return as he was before c. that if implies a Liberty in the Sheriff not to return a Cepi corpus or reddidit se But notwithstanding by the opinion of North Chief Justice Wyndham Atkyns Justice the Plaintiff was barred Bowles Lassel's case they said was a strong case to govern the point and the return of paratum habeo is in effect no more then if he had the body ready to bring into Court when the Court should command him and it is the common practice only to amerce the Sheriff till he does bring in the body and therefore no Action lies against him for it is not reasonable that he should be twice punished for one Offence and that against the Court only Scroggs delivered no Opinion but Iudgment was given ut sup Cockram Welby ACtion upon the Case against a Sheriff for that he levied such a sum of money upon a Fieri facias at the Suit of the Plaintiff and did not bring the money into Court at the day of the return of the Writ Per quod deterioratus est dampnum habet c. the Defendant pleads the Statute of 21 Jac. of Limitations To which the Plaintiff demurs Serjeant Barrell This Action is within the Statute It ariseth ex quasi contractu Hob. 206. Speak Richard's case It is not grounded on a Record for then nullum tale Recordum would be a good plea which it is not it lies against the Executors of a Sheriff which it would not do if it arose ex maleficio Pemberton This Action is not brought upon the Contract if we had brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit which perhaps would lie then indeed we had grounded our selves upon the Contract and there had been more colour to bring us within the Statute but we have brought an Action upon the case for not having our money here at the day Per quod c. North. An Indebitatus Assumpsit would lie in this case against the Sheriff or his Executor and then the Statute would be pleadable I have known it resolved that the Statute of Limitations is not a good plea against an Attorny that brings an Action for his Fees because they depend upon a Record here and are certain Next Trinity Term the matter being moved again the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi causa c. if the Fieri facias had been returned then the Action would have beén grounded upon the Record and it is the Sheriffs fault that the Writ is not returned but however the Iudgment in this Court is the foundation of the Action Debt upon the Stat. of 2 Edw. 6. for not setting out Tythes is not within the Stat. for oritur ex maleficio so the ground of this Action is maleficium and the Iudgment here given In both which respects it is not within the Statute of Limitations Barrow Parrot PArrot had married one Judith Barrow an Heiress Sir Herbert Parrot his Father and an ignorant Carpenter by vertue of a dedimus potestatem to them directed took the conusance of a Fine of the said Judith being under age and by Indenture the use was limited to Mr. Parrot and his wife for their two lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor about two years after the wife died without issue and Barrow as heir to her prayed the relief of the Court. Vpon examination it appear'd that Sir Herbert did examine the woman whether she were willing to levy the fine and asked the husband and her whether she were of age or not both answered that she was She afterwards being privately examin'd touching her consent answered as before and that she had no constraint upon her by her husband but she was not there question'd concerning her age Sir Herbert Parrot was not examined in Court upon Oath because he was accused and North said this Court could no more administer an Oath ex Officio then the Spiritual Court could North Wyndham There is a great trust reposed in the Commissioners and they are to inform themselves of the parties age and a voluntary ignorance will not excuse them But Atkyns opposed his being fined he cited Hungates case Mich. 12 Jac. Cam. Stell 12. Cook 122 123. where a Fine by Dedimus was taken of an Infant and because it was not apparent to the Commissioners that the Infant was within age they were in that Court acquitted But North Wyndham Scroggs agreed that the Son should be fined for that he could not possibly be presumed to be ignorant of his Wifes age Atkyns contra But they all agreed that there was no way to set the Fine aside Term. Trin. 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Searle Long. QUare Impedit against two one of the Defendants appears the other casts an essoyn wherefore he that appear'd had idem dies then he that was essoyn'd appears and the other casts an essoyne Afterward an issued for their not Attachment appearing at the day and so Process continued to the great distress which being return'd and no appearance Iudgment final was ordered to be entred according to the Statute of Marlebr cap. 12. It was moved to have this rule discharged because the party was not summoned neither upon the Attachment nor the great distress and the Sureties returned upon the Process were John Doo Richard Roo an Affidavit was produced of Non-summons and that the Defendant had not put in any Sureties nor knew any such person as John Doo Richard Roo It was objected on the other side that they had notice of the suit for they appeared to the Summons and it appeared that they were guilty of a voluntary delay in that they forched in essoyne and the Stat. of Marlebr is peremptory wherefore they prayed Iudgment Serjeant Maynard for the Defendants If Iudgment be entred against us we have no remedy but by a Writ of Deceit Now in a Writ of Deceit the Sumners and veyors are to be examin'd in Court and this is the Trial in that Action but feigned persons cannot be examined It is a great abuse in the Officers to return such
But the Law in many cases takes notice of Parishes in civil affairs and Custom having by degrees introduced it we may allow of it in a Recovery as well as in a Fine Scroggs accordant If an Infant levy a Fine when he becomes of full age he shall be bound by the Deed that leads the Vses of the Fine as well as by the Fine it self because the Law looks upon both as one assurance So the Court was of Opinion that the Lands did pass It was then suggested that Iudgment ought not to be given notwithstanding for that the Plaintiff was dead But they said they would not stay Iudgment for that as this case was For between the Lessor of the Plaintiff and the Defendant there was another cause depending and tryed at the same Assizes when this issue was tryed and by agreément between the parties the Verdict in that cause was not drawn up but agreed that it should ensue the determination of this Verdict and the title to go accordingly Now the submission to this Rule was an implicite agreement not to take advantage of such occurrences as the death of the Plaintiff in an Ejectione firmae whom we know to be no wise concerned in point of interest and many times but an imaginary person It was said also to have Iudgment that there lived in the County where the Lands in question are a man of the same name with him that was made Plaintiff This the Court said was sufficient and that were there any of that name in rerum natura they would intend that he was the Plaintiff Cur̄ We take notice judicially that the Lessor of the Plaintiff is the person interested and therefore we punish the Plaintiff if he release the Action or release the damages Accordingly Iudgment was given Anonymus DEbt upon an Obligation was brought against the Heir of the Obligor hanging which Action another Action was brought against the same Heir upon another Obligation of his Ancestor Iudgment is given for the Plaintiffs in both Actions but the Plaintiff in the second Action obtains Iudgment first And which should be first satisfied was the question Barrel He shall be first satisfied that brought the first Action North. It is very clear That he for whom the first Iudgment was given shall be first satisfied For the Land is not bound till Iudgment be given But if the Heir after the first Action brought had aliened the Land which he had by descent and the Plaintiff in the second Action commenced after such alienation had obtained Iudgment and afterward the Plaintiff in the first Action had Iudgment likewise in that case the Plaintiff in the first Action should be satisfied and he in the second Action not at all What if the Sheriff return in such a case that the Defendant has Lands by descent which indeed are of his own purchase North. If the Sheriffs return cannot be traversed at least the party shall be relieved in an Ejectione firmae Dominus Rex versus Thorneborough Studly THe King brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of _____ and Thorneborough and Studly and declares That Queen Elizabeth was seised in see of the Advowson of Redriff in the County of Surrey and presented J. S. that the Quéen died and the Advowson descended to King James who died seized c. and so brings down the Advowson by descent to the King that now is Thorneborough the Patron pleads a Plea in Bar upon which the King demurs Studly the Incumbent pleads confessing Queen Elizabeths seisin in feé in right of her Crown but says that she in the second year of her Reign granted the Advowson to one Bosbill who granted to Ludwell who granted to Danson who granted to Hurlestone who granted to Thorneborough who presented the Defendant Studly and traverseth absque hoc that Queen Elizabeth died seized The Defendants Council produced the Letters Patents of secundo Reginae to Bosbill and his Heirs The King's Council give in evidence a Presentation made by Queen Elizabeth by usurpation anno 34 Regni sui of one Rider by which Presentation the Advowson was vested again in the Crown The Presentation was read in Court wherein the Queen recited that the Church was void and that it appertained to her to present North Chief Justice Is not the Queen deceived in this Presentation for she recites that it belongs to her to present which is not true If the Queen had intended to make an usurpation and her Clerk had been instituted she had gained the Fee-simple but here she recites that she had right Maynard When the King recites a particular Title and has no such Title his Presentation is void but not when his recital is general as it is here And this difference was agreed to in the Kings Bench in the Case of one Erasmus Dryden The Defendants Council shewed a Iudgment in a Quare Impedit against the same Rider at the suit of one Wingate in Queen Elizabeths time whereupon the Plaintiff had a writ to the Bishop and Rider was ousted Wingate claimed under the Letters Patents of the Second of the Queen viz. by a Grant of one Adie to himself to which Adie one Ludwell granted it anno 33 Eliz. Baldwin It appears by the Record of this Iudgment that a writ to the Bishop was awarded but no final Iudgment is given which ought to be after the three points of the writ enquired North. What is it that you call the final Iudgment there are two Iudgments in a Quare Impedit one that the Plaintiff shall have a writ to the Bishop and that is the final Iudgment that goes to the right betwixt the parties And the Iudgment at the Common Law There in another Iudgment to be given for Damages since the Stat. of West 2. cap. 5. after the points of the writ are enquired of Which Iudgment is not to be given but at the instance of the party Pemberton This Wingate that recovered was a stranger and had no title to have a Quare Impedit Now I take this difference where the King has a good Title no recovery against his Clerk shall affect the King's Title he shall not be prejudiced by a Recovery to which he is no party If the King have a defeasible Title as in our case by Vsurpation there if the rightful Patron recover against the King's Incumbent the King's Title shall be bound though he be not a party for his Title having no other Foundation than a Presentation when that is once avoided the Kings Title falls together with it But though the Kings Title be only by Vsurpation yet a Recovery against his Clerk by a stranger that has nothing to do with it shall not predudice the King covin may be betwixt them and the King be tried Now Wingate had no Right for he claimed by Grant from one Adie to whom Ludwell granted ann 33 Eliz. But we can prove this Grant by Ludwell to have been void for in the 29th of the
not bind an Infant neither by Common Law nor 5 Eliz. 1. Cr. 170. yet by this custom it shall in Pasch 21 Jac. B. R. Cole versus Holme there was such an Action against an Apprentice the Defendant pleaded Nonage the Plaintiff replyed the custom of London and that the Indenture of Apprentiship was inrolled as it ought to be c. and this was certified by the Recorder Serjeant Finch to be the custom and thereupon Iudgment was against the Defendant it is a Manuscript Jones The custom ought to have been alledged that he should have an Action of Covenant against him which is not done here and customs shall be taken strictly not by implication Moreover the Plaintiff declares for a loss not yet sustained the term not being ended Cur. The custom is sufficiently alledged to give and make good an Action of Covenant Tale remedium implies it Those words are applicable to all things relating to this matter viz. That the Master may correct him may go to a Iustice of Peace And also may have an Action of Covenant against him V. Hutt 63. 4. as against a man of full age Winch. 63. 4. And though by Common Law or the Statute his Covenant shall not bind him yet by the custom it shall But Twisden desired to sée Offley's Report As to the declaring for the loss of the term part whereof is unexpired though it has beén adjudged to be naught after a Verdict yet in this Case which is upon demurrer it may be helped For the Plaintiff may take damages for the departure only not the loss of service during the term and then it will be well enough Judgment nisi c. Jones versus Powel WOrds spoken of an Attorney Thou canst not read a Declaration per quod c. Cur. The words are actionable though there had been no special damages For they speak him to be ignorant in his Profession and we shall not intend that he had a distemper in his eyes c. Judic pro querente Anonymus THe Defendant in an Action of false Imprisonment justified the taking and imprisoning the Plaintiff by vertue of an Order of Chancery that he should be committed to the Fleet and the Plea judged naught because an Order is not sufficient It ought to have beén an Attachment he should have pleaded Quoddam breve de attachamento c. Osborne versus Walleeden REplevin The Defendant avows in right of his Wife for a Rent-charge devised to her for life by her former Husband But in the Will there was this Clause viz. If she shall marry c. he the Executor shall pay her 100 l. and the rent shall cease and return to the Executor She doth marry and the Executor does not pay the 100 l. The question was Whether the rent should cease before the 100 l. be paid Jones for the Plaintiff the rent ceaseth immediately upon her Marriage and she shall have remedy for the 100 l. in the Spiritual Court If the words had been He shall pay her 100 l. and from that time the rent shall cease It had been otherwise if she had died presently after the marriage her Executor should have had the 100 l. Brewer and Sanders for the Defendant she hath not a present interest in the 100 l. In this very Case the Common Pleas delivered their Opinion That this 100 l. ought to be paid before the rent should cease But for imperfection in the pleading we could not have Iudgment there Roll. She has no present interest in the 100 l. nor can her Executors have any and the rent shall not cease till the payment of it For first It is devised to her for life not during her Widowhood Secondly The rent issues out of the Inheritance and by the construction of the Will it shall go to the Executor for by cease in the Will is meant cease as to the Wife and the Executor is in nature of Purchasor and ought to pay the money before he has the rent and he ought to pay it out of his own Estate if he will have the rent For otherwise if it be lookt upon as a Legacy if he have no Assets she shall be immediately stript of her rent and have nothing Twisden I think the Divisors meaning was to give her a present interest in the 100 l. and if so the rent must cease presently upon the marriage But since it is to be issuing out of the Inheritance it is doubtful And since my Brothers are both of Opinion for the Avowant let him have Iudgment Then it was Objected That the Avowry was ill For it ought to have been in the Wifes name as well as the Husbands and alledged that Roll. 1 part 318. N. num 2. makes a Quaere and séems to be of opinion that Wise versus Bellent which is to the contrary is not Law V. 2 Cr. 442. 3. Twisd That was his Opinion it may be when he was a Student You have in that Work of his a common place which you stand too much upon I value him where he reports Iudgments and Resolutions But otherwise it is nothing but a Collection of Year-Books and little things noted when he made his Common Place Books His private opinion must not warrant or controul us here It has béen adjudged That the Husband alone may avow in right of his Wife Delaval versus Maschall DEbt upon a Bond the Condition whereof was That if J. S. and J. D. Arbitrators did make an Award on or before the 19. of February and if the Defendant should perform it then the Obligation should be void and then follow these words And if they do not make an Award before the 19. of February then I impower them to choose an Umpire and by these Presents bind my self to perform his Award The Defendant pleads That they did not make an Award The Plaintiff replies and sets forth an Award made upon the said 19. of February by an Vmpire chosen by the Arbitrators and alledges a breach thereof The Defendant demurs Sanders for the Defendant Here is no breach of the Condition of the Bond. For that which relates to the performing the Vmpires Award it following those words Then the Obligation shall be void is no part of the Condition and if any Action is to be brought upon that part it ought to be Covenant 2. The Award made by the Vmpire is void because made the 19. of February which was within the time limited to the Arbitrators for their power and the Vmpire could not make an award within that time because their power was not then determined as was lately adjudged in Copping versus Hornar Jones for the Plaintiff The Condition is good as to this part It is all but one Condition A man may make several Defeasances or Conditions to defeat the same Obligation Brook Condition 66. There is a continuance of this Condition It is said I bind my self by these presents which refers to the Lien before in the
Title has closed up the King so as that he ought to take issue and maintain his own Title V. 2 Cr. 651. I say therefore That the Kings declining his own Title and falling upon the others is a departure which is matter of substance and it would make pleading infinite therefore the demurrer in this Case is good 1 Cr. 105. is in point and so is Hobart's Opinion in Digby versus Fitzherbert 103. 104. and though the Iudges are two and two in that Case as it is there reported yet the whole Court agreed it afterwards So that were this a common persons Case I suppose it would be agreed on all hands But it is insisted that this is one of the Kings Prerogatives that when his Title is traversed by the party he may either maintain his own Title against the traverse of the party or traverse the affirmative of the party Pasch pr. C. 243. a. c. Answer It is true this is there reckoned up among many other Prerogatives of the King But first with reverence several of them are judged no Law as that if the King have Title by Lapse and he suffer another to present an Incumbent who dies the King shall yet present is counter-judged 3 Cr. 44. and both that and the next following point too 7 Co. 28. a. Secondly In the same Case fol. 236. there is a good Rule given which we may make use of in our Case viz. the Common Law doth so admeasure the Kings Title and Prerogatives as that they shall not take away nor prejudice any mans Inheritance V. 19 E. 4. 9. 11 H. 4. 37. 13 E. 4. 8. 28 H. 6. 2. 9 H. 4. 6. F. N. B. 152. Now my Brother Wild hath given the true Answer that when the Kings Title appears to the Court upon Record that Record so intitles the King that by his Prerogative he may either defend his own or fall upon the other's Title For in all Cases where the King either by traverse as 24 E. 3. 30. pl. 27. Keil 172. 192. or otherwise as by special demurrer E. 3. Fitz. monst de Faits 172. falls upon a Defendants Title It must be understood that the King is intitled by Record and sometimes it is remembred and mentioned in the Case Fitz. 34. That the King is in as by Office c. But Br. Preg 116. the Kings Attorney doth confess the Law to be so expresly that the King has not this Prerogative but where he is entitled by matter of Record Before 21 Jac. cap. 2. when the Kings Titles was found by any Inquisition or Presentment by virtue of Commissions to find out concealments defective Titles c. he exercised this Prerogative of falling upon and traversing the parties Titles and much to the prejudice of the Subjects whose Titles are often so ancient and obscure as they could not well be made out Now that Statute was made to cure this defect and took away the severity of that Prerogative Ordaining that the King should not sue or impeach any person for his Lands c. unless the Kings Titles had béen duly in charge to that King or Queen Eliz. or had stood insuper of Record within 30 years before the beginning of that Parliament c. Hob. 118. 9. the King takes Issue upon the Defendants Traverse of his Title and could the King do otherwise the mischief would be very great as my Brother observed both to the Patron and Incumbent The Law takes notice of this and had a jealousie that false Titles would be set on foot for the King and therefore 25 Edw. 3. St. 3. Car. 7. 13 R. 2. Car. 1. 4 H. 4. Ca. 22. enables the Ordinary and Incumbent to counterplead the Kings Title and to defend sue and recover against it But a fortiori at Common Law the Patron who by his Endowment had this Inheritance might controvert and Traverse the Kings Title and it is unreasonable and mischievous that the Crowns possessions by Lapse or it may be the meer suggesting a Title for the King should put the Patron to shew and maintain his Title when perhaps his Title is very long consisting of 20 mesne Conveyances and the King may Traverse any one of them Keilway 192. b. Pl. 3. I conclude I think the King ought to have taken Issue and he not doing it the Demurrer is good and that the Defendant ought to have Iudgment Tyrrell contra I am not satisfied but here is a Discontinuance For the Defendant pleads the Appendency of the Church only not the Chappel It is true he traverseth that the Queen was not seized of both I deny what is affirmed that the King by his Presentation of Timothy White and the present Incumbent is out of possession By the Iudgment of reversal 2 Cr. 123. 4. the Law at this day is that he cannot be put out of possession of an Advowson by 20 usurpations A Quare Impedit is an Action of Possession and if he were out of possession how could he bring it As to this Traverse It is a common Erudition that a party shall not depart and that there shall not be a Traverse upon a Traverse But the King is excepted 5 Co. 104. Pl. C. 243. a Br. Petition 22. Prerogatives 59 60 69. 116. It is agreéd where the King is in possession and where he is intitled by matter of Record he may take a Traverse upon a Traverse And there is no Book says that where he is in by matter of Fact he cannot do it Indeed there is some kind of pregnancy at least in the last of those Authorities But I will cite two cases on which I will rely viz. 19 E. 3. Fitz monstr de faits 172. which is our case The King in a Quare Impedit makes Title by reason of Awardship whereby he had the custody of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged and that the Father dyed seised thereof c. and there is not a word that his Tytle was by matter of Record The Defendant pleads that the Father of a Ward made a Feoffment of the Mannor to him for life and afterwards released all his right c. so that the Father had nothing therein at the time of his death and that after his death he the Defendant enfeoffed two men c. and took back an Estate to himself for 10 years which term yet continues and so it belongs to him to present But he did not shew the release but demurred in Iudgment upon this that he ought not to shew the release and the King departs from his Count and insists upon that which the Defendant had confessed that he had made a Feoffmēt which he having not shewn by the release as he ought to make himself more then Tenant for life was a Forfeiture and therefore the heir had cause to enter and the King in his right and thereupon prays Iudgment and has a Writ to the Bishop Cook 86. 7. 1 Inst 304. b. The other case
is 24 Ed. 3. 30. Pl. 27. which is our very case The King brings a Quare Impedit for a Church appendant to a Mannor as a Guardian the Defendant makes a Title and traverseth the Title alledged by the King in his Count viz. the appendancy the King replies and Traverses the Defendants Title For this cause the Defendant demurs and Iudgment was for the King In this case it doth not appear in the pleading that the King was in by matter of Record and so it is our very case For the King may be in by possession by virtue of a Wardship without matter of Record by Entry c. Stamf. Prerog 54. I rely upon these two Cases But 7 H. 8. Keil 175. is somewhat to the purpose Per Fitz. In a Ravishment of Ward by the King if the Defendant make a Title and traverse the Kings Title the Kings Attorney may maintain the Kings Title and Traverse the Defendants Title I think there is no difference betwéen the Kings being in possession by matter of Record and by matter of Fact Again If matter of Record be necessary here is enough viz. The Queens Presentation under the Great Seal of England And here is a descent which is and must be Jure Coronae It is unreasonable that a Subject should turn the King out of possession by him that hath no Title This is a Prerog Case As to the Statutes objected by my Brother Archer they concern not this case The first enables the Patron to counterplead But here the Patron pleads The rest concern the Kings Presenting En auter droit But here it is in his own Right I think the King in our case may fly upon the Defendants Title and there is no inconvenience in it For the Kings Title is not a bare suggestion For it is confessed by the Defendant that the Quéen did Present But he alledges it was by Lapse For another reason I think Iudgment ought to be for the King viz. because the Defendant has committed the first fault For his Bar is naught in that he has traversed the Queens Seisin in Grosse whereas he ought to have traversed the Queens Presentment modo forma For where the Title is by a Seisin in Grosse it is repugnant to admit the Presentment and deny the Seisin in Grosse because the Presentment makes it a Seisin in Grosse 10 H. 7. 27. Pl. 7. in point and so is my Lord Buckhurst's Case in 1 Leonard 154. The traverse here is a matter of substance But if it be but Form it is all one For the King is not within the Statute 27 El. cap. 5. So he concluded that Iudgment ought to be given for the King Doctor Lee's Case A Motion was made by Raymond for a Writ of Priviledge to be discharged from the Office of Expenditour to which he was elected and appointed by the Commissioners of Sewers in some part of Kent in respect of some Lands he had within the Levell He insisted that the Doctor was an Ecclesiastical person Archdeacon of Rochester where his constant attendance is required Adding that the Office to which he was appointed was but a mean Office being in the nature of that of a Bayliff to receive and pay some small sums of money and that the Lands in respect whereof he is elected were let to a Tenant V. 1. Cr. 585. Abdy's case It was objected against this that this Archdeacons Predecessors did execute this Office and the Court ordered that notice should be given and cause shewn why the Doctor should not do the like Afterward Rainesford Morton only being in Court it was ruled he should be priviledged Because he is a Clergy-man F. B. 175. r. But I think for another reason viz. because the Land is in Lease and the Tenant if any ought to do the Office Take the Writ Lucy Lutterell vid. versus George Reynell Esq George Turbervile Esq John Cory Ann Cory THe Plaintiff as Administratrix to Jane Lutterell durante minori aetate of Alexander Lutterell the Plaintiffs second Son declared against the Defendants in an Action of Trespass for that they simul cum John Chappell c. did take away 4000 l. of the moneys numbred of the said Jane upon the 20th day of October 1680. and so for seven days following the like sums ad damnum of 32000 l. Upon a full hearing of Witnesses on both sides the Iury found two of the Defendants guilty and gave 6000 l. damages and the others not guilty A new Trial was afterwards moved for and denied At the Trial Mr. Attorney General excepted against the Evidence that if it were true it destroyed the Plaintiffs Action inasmuch as it amounted to prove the Defendants guilty of Felony and that the Law will not suffer a man to smooth a Felony and bring Trespass for that which is a king of Robbery Indeed said he if they had been acquitted or found guilty of the Felony the Action would lye and therefore it may be maintained against Mrs. Cory who was as likewise was William Maynard acquitted upon an Indictment of Felony for this matter but not against the rest But my Lord Chief Baron declared and it was agreed that it should not lye in the mouth of the party to say that himself was a Thief and therefore not guilty of the Trespass But perhaps if it had appeared upon the Declaration the Defendant ought to have been discharged of the Trespass Quaere what the Law would be if it appeared upon the pleading or were found by special Verdict My Lord Ch. Baron did also declare and it was agréed that whereas W. Maynard one of the Witnesses for the Plaintiff was guilty as appeared by his own Evidence together with the Defendants but was left out of the Declaration that he might be a Witness for the Plaintiff that he was a good and legal Witness but his credit was lessened by it for that he swore in his own discharge For that when these Defendants should be convicted and have satisfied the Condemnation he might plead the same in Bar of an Action brought against himself But those in the simul cum were no Witnesses Several witnesses were received and allowed to prove that William Maynard did at several times discourse and declare the same things and to the like purpose that he testified now And my Lord Chief Baron said though a hear-say was not to be allowed as a direct Evidence yet it might be made use of to this purpose viz. to prove that William Maynard was constant to himself whereby his Testimony was Corroborated One Thorne formerly Mr. Reynell's Servant being Subpoened by the Plaintiff to give Evidence at this trial did not appear But it being sworn by the Exeter Waggoner that Thorne came so far on his Iourney hitherward as Blandford and there fell so sick that he was not able to travel any further his Depositions in Chancery in a Suit there between these parties about this matter were admitted to be read
Smith versus Smith ASsumpsit The Plaintiff declared whereas himself and the Defendant were Executors of the last Will and Testament of J. S. and whereas the Defendant had received so much of the money which was the Testators a moiety whereof belonged to the Plaintiff and whereas the Plaintiff Pro recuperatione inde Sectasset the Defendant that he the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff abstineret a Secta praedicta prosequenda monstraret Quoddam computum did promise him 100 l. and avers that he did forbear c. quod ostentavit quoddam Computum praedictum After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Jones for the Defendant as followeth Though I do not see how that which one Executor claims against another is recoverable at all unless in Equity yet I shall insist only on this that here is no good consideration alledged for it is only alledged in general that the Plaintiff Sectasset It is not said so much as that it was legali modo in a legal way whereas it ought to be set forth in what Court it was c. that so the Court might know whether it were in a Court which had Iurisdiction therein or no and so are all the Presidents in Actions concerning forbearance to sue In point of Evidence the first thing to be shewn in such a case as this is that there was a Suit c. Saunders for the Plaintiff That being the prime thing necessary to be proved since the Verdict is found for us must be intended to have been proved But however if this consideration be idle and void yet the other maintains the Action and so the Court agreed viz. that one was enough It was agreed that if the Plaintiff averred only that he had shewed Quoddam Computum that unless the consideration had been to shew any account it had been naught for quoddam is aliud Dy. 70. nu 38 39. 1 H. 7. 9. but it being Quoddam computum praedict ' it was well enough Computum praedictum refers it to the particular account discoursed of between them It was agreed that it had been best to have said Monstravit in the averment that it might agree with the allegation of the consideration But yet the word ostentavit though most commonly by a Metonimy it signifies to boast yet signifieth also to shew or to shew often as appears by all the Dictionaries and therefore it is well enough Take Iudgment Sir Francis Duncombe's Case IT was held If a Writ of Error abate in Parliament or the like and another Writ of Error be brought in the same Court it is no Supersedeas But if the first Writ of Error be in Cam̄ Scacc ' c. and then a Writ be brought in Parliament c. it is a Supersedeas by the Opinion of all the Iudges against my Lord Cooke vide Heydon versus Godsalve 2 Cr. 342. Browne versus London INdeb ' Assumpsit for fifty three pounds due to the Plaintiff upon a Bill of Exchange drawn upon the Defendant and accepted by him according to the custom of the Merchants c. After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that though an Action upon the Case does well lie in such case upon the Merchants yet an Indeb ' Assumpsit may not be brought thereupon Winnington I think it doth well lye Debt lies against a Sheriff upon levying and receiving of money upon an Execution Hob. 206. Now this is upon a Bill of Exchange accepted and also upon the Defendants having effects of the drawer in his hands having read the value for so it must be intended because otherwise this general Verdict could not be found Rainesford This is the very same with Milton's Case lately in Scacc ' where it was adjudged that an Indeb ' Assumpsit would not lye In this case he added that the Verdict would not help it for though my Lord Chief Baron said it were well if the Law were otherwise yet he and we all agreed that a Bill of Exchange accepted c. was indeed a good ground for a special Action upon the case but that it did not make a Debt first because the acceptance is but conditional on both sides If the money be not received it returns back upon the drawer of the Bill He remains liable still and this is but collateral Secondly because the word Onerabilis doth not imply Debt Thirdly Because the case is primae Impressionis there was no President for it Then Offley who was of Council pro Defendente in the case at bar said that he was of Council for the Plaintiff in the Exchequer case and that therein direction was given to search Presidents and that they did search in this Court and in Guildhall and that there was a Certificate from the Attorneys and Prothonotaries there that there was no President of such an Action Adjornatur Twisden I remember an Action upon the Case was brought for that the Defendant had taken away his Goods and hidden them in such secret places that the Plaintiff could not come at them to take them in Execution and adjudged it would not lye Watkins versus Edwards ACtion of Covenant brought by an Infant per Guardian ' suum for that the Plaintiff being bound Apprentice to the Defendant by Indenture c. the Defendant did not keep maintain educate and teach him in his Trade of a Draper as he ought but turned him away The Defendant pleads that he was a Citizen and Freeman of Bristol and that at the General Sessions of the Peace there held there was an Order that he should be discharged of the Plaintiff for his disorderly living and beating his Master and Mistress and that this Order was inrolled by the Clarke of the Peace as it ought to be c. To which the Plaintiff demurred It was said for the Plantiff that the Statute 5 El. cap. 4. doth not give the Iustices c. any power to discharge a Master of his Apprentice in case the fault be in the Apprentice but only to minister due Correction and Punishment to him Cur̄ That hath been over-ruled here The Iustices c. have the same power of discharging upon complaint of the Master as upon complaint of the Apprentice Else that Master would be in a most ill case that were troubled with a bad Apprentice for he could by no means get rid of him Secondly it was urged on the Plaintiffs behalf that he had not for ought that appears any notice or summons to come and make his defence V. 11 Co. 99. Baggs case And this very Statute speaks of the appearance of the party and the hearing the matter before the Iustices c. Saunders pro Defendente In this case the Iustices are Iudges and it being pleaded that such a Iudgment was given that is enough and it shall be intended all was regular Twisden Rainesford That which we doubt is whether the Defendant ought not
to have gone to one Iustice c. first as the Statute directs that he might take order and direction in it and then if he could not compound and agree it he might have applyed himself to the Sessions For the Statute intended there should be if possible a Composure in private and the power of the Session is Conditional viz. if the one Iustice cannot end it In Case of a Bassard Child they cannot go to the Sessions per Saltum and we doubt they cannot in this Case It is a new Case And then the matter will be whether this ought to be set down in the Pleading Adjornatur Rex versus Ledginham INformation setting forth that he was Lord of the Mannor of Ottery St. Mary in the County of Devonshire wherein there were many Copyholders and Freéholders and that he was a man of an unquiet mind and did make unreasonable Distresses upon several of his Tenants and so was communis oppressor perturbator pacis It was proved at the Trial that he had distrained four Oxen for three pence and six Cows for eight pence being Amercements for not doing Suits of Court and that he was Communis oppressor perturbator pacis The Defendant was found guilty It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Information is ill laid First It is said he disquieted his Tenants and vexed them with unreasonable distresses It is true that is a fault but not punishable in this way For by the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 4. V. 2 In. 106 7. he shall be punished by grievous Amercements and where the Statute takes care for due punishment that method must be observed 2. As to the matter it self they do not set forth how much he did take nor from whom so that the Court cannot judge whether it is unreasonable or no nor could we take Issue upon them 3. As to the words Communis oppressor perturbator pacis they are so general that no Indictment will lie upon them 2 Ro. 79. Jones 302. Cornwalls Case which indeed goeth to both the last points Twisden Communis oppressor c. is not good such general words will never make good an Indictment save only in that known Case of a Barretor for Communis Barrectator is a term which the Law takes notice of and understands It is as much as I have heard Iudges say as a common Knave which contains all Knavery For the other point an Information will not lie for taking outragious distresses It is a private thing for the which the Statute gives a remedy viz. by an Action upon the Statute tam quam Cur̄ It is naught Adjorn Roberts versus Marriot AN Action of Debt brought upon a Bond to submit to an award The Defendant pleads Nullum fecerunt arbitrium The Plaintiff replies and sets forth an award made by two Prebends of Westminster and that it was delivered to the party according to the condition of the Bond c. The Defendant rejoyns that it was not delivered c. Et hoc paratus est verificare The Plaintiff demurs Serjant Baldwynne and Winington pro defend Jones pro querente Cur. The Defendant having first pleaded Nullum fecer ' arb and then in his Rejoynder that it was not delivered which is a Confession that there was an award made has committed a departure and so it has been judged If he had pleaded Nullum fec̄ arbitrium c. absque hoc that it was tendered c. it had been naught and it is as bad now Also when the Plaintiff replies that the award was delivered and the Defendant saith It was not he should have concluded to the Country and not as he doth hoc paratus est verificare for otherwise the party might go in infinitum and there would be no end of pleading Note there was an Exception taken to the award viz. that it was awarded that there should be a release of all Specialties among other things whereas Specialties were not submitted Cur. Then the award is void as to that only But indeéd if the breach had been assigned in not releasing the Specialties it had béen against the Plaintiff But now take Iudgment Wood versus Davies TRov conv de tribus struibus foeni Anglice Ricks of Hay Moved in arrest of Iudgment that it was too uncertain For no man could tell how much was meant by strues It was urged it should have been so many Cart loads or the like For loads was adjudged uncertain in Glyn's time here But Rainsford and Moreton who only were in Court judged it well enough John Wooton versus Penelope Hele. Vide Mich. 21 Rot. 210. COvenant upon a Fine The Plaintiff declares That whereas quidem finis se levavit in Curia nuper pretens Custodum libertatis Angliae authoritate Parliamenti de Banco apud Westmonnast ' c. a die Sancti Michaelis in unum mensem anno Domini 1649. Coram Olivero St. John Johanne Pulison Petro Warburton Leonard ' Atkins Justic̄ c. inter praed Johannem Wotton c. quer ' praed ' Johannem Hele Penelopen Hele per nomina Johannis Hele Armigeri Penelopes uxoris ejus deforc̄ inter alia de uno Messuagio c. Per quem finem praed ' Johannes Hele Penelope concesserunt praed tenementa praed John W. habendum tenendum c. pro termino 99 annorum proximorum post decessum Gulielmi Wootton c. si Johannes Wootton modo querens Gracia Wootton tamdiu vixerint aut eorum Alter tamdiu vixerit praed ' J. H. Penelope haered ipsius Johannis Warrant̄ praed Jo. W. praed ' tenementa c. Contra omnes homines pro toto termino praed prout per Recordum finis praed c. plenius apparet Virtute cujus quidem finis praed J. W. fuit possessionat̄ de interesse praed termini c. sic inde possessionat̄ existens praed ' Guliel W. c. postea scil sexto die c. obierunt post quorum mortem praed J. W. in tenementa praed c. intravit fuit inde possessionat̄ c. sic inde possessionat̄ existens praed J. H. postea scil c. obiit praed Penelope ipsum supervixit idem Johannes W. in facto dicit quod quidem Hugo Stowel Armiger post commensationem termini praed durante termino illo ante diem Impetrationis hujus Billae scil c. habens legale jus titulum ad tenementa praed c. in super possessionem termini praed ipsius J. W. in eisdem intravit ipsumque J. W. contra voluntatem ipsius J. W. per debitum Legis processum a possessione occupatione tenementorum praed ejecit expulit amovit ipsumque J. W. sic inde expuls a possessione sua inde custodivit Extra tenuit adhuc Extra tenet Contra formam effectum finis warrant̄ praed sic idem praed J. W. dicit quod praed
Penel post mortem praed J. W. licet sepius requisit̄ c. Conventionem suam praed Warrant̄ praed non tenuit sed infregit sed J. H. eidem J. W. tenere omnino recusavit adhuc recusat ad dam̄ c. 600 l. The Defendant pleads Representando quod eadem Penelope conventionem suam Warrant̄ praed a tempore levationis finis praed ex parte sua custodiend hucusque bene fideliter custodivit representandoque quod praed Hugo Stowell praed tempore intrationis ipsius Hugonis in tenementa praed non habuit aliquod Legale Jus aut titulum ad eadem tenementa c. pro placito eadem Penel dicit quod praed H. Stow. ipsum Johannem a possessione occupatiane tenementor non ejecit expulit amovit prout praed Johannes superius versus eam narravit hoc parat̄ est verificare Vpon this issue was taken and a Verdict for the Plaintiff was found and 300 l. damages And upon a motion in arrest of Iudgment the Cause was spoken to three or four times Jones pro Defendent̄ 1. It is considerable whether an Action will lie against a Feme upon a Covenant in a Fine levied by her when Covert-Baron It would be inconvenient that Land should be unalienable and therefore the Law enables a Feme Covert to levy a Fine Which Fine shall work by Estoppel and pass against her a good Interest But to make her liable to a personal Action thereupon to answer damages c. it were hard and it is Casus primae impressionis For the Plaintiff it was said there is little question but an Action of Covenant will well lie upon this warranty The Law enables a Feme Covert to corroborate the Estate she passes and to do all things incident If she levy a Fine of her Inheritance she may be vouched or a Warrantia Chartae c. thereupon be had against her and so is Roll versus Osborn Hob. 20. and if she can thus bind her Land a fortiori she may subject her self to a Covenant as in the Case at the Bar. If a Husband and Wife make a Lease for years and she accept the rent after his death she shall be liable to a Covenant This Point was agreed by the Council on both sides that a Covenant in this Case would lie against her and so this Court agreéd Twisd added That there was no question but a Covenant would lie upon a Fine For saith he sealing is not always necessary to found an Action of Covenant Thus Covenant lies against the Kings Lesseé by Patent upon his Covenant in the Patent though we know there is no sealing by the said Lessée Secondly It was urged on the Defendants behalf That the breach of Covenant is not well assigned for it is not shewed what Title Stowell had It is not only participially expressed Habens Legale c. but what is said is altogether general and uncertain Jus Legalem titulum ad tenementa praed ' so that the breach assigned is in effect no more but that Stowell entred and so the Covenant was broken If a man plead Indemn Conservat̄ he must shew how Gyll versus Gloss Yelverton 227. 8. 2 Cr. 312. Debt for Rent on a parol-Lease the Defendant pleads That the Plaintiff nil habuit in tenementis praedictis unde dimissionem praedictam facere potuit The Defendant replies Quod habuit c. in general without shewing in special what Estate he had that so it might appear to the Court that he had sufficient in the Lands whereout to make the Lease and therefore the Replication was adjudged naught It is true it was adjudged That after the Verdict it was helped by the Stat. of Jeoffails But that I conceive was because the issue though not very formal yet was upon the main point viz. Whether the Lessor had an Estate in the Tenements or no. For the true reason why a Verdict doth help in such a Case is because it is supposed that the matter left out was given in Evidence and that the Iudges did direct accordingly or else the Verdict could not have been found So in our Case If the issue had béen Whether Stowell had Right c. it might have been supposed and intended by his special Title and Estate made out and proved by trial But here the issue going off on a Collateral point it cannot be intended that any such matter was given in Evidence Jones and Pollexfen for the Plaintiff This Objection is against all the Precedents by which it appears that alledging generally as we do habens Legale Jus Titulum is good It is sufficient for a man to alledge that the Covenantor had no power to demise or was not seized c. without shewing any cause why or that any other person was seized c. 9 Co. 61. 2 Cr. 304. 369. 70. Co. Ent. 177. a. It it to be inquired upon Evidence Whether the party had a good Title or no and so the Court agreéd Thirdly Saunders for the Defendant said Though the Plaintiff was very wary bringing in the Right of Stowell with a Participle only so that we could not take issue upon it we could only protest yet I agreed that having taken issue upon one Point we must admit and do admit the rest of the matter in the Declaration But that is only as it is alledged Now here therefore we must admit that Stowell had Right and Title c. But we do not admit that he had a Title precedent to this Fine or had right otherwise than from and under the Plaintiff himself for that is not alledged And it shall never be intended no not after Verdict that Stowell had good and Eigne Right and Title before the Lease granted by the Fine but the contrary shall be intended And for that I rely upon Kirby versus Hansaker 2 Cr. 315. By all Iudges of C. B. and Scacc̄ in Cam. Scacc̄ in Point Nay that is a stronger Case than ours is For there the issue which was found for the Plaintiff was that the Recovery by Essex who answers to Stowell in our Case was not by Covin but by lawful Title And yet because it was not alledged that he had a good and Eigne Title it was held to be ill and not helped and the Iudgment was reversed The saying that Stowell ejected him c. Contra formam effectum Finis Warrant̄ praed ' or if it had been Contra formam effectum Conventionis praed ' is absurd and helps nothing For Stowell could not do so because he is not party to the Fine Jones for the Plaintiff It can never be intended that Stowell entred c. by a Title under us because it is alledg'd to be Contra formam effectum Finis Warrant ' praed ' Contra voluntatem ipsius J. W. eum a possessione sua Custodivit c. had it been by Lease under us the Defendant should have pleaded it
I doubt whether the Defendant could have demurred But certainly now the Iury have found all this it can never be intended as they would have it as to the Case that has beén cited between Kirby and Hansaker I say it is not so clearly alledged there as here It is not said there that the Lesseé was possessed and that the Recoveror entred into and upon his Possessions and ejected him 2. These words Contra formam c. are not in that Case 3. In that Case the Court of Kings Bench was of Opinion That the Verdict had made it good 4. The Roll of that Case is not to be found here is a man will make Oath that he hath searched four years before and after the time when that Case is supposed to have been and cannot find it Rainsford and Moreton were at first of Opinion That the Verdict had helped it For saith Rainsford If Stowell had Title under the Plaintiff it could not have been found that there was a breach of Covenant But afterwards they said that Kirby and Hansaker's Case came so close to it that it was not to be avoided and they were unwilling to make new Presidents Twisden That Book is so express'd that it is not an ordinary authority it is not to be waved But I was of the same Opinion before that Book was cited For here it is possible Stowell might have a Lease from Wootton since the Fine Now the warranty doth not extend to Puisne Titles The Defendant should have said that Stowell had Priorem Titulum c. when a good Title is not set forth in the Declaration to entitle the Plaintiff to his Action it shall never be helped There was an Action upon the Stat. of Monopolies for that the Defendant entred I suppose by pretext of some Monopoly-Commission c. detinuit certain goods But it was not said they were his the Plaintiffs and though we had a Verdict yet we could never have Iudgment In 3 Car. there was an Action brought upon a Promise to give so much with a Child quantum daret to any other Child and it was alledged that dedit so much and because that that it might be before the time of the promise it was held naught after Verdict It may be the Roll of Kirby versus Hansaker is not to be found no more than the Roll of Middleton versus Clesman reported Yelv. 65. But certainly Justice Crook and Yelverton were men of that Integrity they would never have reported such Cases unless there had been such There are many losses miscarriages and mistakes of this kind Pray where will you find the Roll of the Decreé for Titles in London yet I have heard the Iudges say They verily believe it is upon a wrong Roll. Nil Capiat per Bill Rex versus Neville INdictment for erecting a Cottage for habitation contra Stat. quasht because it was not said That any inhabited it For else it is no offence per Rainsford Moreton qui soli aderant Jemy versus Norrice A Writ of Errour was brought of a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in an Action upon a quantum meruit for Wares sold First One of them is unum par Chirothecarum But it is not said of what sort Twisden It is good enough however so it has been held de Coriis without saying Bovinis c. de Libris without saying what Books they were Secondly Another is parcella fili which it was said was uncertain unless it had been made certain by an Anglice For though it was agréed it had been good in an Indeb assumpsit yet in this Case there must vs a certainty of the debt Such a general word cannot be good no more than in a Trover Twisden If an Indeb assumpsit should be brought for 20 l. for Wares sold and no Evidence should be given of an agreement for the certain price I should direct it to be found especially But parcella fili séems to be as uncertain as paires of Hangings Cur. It is doubtful But however affirmetur nisi c. Foxwist al. versus Tremayneaut Trin. 21 Rot. 1512. V. Super. FOr the Plaintiff The two parties who are Infants may well sue by Attorney as they do The Authorities are clear 2 Cr. 441. 1 Ro. 288. Weld versus Rumney in 1650. Styles 318. We beg leave to mention especially what you Mr. Justice Twisden said there though indeéd we do not know nor can be very confident that it is reported right Twisden I do protest not one word of it true they went about But 3 Cr. 541. V. 5 Co. 29. 6 Co. 67. 6. and especially 378. is express in our Point In Rot. 288. num 2. Indeed there is a Quaere made because an Infant might by this means be amerced But that reason is a mistake for an Infant shall not be amerced Dyer 338. 1 Inst 127. a. 1 Ro. 214. Moreton I take the Law to be that where an Infant sues with others in auter droit as here he shall sue by Attorney for all of them together represent the Testator I ground my self upon the Authorities which have been cited and Yelv. 130. Also it is for the Infants advantage to sue by Attorney But if he be a Defendant he may appear by Guardian Popham 112. I think the parties may all joyn in this suit though perhaps in Hatton versus Maskew they could not For in that Case it appeared that the wife only who was Plaintiff was Executrix So he concluded that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffs Rainsford accordant This Case is stronger than where a single person is made Executor or Administrator For though Ro. 288. num 2. makes a Quaere of that yet Num. 3. which is our Case he agrees clearly with the Countess of Rutlands Case in 3 Cr. 377. 8. That the Infant as well as the other Executors shall sue by Attorney The Reasons objected on the contrary are That an Infant cannot make an Attorney and that he may be prejudiced hereby I answer That the Executors of full age have influence upon the Infants and they are entrusted to order and manage the whole business V. 1 Leon 74. And therefore Administration durante minoritate shall not be granted so in this Case he shall have priviledge to sue by Attorney because he is accompanied with those which are of full age I conclude I have not heard of any Authority against my Opinion and how we can go over all the Authorities cited for it I do not know Twisden contra This is an Action upon the Case for that the Defendant was indebted for damages clear received to the Testator's Vse And indeed I do not sée otherwise how it would lie Two questions have been made First Whether all the Executors may or must joyn I confess I have heard nothing against this viz. but that they may joyn But I cannot so easily as my Brothers slubber over all the Authorities cited viz. Hatton versus
Limitation of Estates A man deviseth a term to one for life the remainder to another for life and if the remainder man for life die without issue of his body begotten then to a stranger whether is this a good Limitation or not 50 51 c. V. A term setled in trust with remainders to persons not in being 114 115 V. Covenant to stand seiz'd A man Covenants to stand seiz'd to the use of his eldest Son and the Heirs-males of his body remainder to the use of the Heirs-males of his own body remainder to his own right Heirs 226 237 238 Limitation of Actions What Actions between Merchants are within the Statute of Limitations and what not 70 71 268 269 The Statute of Limitations how to be pleaded 89 Action upon the Case against a Sheriff for that he levied such a sum of money at the Plaintiffs Suit and did not bring the money into Court at the day of the return of the Writ Whether is this Action within the Statute of Limitations or not 245 Livery A man chosen by a Company in London to be of the Livery and refusing to serve cannot be committed 10 Livery deins le view A woman makes a Feoffment and gives Livery within the View then she marries with the Feoffee before he enters whether has this entermarriage destroyed the operation of the Livery within the view 91 M. Mandamus A Writ of Mandamus to the Master and Fellows of a Colledge in Oxford to restore a Fellow whether it lies or not 82 83 c. Market Action upon the Case for keeping a Market in prejudice of the Plaintiffs Market does well lie although the Defendant does not keep his Market on the same day that the Plaintiff keep his 69 Melius inquirendum V. 82 Misericordia Whether ought a Misericordia or a Capiatur to be entred upon a relicta verificatione 73 Misnosmer V. Cap. Excommunic Monopoly Whether is the Patent of Incorporation to the Canary-Company a Monopoly or not 18 Monstrans de faits The Plaintiff in Quare Impedit declared upon a Grant of an Advowson to his Ancestor and says in his Declaration Hic in cur ' prolat but has it not to shew moved That forasmuch as the Defendant had gotten the Deed into his hands the Plaintiff might take advantage of a Copy thereof which appeared in an Inquisition found temp-Edw sexti and denied 266 N. Non-claim DOes not bar a Title to enter for a Condition broken 4 Non-conformists A Case upon the Oxford-Act against Non-conformist-Ministers V. 68 Non-tenure Non-tenure pleaded in abatement 281 Non-tenure when a Plea in Bar and when only in abatement 249 250 Notice When requisite and when not and whether Infancy be any excuse in such case or not 86 87 c. 300 301 302 303 c. Novel-assignment in Trespass V. 89. Nusance It is no Nusance to stop a Prospect so the light be not darkned 55 Whether is it a Nusance for a Rope-dancer to erect a Stage in a Town or City 76 V. 168 169 V. 202 O. Oath EXtra Judicial Oath V. Action upon the Case Obligation Whether or no may a second Bond be given is satisfaction of a former 221 225 Officer Investiture does not make an Officer when he is created by Patent 123 Orphan A man brought to the Bar by Habeas Corpus being committed by the Court of Aldermen for marrying a City-Orphan 77 79 80 Outlawry V. 90. Oyer Of Letters Patents V. 69 P. Pardon WHat is pardoned by a Pardon of all Offences 102 Parliament V. Habeas Corpus Partners in Trade One of them becomes Bankrupt the other shall not be charged with the whole otherwise if one of them die 45 Pasture Whether is a Custom to have a several Pasture excluding the Lord a good Custom or not 74 Pension A Parson has a Pension by Prescription How may he recover it 218 Perjury In a Court-Baron indictable 55 Physicians The calling of a Physician does not Priviledge a person that 's chosen Constable 22 Pleading An Executor pleads several Judgments in Bar but for the last he does not mention when it was enter'd nor when obtain'd and the Plea was held to be naught upon a general Demurrer 50 A Surrender into the hands of two Tenants of the Mannor out of Court secundum consuetudinem c. without saying that there was a Custom in the Mannor to warrant such a Surrender 61 62 V. A customary way of Pleading in Bristow to an Action of Debt upon a Bond. 96 Pleading to an Inditement for not repairing the High-ways 112 Pleading in an Action upon the Case upon a promise to pay money in consideration of forbearance 169 V. Tit. Prerog Possessio fratris V. 120 Praemunire An Action upon the Statute of Praemunire for impeaching in the Chancery a Judgment given in the Kings Bench whether it lies or not 59 60 Prerogative Whether may the King relinquish his own and traverse the Title shewn for the party or not and in what Cases 276 277 278 Prescription A Prescription for Toll 104 105 231 232 A. prescribes for a way over B's ground to Black-acre and drives his Beasts over B's ground to Black-acre and then to a place beyond Black-acre adjudged upon a Demurrer That he could not lawfully do so 190 191 Presentment Quasht because it does not express before whom the Sessions were held 24 Printing Whether are the Letters Patents good in Law whereby the sole-Printing of Almanacks is granted to the Company of Stationers 256 257 Priviledge An Arch-Deacon priviledged from the Office of Expenditor to the Commissioners of Sewers 282 V. Tit. Physician Prohibition To stay proceedings upon a Libel against one for teaching School denied 3 To stay a Suit for calling a woman Whore deny'd 21 22 Incumbent of a Donative cited into the Spiritual Court for marrying without Licence prays a Prohibition denied 22 Whether shall a Prohibition go to an Inferiour Court for holding Plea when the cause of Action ariseth out of their Jurisdiction till after such time as the Defendant has pleaded to the Jurisdiction and that his Plea be disallowed 63 64 81 A Prohibition prayed for that in the Spiritual Court they cited the Minister of a Donative to take a faculty to Preach from the Bishop 90 Moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court because they proceeded to the Probate of a Will that contained devises of Lands as well as bequests of personal things 90 Prohibition to stay a Suit by a Proctor for his Fees denied 167 Promise How a Promise may be discharged 205 206 262 Q. Quare Impedit WHen in a Declaration in Quare Impedit the Plaintiff must alledge his Presentation tempore pacis and when he needs not 230 Process in Quare Impedit upon non-appearance of the Defendant by the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 12. 248 249 Two Judgments in a Quare Impedit 254 255 Que estate A thing that lies in grant may be claimed as appurtenant to a Mannor by a Que estate