be Fidi Rodes I know a Wife which is called Troth in English and she was called Trothia in Latin and it was good And all the Court adjudged this Writ good here 11. AN Action upon the Statute of Winch. was brought against a hundred in Gloucester Hue and 〈◊〉 and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that the money was delivered to a Carrier of Bristow to be carried to London who packed it up And as he was on his journey certain Malefactors came to him in an another Hundred and there took his Horse and Pack and led him into a Wood within this Hundred against which the action is brought And if this Hundred be guilty or no they prayed the advise of the Court And all the Justices agreed that this was a robbery in the first Hundred and not in the second for upon the first taking he was robbed but if the Carrier had led the Horse himself Possession then it should be adjudged to be in his own possession and no robbery untill he came into the second Hundred and if a man have money and the Malefactors take him in one Hundred and carry him unto another Hundred and there Rifle him this shall not be a robbery in the first but onely in the second Hundred for he is allwaies in possession per totam Curiam and Judgement was given accordingly So of the purse picked in the Kings Bench and the thief taken with the manner but a key being fastened to the purse still stuck in the pocket and 2 Justices against two that the man was still in possession of his purse and so no robbery 12. WAlmisly shewed Termor how a woman brought Dower against her two daughters and another and in truth the third was but a Termer and the Wife hath no cause of dower but that this was onely to make the Termer to lose his term for they all have made default at the grand cape and now he prayed to be received and shewed cause that the Husband made a lease for yeares and after the Lessee levied a fine to the Lessor and they granted and rendred back again to the Lessee for the same yeares rendring the same rent and the Statute of Gloucester is if the Farmour have c. that is if he may have covenant as in 19 Ed. 3. and here he may have covenant Ejectione firme and prayed to be received and shewed his plea. Shuttleworth You are at no mischief for you shall have an ejectione firme if you be ousted where she hath no cause of Dower Walmisley But we shall be put out of possession which shall be no reason Anderson I hold that a Termer may falsify by the Common law Falsify Shuttleworth But his lease is after our title of dower Lesser may plead destruction of dower Peryam although that it be after yet if he have matter which goeth in destruction of the Dower he shall falsify well enough as if she have title of Dower and five yeares pass after the fine levied And Anderson and Peryam said that the Statute of Gloucester was made that a Termer should not be put out of possession but here the Termer is named ideo quare And after at another day Shuttleworth moved it again Resceit of the partie to the Writ and said that the Termer shall not be received because he is named in the Writ and the Court was of the same opinion then but they said that he might plead speciall non tenure Shuttleworth first he ought to save his default for he commeth in upon the grand cape Rodes by 33 H. 6. 2. he may plead non tenure before default saved by Prisot there Shuttleworth Then I shall have judgement against the two which made default at the grand cape Conusance Curia you had best be advised lest the Writ should abate by non tenure of parcell Cemurier Shuttleworth by my Conusance of non tenure of parcell Difference all shall abate but if I demurr upon his plea then it shall abate but for one parcell 13. LEonard White brought a Formdon in Discender and declared of a gift in tayl made to his father Estoppell who died and the land descended to the elder brother of the Demandant who also died without Issue and so conveyed to himself as heir in tayl c. The Tenant pleaded that the elder brother had Issue a Daughter who levied a fine to him and he relied upon the fine and proclamation Inducement doth 〈◊〉 make a plea double Walmisly this Plea is double the one is the Issue the other the fine Curia forasmuch as he cannot come to the one without shewing the other it shall not be double also here he relieth upon the Estopple vide 18. E. 3. 25. Tit. Gard. per Wylly 14. A Formdon in descend by three brethren for lands in Gavelkind they were at Issue upon Assetz descended to the Demandants Assets in Gavelkind And the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Father of the Demandant was seised of those lands and by his Testament devised them to his three sonnes now Demandants and to their heires equally to be divided And if this shall be said a descent to them or no was the question because the Law would have done as much and therefore it shall be said Assetz But all the Court held the contrary and that they shall be joynt-Tenants or Tenants in common and then they shall not be in by the descent and so no Assetz and Anderson said that if a man devise to his sonne and heir in tayl he shall not take it by descent Peryam if a man may have any more benefit by the Devise than by the descent then he shall take by the Devise Eadem lex per Curiam if he devise his lands to his two daughters and heires they shall be joynt-Tenants and no coparceners è contra if he have but one son or one daughter only 15. IN the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer Venus were assembled according to the Statute of 27. Eliz. to reform errors in the Kings bench And Smaleman of the inner Temple shewed how an Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation against one Cheney as administrator who pleaded plenè administravit and the action was laid in Barkshire at Newbery and the Plaintif averred that the Defendant had Assetz at Westwood in the same County and the venire facias was of Newberry whereas it should have been of Westwood And this he assigned for Error And all the Court agreed una voce that it was Error and so the judgement was reversed but the Assetz being transitory might have been assigned at Newbery 17. ANother Writ of Error was there brought by the Lord Seymour against Sr. John Clifton upon a judgement given against him Amendment and assigned for error that the judgement was quod recuperet versus Edward Seymour
lawfull to sell such an Office 114. IN an Action of Debt upon an Escape Escape Popham Clinch and Gawdy sayd P. 36. Eliz. if a Prisoner in Execution escape and the Jaylor make fresh suit and before the re-taking the party bring his Action against the Jaylor now the Jaylor may not re-take the Prisoner as to be in execution for the Plaintif again but onely for his own indempnity but if the party doe not bring his Action then the Jaylor may re-take his Prisoner and he shall be in Execution again for the Plaintif Wast For by Popham this Case is like to Wast the which if it be repaired before the Action brought the party shall not have an Action 115. A. B. was Utlawed after Judgement Elegit after Vâ—lary and an Elegit was awarded against the Defendant Mr. Godfrey prayed a Supersedeas quia erronice emanavit for the party may not have any other manner of Execution but a Capias for a Fieri fac he may not have for the Queen is intituled to all his goods and an Elegit he may not have for by the Utlawry the Queen is intituled to all the profits of his Lands Feoffment by an outlaw Gawdy It appeares by 21 Hen. 7. 7. a. That the party Outlawed may make a Feoffment and so out the King of the Profits and so it seemeth in this Case But it is good to be advised 116. SR Henry Jones Knight Error in fine and remedy and I. his Wife the Wife being then within age levied a Fine of the lands of the Wife and a precipe quod reddat was brought against the Conusee which vouched the Husband and the Wife and they appeared in person and vouched over the common Vouchee which appeared and after made default whereby a Recovery was had and now the said Wife and her second Husband brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and another Writ of Error to reverse the Recovery by reason of the nonage of the woman and the court was of opinion to reverse the Fine but they would advise upon the Recovery for that the said Henry Jones Knight and his Wife appeared in person and vouched over and so the Recovery was had against them by their appearance and not by default and so it seemeth no Error Generall warranty destroieth titles and conditions and to prove that Gawdy cited 1 and 2 Mar. Dyer 104 and 6 H. 8. 61. Saver default 50. Also as this case is it seemeth that by generall entry into warranty the Error upon the Fine is gone as where a man hath cause to have a Writ of right or title to enter for a Condition broken or any other title to land and in a praecipe quod reddat of the same land is vouched and entreth generally into warranty by that the condition or other title is gone but upon examination it was found that the Recovery was before the Fine for the Recovery was Quindena Trin. and the Fine was tres Trin. And so the Recovery doth not give away the Error in the Fine 117. IN Evidence between Tutball and Smote the case was such Condition extinguished P. 36 Eliz. that a Termor for years granted his Term to I. S. upon condition that if the Grantee did not yearly pay x l. to Q. R. that the grant should be void after the Grantor died and made the Grantee his Executor and whether the Condition be extinguished or not was the question Popham and Gawdy said the Condition is extinguished for it is impossible for the Executor to enter upon himself Clinch Fenner è contra The debtor marrieth the Executor for he hath the Term jure proprio and the Condition as Executor and so he hath them as in severall capacities Cook It hath been adjudged where a man is indebted and marryeth with the Excutor and the Executor dyes yet this is no devastavit for the Husband hath been charged 118. RIchard Thorn Administrator of an Administrator and Jane his Wife as Administratrix of one I. Gime brought Debt of xx l. against I. S. And alleged that the Testator was Administrator of one Mary Gime which Mary Gime lent the money to the now Defendant Trin. 36. Eliz. and Judgement was given in the Common place against I. S. And upon the Writ of Error Error was assigned for that that the now Plaintif as Administrator of an Administrator brought this Action where the Administration of the first Testatators goods ought newly to have been committed by the Ordinary to the next of Kin and he to whom the Administration of the goods of the first Administrator is committed hath nothing to doe with them And so the Iudgement was Reversed 119. HUmble brought Debt against Glover for arrearages of rent Privity determined of both parts and the case was this that a man made a lease for term of years and after granted the Reversion to the Plaintif and after the Lessee for yeares assigned over his whole estate and interest and after this assignment rent was behind and the Grantee of the Reversion brought Debt against the first Lessee for rent due after his estate assigned over and whether Debt will lye against the Lessee after the assignment was the question and the opinion of all the Judges was that no Debt lyeth for the Grantee of the Reversion against the first Lessee after the assignment of his term for when the privily of the estate is determined of both parts no Debt lyeth and so the Plaintif was barred 120. IN Evidence between Maidston and Hall Maintenance Popham said that it was agreed in the Star Chamber if two are at issue in any Action It is not lawfull for any stranger to labour the Jury to appear for for such an Act one Gifford was fined in the Star-Chamber Giffords case Gawdy Truly the Law is so for labouring of Juries is maintenance 121. DIckâ—ns brought an action of trespass against Marsh Estaâ—e by Devise and a speciciall Verdict was found that R. D. being seised of certain lands in Fee had issue three children to wit John Toby and Mary and by his Will devised that after his debts paid he giveth all his goods lands and moveables unto his three children equally between them Altam There are two matters to be considered in the case the first is what estate the children have by this devise whether Fee simple or but for life the second is whether Joyntenants or Tenants in commn and as to the first point I think they have but an estate for life for it appeares 22 H. 6. 16. If I devise land to one without expressing what estate he shall have Dyer 23 Eliz. 371. he is but Tenant for life but if it be expressed in the devise No estate expressed that the Devisee shall pay 20. s to John S. there as the book is 24 H. 8. R. 125. the Devisee shall have Fee simple For the
he is Tenant sufficient before Office found Fenner True Sir but when the Office is found by relation thereof the Recovery is avoided Relation Anderson Truely the Office hath relation for the Possession of the Alien but it hath no such relation to say that the Alien never had it for then the Queen shall not have it but if the Alien were Tenant sufficient at the time of the Writ brought against him then the Remainder is utterly gone And all the Justices said that it is a strong case that the Queen shall have it and that the Remainder is gone And Rodes cited 27 Ass fol. 50. 8. PLympton brought an Action of Trespass against Dobynet Copyhold the Defendant pleaded that the place in which c. is Copyhold and pleaded a Grant to Southey which granted it to him c. The Plaintif replyed that long time before the Grant pleaded by the Defendant Alice Gooding was Lessee for life secundum consuetudinem manerii c. and that the Custom is that the Lord may grant Copies as well in Reversion as in Possession And that in 5 Eliz. the Lord Morley being Lord of the Mannor The Lord Morleys case granted to him a Copy in Remainder before the grant made to Southey which now came in Possession and that he entered untill c. The Defendant rejoyned that there is a custom in the Mannor that the Lord may grant Copies in reversion with the agreement and consent of the Tenant in possession and if any Copies be granted without consent of the Tenant in possession that then there is such a custom that such Grants shall be alltogether voyd absque hoc that they are devisable modo forma c. whereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law Walmisley This Plea of the Defendant is repugnant for by these words If any be granted he implyeth that there is such a custom and then when he saith absque hoc that there is such a custom this traverse is voyd and the Plaintif shall have Judgement by 9 H. 6. Allso he argued that this custom shall be voyd and cited 19 Ass the case of the command of St Johns and 2 Hen. 4. 19 Eliz. Custom what it is the Ejectione firme by Bill anu Attorney and he defined usage to be Constitutio ex diversis actionibus saepius iteratis Shuttelworth argued to the contrary and cited 37 Hen. 6. the case of Common and 26 Ed. 3. 9. GAwdy the Queens Serjeant rehearsed the case of Beverley in this manner Utlary Thomas Beverley brought a Quare impedit against the Ordinary and Gabriell Cornewell the Incumbent which was in of the presentation of the Queen and upon pleading there was a Demurrer entred up and before that was discussed Beverley was Outlawed at the suit of another The Case in an Action of Debt then Cornwell resigned his Benefice and the Queen presented him again whereupon he was instituted and inducted Then Beverley brought a Writ of Error in the Kings-bench and reversed the Outlary because that he was named of Hamby where there were two Towns of the same name and neither of them without an addition and now he brought a Scire facias to execute his first judgement against Cornwell who pleaded all the matter in bar and it seemed to him that the Plaintif shall be barred for by the Outlary of the Plaintif the presentation was forfeited to the Queen allthough that it was but a thing in action and thereupon he cited 2 Hen. 5. where a man had a Patronage with his Wife Patronage in right of his wife and was Outlawed c. then if by the reversall of the Outlary he shall be restored to the presentation and he sayd that he shall not for that it was a thing once lawfully executed and vested in the Queen and he cited 4 Hen. 7. where a man is attainted by Act of Parliament c. Allso the opinion of Brian there is a strong proof of this case And further he sayd that he was of counsell with a case in 26 Eliz. Restitution after a Scire faâ—â— where Debt was brought by Hanmer against Luddington and the Defendant was condemned and a Fieri facias issued to the Sherif who by virtue thereof sold a term of the Defendants and levyed the money thereupon and afterward the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and refused the Judgement the question was if he shall be restored to his term and it was adjudged that he shall not but onely to the money for which it was fold because the sale was once good and so he thought that the Plaintif ought to be barred VValmisley to the contrary For in our case Patronage when the Queen presenteth she hath gained a Patronage to her self untill we recover it again and this is the case of Ratcliffe in 35. For so long as the Incumbent which is presented continueth by that Induction in possession so long he which presented him is Patron Possession per Collow in 20 Ed. 4. and by 46 Edw. 3. tit Incumbent 19 Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit If the King bring a Quare impedit and hath title to recover yet the other is Patron untill his Clerk be removed a fortiore where the Writ is brought against the Incumbent of the King he is Patron untill he be removed then if nothing shall be forfeit to the Queen then it is to be considered because the Queen hath presented the same Defendant of new whether he shall be removed or no Acts done hanging the Writ and it seemeth clearly that he shall because he claimeth under this estate and this is done hanging the Writ and no act done hanging the Writ shall extort the Plaintif from his execution and surely the Writ is hanging untill execution be done and he cited 31 Hen. 6. Attorney If one make an Attorney he shall be Attorney untill execution be done and 21 Hen. 7. if the Defendant resign and a stranger is presented hanging the Writ yet the Plaintif shall remove the stranger Presentment and 20 Eliz. in Dyer accordeth with that notwithstanding that some there held the contrary If he come in by title by mony And to the like purpose is the case in 11 Hen. 4. of traverse of an Office Then for the Outlary that was avoydable by Plea Plea by the Statute by the Statute of 2 Hen. 5. per the Books in 22 Hen. 6. and 38 Hen. 6. Then if by the Outlary reversed he shall be restored and it seemeth that he shall for a man shall see a great difference between this case and the cases put For if a man in an Action deny his Deed and therefore pay a Fine to the King if after he reverse the Judgement yet he shall not be restored to the Fine because it is a by-thing and a thing collaterall and therefore he denyed the opinion of Brian Collateral thing in 4 Hen. 7. for it cannot be Law
Plaintif wherefore if we shall not allow this Plea we shall take the Defendant from his remedy to plead which God forbid And in 2 Ed. 4. fol. 6. b. In Trespass the Defendant shewed speciall matter in London where the Action was brought in Midlesex Tota Curia Nelson Prothonotarie hath shewed a president in 2 Ed. 4. where such a Plea as this was pleaded wherefore the Plea is good 6. NElson Trespass Prothonotary brought a Writ of Trespass against another in effect the case was thus The Abbot of Westminster was seised of Lands Vnity of possession of Common to which he had common in the Lands of a Prior afterwards by the Statute of Dissolutions as well the Lands of the Abbot as of the Prior were given to King Hen. 8. And after that the Dean of Westminster had a grant of the Mannor which the Abbot had and Nelson had the other Mannor which the Prior had into which a Tenant of the Deans put his beasts 11 H. 4. 5. 14 H. 4. 24 E. 3. 25. Br. Extinguishment 14 Ass pl. 20. claiming Common as once it was in the hands of the Prior and Nelson brought his Action of Trespass Walmisley moved that the Tenant should have his Common Peryam Is this a new case It hath been adjudged heretofore that by the union of possession the Common is gone Anderson to Walmisley Have you any reason why the Common shall not be gone Walmisley No my Lord if the Statute will not help us for the Statute is that the King shall have it in the same plight as the Abbot had it and the Abbot had Common ergo c. Windam So is the Statute but the Statute doth not say that it shall continue so in the hands of the King and it is impossible that it shall continue in the hands of the King as it was in the hands of the Abbot therefore the Common is gone Rodes assented 7. MOor brought a Quare impedit Quare impedit after Judgment had a Writ to the Bishop of Norwich and at the alias the Bishop returned that after the awarding of the first Writ and before the receipt of the second the Queen had presented the same Defendant by her Letters Patents who is admitted instituted and inducted so that c. Shuttleworth moved that the Ordinary might be amerced for his evill Return for when he had Judgement to Recover he ought to have the effect of his Judgement for else it shall be in vain to sue a Quare impedit and thereupon he avouched the case in 21 Hen. 7. 8. 21 Eliz. 364. Dyer that the other Clerk shall be removed Anderson the Return is not good for me seemeth in a Quare impedit when one which hath title Paramount presents Title Paramount en qu. imp hanging the Writ then allthough the Plaintif hath Judgement to Recover yet his Clerk shall not be removed but if it be under or after the title of the Plaintif or Defendant then his Clerk shall be removed and here he hath returned that the Queen hath presented the same man which is Defendant and therefore he shall be amerced Windham to the same intent and cited the case of Long 5 Edw. 4. fol. 115. b. Rodes cited the case in Fitzherbert Quare non admisit fol. 47. k. and Bassets case in 9 Eliz. Dyer Alit en pr. quod reddat fol. 260. Anderson In a Praecipe quod reddat if the Sherif return upon the habere facias seisinam that another hath recovered by title Paramount against the Defendant and hath execution he shall be amerced Peryam How doth it appear to us that he which the Queen hath presented is the same Defendant Shuttleworth By the Return Peryam No Sir and therefore it is good to be advised And after Windham doubted for the same cause Et adjornatur 8. TRistram Ayscough Dower and Eulaleia his Wife brought a Writ of Dower of the endowment of her first Husband the Defendant pleaded in bar that an Annuitie was granted to her first Husband and her self in recompense of her Dower which she after his death accepted and the Plaintif replyed quod recusavit praedict annuitatem after the death of her husband Gawdy The Plea is nor good Anderson Your intent is Disagreement in pais for that she disagreed in the Country and not in a Court of Record that the disagreement shall not be good but I think not so for if she say in the Country that she will not have the sayd Annuity this is a good refusall and if she once disagree she can never agree afterwards quod tota Curia concessit but peradventure recusavit is no good pleading 9. FRancis Windham Quid juris clamat one of the Justices of the Common Pleas brought a Quid juris elamat against the Lady Gresham to have Attornment of certain lands comprised within the note of a Fine levied to him by one R. Read The Lady pleaded that certain persons were seised of those Lands and held them of King Hen. 8. by Knights service and enfeoffed W. Read and the Lady then his Wie to have and to hold to them and the heirs of the husband who devised the reversion after the death of the Lady to the sayd R. Read in tayl the remainder c. and that the said R. Read levyed the Fine c. whereupon Windham demurred in Law Gawdy The Plea is not good for divers causes the one is for the pretence of the Tenant for that the Lands were held by Knights service the Devise is voyd for the third part so that therein the Conisor hath nothing but she doth not shew who had the reversion of the third part which she ought to shew and thereupon he vouched 30 Ed. 3. fol. 7. 34 Ed. 3. quid juris clamat 14 E. 3. Fitzh Quid juris cl The Defendant said that he held not of the Conisor he ought to shew who had the inheritance and 30 Hen. 6. fol. 8. in Wast brought by Radford Another cause is for that in the end of her Plea she demandeth Judgement Eisdem si pro eisdem duabus partibus she ought to Attorn and she doth not speak of any two parts before and therefore it is not good and vouched 7 Ed. 6. in the Comentaries Parliament held praedict 28 Ap. 9 Edw. 4. bona praedict J. S. and doth not speak of any J. S. before Then for the matter in Law for that the Conisor was but Tenant in tayl this notwithstanding it seemeth she ought to Attorn and therupon he cited the case in 48 E. 3. fol. 23. in per quae servicia 24 E. 3. Tenant in tayl of a reversion of a Mannor levies a Fine the Tenant for life ought to Attorn And 3 Ed. 3. quid juris c. It is there ruled that Tenant for life shall Attorn upon a Fine levied by Tenant in tayl and therefore she c. And by the opinion of
the Court the exception si pro eisdem duabus partibus made the Plea evill without question and therefore gave judgement for Windham that he should have Attornment but they said nothing to the other points 10. SHuttelworth came to the Bar Verdict and shewed how an Ejection firm was brought of an entry into certain Lands the Defendant pleaded not guilty and thereupon the Jury found that he entred into one moity and not into the other and this he alleged in Arrest of Judgement Anderson It seemeth that Judgement shall not be given for this is an Action personall and is not like to a Praecipe quod reddat Rodes It seemeth the contrary by 21 Edw. 4. fol. 16. b. fol. 22. see there the case intended Anderson The cases are not alike 11. IN the Exchequor Chamber before all the Justices c. the case was such John Capell gave the Mannor of How-Capell and Kings-Capell in the County of Hereford to Hugh Capell in tayl the remainder to Rich. Capell in tayl with divers remainders over the Donor dieth Hugh hath issue William and dieth Richard grants a rent charge of fifty pound to Antony his son William selleth the Land to Hunt by fine and recovery with Voucher and dieth without issue Antony distreineth for Arrearages and the Tenant of Hunt brings a Replevin and A. avows the taking whereupon the Plaintif demurs in Law Fenner It seemeth that the Avowant shall have Return and first I will not speak much to that which hath been agreed here before you that a Remainder may be charged well enough for by the Statute the Remainder is lawfully invested in Richard and I agree well that no Formdone in a Remainder was at the Common Law and so are our Bookes in 8 Ed. 2. and Fitzh in his Nat. brev saith that it is given by the equity of the Statute At the Common Law there was no Formdone in discender now it is given by the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 1. For in novo casu erit novum remedium apponendum And I have taken it for Law that when a thing is once lawfully vested in a man Lawful vesture it shall never be devested without a lawfull Recovery and here the Recovery doth not touch the Rent and I think that allthough the Remainder was never executed in possession yet the Grantee of the Rent shall confess and avoyd it well enough The Fine is not pleaded here with proclamation and therefore it is but a bare discontinuance in proof whereof is the case in 4 of Ed. 3. Tenant in tayl makes a discontinuance Distress per grantee before entrie of the grantor yet he in Reversion may distrein for his service And if there be Tenant for life the Reversion to a stranger and he in Reversion grant a Rent charge Tenant for life is disseised and dye the Grantee of the Rent shall distrein allthough that he in Reversion will never enter And so if Tenant in tayl the Remainder to the right heirs of I. S. make a Feoffment in Fee upon the death of the Tenant in tayl without issue Droit heir de I. S. the right heir of I. S. shall enter well enough And he put Plesingtons case in 6 R. 2. Fitzh quod juris clamat 20. 8 R. 2. Fitzh Annuity 53. And the case in Littleton Dyer fol. 69. a. pl. 2. 22 Ed. 3. fol. 19. One grant a Rent charge to another upon condition that if he dye his heir within age Rent ch sur cond that the Rent shall cease during the minority yet his Wife shall recover her Dower when the heir cometh to full age Dower Perk. 327 Which cases prove that allthough the estate whereupon the grant is be in suspence when the grant ought to take effect yet the grant shall take effect well enough and if Tenant in tayl and he in remainder had joyned this had been good clearly And 8 Ed. 3. 43 Ed. 3. Tenant in tayl to hold without service the remainder to another to hold by service if Tenant in tayl in this case had suffered a Recovery and dyed without issue I think the Lord in this case shall distrein for the service then I suppose that the fine in the principall case shall not exclude the Grantee from his rent for there is a difference between jus in terra Jus in terra Prox. advoc and jus ad terram for I think that no fine shall defeat jus in terra and 26 H. 8. fol. 3. a. b. if I grant you proximam advocationem and after suffer the Advowson to be recovered the Grantee shall falsifie in a Quare impedit Then whether this recovery shall avoyd the rent or no and I think no for this case differs and now the recovery is had against Tenant in tayl for the remainder here is out of him by the fine and in the Coniâ—ee and the recovery doth not disprove the interest before for 8 Hen. 4. fol. 12. recovery against Tenant in tayl who dieth before execution sued And 44 Ed. 3. recovery of the rent is not a recovery of the homage Rent homage unless it be by title And here there is not any recompense to him in the remainder and therefore there will be a difference in this case and where there is a recompense Annuity for Tithes fol. 7. Hen. 6. if a person grant an Annnity for Tithes Nomine paenae it is good but if there be a nomine paenae it is not good and 7 lib. Ass an Annuity granted untill he be promoted to a benefice Promotion to a benefice it ought to be of as great value as the Annnity and 26 Edw. 3. the Church ought not to be ligitious and 22 Ed. 3. two men seised in Fee-simple exchange for their lives c. and 14 Hen. 4. the King may grant a thing which may charge his people without Rent for a release c. And 44 Ed. 3. rent granted for a release by Tenant in tayl is good and shall bind and charge his issue And so he seemeth that the Avowant shall have return Walmisley to the contrary For first it hath been held that the charge at the beginning is good and so I hold the Law bnt how Charge contingent or in what manner that is the question 38 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be and he in reversion grant a rent charge it is good but it shall be quando acciderit 33 lib. Ass 5 Ed. 4. fol. 2 b. But this case is out of the Books remembred for there the remainder nunquam accidit and therefore shall never be charged for as I hold when he in remainder chargeth he chargeth his future possession and not his present interest Sci fa. de rem View for if a Sci. fa. should issue to execute this remainder he shall demand the Land and before the remainder falleth he hath but quasi jus Attornment al rent ch
Priority which is not corporall neither ought it to be put in view in Assise and 21 Hen. 6. a. Tenant of the Land shall Attorn upon the grant of a rent charge and 33 Ed. 3. Priority shall hold place when the remainder falleth and not when it is granted 17 Ed. 2. and Dyer Tr. 23 Eliz. pl. 1. Then Sir when the foundation out of which the rent is issuing is gone the rent is allso gone and therefore let us see what authority Tenant in tayl hath in the remainder At the Common Law there was no Formdone in descender or remainder and the Statute of W. 2. cap. 1. provides but for two persons viz. he in reversion and the issues but Formdone in remainder is taken by the equity 50 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be the remainder in tayl to another the remainder in fee to the Tenant for life and he makes wast Wast Bargain de remain Tenant in remainder shall punish him and Fitzh nat br fol. 193. a. Cui in vita by a wife which was Tenant in tayl upon the alienation of her husband And I think that if he in remainder bargain his remainder that it is voyd and he cannot grant to another that he shall dig in the soyl for by 2 Hen. 7. he in reversion cannot doe so 12 Ed. 4. Recovery suffered shall bind the issue 7 Ed. 3. no attaint lieth for him in remainder of a verdict given against Tenant for life Nul attaint pur tenant in rem then in this case he in remainder cannot enter and the Grantee shall not be in a better estate than his Grantor and then if he shall never enter frustra est illa potentia qua nunquam reducitur in actum The reason for the grant is good for when Tenant in tayl dyeth without issue he in remainder shall be in by the first gift in proof whereof is 33 Hen. 6. he in remainder shall be in ward Ward and in 11 Hen. 4. in Formdone in descender Formdone he shall say that the possession was given to his father Prebendary And a Prebendary cannot charge before induction Ioyntenants But if two Jointenants be and the one charge all and the other disclaimeth the charge is good from the beginning And the Recoverer here is not under the charge for allthough he hath that estate which he in remainder should have if Tenant in tayl had not aliened yet is he a meer stranger and in by another title 10 Ed. 3. If two Jointenants be Charge per Ioyntenant and the one charge this is good conditionally that he which chargeth shall survive And if Tenant pur auter vie charge and die occupans shall hold it discharged So in this case for he is not in of this possession Moreover there is a mischief if this charge be good for then the Land may be charged by two severall persons at once which shall not be suffered but yet if cestui que use charge and the Feoffees charge both are good for the one is by the Common Law Charge per cest que use Feoffees 28 Ed. 3. 10. b. and the other by the Statute Law So if Lessee for years charge and he in reversion charge and after Lessee for years surrender but this is in severall respects and I put this case for Law Ch. per lessee per enreversion that if he in the remainder bind himself in a Statute Merchant Stat. Merch. per test en rem ne charge le poss this shall not charge the possession And if in this case he will grant the rent over none ought to Attorn and therefore voyd and Littleton saith that he in remainder shall not falsifie No attornment Falsifying and 26 Hen. 8. the Grantee of lessee for years shall not falsifie for the nature of falsifying is properly to find a fault wherefore it should not be good and what fault can he find in this case surely none Successor lie per confession 4 Hen. 7. 1. a. 20 Hen. 6. Abbot confesseth an Action the Successor is bound And further it is within the Statute of 27 El. for fraudulent deeds and we need not to plead the covin for the Statute is generall Fraudulent faits and vouched Wimbish case in the Comentaries and so the Replevin is maintainable And after at the motion of the Justices the Defendant agreed that the Plaintif should amend his Plea and allege the Covin Et adjornatur untill Michaelmas Term following because there were so many Demurrers hanging to be argued in Trinity Term next But afterwards judgement was given against the Rent charge 12. KIng Hen. 8. gave certain lands to Sir Edward Bainton Trespass Knight and to the heirs males of his body engendred who had issue Andrew and Edward and dyed Andrew afterwards convenanted with the Lord Admirall Thomas Seymer that he would convey an Estate of those Lands to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee and in like manner the Lord Seymer convenanted to convey an Estate of other Lands to himself for life the remainder to Andrew Bainton in Fee Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine and executed the estate according to the covenant on his part Afterwards the Lord Seymer before performance of the covenant on his part was attainted of High Treason and all his Lands forfeited to King Edward the sixth who dyed without issue and the Lands descended to Queen Mary to whom Andrew Bainton sued by Petition and shewed how she had those Lands to the disinherison of him and his heirs and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents ex certa scientia ex merâ— motu c. granted to Bainton all those Lands and Tenements which he had covenanted to convey to the Lord Seymer and all reversions thereof in as ample manner as she had them Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua she granted all reversions claims and demands qua ad manus suas devenerunt ratione c. aut in manibus suis existunt aut existere deberent Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine of those Lands to one Segar in Fee and dyed without issue then Edward Bainton entred and Segar brought his Action of Trepass Puckering It seemeth that the entry of Edward Bainton is congeable and so the Action not maintainable First let us see what passeth by this Grant of Queen Mary to Andrew Bainton and then whether a Fine levyed by Tenant in tayl the reversion being in the Queen be a bar to the tayl by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. The first Fine as it is pleaded is not pleaded with proclamations and therefore but a discontinuance and remains but as at the Common Law At the Common Law before the Statute of Dâ—nis conditionalibus a Fine levyed was a bar to all men for all Inheritances were Fee simples then by that Statute it was ordained Quod neque per factum neque feofamentum of the Tenant
6. the Priors case Note that Puckering then said privily to Shuttelworth is not the book contrary to that which he hath vouched for he vouched the Book contrary to that which Puckering had done before Shuttelworth No Sir but the record is contrary to the Book quod nota and when she granteth ex certa scientia it shall be taken beneficial for the party 1 H. 7. 13. omnia debita released to the Sherif and 29 Ed. 3. the King seised the lands of a Prior alien c. Difference per enter interest prerogative Touts droits poss per fine Fine puis disseisin ou discont alit de recovery and there is a difference between the cases put and this case for when the Queen makes a Grant all matters of interests may pass by the words but matters of prerogative as in the cases put by my brother Puckering cannot pass for they are not within the words but interests are To that which hath been sayd that he was not seised of any estate tayl this is not any argument for if he had three rights by the Fine all are gone and passed to the Conisee for if he be disseised or discontinue and then levy a Fine this is a bar but otherwise it is of a recovery Lessee purâ—ans en reversion poss diversity for that is no bar but of an estate tayl And as to the case of Saunders that lessee for years need not to make claim the case was not so but the case was of a lease inreversion and he had never entred and therefore it was but as a common or a rent but if it be a lease in possession he is bound as in Zouches case Then because the King is in possession it hath been sayd that it is no bar but this seemeth to be no reason for the Statute began with the King and the Preamble seemeth to induce it and the third saving of the Statute is by force of any gift in tayl so this is generall And because he cannot discontinue therefore can he not make a bar Non sequitur For he cannot discontinue and yet a Fine levyed is a good bar and the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. doth not impair this opinion but it was to take away the doubt moved in 29 Hen. 8. Allthough indeed the Law was all wayes clear in the case as it was agreed by all the Judges in Stowels case and the words of the Statute of 34 Hen. 8. that the recoveries shall be no bar doth not extend but to the words going before as in the case in Dyer that a man had not done any act but that c. And the Queen in this case hath not any prejudice for she shall have the rent with the reversion And as for Jacksons case that maketh for me for the question of the case there was that the remainder shall be gone and we ought not to take regard to that which is sayd indirectly in the case but the point of the Judgement is the matter and for authority it is direct in Dyer fol. 26. pl. 1. and therefore it seemeth that the entayl is barred and so the action maintainable Anderson You have well argued but for any thing that I see none of you shall have the Land Grant for the Queen is deceived in her grant and therefore the Patent is voyd and then it shall be seised into the Queens hands And therefore you had best to be advised and we will hear what can be sayd for this point at another day And note that it was sayd by the Justices 3 Costs in forcible entry that if a man recover in a Writ of forcible entry upon the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. by confession or by default he shall recover his treble costs 22 Hen. 6. 57. 13. ONe Colgate brought a Replevin against Blyth who avowed the taking Replevin and thereupon they were at Issue in Kent and the Jury found a speciall Verdict The case in effect was this Husband and Wife are seised of Lands in right of the Wife And she by Indenture in her own name agrees that a Fine shall be levyed and limits the uses by Indenture After the Husband by another Indenture agrees that a Fine shall be levied and limits other uses and afterwards a Fine is levied by them both now whether the uses limited by the Husband shall bind the Land of the Wife in Perpetuity The Jury prayed the advise of the Court c. For if they be good they found for the Plantif if not then they found for the Defendant Shuttleworth Serjeant It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plantif For the use limited by the Husband shall be a good limitation in Perpetuity Rent ch ou Lease per feme covert and first the Wife only cannot limit any use for her Acts are of no Validity And therefore if a Wife grant a Rent charge or make a Lease and the Grantee enter this is a Disseisin 43. Ed. 3. Deeds given by a Feme Covert are void 17. lib. Ass a VVife levies a Fine Executory Fine executory executed per feme covert sur grant render as a sole Woman and after a Scire fac Is brought to Execute this Fine the Husband shall extort the Execution and if it were a Fine Executed then it is a Disseisin to the Husband Vse quod For an use is a Declaration how the Land shall continue in Perpetuity and the Feoffees are nothing but Instruments or Organs to convey the use for the Land yields the use and not the Feoffees then when the Wife which is under the Power of her Husband Limitation per infant quaere limits an use this is void for I hold for Law if an Infant limit uses and after levy a Fine and do not Reverse it during his Nonage yet the limitation shall not bind him and so of a man non compos mentis Non compos mentis And so it was ruled in the Court of Wards where a naturall Ideot made a Declaration of uses and levied a Fine accordingly Ideot naturall that yet it shall be to the use of himself And then in our case the Limitation by the Wife cannot be good but her Will depends upon the Will of her Husband and the expressing of the use by the Husband shall be good Estate disseisin assumsit al feme For if an Estate be made to a Wife if the Husband seaven years after agree it is good and so it is of a Disseisin to a use so ofan Assumpsit to the Wife 27 Hen. 8. in Jordans case 1 Hen. 7. in Doves case and in a Praâ—cipe quod reddat the default of the Wife shall be the default of the Husband Default del feme because she is Compellable to the Will of her Husband by the Intendment of the Law 21. lib. Ass A man seised of Land in Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee
Livery per baron and would have made Livery but the Wife would not agree to the Livery yet notwithstanding the contradiction of the Wife the Livery was Adjuged good 33 Hen. 6. Husband and Wife are Plantifs in an Assise Nonsuite del feme and the Husband would Prosecute but the Wife would be Nonsuite the act of the Husband shall be accepted and the act of the Wife rejected So if the Husband will make an Attourny and the Wife wil dissavow him Attourny yet he shall be their Attourny And as I think this Limitation by the Husband shall bind the Wife in perpetuity Case per fine indentare Difference Juris clamat For if the Husband make a Lease of the wifes Land for 100 years the Wife may avoid it after his death but if after they both Levy a Fine the Lease shall be good-for ever And 11 Hen. 4. He in Reversion and one which hath nothing Levy a Fine quid juris clamat shall be brought against them both And as I conceive it it shall be counted her folly Reentry per condition that will take such a Husband as will Limit such uses For if a Wife hath an Estate in Land upon condition for not payment of Rent that the Feoffor shall reenter if she take a Husband which doth not pay the Rent whereby the Feoffor or his Heires reenter the Estate of the Wife is utterly defeated And in 4 Ed. 2. A woman Tenant takes a Husband Cessavit who ceaseth by two yeares whereby the Lord bringeth a Cessavit and recovereth the Inheritance of the Wife she shall be bound And this appeareth in Fitzh in Cui invita 21. And it shall be so if the Wife hath but a Freehold Wast as it is in 3 Ed. 3. A woman Lessee takes a Husband who maketh Wast whereby the Land is recovered and 48 Ed. 3. fol 18. Husband and Wife sell the Land of the Wife this is onely the sale of the Husband but if after they Levy a Fine this shall bind the Wife And for express Authority it is the case in Dyer Joynture fol. 290. a pl. 2. And so it is a Common case if a man seised of Lands takes a Wife who hath a Jointure in his Land and he makes a Limitation of uses and after they both Levy a Fine this shall be the Limitation by the Husband because it shall be intended that the Wife consented if it doth not appear to the contrary Whereby the Declaration of the use here by the Husband shall be good to bind the Wife and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plantif Feâ—ner to the contrary for here the Inheritance is in the Wife and where the Husband limits further than he hath Authority there the Law shall make a Declaration of the uses for the Husband cannot Limit uses of that which he hath not 21 Ed. 3. A man takes a Wife seised of Lands in Fee Atteynder del feme and before that the Husband was intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie the Wife was attainted of Treason Homage the Land shall be forfeit and 44 Ed. 3. He shall not make Homage Conusans before he be intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie 12 R. 2. Conusans shall be made by the Bayley of the Husband in the name of the Husband and Wife Warranoy And in this case the Conisee is in in the per by the Wife and Warranty made to the Husband shall inure to the Wife and 18 Ed. 3. A man seised of a Mannor in right of his Wife Villain to which there is a Villain regardant the Villain Purchaseth Lands the Husband shall be seised of the Perquisite in right of his Wife And yet otherwise it is where a man is Lessee for years of a Mannor to which c. For he shall be seised of the Perquisite in his own Right Divorce 12. lib. Ass If he be Divorced his Estate is gone Lease Rent ch diversity And I agree to the case put by my Brother Shut Where the Husband makes a Lease for years and after he and his Wife levy a Fine there the Lease shall be good but if the Husband grant a Rent charge and after he and his Wife Levy a Fine I do not agree that this is good for in the first case the Conisee found one which had an Interest in the Land but not in the last Then Sir here the Husband hath no power to Limit the use for the Land of his Wife to indure for ever Feoffee al use 28 Hen. 8. The Feoffece to use at the Common Law Limits an use to a stranger this Devesteth the first use but if he limit is to cestui que use then it is an ancient use and not new And so it is if Tenant for life and he in Reversion levy a Fine this shaâ—l be to the use of him in Reversion 2 Loyntenants And so if two Joyntenants be in Fee and they limit severall uses this shall be good according to their limitations for the Moities of either of them and for no more And if Husband and Wife levy a Fine to the use of the Husbands Sonne Fits del baron yet this is to the use of the Wife but if he be the Wifes Sonne allso then this is a good consideration and the use shall be accordingly And these cases I put to this intent that when a man limits an use which is repugnant Vse repugnant or further than he hath Authority the Law shall make a Declaration of the same use for Bracton saith Nemo potest ad alterum plus juris tranferre quam ipse habet And I take the Law if Husband and Wife levy a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and render back to the Wife in Tail Fine levie de terres del feme Oâ—e râ—eder al feme en tail and the Husband dye and the Wife discontinue that this is not a Purchase of the Husband within the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. And so it was here adjuged in 18. of Eliz. in Alexanders case And I agree to that which hath been said that the Wife only cannot limit uses but because the Jury hath found for â—he Defendant if the limitation by the Husband be not good as I think it is not then Judgement shall be given for the Defendant Concessum Adjornatur 14 WIlliam Knight Eject firm as Eessee for yeas to Sir John Fortescne and Rich. Thikston Gentleman brought an Executione firme against W. Breâ—h of one Mesnage with the Appurtenances in Themilstreet in the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury appeared at the Bar and Evidence given on both sides And at the length the Plantif Demurred in Law upon the Evidence given for the Defendant Demurrer al evidence and thereupon the Jury were discharged And now Gawdy the Queens Serjeant
still for in 31 Edw. 3. an advowson descended to three persons and the youngest is in ward to the King and he granted it to Queen Philip his Wife Advoson to 3 parceners and she granted it over to the Earl of Arundell who granted it to the eldest parcener the Church became voyd the King had the presentation for when the King was possessed of the wardship of the youngest he was intitled to present for all and when he granted the ward over this did not devest the title of the two eldest which was vested in him before and 37 Hen. 6. the Grant of the King upon a false suggestion is voyd False suggestion and in Littleton he shall have account against Executors and yet the Law is clear Account that an Action of Account will not lie against Executors so for all those Reasons Judgment shall be given for the Plaintif Several reserâ—ations Fenner to the contrary And first I agree that they are severall reservations and so is the case which hath been remembred in 8 Ed. 3. A Lease was made of eight Acres of land reserving eight shillings of rent viz. for every Acre 12 d. thiâ— is severall and to that which hath been sayd that the condition is a proviso I deny that for a proviso Provisio quid sit as me seemeth either is in the affirmative that a thing shall be done or in the negative that it shall not be done but here it is neither directly affirmative nor negative and therefore they have found it without commission Agreement but I confess that agreement extends to rent 22 Hen. 6. 14 Hen. 8. then the Jury which was of Mtdlesex have found the four usuall Feasts in London viz. St Johns c. and this as it seemeth they cannot doe because it is a thing in another County especially they being but an Inquest of Office Further they have found that 37 s was behind at one Feast and this is impossible for then the entire rent should amount to 7 l. And further the Lessors have purchased the reversion before the return of the Inquisition and Commission and then the Queen cannot be intitled because she hath not the Freehold for it hath been adjudged here that if a man fell his lands and afterwards makes livery thereof and after inrolls the sale this shall not have relation to the date of the deed because it takes effect by the livery which was before the inrolment And 8. Edw. 3. Feoffment puis atteynder A man attainted of Treason makes a feoffment of his land after he is restored yet he shall not have the land yet if he had not made the feoffment he should have been restored to the land with the mean profits Then if the King grants the reversion if he shall have the condition remaining and I think not for the King hath it by express words of the Statute as the Prior had it and if the Prior had granted parcell of the reversion De percell de Reversion the entire condition had been gone and the King shall be in the same case for Cessavit is given by the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 21. eodem modo as in the Statute of Gloucester cap. 4. This doth not ly of an estate tayl no more than a Cessavit by the Statute of Glouc. 8 Ed. 2. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Defendant De Term. Trinitat Anno xxviij Eliz. Reg. 1. ROdâ—s Justice Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif First I agree that they are severall rents and yet this question doth not goe to the overthrow of the Action in proof whereof both great reason and authority is copious For if the Lessor had entred into parcel this had not suspended the entire rent or if the reversion of parcel thereof were granted this shall carry no more than that which is granted so it was held by the Justices when it was granted to Cordall Parcel entred into And 2 Hâ—n 6. if I reserve an entire rent and the Lessee will pay but parcell c. 17 Ed. 3. fol. 52. by Sharde 11 Ed. 3. lib. Ass If I make a Lease of two Acres reserving for the one Acre x. s to me and to mine heirs and for the other Acre x. s generally And Dyer fol. 308. b. Lib. Ass pl. 23. If three Coparceners be and rent be reserved for equality of partition but one Scire fac shall be brought for it is brought but upon one record 1. Scire fac and Littleton pl. 316. but one action of debt for Tenants in common but severall Avowries so I hold that they be severall rents in this case and yet but one condition And for that let us see if by grant of parcel the entire condition be gone In the case of a common person it is all gone as it was adjudged here in Hill last where a man makes a Lease for years reserving xx l. for rent Sum in gross and rent reserved upon cond and allso a sum in gross of xxvl was to be paid to the same Lessor upon condition if the rent or sum in gross were behind then a re-entry to be made Afterwards the Lessor took an Estate back again of parcell of the term the sum in gross was not payd and it was adjudged that he shall not take advantage by the condition for when he took an estate back again the rent was suspended and then for the sum in gross he shall not re-enter because the condition was entire Cond entire but all though that the case of a common person be so yet the Princses case differs for she shall have her Prerogative and for the Preheminence which the Queen shall have I referre you to the argument of Iustice Weston in the case of the Lord Barkley Coment And that the Queen shall have her Prerogative in a condition I will remember the case of the Abesse of Sion 38 Hen. 6. 21 Hen. 7. the King may make a feoffment in fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien Feoffment in fee upon cond reservation and 2 Hen. 7. 35 H. 6. he may reserve a rent to a stranger and 21 Eliz. the Queen grants her debt to another and he in reasonable time will not prosecute the Queen may take it again gain Grâ—â—t of a debt and may sue And allso Cranmers case where King Hen. 8. gave lands to the use of him for life and after to the use of his Executors for twenty yeares Rent charge after atteynder after he was attainted the Queen shall have this rent as a rent charge and yet she had the reversion before And in reason it seemeth the Queen may apportion her condition for if this condition by the grant to Cordall shall be avoyded four principles shall be overthrown for it is a principle That the King shall not be deceived in his grant 2.
for it is a maxim Nullum tempus occurrit Regi Peryam If the Freehold be in the Alien untill office found Trespass if a trespass be committed who shall punish it for he shall have no Action Fenner That is true and so it is of a Monk if he be a disseisor Monk and yet the freehold is in him Shuttelworth And so it is of a person atteinted Atteynted person and yet before office found the freehold is not in the Queen Rodes It is Dyer 11 Eliz. fol. 283. Feoffment to use If a man enfeoffee an Alien and a Denison to his use that the Queen shall have the moity whereby it seemeth that the confirment is voyd Anderson I hold this rule for certain that in every feoffment there is feoffer and feoffee and if there be a feoffee he must of necessity take wher by I think the confirmation is good Rodes Is this case hanging in this Court Fenner No Sir Windham Wherefore then doe you move it in this Court And afterwards the question being demanded of Shuttelworth by divers Barristers he made answer Truly in my opinion it is not in the Queen before office found and therefore I think the confirmation is good Quaere 5. AN Attorney of the Common Pleas brought an action of debt against another Misdemeaner whereupon he was arrested in the Country and when he came to London the Attorney caused him to be arrested in London for the same debt and this was shewed to the Court and the Attorney called to whom Anderson said if a man be sued here for a debt and after be arrested in another Court for the same debt the penaltie is fine and imprisonment and that is both the law and the custom of this Court wherefore then have you done this surely we will send you to the Fleet for your labour Attorney I beseech you my Lord consider my estate Anderson I have well considered it and that is that you shall goe to the Fleet and therfore Warden of the Fleet take him to you Windham We will punish such gross faults in you more severely than in others because you are an Attorney here and your fault is so much the greater by how much you are skilful in the law and customs of this Court wherefore you shall goe to the Fleet. De Term. Mic. Anno xxix Eliz. 1. IN the case of Sellenger Annuity it was said by Anderson and agreed by the Court that if a man grant an Annuity out of Land and hath nothing in the Land that yet this shall be good to charge the Grantor in a Writ of Annuity and in the same case it was allso agreed by the Court that if a man grant an Annuity to a Woman who takes a Husband and after Arrerages do incur and the Wife dye so that the Annuity is determined that the Husband shall have an Action of debt for the Arrerages by the Common Law Shuttleworth This is not remedied by the Statute of Arrerages of Rents and then at the Common Law it is but a thing in Action Peryam An Annuity is more than a thing in Action Windham He may grant it over and so the opinion of the whole Court was that debt was maintenable 2. AT the same day it was said by Anderson Executor and not gainsaid that if an Executor plead ne unque administer come executor yet afterwards he may take the Administration upon him and well enough be Executor 3. IN a Replevin by Bosse against Hawtrey Triall by provise they were at Issne Termino Mic. An. 28. 29. And Bosse had a venire facias in Termino Mic. retournable in Termino Hill and after in Termino Hill took an alias retournable in Termino Pasch and so awarded it in the Roll of Mic. to the intent that the matter should not be tried at the Assises in Kent and thereupon Hawtrey which was Avowant moved the Court and prayed expedition whereupon the Court caused the Roll to be brought in and notwithstanding that it was a Roll of Mic. Term yet because it was awarded the same Term they mended the Roll and awarded the alias retournable the same Term of Hill 4. WYlgus brought an Action of Trespass against Welche quare clausum fregit Travers Welche said Trin. 28. Eliz. rot 537. that I. W. was seised and enfeoffed May and so conveyed a title to himself the Plantif replyed that A. his Auncestor was seised and so the Land descended to him Absque hoc that I. W. was seised and upon this Issue the Court was moved Anderson the seisin is not traversable but where it is materiall and therefore clearly the Traverse is not good but Fenner cited a book in 2 Edw. 6. that the Travers shall be good but he stood not much upon it Snagg 27 Hen. 8. 4. Bro. pleadings 1. is contrary but the opinion of all the Court clearly was that the Travers is not good 5. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife VVast alterius eorum diutius viventis absque impeticione vasti durantibus vitis ipsorum the Husband dies if the Wife shall hold without impeachment of wast or no was moved by the Serjeants And the opinion of all the Court was that she shall not be impeached of Wast because of the severance but otherwise if it had been Joyntly 6. FUlwood brought an action upon the case against Fulwood Action upon 〈◊〉 case and declared that whereas a motion of mariage was between the Defendant and a Widow in London in consideration that the Plaintif should give his assent that the Father of those Fulwoods should convey to the Defendant all his Lands and Chattells the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintif such a sum of money as their Father should assign Ac licet that the Plaintif had given his consent and that their said Father had assigned him to pay 37. l. yet the Defendant c. and he pleaded non assumpsit and it was found for the Plaintif and now Fenner spoke in arrest of Judgement for four causes First there is no consideration for the declaration is assensum suum daret so that he is at liberty to give his assent or no and so no perfect consideration The second is ac licet the Plaintif c. and doth not say in facto that he gave his assent The third is that he doth not say that he gave his assent when the Father had those Lands and Chattells The fourth is that in consideration the conveyance should be made to the Defendant and it appeareth that it was made to the Defendant and his Wife Shuttleworth To the contrary we have alleged in deed that he gave his assent and that is as much as if he had said in consideration that he gave his assent And allthough that the conveyance be to both yet it is in tayl to them and so the inheritance given to both And therefore that
which you allege is against you And the Wife of the Defendant being in Court was very importunate whereupon the Court moved an agreement and the Plaintif was content upon condition that the Defendant would enter into bond but the Defendant seemed unwilling by his silence Anderson Wee have made stay to the intent to do the Defendant good and he will not be content when more than reason is offered him wherefore let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif 7. IN a replevin by Gybson against Platlesse Revocation of a VVill. the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to Anne Wingfield and the Issue was whether the Land descended to Anne Wingfield Norfolk Trin. as Daughter and Heir to I. W. and upon evidence this was the case 28 Eliz. rot 2â—30 The said I. W. was seised of the Lands in question and divers other Lands and by his last VVill devised all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Wingfield of London Goldsmith in Fee and after and before his death he made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands which he had devised to the same A. W. and when he sealed the Feoffment he demanded will not this hurt my Will and it was answered again that it would not and he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and then he sealed it and a Letter of Attorny to make livery and in some of the Lands the Attorney made livery but not of the Lands now in question and after the Testator died now if the Devisee shall have the Lands or no was the question for if this Feoffment be Revocation of the Will then the Devise is void And it was said by the Counsell of Anne VVingfield that it is a Revocation For if the Testator had said that this shall not be his Will then it had been a plain Revocation quod fuit concessum per Curiam and then the making of the Feoffment is as much to say as that the Will shall not stand but it was answered by the Court that it appeared that the mind of the Testator was that his Will should stand and when he made the Feoffment this was a Revocation in Law and if no Feoffment had been made there had been no Revocation in Law and there is no Revocation in deed for he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and allthough that the Attorney made livery in part Feofâ—ent perfect in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet for the Lands in question whereof no livery was made the Will shall stand Will. for a Will may be effectuall for Part and for Part it may be revoked and the Court told the Jury that this was their opinion and thereupon the Jury found accordingly that the Land did not descend to A. VV. quod nota And Fenner who was of Counsell with the Plaintif before the coming again of the Jury to the Bar said to the Counsell of the Defendant that the Law was clear against them Allso he said to divers Barresters afterward privately that in the case of Serjeant Jeofres it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and after one of his friends came unto him and demanded of the Testator if he had made his Wil and he answered no. And he demanded again will you make your Will and he answered no and yet this was adjudged no Revocation 8. ONe Lea of Essex Privelege was sued in an Action of Battery in the Common pleas Battery and upon non culp pleaded it appeared upon the evidence that the Defendant and others had thrown daggers at the Plaintif and grievously hurt and maimed him in outragious manner and Peryam said to the Jury that they ought to consider that the Plaintif was put in fear of his life and had one of his hands maimed and what damage he had susteyned by his Mayhem and that they ought to give damage as well for the fear and assault as for the Mayhem and when the Jury was gone from the Bar the Defendant caused the Plaintif to be arrested in the Kings Bench for a battery done to him by the Plaintif before and this was shewed to the Court and thereupon they sent for Lea and were grievosly offended with him for they said that when a man is sued here Privelege de Court. he ought safely to come and go by the privilege of this place without vexation elsewhere And Lea pleaded that he was ignorant of the Law but the Court answered that ignorantia juris non excusat and therefore they said that they would punish him and discharge the other Then the Plaintif said that he had put in bayl to the arrest and the Court answered if you had not done so we would have discharged you but now we cannot but they commanded Lea to release his arrest or otherwise he should smart for it Fine and Lea was well content to do so Anderson yet you shall pay a fine here allso for otherwise we shall be perjured wherefore because you are ignorant you shall be fined at vj. s and Lea payed the vj. s incontinently and went for to release his arrest Rodes You have escaped well therefore let this be a warning 9. BEtween Smyth and Lane the case was such Copyhold Mith. 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 1858. Radford A. was a Copyholder in Fee according to the custom of a Mannor whereof the Queen was Lady And she by her Letters Patents let the Copy hold to B. for years and he granted his Term to the Copyholder if by this the Copyhold be determined or no was the doubt And it was agreed by the Court and all the Serjeants 28 H. 8. 30. b. that if the Lease had been made immediately from the Queen to the Copyholder then it had been a plain determination but some put a diversity because the Patentee was not Lord of the Mannor Peryam I think the Copyhold is not gone for when the Copyholder hath an interest in possession and the other in the Freehold and the Patentee grants his interest to the Copyholder what surrender can this be Anderson I will not have it a surrender but I will have his interest to be determined For when he is a Copyholder this is by Custom and when the Land is left this is by the Common Law and when this is granted to the Copyholder surely he shall not have both For he cannot have a Copyhold in the Land and have the Land also wherefore in my opinion the Copyhold is gone Peryam Peradventure by the grant to the Patentee the Rent shall pass if there be any but it shall be hard to make it a determination of the Copyhold for they are two distinct and two severall interests Anderson By the grant made to the Patentee the Rent shall not pass for he hath no Reversion adjornatur 10. A Quare impedit was brought by Specot and his wife against the Bishop of Exeter
Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit and the issue was found for the Plaintif and now Gawdy spoke iâ— arrest of Judgement because the Plaintif had alledged no place of the Assumpsion No Place of the assumpsion and he said that when an Issue is mis-tried it hath been adjudged here that it is not helped by the Statute and here is no place alledged whereupon the Tryall may be Peryam The opinion of many hath been that the Statute shall be taken most strictly but in my opinion it shall be taken most liberally so that if a verdict be once given it shall be a great cause that shall hinder judgement wherefore allthough no place be shewen yet when it is tryed and found it seemeth that he ought to have judgement and so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 6. AN Action upon the case was brought in Staffordshire by Whorwood against Gybbons Consideration how in an account between them the Defendant was found in Arrerages and in consideration that the Plaintif differreret deem solutionis debiti praedicti per parvum tempus the Defendant did assume to pay it and upon Non assumpsit pleaded it was found with the Plaintif and it was alleged in arrest of judgement that this was no consideration And the opinion of the whole Court Absente Anderson was that insomuch as the Proviso was made by him by whom the debt was due that it is a good consideration and that it is a common course in Actions upon the case against him by whom the debt is due to declare without any words in consideratione And allthough that Gawdy moved that parvum tempus may be three or four hours or dayes which is no consideration yet for the cause alleged the Court sayd that they saw no cause to stay judgement 7. AN Action upon the case was brought for these words Scandal Thou dost harbour and maintain Rebels and Traitors and the issue was found for the Plaintif and the judgement was entred by the Pregnotary yet notwithstanding Walmisley moved the Court to have regard unto it for the Action was not maintainable for if a man keâ—p Theeves and do not know them to be Theeves he is in no fault and an Action for these words will not lye and the Plaintif hath not averred that the Defendant sayd that the Plaintif knew them to be Traytors Peryam The Action in the Kings-bench was that the Plaintif kept Theeves and there if there be no such averment the Action is not maintainable Maintain but here is the word Maintain and that word implyeth a thing prohibited and therefore not sufferable and therefore I think the Action is maintainable and by the opinion of VVindham Peryam and Rodes the Action was well brought Anderson absente propter agritudinem 8. AN Action upon the case was brought by Richard Body against A. Consideration and declared that whereas Kary Raleigh was indebted to Body in 14l and the said A. was indebted to Raleigh in 50l in consideration that the said K. R. allocavit eidem A. 14l promisit ei ad exonerandum eâ—ndem A. de 14l parcell praedict 50l the Defendant did assume to pay to the said Plaintif the said 14l and the Court was moved if this were a good consideration to bind the Defendant And the opinion of all the Court Anderson absente was that the Consideration was good for that he was discharged of so much against Raleigh and Raleigh might also plead payment of the 14l by the hands of the Defendant 9 AN Action of Assault and Battery was brought Assault and the Defendant was condemned by nihil dicit and a Writ to enquire of damages went forth and then the Attourney of the Plaintif died and another Attourney without Warrant prayed the second Judgement and Execution Warrant if this shall be error or no it was moved by Fenner And the Court gave their opinion that if in an action after Judgment the Attourney dye a new Attourney may pray Execution without Warrant but in this case because that he died before the second Judgement it seemeth that he ought to have a Warrant of Attourney for the first Judgment is no finall Judgement And the Pregnotaries said that if after the first Judgement one of the parties had died the Writ should abate quod fuit concessum per curiam And also Fenner moved that this shall not be within the intent of the Statute of Jeofayles which speaketh of Verdicâ—â— Verdict for this shall not be said a Verdict whereto the Court agreed for a Verdict is that which is put in issue by the joyning of the parties 10 A Woman brought an action Covenant and she Covenanteth that she shall not do any act to repeal to discontinue to be nonsuit or countermand this action and hanging the Writ she takes a husband whereby the Writ abateth Now Fenner moved if she had broken the Covenant VVindam If one be bound that he shall not attorn and he make an Attornment in Law Attornment the Obligation is forfeit without question Assignment Rodes If I be bound not to make in Assigâ—ment of such a thing and I devise it by my will this is a forfeiture as it is in 31. H. 8. Fenner there is a case in Long 5. E. 4. If one be bound to appear at the Sessions c. and. I am to make a plea in this case and I would know your opinions VVindham You may plead according to the truth of your cause for that shall not change the Law therefore plead what you list 11. DEbt was brought upon an Obligation Condition the Condition was to perform Articles contained in an Indenture and one Article was that the Defendant Sir William Drury should plead the generall Issue or aâ—issuable Plea or such a Plea in quo staret aut persisteret within seven dayes next ensuing The Defendant sayd that he pleaded such a Plea and shewed what and averred that it was sufficient and issuable within seven dayes The Plaintif demanded judgement if to this Plea he shall be received for he appeared in Michaelmas Term in which he ought to have pleaded and took imperlance over unto Hill Term And Fenner shewed that in truth an issuable Plea was pleaded and drawn in paper in Mich. Term and the Plaintif replyed and the Defendant rejoyned and the Plaintif surrejoyned and theâ— by assâ—â—t in Hill Term all this was waved and an imperlance of the other Term entered forfear of a discontinuance and now he would have the Obligation of five hundred pound forfeited by this And the opinion of the Court Anderson absente was that the Obligation 〈◊〉 was forfeit for the Plea ought to have been entred of Recordâ—◠〈…〉 be bound in an Obligation to appear here at a certain day Appearance entred allthough he do appear at the same day yet if his appearance be not entred upon Record his Obligation is forfeit Peryam If the Plaintif deny that
he did not plead a sufficient Plea this shall be trued by the Record and how can that be when it is not entred of Record But the Court sayd further that it was hard that he should have the forfeiture and sayd that there was great negligence and oversight in the matter Peryam You may plead all this matter specially and how by his assent the Plea was waved and peradventure his assent if any thing will help you 12. PArtition was brought between Coparceners Estrepment and hanging the Writ the Tenant made Wast and Gawdy moved the Court for a Writ of Estrepment Peryam Where you are to disprove the interest of the Tenant Estrepment will lye but here you confess an equall interest in him how then can you have it Whereunto VVindham agreed and after it was shewen how they were Tenants in common whereby his motion was at an end 13. NOte that in the Starchamber this Perjury Term it was over-â—uled by the Lords that if in an Action at the Common Law a man wage his Law allthough that he make a false Oath yet he shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Starchamber and the reason was because it is as strong as a Tryall And the Lord Chancellor demanded of the Judges if he were discharged of the debt by waging of his Law and they answered yea But 〈…〉 said that it was the folly of the Plaintif because that he may 〈◊〉 his Action into an Action of the case upon an Assumpsit whâ—â— in 〈◊〉 Defendant cannot wage his Law 14. AT another day in the Starchamber between Hurlestom and Glaseour Conspiracy it was over-ruled by the Lords that if a Jury at the Common Law give their verdict Perjury allthough that they make a false Oath yet they shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Star-chamber But if any collaterall corruption be alleged in them as that they took Money or Bribes a Bill shall lye thereof well enough And allso in the same case it was ruled that where Glaseour had brought a Bill of Conspirary against Harlestone and others and divers of the Jury for that they had indicted him of Perjury that before the Indictment be traversed or otherwise avoyded by Error he cannot have a Bill of Conspiracy because this shall quash the tryal at the Common Law and shall prevent it And allso before a man be acquitted a Writ of Conspiracy doth not lye for him by the Law De Term. Trinitat Anno xxix Eliz. Reg. 1. THe Quare impedit brought by Specot and his Wife was moved again by Gawdy Quare imp and it seemed to him that because the Bishop did not shew in what thing he was a Schismatick the Plea was therefore uncertain and so insufficient and he cited 33 Edw. 3. 2. 9 Eliz. Dyer 254 b. Anderson If he had certainly shewed in what thing he was Schismaticus inveteratus ut ea occasione inidoneus sit inhabilis c. This had been a good Plea without doubt but as it is here sure it is no Plea for it is even as if he had sayd that he was criminosus whereunto all the other Judges agreed Anderson All that I doubt is whether this be helped by the Statute of Demurrers 27 Eliz. For otherwise the Plea is insufficient without doubt Gawdy The Statute helpeth onely matters of form and this is the substance of his Plea that he is a Schismatick Anderson Allthough it be the substance of his Plea yet it is but form to plead it certainly And if one demur generally to a double Plea Double plea. it is not good at this day and so here And so was the opinion of Peryam and the other Justices by their silence seemed to agree thereunto yet they gave day to the Serjeants to argue this matter And Peryam sayd that he would help the Plaintif in the best sort that the Law would suffer him for the Bishops are grown so presumptuous at this day that they will make question of all the patronages in the Realm and if it be against their pleasure none shall have his Presentation And allso now Anderson was agreed that the Action was well brought in the name of the Husband and Wife allthough he had once moved to the contrary Allso in this case it was moved Demurrer is a confession but of things sufficiently alleged that by the Demurrer it shall be confessed that the Plaintif Clerk was a Schismatick Whereunto Anderson said that if a thing be sufficiently alleged it is confessed by the Demurrer but otherwise not 2. A Replevin was brought by Brode against Hendy Replevin of his own wrong the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to the Queen for Rent behind wherunto the Plaintif sayd De son tort demeasne sans tiel cause and the Court was moved whether this be a good Plea and by the opinion of three Judges it is no Plea in a Replevin Anderson absente but in Trespass it is good notwithstanding that it was objected at the Bar that there is a diversity in our books taken that when the Action is brought against the Baylif there it shall be a good Plea but not against the Master But the Court over-ruled it for in a Replevin he ought to make a title 3. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop and Themas Leigh Incumbent Discontinuance and they both pleaded severally speciall Pleaâ— and so it depended whereupon Fenner shewed the Court that the Queen did not prosecute the Suit but let it depend still and therefore he prayed that she might be called Nonsuit But all the Court The Queen cannot be Nonsuit and the Pregnotaries said that the Queen cannot be Nonsuit Fenner Shall we then which are Defendants always be delayd Peryam After a year passed you may have it discontinued but she shall not be Nonsuit And in the case of a common person the Plaintif may discontinue it within a year but the Defendant cannot discontinue it untill after a year 4. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Kimpton Common extinct by purchase Rodes We have given Judgement allready Walmisley No Sir I have not heard of it Peryam What is the case Rodes The case is this a man was seised of a 140 acres of land and had Common appurtenant to them in 46 acres of land and the 46 acres of land were in the occupation of severall men viz. two in the occupation of A. and the rest in the occupation of B. and he which had Common purchased the sayd two acres now if this entire Common be extinct or no so that they which were Tenants of the residue of the 46. acres shall take advantage thereby was the question And all the Justices sayd that they were agreed of this case long agoe For allthough that the acres be severall and in severall occupations yet the Common concerning that is intire and so by purchase of parcell it is extinct
Rodes Surely I have noted my book that Judgement is given and so I supposed that it had been 5. SHuttelworth moved that whether a Lease is made to a man oâ— his own Land by Deed indented Estopple this is an Estopple whereto the Court agreed But VVindham and Peryam sayd if the Lease be made for life by Indenture Livâ—ry that yet this shall be no Estopple because the Lease takes effect by the Livery and not by the Deed but Rodes did not fully assent to that Anderson was absent in the Staâ—â— chamber 6. DEbt was brought by Lassels upon an Obligation Hill 1â— Eliz. tot 1 511. with condition that if the Defendant did personally appear in the Kings-bench such day Stat. 23 Hen. 6 that then c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. said that he was taken by the Plaintif being Sherif then by force of a Latitat and that the Bond was not made according to the Statute For being made for his deliverance this word personally was inserted in the condition more than is in the Statute And it seemed by three Justices Anderson absente that if it were in such an Action where a man may appear by Attourney that then it shall be voyd but now the question is whether the party ought to appear in proper person by force of a Latitat or no And some said yea and some said no. And the Plaintif shewed a Judgement given in the Kings bench for Sackford against Cutt. where Cutt. was taken by a Latitat and made such an Obligation as this is for his deliverance Sackford being Ballivus sanct Etheldredâ—e in Suff. and adjudged for the Plaintif that the Obligation was good And this was in the Kings-bench Mic. 27 28 Eliz. Rot. 575. but Peryam doubted of that judgement for peradventure he might appear by Attourney Ideo quare for that was the reason of the judgement given in the Kings-bench as it was sayd because he could not appear but in proper person 7. AN Action of Trover was brought for Goods Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded a bargain and sale in open Market thereupon they were at issue and found for the Plaintif and now the Defendant spake in arrest of judgement because the Plaintif had shewed no place of conversion No place of conversion yet notwithstanding by the opinion of the Court the Plaintif shall have his judgement by the Statute Peryam If in Debt upon an Obligation he doe not shew the place 36 El. rot 266. yet if the Defendant plead a collaterall bar as a release or such like judgement shall be given for the Plaintif notwithstanding by the Statute if it be found for him by Verdict 8. THe case of Beverley was moved again at this day Utlary how the Queen had brought a Scire facias against him to shew wherefore she should not have the Presentation Walmisley It seemeth that she shall not have the Presentation for allthough we have recovered our Presentation Disseiser outlawed yet before execution we have but a right As if a man be disseised and after outlawed he shall not forfeit the profits of the land And allso she hath brought a Scire facias and this will not lie except for him which is party or privy Peryam After that you have recovered it is a chattle and then forfeited by the Utlary Anderson The judgment that he shall recover doth not remove the Incumbent and as long as he remains Incumbent the Plaintif hath nothing but a right Then Peryam sayd to Walmisley argue to that point whether he hath but a right or no but for the other point that she shall not have a Scire facias for want of privity that is no reason Recoverer in debt outlawed for in many cases she shall have a Scire facias upon a Record between strangers Anderson If I recover in debt and after am Outlawed Recovery in quare impedit shall the Queen have this debt Windham If I recover in a Quare impedit and dye who shall have the presentation my Executor or my Heir Sed nemo respondit Curia It is a new and a rare case and therefore it is good to be advised VValmisley Whatshall we in the mean time plead in bar to the Scire facias Curia Demur in Law if you hold the matter insufficient VValmisley Sowe will 9. ONe Combford was robbed within the Hundred of Offlay in Stafford-shire Hue Cry and he and his servant pursued the Felons into another County and there one of the Felons was taken and the Hundreds did nothing And now Puckering moved that he might have an Action against the Hundred Plaintif a Hundreder allthough that he himself was resiant within the same Hundred Hue and Cry by strangers but the opinion of the Court was against him for they sayd that if a stranger make Hue and Cry so that the Felons be taken the Hundreds are discharged Another question he moved because that but one of the Felons was taken Quaâ—re But quâ—re what was sayd to that for I heard not 10. FRancis Ashpool brought an Action against the Hundred of Evenger in Hampshire Hue Cry for that he was robbed there And the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that he was robbed after the setting of the Sun per diurnam lucem and that afterwards the same night he came to Andever which is in another Hundred and there gave notice of the robbery and the morning following the men of Andever came into the Hundred of Evenger and there made Hue and cry about ten a clock in the morning and that there were many Towns nearer to the place where he was robbed than Andever was and allso within the same Hundred of Evenger and that the Melafacters escaped and they prayed the advise of the Court. Now this matter rested on two points Robbery after Sunset the first was if he which is robbed after the Sun-set shall have the benefit of the Statute and the other was if he had made Hue and cry accordingly Hue and cry or whether any Hue and cry be needfull And Walmisley argued that he which is robbed after the Sun-set shall be helped by the Statute for they are bound to keep watches in their Towns to take night-walkers And to the second he said that the Statute doth not speak of any Hue and cry but only recens insecutio and that ought to be done by the Hundreders Shuttleworth to the contrary No distcess and that it ought to be in the day and cited Stamf. fol. 35. and after the Sun-set it cannot be said to be day For the Lord cannot then distreyn for his Rent per 11 Hen. 7. 4. nor demand Rent for he is not bound to be there after the Sun-set and he vouched Fitz. titulo core 302. but at this time the Judges seemed to hold for the Plaintif Anderson The Countries are bound by the Statute to
keep their Country in such sort so that men may safely travell upon their way So that at this time the Court held that he should be aided by the Statute and also that no Hue and cry was necessary or convenient to be made by the party but they were not resolved and therefore they gave a day to have it argued again 11. AN Action upon the case was brought for these words Normans case thou wouldest have stoln a piece of cloth or else thou wouldest have delivered it to my Wifes Daughter and thou art a thief and an arrant thief and I will prove it and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spoke in arrest of Judgement because the former words proved but onely an Intent Words which was no Flony and the last words shall be referred thereunto and therefore the Action not maintenable But now Shuttleworth moved for Judgement for the Plaintif because the last words are sufficient by themselves and shall not be referred to the former because they were spoken absolutely by themselves and so was the opinion of three Justices Anderson absente Rodes Otherwise it is if the words had been Therefore and therefore thou art a thief 12. SAmuell Hayles brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation the Condition was that if the Defendant did pay to the Plaintif 40. l. within twenty dayes after the retourn of one Russell into England from the City of Venice in the parts beyond the Seas that then c. and the Defendant pleaded in Bar that Russell was not at the City of Venice whereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and at this day the Record was read and clearly per 3. Justices Anderson absente it is no good Plea For in such cases where parcell is to be done within the Realm and parcell without the Realm they ought to plead such a Plea as is triable in this Realm and therefore they commanded the Serjeant to move for Judgement when Anderson was present and so he did the last day of the Term and Judgement was given for the Plaintif by all the Court. 13. IN Trespass by Moor against Hills Attornment the Defendant pleaded that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster made a Lease tâ— one Payn who made Leases out of it first to A. for certain years rendring Rentand after the end of that Lease then to B. rendring Rent and afterwards sold all the entire interest to the Defendant to whom the second Lessee which had no possession Attorned Possession And the Plaintif moved that he might plead a better Attornment for this is not good because it is no Attornment And so was the opinion of the Court and therefore they gave him day to amend his Plea or else let a Demurrer be entred 14. VPon a wager of Law Payment by estranger it was said by Anderson that if I am bound to you to pay you a certain sum of money and a stranger deliver you a Horse by my assent for the same debt this is no satisfaction So if I be indebted upon a simple contract and a stranger make an Obligation for this debt the Debtor cannot wage his Law for this doth not determine the Contract Et nullut dedixit 15. BEtween Peirce and Davy this was the case Legacie A man covenants with I. S. to pay to A. B. and C. every of them x. l. at the age of twenty four years and makes an Obligation to perform the Covenant And afterwards makes his Will in this sort Item I will that every one of my Wifes Children viz. A. B. and C. shall have every of them x. l. at their severall ages of 21 years in performance of my Bond and Covenant in that behalf made at the time of my Mariage and not otherwise and dyeth Then A. B. and C. sued in the spirittuall Court Prohibition for these Legacies and Peirce brought a Prohibition and they prayed a consultation and the Court seemed to encline to their demand because they were all strangers to the Covenant but yet they would not absolutely grant it And afterwards in Termino Pasch 30. it was moved again and then the Court doubted because it was not given as a Legacy allthough that it was payable before for that it was given in performance of the Covenant and not otherwise and Anderson and Rodes said precisely that a consultation should not be granted sed alii haesitabant But yet they all thought it good reason and conscience that it should be payd wherefore they compounded the matter and gave day to Peirce to pay the money and 2 pound 8 pence to them which had sued in the Spirituall Court for their costs The same Testator allso devised diverse summs of money to his Wife to pay to the said A. B. and C. in performance of his Covenant who had the money accordingly And in debt brought upon the Obligation for the same Covenant the Executor pleaded plene administr 〈◊〉 and upon the Evidence all this matter appeared and the opinion of the Court in the Exchequor was that it shall be assetz and so adjudged there 16. BUrnell of Shrewsbery was robbed in Buckinghamshire Hue and cry and thereupon he brought his Action against the Hundred who pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that he was robed the day and year specified in the Declaration but in another place within an other Parish than he had alleged but they found allso that both the Parishes were within the same Hundred and thereupon they prayed the advise of the Court. And three Justices Anderson being in the Starchamber held clearly that the Plaintif shall have Judgement and they said that so was the opinion of my Lord Anderson allso for it is not materiall within what Parish he is robbed so that it be within the same Hundred 17. RIchard Hamington Administr of the goods and Chattels of Isabell Oram brought an Action of debt against James Richards and Mary his Wife Future charge by possibility Administraterix of the goods and Chattells of Laurence Kydwelly upon a bond for performance of covenants and the case was such Tenant for 31 one years deviseth to his Wife as long as she shall be sole and Widow the occupation and Profits of his Term and after her Widowhood expired all the Lease and interest to Reignold his Son and dieth and the Wife hath the Term by force of the Devise and he in the Reversion by Indenture bearing date quinto Decemb An. Mariâ—â— primo did give and grant bargain and sell all that his Tenement to the Wife and to her Heirs for ever And also did covenant to make further assurance and that at the making thereof it should be discharged of all former Bargains Sales Titles Rights Joyntures A Feoffment to her and after also Dowers Morgages Statutes Merch. Statutes Staple intrusions Forfeitures Condemnations Executions Arrerages of Rents and all other
party from his advantage given him by the Statute But all the other Justices held opinion against him for they sayd that a man ought to appear in proper person upon a Latitat which Anderson denyed and sayd that the Latitats are not but of threescore yeares continuance which the other day Peryam had affirmed and he seemed to mislike with the Latitats And the Serjeant moved for their resolution in the case Anderson All my Brethren are of opinion against me wherefore take your judgement accordingly And so judgement was entred for the Plaintif 21. GAwon brought Debt upon an Obligation against White Traverse with condition that if the Defendant suffer the Plaintif his Tenants and Farmers to enjoy such a Common that then c. And the Defendant pleaded conditions performed and the Plaintif assigned for breach that he did not suffer A. B. his Tenant to enjoy c. Absque hoc that he performed the condition And it was sayd by the Court that this Traverse was not good no more than if one be bound to perform the covenants in an Indenture and the Defendant pleads that he hath performed all generally if the Plaintif assign his breach he shall not say further Absque that the Defendant hath performed the covenants for so much he had sayd before But Walmisley would have put a difference between the cases because in the one there were divers covenants to be performed but not so here Anderson If a man plead a Plea which is sufficient of it self and take a traverse allso you will grant that this Plea is not good quod fuit concessum and this Plea had been sufficient of it self onely quod fuit concessum ergo the traverse was not good without question Et sic opinio totius Curiae 22. GOverstone brought a Replevin against B. Rent charge who avowed the taking for a Rent charge granted to him by the Duke of Suffolk And this was the case The Duke was seised of three parts of a Mannor and granted a Rent charge to the Avowant And one Pole was seised of the fourth part and Hatcher purchased the Dukes three parts and the part of Pole allso and demised a fourth part to the Plaintif but the Serjeants could not agree whether it was Poles fourth part or otherwise the fourth part generally and as it seemed to the Court if it were the fourth part of Pole then the Avowry is not maintainable but otherwise if it were the fourth part generally And after in Michaelmas Term the case was rehearsed again and it was that he demised eandem quartam partem to hold at will And all the Justices agreed that it shall be discharged because it was never charged allthough once he might have distreined in all the Mannor Vnion of possession for that then there was no fourth part for all was alike in the hands of the purchaser but now when the fourth part is in the hands of a stranger it is no reason that it shall be charged Walmisley But the Tenant at will hath nothing but the profits by the way of taking Tenant at wil. and not any land but if Hatcher had made a Feoffment then I agree that it shall be discharged â—eryam And as well shall Tenant at will take the profits in his own right as long as the will doth continue wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintif 23. LEssee for years Wast the reversion in fee to Constance Foster and the Lessee granted over all his term and interest to A. B. Pasch 18 El. reserving and excepting all trees growing in and upon the premisses Rot. 420. the Lessee makes wast and destruction in the trees and C. F. brought Wast against the assignee and if this action will lye or no was the question wherein it was disputed whether this exception and reservation made by the Lessee be good or no for if the reservation be voyd then the action will lye well against the Assignee and thereupon these cases were put to shew both what interest the Lessor and Lessee have in the Trees viz. 33 Hen. 8. 2 Hen. 7. 42 Ed. 3. 21 Hen. 6. 46. 27 Hen. 6. Wast in Slatham 2 Eliz. fol. Danseyes case 7 Hen. 6. 12 Ed. 4. but to prove the reservation voyd Fenner took this ground That thing which a man cannot grant he cannot reserve and the Lessee cannot grant the Trees ergo he cannot reserve them And afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintif for default of pleading on the part of the Defendant but for the matter in Law two Judges were against the other two so that they could not agree De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxix xxx 1. AN action of Debt was brought by Bret against Andrews upon an Obligation indorced with condition to stand to the arbitrement of A. B. Request who did arbitrate that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintif xxâ—l and appointed no certain day of payment and the Defendant in pleading confessed the arbitrement but he sayd further that the Plaintif did never require him to pay it and thereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and upon reading of the Record the Court held clearly that it was no plea because the Defendant at his peril ought to make payment within convenient time and the Plaintif needeth not to make any request And Anderson commanded to enter judgment accordingly 2. FEnner moved this case Possibility of Interest a man deviseth lands to his Wife for term of her life and if she live untill his sonne come to the age of 24 yeares that then he shall have the lands and if she dye before he come to that age that then I. S. shall have it untill his sonne come to that age and dyed then I. S. dyed before the wife and after she dyed before the sonne came to 24 years if the Executors of I. S. shall have the land untill the sonne come to that age or no was the question And the opinion of all the Court was that they shall not have it because their Testator had never any interest vested in him Fenner But here was a possiblity of an interest Curia But that is not sufficient Rodes cited the case of Bret and Rigden in the Commentaries Grant Anderson If I grant you that if you pay me xxl. at Easter then you shall have an Annuity of xl s to you and your heirs if you dye before Easter now your Heir shall never have it and so in this case 3. THatcher recovered in an Assise of Novel disseisin against Elmer for Lands in Hackney in Middlesex Redisseisin and after Elmer re-disseised him and Thatcher re-entred and Elmer disseised him again And Fleetwood moved the Court if Thatcher may have re-disseisin because that after action accrued to him he had re-entred Anderson What is the Judgement in this Action Judgement Surely it is not that he shall recover any land but double damages and that the
Defendant shall be taken and shall make a Fine wherefore forasmuch as he shall recover no land the entry into the land cannot purge the offence and wrong which is made punishable by the Statute and so was the opinion of the whole Court And the Court then held opinion likewise that if a man be disseised and after re-enters and is disseised again Assise that he ought to have an Assise of the last entry and not of the first 27 Ass pl. 42. 4. ONe Powell was sued in the Common-Pleas Privilege and as he was coming to Westminster he was arrested in London and thereupon had a common Writ of Privilege surmising that he was coming to retain Counsell and Walmisley prayed that he might be examined whether he did so or no but the Court would not Walmisley It is no reason that if he be going about other matters he should have the privilege of this place Curia A hundred Writs have been allowed without any examination Walmisley In 10 Hen. 6. 4 Hen. 7. such an examination was made Anderson But that was not de rigore Juris and all the Court refused utterly to examine him But Walmisley sayd privily that it was against the Law 5. DOrothy Millington brought Debt against J. Burges for 9 l. and declared that he bought certain Oad Wager of Law and the truth of the case was this Oad was sold to him upon condition that if she did not prove it to be good and sufficient then he should pay nothing for it and all this was disclosed by the Defendant upon his Wager of Law Detinue Windham If the case be so then you may wage your Law and it was sayd that she must have detinue for the Oad 6. IN an Avowry made by the Lady Rogers Title in avowry it was sayd by the Court Anderson absente that it is sufficient for the Avowant to plead his Freehold but if the Plaintif will traverse the same he ought to make himself a title Nelson Pronotary so are all our Presidents Peryam It is not sufficient to make it of his own seisin but he must make it Paramount his own seisin 7. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Richard Hanington for the Plaintif For he sayd that it was not clearly discharged because of the possibility of the charge ensuing allthough the charge were not then presently executed in proof whereof he sayd that it is not all gone by the acceptance of the Feoffment and then it is a bargain for a Lease for years is a bargain for there he hath quid pro quo Allso it is a Title as in Nichols case in the Commentaries And then allthough he had nothing which he could release because it was casuall whether it shall happen or no yet now when it happens it is a charge ab initio and thereupon he cited 9 H. 6. where one which had nothing but a possibility may maintain And so where a man makes a Feoffment and covenants that it shall be discharged as here and afterwards his Wife recovers her Dower the Covenant is broken and yet it was but a possibility And 8 Eliz. where a man covenants that it shall be discharged and he had granted a Rent charge to begin twenty years after this was not discharged Fenner argued to the contrary for the reasons moved by him before Peryam Here allthough it be no charge at the time of the Feoffment yet it is not discharged for if it were discharged then it shall never be charged afterwards And so was the opinion of all the Court Anderson absente and after at the end of the Term when Anderson was present they were all agreed that it was an incumbrance and not discharged of the incumbrance and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif 8. IN Avowry by Johns of Surrey Esquire Tenure it was sayd by Anderson for Law that if a man before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum makes a gift and reserveth to himself upon every alienation the value of the Land by a year this shall be adjudged according to the value of the Land at the time of the tenure and not that whereunto it is enhauâ—ced at this day for a tenure ought to be certain when it is made 9. â—Aven brought Debt upon an Obligation against Stockdale who pleaded non est factum Statute 23 H. 6 and the Jury in Norfolk found this specially Verdict that the Defendant was sued by the Plaintif and made a Bond to the Plaintif endorced with Condition that if the sayd S. did personally appear in the Queens Majesties Court called the Kings bench and then and there make answer to such matter as the Plaintif should object against him the sayd Plaintif giving him warning that then c. And the Plaintif was neither Sherif nor Sherifs Officer for the pretence of the Defendant was to avoyd it by the Statute of 23 Hen. 6. And now the Plaintif prayed Judgement Anderson The case is no more than this A man is bound to another to appear at his suit in the Kings-bench and doth not so if this Obligation shall be avoyded and I see no colour to avoyd it for it is not within the Statute and all the Judges agreed clearly that it is not within the Statute and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif 10. BLosse brought Trespass vi armis against Halmon for taking of his Goods Possession the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Plaintif at the time of the Trespass supposed was of the Mystery of the Grocers and that the Defendant was his servant and put in trust to sell res mercandisas detempore in tempus in shopa sua existen and he took those goods and carried them away c. and they prayed the advise of the Court The doubt was because the action was vi armis whereas the Defendant had the custody or if this shall be called a custody Shuttleworth for the Plaintif and he cited the case in Littleton fol. 15. if I deliver my sheep to compost your land Sheep and you kill them I shall have trespass whereto the Justices agreed and held clearly that he shall have this action well enough Auctority Peryam he hath but an auctority only and not any custody or possession v. 2. E. 4. 22. 2 E4 8. 22 E. 4. 5. 13 E. 4. 9. Tenant at will ought not to cut down trees nor abate 3. H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 14. the case of Butler 11. TRespass by Foster against Pretty and his wife Title who justified that I was seised and made a lease to them for yeares c. the Plaintif replied de son tort demeasne Absque hoc that he leased c. Peryam Will you take a Traverse and not make your self a title Curia without question you ought to make your self a title otherwise it is if the Defendant claym a Common or such like and no
Wast and the Defendant demurred in law whether such an action will lie against him or no it was for cutting down of trees And at this day Anderson rehearsed the case and said that they were all agreed that the action will lye well enough vi armis for otherwise he shall have no action for wast is not maintainable and Littleton saith that Trespass lyeth so seemeth the better opinion in 2 E. 4. 33. for otherwise this being a common case it shall be a common mischief And he commanded the Pregnotary to enter judgement for the Plaintif 18. Snagg moved to stay Judgdment in the case of Blosse Property and he cited 2 Ed. 4. 4. If the servant of a Mercer take his goods Trespass will not lie sed vide librum and he cited 3 Hen. 7. 12. that it shall not be Felony in a Shepherd or a Butler Windam If he had imbezeled the goods it is Felony and for the case of 3 Hen. 7. it is Felony without question Property quod fuit concessum Anderson The servant hath neither generall nor speciall property in the goods Taking Embezeling and he shall have no Action of Trespass if they be taken away and therefore if he take them Difference Trespass lieth against him and if he imbezell them it is Felony wherefore he commanded to enter Judgement for the Plaintif 19. THomas Taire and Joane his Wife brought an Action of Wast against Pepyat Pas 25. Eliz. and declared how that the Defendant was seised in Fee Rot. 602. and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life Wast and after to the use of the Mother of Joane in Fee who died and it descended to her and after the Defendant made Wast c. The Defendant pleaded that he was and yet is seised in Fee Absque hoc that he made the Feoffment in manner and form pro ut c. And the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Defendant made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life but that was without impeachment of Wast the Remainder in Fee as before And the Plaintif prayed Judgement and the doubt was because they have found their issue and more viz. that it was was without impeachment of Wast Anderson Whether it were without impeachment of Wast or no was no part of their issue and then the Verdict for that point is void and the Plaintif shall have Judgement VVindham The doubt is for that they have found that the Defendant is not punishable and where a Verdict discloseth any thing whereby it appeareth that the Plaintif ought not to Recover Judgement thereupon ought to be given against him As in detinue the Plaintif counts upon a Bailment by himself Bailment and the Jury findeth that another Bailed to his use the Plaintif shall not Recover And a Serjeant at the Bar said that the issue is not found Anderson That which is found more than their issue is void Assise and therefore in 33 Hen. 6. where the Tenant in Assise pleades nul Tenant de franktenement nosme en lasise â—i troâ—â— ne so it c. and the Jury found that he was Tenant but that he held jointly with another and there the Plaintif Recovered and so he shall here And at length by the opinion of all the Court Judgement was entred for the Plaintif for he might have helped the matter by pleading 16. IN debt by May against Johnson Payment the Condition was to pay a 100. l. to Cowper and his Wife and by all the Court if he plead payment to Cowper alone it sufficeth for payment to him alone sufficeth without naming the Wife 15. IN a Quare impedit by Sir Thomas Gorge Avoydance against the B. of Lincoln and Dalton Incumbent the case was that a Mannor with an advowson appendant was in the hands of the King then the Church becoms void and after the King grants the Mannor with the advowson now the question was if the Patentee shall have this presentation or the King And all the Judges held clearly that the avoydance doth not pass for it was a Chattell vested in the King and they cited 9 Edward 3. 26. and Dyer fol. 300. but Fitzh nat br is contrary fol. 33. 11. 22. DEbt was brought by Goore Plaintif for 200. l. Bailiwick upon such a Bill Be it known unto all men by these presents that I Ed. Wingfield of H. in the County of Midd. Esq do acknowledge my self to be indebted to William Goore in 200. l. for the payment whereof I mine Heirs and Assigns do licence the said G. to have and use the Baliwick of Dale to the use c. untill c. the Defendant pleaded in bar that the Plaintif had used the said Bailiwick and said no more nor at what place he had received the money and Suagg moved that the Plea was not good because he had not shewed the value which he ought to have done Value and the Judges were of the same opinion and they said moreover that this Plea is not good in bar of this specialty for payment is no plea upon a single Bill Licence and he might have brought his Action upon this Bill without using the Bailiwick for this Licence is no Condition 〈◊〉 De Term. Hill Anno Eliz. xxx 1. AN Ejectione Firme was brought by Dorothy Michell against Edmund Dunton Covenant and the case was this A man maketh a Lease for years rendring Bent upon Condition with a Covenant that the Lessee shall repair the Houses with other Covenants And after he deviseth the same Lands to the same Lessee for more years rendring the like Rent and under the like Covenants as in the first Lease the remainder over to another in Fee and dyeth Then the first Lease expires and the Lessee held in by force of the Devise aâ—d did not repair the Houses so that if the first Lease had been in esse Condition he had broken a Covenant now if this shall be a Condition so that he in Remainder may enter was the question Shuttleworth This is a Condition for he cannot have an Action of Covenant and then the intent was that it shall be a Condition But all the Court was against him and that the intent was not so for the words are under like Covenants which words do not make a Condition allthough they be in a Will Anderson The nature of a Covenant is 〈◊〉 to have an Action and not to enter and so all the Court held it no Condition And Perâ—â—â— said that under like Covenants were void words and therefore Judgement shall be given against you 2. PUckering the Queens Serjeant moved Fee determinable that one Adams was indebted to the Queen in a great sum which was stalled to pay yearly so much untill all werere paid And for security he levied a a fine to William Lord Burghley Lord Treasurer and others that they should
stand seised to the use of Adams untill he made default of paiment of the said sum and then they should stand seised to the use of the Queen untill she were satisfied and payed and then to the use of Adams and his Heirs And after Adams by deed enrolled sold the Land to a stranger in Fee and after the said stranger failed in paiment of the said yearly sum whereby the Queen seised the Land and so continued untill she was satisfied now the question was who should have the Lands Adams or the Bargainee Anderson Ifyou will take the case according to the words it is short tell me what Estate had Adams by this Limitation Puckering A Fee determinable Anderson How then can the Bargainee have it when the Estate is determined Puckering But the Fee was limited to Adams and his Heirs Possibility cannot be granted nor released Anderson This is but a possibility which cannot be granted over And if I were a Chancellor Adams should not have the Land but upon the words I tell you my mind alii Justie conticuerunt 3. DAniel Bettenham Plaintif against Debora Harlackendon Reversion upon a devise the case was this one Harlack was seised and deviseth it to the Plaintif for years the Remainder to the Defendant being his Wife for life and provided that the Lessee should pay the Wife xx l. a year for Rent at two Feasts and after the Plaintif failed of payment wherby the Wife entred for the Condition broken Anderson Wherefore may not a man make Reservation upon a Devise Peryam A man may reserve to himself or to his 〈◊〉 but this is to a stranger Anderson Every man which takes by a Devise is in in the per by the Devisor quod fuit concessum wherefore then shall not this be as a Reservationto the Devisor and as a grant of the Reversion to the Wife Gandy If it shall be a firm in gross Sum in gross yet I think that she ought to demand it which she hath not done Anderson and Rodes denyed that case clearly and that the contrary hath been adjudged Anderson If I Devise Lands to a man for years rendring Rent to me and mine Heirs Devise of a Reversion after a Term. And after I Devise the Reversion he shall have the Rent as incident to the Reversion Peryam This may be agreed but the cases are not like adjornatur 4. IN debt by Rostock Waging of Law the case was that the Plaintif and another made a Contract with the Defendant and the Plaintif alone brought the Action and Walmisley moved the Court if the Defendant may wage his Law for it is not the same Contract and he cited 20 Hen. 6. account before Auditors where it was but before one Auditor he may wage his Law 35 Hen. 6. is an express case in the point And so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 5. A Writ of Entry sur diss Voucher was brought by Sir Thomas Sherly against Grateway who vouched one Brown and he entred into the Warranty saving to himself a Rent issuing out of the same Land and this was allowed by the Court and the Voucher was in a Writ of entry for a Common Recovery to be had 6. EDward Smith brought his Action of the case against Winner Slander for words viz I was robbed of goods to the value of 40. l. they were stollen by Smith and his Houshold ipsum Edwardum ac quosdam Eliz. xuorem ac L. F. servientem ejus muendo and the issue was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spake in arrest of Judgement because S. alone brought the Action But all the Court said that the Action is well brought for the slander is severall And Peryam that if 〈◊〉 a man say that three have robbed him Vno flatu and name them uno 〈◊〉 every of them may have a severall Action 7. IN an Assise by Thatcher where he was Redisseised Redisseisin the Redisseâ—â— was found in part and thereupon the Court was moved if Redisseisin will lie in as much as it is not but of part and the Writ is if he be Redissesitus de â—odem teneâ—â—nto then Redisseisin lieth but the Court held that Redisseisin lieth of part and that he shall recover damages as they are assessed by the Jury and not by the 〈◊〉 Then it was moved if Redisseisin lieth in Middlesex or 〈…〉 Fleetwood saith that the ancient Expositors have taken it that it doth not lie there because it is not coram lustic itinerant but all the Court held the contrary And Walmisley said that there be Writs in the Register accordingly 8. THe Earl of Kent brought debt upon an Obligation indorced with Condition Time convenient that if the Defendant do permit the Plaintif his Exâ—cutorâ—s and Assignes not onely to thresh the Corn in the Defendants Barn but allso to cary it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free Egress and Regress or else to pay 8 l. upon request that then c. and in truth the Defendant permited the Corn to be there two years in which time Mice and Rats had devoured much of it and then the Defendant threshed the Residue and the Earl brought his Action and there was a demurrer entred Walmisley the Bond is not forfeit for the Earl hath not taken it out in time convenient for he ought to take it in time convenient and time convenient is that which is not prejudiciall to any person which the Justices privily denyed and here it is a prejudice to the Defendant if the Plaintif will not carry away his Corn and thereupon he cited many cases that things shall be done in time convenient Arbitrement as in 21 Ed. 4. arbitrement ought to be made in time convenient Anderson Your cases are by act in Law but here you have bound your selves and the Condition is at time convenient and if he will come in the night or on the Sabbath day this is no convenient time but allthough that he come in a long time after yet it may be at time convenient and the words are not within time convenient and so was the opinion of the Court. And Windham said that if it had been within time convenient there would have been a difference 9. MIchael Hare and 3 others brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit Trespass and Assigned the place in sixteen Acres of Land called Churchclose Contents of a new assignment and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that Churchclose conteyneth fixty Acres whereof those sixteen were parcell and that diverse men were seised of divers other parcells of the said close and that Hare only was seised of the said sixteen Acres in which c. exposuit eas to the three other Plaintifs to be sown and that he should find half the seed and they three should find the other
half whereby the Land was sown accordingly and that the Bore of Okely came and destroyed the Corn. Sed utrum c. And the doubt rested upon two points 1. because the Verdict saith that it conteineth sixty Acres and so shall be intended not the same place and the Court varied in opinion thereof insomuch that the sixteen Acres are found to be within the close conteining sixty Acres but for the 2 which was that they all four joyned in quare clausum fregit and it appeareth that three have nothing there Verdict shall abate the Writ but that Hare is sole seised And for that the Court held opinion that the Verdict shall abate the Writ for the Defendant cannot break their close where three of them have nothing but Hare onely Rodes A Case hath been adjudged a where Cheâ—ey brought Partition against Bury Partition who pleaded that they did not hold in Common and the Jury found that he and his Wife held in Common and yet the Verdict abated the Writ Windham You will all grant that the other three have no interest in the Land quod Walmisley concessit how then can they have quare 〈◊〉 fregit Fenner Executors shall have quare clausum fregit Executors and yet they have no interest in the Land Rodes There they have an interest for the time Anderson Here is but a bargain and no interest and then the three have no colour to bring Trespass quare elaâ—sum fregit 10. THe Quare impedit brought by the Queen against the Bishop of Lincoln was demurred in Law Avoydance and now the Record was read and day given over to hear the Arguments but 〈◊〉 said that it is all one case with that which hath been adjudged here viz. that the Queen hath title of Lapse and doth not present but the Patron presents and after the Church becomes voyd by the death of the Incumbent that now the Queen shall not present but the Court answered Difference between Death and Privation that there the avoydance came by death but here it cometh by privation and whether this will make a diversity was the question 11. HArper brought Trespass against Spiller and Drew Estate upon not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found and the case in effect was this F. gave Lands to a woman to have and to hold to her to the heirs of F. of the body of the woman ingendred what estate the woman had was the question and now the Record was read and day given over to argue it 12. SHuttleworth moved the Court Amendment and shewed that one Brokes by had brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and others and the Writ was suam spectat donationem and this word 〈◊〉 was omitted and he prayed the Court that it might be amended and he cited 11 Hen. 6. 2. where it was imaginavit and it should have been imaginat fuit and 13 Hen. 7. where the teste was omitted and the Court took time of advisement and at length by the opinion of all the Justice it was amendable and then a Clerk of the Chancery came into the Court of the Common-pleas and amended it 13. IN an Avowry for an Amercement in a Leet By-law a Prescription was made for making of By-lawes and Peryam sayd that every By-law ought to be made for the common benefit of the inhabitants and not for the private commodity of any particular man as J. S. onely or the Lord onely As if a By-law be made that none shall put in his beasts into the common-field before such a day this is good but if a By-law be made that they shall not carry hay upon the lands of the Lord or break the hedges of J. S. this is not good because it doth not respect the common benefit of all And Windhaâ—â— sayd that some Books are that they shall bind no more than such as agree to them 14. HAre brought Debt against Curson for a great sum Capias utlâ—gatum and Process continued untill Capias â—tlog And the Plaintif moved the Court that the Sherif might be commanded to execute the Writ because they doubted thereof and the Writ was delivered to the Sherif in Court and he sayd that he would doe his endeavour but Curson hath long kept his house so that he cannot come at him Peryam You may take the power of the Country with you and break his house and take him out for so it hath been adjudged here which the Court granted 15. PUckering shewed how an Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator Assetâ— who pleaded plens administraâ—it and thereupon the Jury found a speciall Verdict that certain Obligations made by the Testator to the value of a hundred pound were forfeit and the Administrator took in the said Bonds and gave his own Bond for the Debt and retained the money in his own hands besides which c. he had nothing c. and if that hundred pound shall be liable to this Action of the Plaintif they prayed the advice of the Court and by the opinion of Windham and Peryam it shall not be Assets because the property is changed in giving his own Bond for the same Payment with Proper râ—â—ds and it is as if he had payd the Debts with his own goods but if he had compounded for less Surplusage then the surplusage should have been Assets But Rodes was of a contrary opinion in the principall case forasmuch as he had payd no money but onely given his Bond for in and Anderson was absent at this day And after at another day the case was moved again by Shuttelworth and then he shewed that for part thereof the Administrator had given his Bond and for another part his promise Promise and he sayd that this is no payment but a composition and therefore no change of property Anderson For so much as he hath given his promise I think it not good because that by this promise this first debt being due by Bond is not discharged but for so much as he hath given his Bond for I hold it good enough because the first Debt is discharged thereby allthough that the Obligation be made to a stranger Estranger by the appointment of the Debtee and allso before the Debt due for by this the first Debt is gone And Windham and Peryam were of the same opinion that the Debt was discharged and that it should not be Assets in his hands but Rodes doubted thereof and it was adjorned 16. JOhn Cleyton brought an Ejectione firme against Lawsell and Lawsell Defendants Abatement and after a Verdict found for the Plaintif and before Judgement one of the Defendants died and the Writ was adjudged to stand good against the other 17. IN Debt by Saunderson Wager of Law the Defendant pleaded nil debet per legem and in truth the money was due to the Plaintif but the Plaintif was allso
and did not say praedict Edward Seymour And all the Justices agreed that this was amendable And so the first judgement was affirmed 18. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgement which Rawlyns had to recover lands in the Kings bench Rent suspenpended and the Case was such A man makes a lease of ten acres for ten yeares rendring rent upon a Condition the Lessee grants 5. acres thereof to a stranger for five years and after grants the residue of the years in the five acres to the Lessor And after the Lessee broke the Condition whereby the Lessor re-entred and if he may do so or if the Condition was suspended or no was the question because he accepted a future interest in parcell Future interest Tenant wayves for it was adjudged in the Kings bench that the Condition was not suspended and now this was assigned for error And all the Justices except Anderson and Peryam held that it is not suspended before he had entred by force of his lease Anderson If I make a lease as here upon Condition and waive the possession this may be suspended before his entrie Cook This is another case Peryam But the reason thereof commeth well to this case And afterwards because the said two Justices dis-assented from the rest it was adjourned over 19. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgment given in the Kings bench Trover And Cook the famous Utter-Barrester of the Inner-tem moved this question to the Justices If a man lose his goods which come to the hands of another he converteth them to his own use and after the owner dye Day and place of conversion whether his Executors shall have an action of the Case for this Trover and whether he ought to shew the place and the day of the Conversion or no And the Counsellours at the bar said that he ought to shew both for so it was adjudged where an Alderman of London brought an action upon the Case against oue Staynsham upon Trover of an Obligation and it was found that he had broken the seales c. and because he did not shew the time and place of the Conversion he could never get Judgement And now the Justices were of the same opinion but yet Anderson seemed to doubt Peryam Executors at the Common Law shall not have Trespass for a Trespass done in the life of their Testator and the doubt is if they shall have an Action upon the Case Manwood if a man hath another in Execution for debt and the Gaoler suffer him to escape and after the Recoverer dyes shall his Executors have an action against the Gaoler Cook No. Peryam So it seemeth But Anderson Manwood and VVindam clearly to the contrary and that they shall have debt upon this Escape Cook But not an Action upon the Case at the Common Law and here by his own shewing he might have Trespass vi armis and therefore not this action De Term. Trinitat An. Reg. Eliz. xxx 1. RAlph Heidon brought a Writ of Right against Smethwick and his Wife Droit of two parts of forty Acres of Land in Surret and they pleaded that one Ibgrave was seised and devised it to his Wife now one of the Tenants for term of her life the remainder to Benjamin Ibgrave in fee Praying ayd in an Assise which was his heir and dyed and they prayed in ayd of B. I. who came and joyned to them and thereupon they came and pleaded to the grand Assise and the first day of this term the Assise appeared and sixteen were sworn whereof four were Knights and the residue were Squires and Gentlemen and the title was all one as before in T. 28 Eliz. for this same Ibgrave was Tenant in that other Action for the third part And the opinion of all the Court clearly that it is not ayded by the Statute for there is not any certainty in the Grant Name certain but if he had given it a certain name as green Acre then allthough he had mistaken the Parish yet it had been good enough Peryam The Assise may goe their way and they did so and after they being agreed came again to the Bar and the Demandant was called and did not appear whereby the Tenant prayed the Court to record the Nonsuit and it was done Curia All is one as if he had appeared Non-suits for this Non-suit is peremptory for ever the issue being joyned upon the meer droit aliter if the issue had been joyned upon any collaterall poynt 2. IN Trespass by Blunt and Lister against Delabere they were at Issue ' and now the Inquest appeared ready to pass Challenge VValmisley This Inquest you ought not to take for it is favourably made by the Sherif which is within the distress of one of the Plaintifs and shewed how the Sherif held certain lands of a Mannor now in question whereof Lister hath possession and allso hath certain lands for term of years of him and the Plaintifs moved that he ought to take one cause onely 1 Cause Curia He may allege both for the challenge is that he is within the distress and the allegations are but evidence to prove it and then the Plaintif sayd not within his distress whereupon the Court appointed Tryers and the Defendant sayd that all the Jury are favourable Tryors refused and prayed Tryers de circumstantibus Gawdy That cannot be but onely in an Assise and cited 9 Edw. 4. Curia We cannot appoint other Tryers in this case but only of the Jurors wherefore let the fourth and seventh be Tryers but you may refuse them and take others if you will and thereupon the Defendant refused the fourth whereby the third was appointed and they found the Array favourably made and therefore it was quashed 3. A Recovery was had by Arthur Mills against Sir Owen Hopton of divers lands twelve years passed Amendment and by the negligence of the Attorney Warranty of Attorney no Warrant of Attorney was entred for him and now suit was made to the Justices that it might be entered and they all consented thereunto and so it was entered incontinently but first the party made a corporall Oath that he had retained an Attorney and that this was the negligence of his Attorney 4. IN the Exchequer chamber Cook shewed that a Writ of Error was brought between Bedell and Moor Arbitrement and sayd that there was an Error in the Record Error not assigned which was not assigned and prayed that it might be examined allthough that it was not assigned because that it appeared in the Record which was agreed to by the Court. And then he shewed the case that two had submitted themselves for all quarrels ultimo die Novembris An. 24. to stand to the Arbitrement of two others and they Arbitrated that the Plaintif in this Writ of Error should release to the now Defendant all Actions which he might
the Declaration ought to agree with the Writ 14. A Writ of false Judgement was brought upon a Judgement given in a Court of the Deane and Chapter of Westminster Administrators in an Action upon the case brought against one as Administrator And did not shew by whom the Administration was committed which he ought to have done by 32 Hen. 6. 35 Hen. 6. 50. a. and the Assumpsit was laid to be in consideration that Assets came to the hands of the Defendant And whether this were a good consideration was another doubt and it was not averred that the Administrators had goods sufficient after the Debts and Legacies were paid And at this day it was held that when an Action is brought against an Administrator it need not be shewed but in an Action brought by them clearly they ought to shew it And for the other matter whether the Plaintif needed to aver that they had Assets besides the Debts c. it was said that this ought to come and be shewn on the other part And for that Woodwards case in the Commentaries was cited And the next morning Puckering shewed that he had a report of a Judgement given in the Kings Bench that it is not necessary to shew that they had Assets besides the Debts and Legacies c. And therefore he prayed that the Judgement may be affirmed And so it was for Rodes had seen the report of Puckering according to his saying and testified the same whereby Judgement was here given against the Administrator Anderson being in the Starchamber 15. IT was agreed by all the Justices Herriot that for a Herrioâ— service the Lord cannot distrein out of his Fee no more than for a Rent but he may seise a Herriot Custom out of his Fee 16. A Man was outlawed Vtlary and the Sherif retourned the Proclamation tali die omnes singulas proclam fieri feci And did not shew that such a day he made the first and such a day the second c. and this was assigned for Error and prayed that the Utlary night be reversed and so it was 17. FLeetwood shewed that this case came in pleading Rent-service A man had a Rent service payable at the Feast of St. Michael And on Michaelmas day he died about ten of the clock in the morning now he demanded whether his Heir or his Executor shall have the Rent Anderson Hath he not all the day to pay it and upon condition to pay such a sum he may tender it any time before Sun-set Peryam But if the party accept the payment in the morning it is good Curia If it be a case in this Court you ought to demur as your case is and not to be thus Politick 18. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement in the Kings Bench Abatement and one of the parties died hanging the Writ And the Court held this to be an abatement of the Writ and that he ought to purchase a new Writ De Term. Mic. Anno Reg. Eliz. xxx xxxj 1. AFormdon was brought against Haselwood and Haselwood Abatement and the one took the Tenancy of the one Moity Dier 3. 4. Phil. Mar. 134. Absque hoc that the other had any thing therein and pleaded in abatement of the Writ and the other took the Tenancy of the other Moity and vouched Shut Shall I maintain my Writ or answer to the Bar of the other Tota Curia You must needsmaintain your Writ Anderson Where the pleading is such as your Writ cannot be good there it is a ground that you ought to maintain your Writ Praecipe quod reddat but if a praecipe quod reddat be brought against two and the one plead Nontenure and the other accepts the entire Tenancy Absque hoc c. and doth plead in Bar there you may answer to the Bar because there peradventure the Writ is good notwithstanding As if a Writ be brought against the Feoffor and Feoffee upon condition or Morgagor and Morgagee and so there is a diversity 2. IN a Quare impedit brought by the Queen against the Archbishop the disturber Vtlary and the Incumbent the disturber pleaded that long time before he had any thing in the Advowson by whose Utlary the Queen is intitled King Ed. 4. was seised of the Honor of Haststings and granted it to the Lord Hastings in Fee and further granted omnia bona catalla omnium teneutium ejusdem honoris sive manerii residentium non residentium qui forent utlagati c. and so conveyes the Honor by descent to the now Lord Hastings and did not aver that he which was Utlawed Averment was a Tenant of the Honor. Curia It is not good without doubt for otherwise he is not within compass of the Grant and therefore a day was given by which if the Defendant did not shew better matter the Queen should have Judgement 3. IN the Kings Bench Anne Bucher brought an Ejectione Firme against Auncell Samford Devise and other Defendants Glocester And upon not guilty pleaded Hit 30. Eliz. rot 188. the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that William Samford was seised of the Mannor of Stone-house in the Parish of S. whereof the Tenements in demand were parcell and of divers other Tenements within the same Parish and within a place known in the same Parish which is neither Town nor Hamlet called Ebney in which Samford had a Tenement which hath Lands time out of mind perteining thereunto lying as well in Ebney as in Stone-house which Tenement is in the Tenure of one Bucher by Copy of Court-roll according to the custom of the Mannor Afterwards William Samford deviseth to his Brother after the death of Bucher all that my Tenement with the Appurtenances wherein Bucher dewlleth in Ebney Now the question was whether the Lands in Stone-house perteining thereunto shall pass or no And the famous Cook argued that it should pass for this word Tenement referreth to his dwelling which is in Ebney and not to the place where the Lands lie And therefore he said that words ought to have relation ut ne impediatur sententia sed ut res magis valeat quam pereat Quare impedit and he cited 4 Ed. 3 in a Quare impedit quod permittat praesentare ad ecclesiam de Mourton Majorem and the Defendant demanded Judgement of the Writ for false latin because of Majorem and yet it was adjudged good for it shall be referred to ecclesiam and he cited 19 Ed. 3. 3 Ed. 4. Allso it passeth by this word appurtenances for there was such a Chambridgshire case here within this Twelve-month where a man gave instructions to another to make his Will in this form I will that B. shall have my House with all my Lands thereto apperteining And the other made it in these words I devise to B. my house with the Appurtenances and it was adjudged that
the Land should pass by this words Appurtenances For allthough that in late Books Lands shall not pass by this word Appurtenances yet this is good authority to prove that they shall pass as 7 Hen. 5. 41. T. 21 Ed. 3. 18. Allso Wills shall be taken by meaning and here upon this devise 4. l. Rent is reserved and the antient Rent is but 45. s and if the Land should be racked it is all worth but v. l. a year and because they are held in Capite therefore by the Statute we shall have but two parts And it cannot be intended that it was his meaning to have us pay 4. l. for the Lands in Ebney Valew wich are not worth so much therefore somtime the valew is considerable in a Will and cited 4 Ed. 6. 7 Ed. 6. and so he thought the Plaintif ought to recover And at this time the Court seemed to be of the same opinion for they gave day over to the Defendant at which day if nothing were said Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif 4. GAwdy prayed Judgement in an Action of Trespass by Hambledon against Hambledon Survivor the case was such H. was seised in Fee and had issue Mic. 29. 30 three Sonnes Eliz. râ—t 2325. John VVilliam now Plaintif and Richard now Defendant And by his last Will devised Lands to Iohn and to the Heirs Males of his body ingendred and devised other Lands to William in like sort and other Lands to Richard in like sort And that if any of his Sonnes died without issue Male that then the Survivor shall be each others Heir Afterwards the eldest died without issue Male And if William shall have all his part alone or else he and Richard between them was demurred in Law and day was given over to argue it 5. WAlmisley shewed how an Action was brought by Berdsley against Pilkington Impounding upon the Statute of 2 3 P. Mary for driving a Distress out of the County And shewed the truth of his case that the Distress was taken in the Hundred of Offlay in Staffordshire and the City of Lichfield was sometime within this Hundred And by Letters Patents of 1 Mariae the City was made a County of it self and he which took the Distress impounded them within a pound in the County of the City of Lichfield now whether he hath incurred the penalty of the Statute or no was the question And because the Court had not a Statute Book there to see the Preamble therefore they would give no resolution Anderson The meaning of the Statute was because the Bailif of the Hundred might make deliverance Allso I think it is within the compass of the Statute because the City was a County severed before this Statute made And the Serjeants at the bar said Same Hundred that the party may drive the Distress as far as he will within the same Hundred but he ought not to drive it above three miles without the Hundred 6. IOhn Slywright exhibited an information upon the Statute Champerty for buying of Titles Pasch 30. Eliz. rot 1532. against Page and declared how Joane Wade demised to Page for 60 yeares the Defendant pleaded not guilty And now a Jury of Sussex appeared at the bar And upon Evidence it was moved â—if a man have a lawfull Title to enter into Lands Lawfull title but hath not been in Possession and he entreth and makes a Lease for yeares thereof if this be within compass of the Statute Anderson It is within the Statute for the mischief was that when a man had a Title to Land he would let it to another to have maintenance and imbracery and make contentions and Suites for remedy whereof the Statute was made For if a man have a Title he may recover according to his Title Recovery Peryam The mischief hath been truly recited and therfore it is reason to restrain such bargains But if a man Recover by Formdon or Cessavit and make a Lease this is not within compass of the Statute A pretended Right allthough that he hath not been in Possession by a year and in my opinion the Plaintif need not prove that it is a pretented Right because the Statute expoundeth what is a pretented Right viz. if he hath not been in possession And so I have delivered my opinion before this time Anderson If a man hath not been in Possession and cometh to me and saith that he will make me a Lease and demands if I will take it and I agree thereto whereby he maketh me this Lease Ignorance if I do not know that he hath not been in possession I am not within the Statute And then the Defendant shewed that he was brother of the halfblood to the Wife of the Lessor whereby he might take the Lease well enough For Fleetwood cited 6 Ed. 3. if one brother maintain the other this is not within the Statute of Champerty which case the Court agreed this is for speciall cause vide statut de articulis super cartas Maintenance Champerty Difference Anderson One brother may travell for another and maintain him but if he take a Lease of him he is within the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. for this is a generall mischief and the mischief is as great if the brother take a Lease as if another take it The case quod Periam coucessit clearly but because it was the case of the Defendant the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that the Lands were conveyed by the Husband of Joane Wade to the use of himself and his Wife in Tail-speciall the Remainder to the Husband in generall-Tail the Remainder to the Wife in Fee and after the Husband Enfeoffed diverse men thereof and the Feoffees continued in Possession diverse years After the Husband died and then the Wife by indenture sealed and delivered of the Land made a Lease to Page which knew all this matter Knowledge from the fift day of Jenuary last past for 60 years if the Wife should live so long and that the Wife was Sister to Page the Defendant by the Mother and found the valew of the Land as if it should be sold and they prayed the advise of the Court c. And the morow after the like information being brought against the woman being Lessor the like Evidence was given and the like case found 7. FEnner moved this case to the Court. Recovery An Alien born purchaseth Lands in Tail the Remainder to a stranger in Fee The Alien suffereth a Common Recovery to his own use in Fee And after an Office is found of all this matter if the Remainder shall be to him which had it before or no was the question Anderson I think the Queen shall have a good Fee-simple Tenant sufficient to the praecipe for if there be a good Tenant to the praecipe then is the Remainder gone and you will not deny but that
But if a man be indebted to me and after I am Outlawed and then the King releaseth this debt Release of the King of the debt of one outlawed and then I bring a Writ of Error and reverse this Outlary I shall be restored to my action again And here he hath shewen to us a peece of cunning for when he pleads the Outlary in us he hath pleaded the Record specially for otherwise we would have sayd Speciall pleading nul tiel record and then it being reversed it should have been certified for us as there is a case in Dyer Then here allthough that be in by a new presentation yet all the words of our Writ are true in this Scire facias but I grant that Executors shall have a Qnare impedit for a disturbance done to their Testator Executors shal have a Quare impedit Anderson The case in Dyer is thus reported That I when I was the Queens Serjeant and Gerrard now Master of the Rolls then being Attorney of the Queen were of opinion that the Clerk of another shall not be removed and concerning that matter I held then as I doe still that in some cases the Clerk shall not be removed and in some cases he shall for if he come in under the title of the Plaintif Title peramont and since the same then he shall be removed but if he come in by title Paramont he shall not be removed and here for that this is done hanging the Writ it seemeth that he shall be removed For if a man bring a Praecipe and hanging the Writ the Tenant alien yet the recovery is good against him Tenant in a Praecipe aliens and shall allso bind every one under him Peryam That point is clear enough but the question is if by the Outlary the Plaintif hath forfeited his presentation to the Queen For if it be so then this is a new title for the Queen Anderson What reason is there in that when it was an apparent practise of the Defendant to resign for otherwise she could not have presented Plenarty the Church being full before Peryam The practise is not good without doubt but what is the Law Anderson The Law is that the Defendant by his resignation shall never extort the Plaintif from his execution Peryam The point is if by the Outlary the Queen have a new title by reason of the Plaintif and I doubt much thereof if by the judgement she shall have the presentation Anderson I am resolved that there is not any colour in the case but what say you Rodes Truly I hold that the Plaintif shall remove the Clerk Windham And in my opinion it is clear enough that by the reversall of the Outlary the Plaintif shall have his presentation Reversal Anderson Then let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif Peryam In the name of God if you be agreed against me 10. A Writ of Partition was brought by Henry Tannworth Partition and Christian Tannworth against John Tannworth their elder brother for lands in Hawlesteed alias Elsted in Leicester-shire because that Halsteed is parcel of the Soak of Rothelay wherein there is such a custom Members of a Mannâ—r that the lands shall equally descend to all the heirs males and in giving of evidence Walmisley sayd that the members of a Mannor are other Towns in which the Mannor extends and Puckering sayd Soak quid that at this day the Queen may make a Soak For it is nothing else but a Precinct to which divers Mannors come to doe suit and as a great Leet containing divers other Courts and the Evidence was strong for the Tenant for he shewed by plain proof that this was never parcell of the Soak allthough that it was within the ancient Demeasne of Rothelay Domesday as it was proved by the Book of Domesday which was there shewen and a Clerk of the Exchequer read it for other Clerks could not and he sayd and so sayd the Serjeants and the Tenant delivered to Anderson and Peryam an ancient Book of the time of Ed. 2. for their remembrance wherein in 4 Ed. 2. in a nuper obiit it is sayd that if the Lands which have been departible and departed come into the Lords hands by Escheat they shall not be departible in his hands Partible lands Escheat vel in manibus alicujus alius perquisitoris non possunt partiri And he sayd that such was the opinion of Sir Thomas Bromley the last Lord Chancellor upon hearing of the matter there whereby when the Jury came to give their Verdict the Plaintif was Non-suit 11. SHuttelworth shewed how Robert Hughson brought an Action of Debt against B. Office of the Court. as Administrator of F. and declared upon a simple contract made by the Intestate Pasch 30 El. rot 421. and the Defendant pleaded plene administravit and it was found by Verdict against him And now in arrest of Judgement the Defendant alleged that the Action is not maintainable against him upon a simple contract And Shuttelworth thought that now he is past that advantage because he did not shew it in pelading and cited the opinion of Cottesmore in 13 H. 6. And whether the Court ex officio ought to bar the Plaintif or no was the question Rodes It appeareth to us judicially that no action will lie upon a simple contract against Executors or Administrators wherefore then ought the Plaintif to have Judgement Shuttelworth Because by his Plea he took upon him notice of the contract and by 46 Ed. 3. where the Administrator was privy to the retainer of a servant he was charged by a simple contract Rodes Here he did not take notice and in 15 Edw. 4. The Court ex officio abated the Writ Shuttelworth This is by Littleton onely Rodes The case is ruled and Littleton gave Judgement so is the case in 11 Hen. 4. where an Action upon the case is brought against an Inne-keeper A common Ianholder if he be not named Hospitator allthough he plead in bar yet we ex officio ought to abate the VVrit Peryam If he be no Hosteler the Action lyeth not against him And if an Action of Debt be brought and doe not shew the place of the Obligation if the other plead a release this is good enough Shuttelworth So is 18 Edw. 4. A Deâ—d not shewed in Court 6 Hen. 7. Rodes If a man bring an Action and the Defendant plead in bar by Deed and do not shew the Deed and the other pleads in bar and doth not except thereunto but they were at Issue this is Error for we ex officio ought to have adjudged it evill and so is the Book in 22 Hen. 6. or 28 Hen. 6. and I can shew the case Then Shuttelworth sayd privily to his Client I doubt we shall doe no good by our Action Anderson being then in the Star-chamber After at another day Anderson rehearsed the case and sayd
rather to the contrary For common intent is that which shall be intended more strong than any other and not that which resteth indifferent As if a man Plead a Feoffment in fee it shall be intended that the Feoffer was of full age but here common intent is that he was another person because Barber Chirurgeon and Tayler are divers functions by common intent And as to the case put by common intent it shall be intended the same Westm because the place is so notorious that common intent will nor intend any other But Peryam would not grant that case of 21 H. 7. At another day Gawdy said that they have a President in 16. Eliz. where an action was brought here against the Administrator of Francis Fitzherbert Mercer And they pleaded likewise a Recovery in the Kings bench against them as Administrator of F. F. Grocer and allowed for good and in 10 H. 7. wast is brought and doth not say praedict and yet good Peryam For the cases in 10. H. 7. 21 H. 7. It was all in one Plea but it is not so here And for his President Anderson and Peryam said that they would not regard it if it do not appear that Exception was taken thereunto if the Presidents be shewen for matter Matter 〈◊〉 Form 〈◊〉 Presidents but if they be shewen for form then otherwise it is Anderson If I. S. bring a Praecipe against me and I vouch I. S. it shall not be intended the same person â—oucher if he do not say expresly that he is the same person therefore a Fortiori here it shall not be intended the same person Afterwards the next Term Shuttleworth argued again that it shall be intended the same person but all the Court was against him and so they gave judgement for the Plaintif 19 FEnner shewed how Bartholmew Brooksbie hath brought a Quare impedit A thing in action released and declared how A. was seised of the advowson in fee and graunted to him and another the next avoidance and after the church became void and the other released to him all his right c. and the Defendant disturbed him And after they pleaded to issue which was found with the Plaintif and this matter alleged in arrest of judgement that the Release was void and then he hath no cause of action for when the Church became void then it was a thing in action or actionary and therefore could not be granted over by 28 H. 8. Interest shall survive and by the same reason it cannot be released as 1 and 2 P. and M. and 2 and 3 P. and M. in Dyer Anderson If it be an interest it shall survive and by the same reason it may be released And it shall goe to his Executors wherefore then may it not be released Et adjornatur De Term. Mich. Anno xxxix xl Eliz. Reg. 1. TIsdale Maintainance one of the Attorneyes of the Common pleas brought an Action upon the Statute of Maintainance against John al Tree in Chancery lane for Maintainance in a Spirituall Court and by all the Court an Action is not Maintainable for Maintainance in an inferiour Court for this word alibi being in the Statute was expounded to be meant of the Kings Court onely and in the argument of the same case Drew remembred the Court of a Judgement given there in the like case for one Constantine of Wiltshire 2. BEtween Brown and Lother an Action was brought in the Spiritual Court Consultation for these words Thou art a forsworn Knave for thou madest a false account when thou wert Churchwarden and thereupon the Defendant brought a Prohibition supposing the discussing of Perjury to belong to the Temporall Court and upon the opening of the matter to the Court the Plaintif had a consultation because the Perjury was supposed to be committed about the execution of his Office of Churchwarden which doth belong to the Spirituall jurisdiction But otherwise it had been if the Perjury had been supposed to have been committed concerning a Feoffment or other Temporall act per Walmisley Owen 3. BRoughton against Flood Amendment the originall Writ was returned by Needham Esquire Sherif and his Christian name left out Williams moved the Court to have the Christian name of the Sherif put into the Writ but the Court denyed it because the Record was made up and likewise by this means they should make an Outlary good which was now erroneous 4. IN an Advowry the Defendant saith Venue that locus in quo c. is parcell of the Manner of Dale and avows for suit of Court the Plaintif by replication saith that locus in quo c. is parcell of the Mannor of Sale and maketh to himself a title absque hoc that it is parcell of the Mannor of Dale and the Venire faciaâ— was of Dale onely and upon motion all the Court adjudged that it ought to have been of both Mannors and made a rule for stay of Judgement after Verdict This was the case of Atwood of the Middle-Temple 5. IT was sayd by Anderson and Owen Prohibition that a Prohibition will not lye after a sentence in the Spirituall Court and that if the Libell be for such a matter as may be determined in the Spirituall Court no Prohibition will lye unless some Plea be pleaded by the Defendant in that Court which the Judge will not allow For if a Suit be in the Court of Admiralty upon a contract made upon the Sea and the Defendant pleaded a release or a gift after the coming to Land that Court may enquire and try this issue the like for Tythes 2 Rich. 3. 6. IT was sayd by Drew in the Argument of the case between Râ—theâ—â—â— and Green Common that if a Commoner take a Lease of one Acre out of which his Common is issuing that his whole Common is suspended Rent allso where a Lease for years is rendring Rent and for default of payment a re-entry if the Lessor grant the reversion of one Acre Condition the whole condition is gone Also that an entry by the Lessor into any parcel suspends the whole rent during his occupation and Anderson sayd that there is no Common by common right but Common appendant 7. ADams brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Oglethorp Restitution the Defendant pleaded that after the making of the Obligation Trin. 39 Eliz. 〈◊〉 1803. the Plaintif was attainted of Treason for Coyning and pleads the Attainder at length the Plaintif confesseth the Attainder and saith that afterwards the Queen by Letters Patents did pardon him and did restore unto him omnia bona cattella sua and thereupon the Defendant did demur in Law the question was whether Debts by specialty be included in those words 8. EVeling against Leveson Executor of the Testament of Walton Assets in effect the case was this The Queen was indebted to Walton in a hundred pound for
Muskets and Callivers delivered into the Tower for which money Walton took a Debenter from the Queen in the name of a stranger and afterwards dyed and made Leveson Executor who procured the stranger to release and surrender the former Debenter to the Queen and took a new Debenter for the same hundred pound to himself this was adjudged no Assets nor devastavâ—t in the hands of the Executor Leveson upon a speciall Verdict but otherwise it should have been if the first Debenter had been taken in VValtons own name for then it had been a devastavit by the Executor 9. BAcon Plaintif against Selling in an Ejectione firme Assets de judgement the originall bare teste 13 Aprilis An. 39. and the Plaintif declared upon a Lease made to him 22 Apr. An. 39. Trin. 39 Eliz. rot 1345. so that it appeared to the Court that the Plaintif brought his Action before he had an interest in the Land and by all the Court a Rule was given for stay of Judgement after a Verdict but afterwards the Plaintif came and shewed that after Improlance he filed a new originall 10. HEnry Earl of Lincoln brought a Scandalum magnatum against one Michelborn for these words Scandalum magnatum viz. The Earl of Lincolns men by his commandement did take the Goodt of one Hoskins by a forged Warrant c. And the Earl recovered great damages by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement that the words were not sufficient to maintain the Action because it was not averred that the Earl knew the Warrant to be forged and of the same mind was the Court at this time 11. WIlloughby brought an Action of Debt against Milward Debt and declared that the Defendant bought Timber of him for ten pound solvend modo forma sequenti viz. five pound ad festum Pasch proxime sequentem and saith nothing when the other five pound should be payed and the Plaintif recovered the whole ten pound by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement for the cause aforesaid but yet by all the Court it was good enough for the Law intendeth the other part of the money to be due presently if no certain day of payment bee alleged 12. KItchin brought an Action of Debt against Dixson Debt Executor of Craven Mich. 36 37 El. rot 1028. or 1021. the Defendant pleaded ne unques Executor and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. That Craven in his life time made a Deed of Gift of all his Goods to Dixson and they found likewise that this Deed was to defraud Creditors against the form of the Statute and that the Defendant by colour of this Deed did take the Goods after the death of Craven and if this Deed vvas good then they found for the Defendant if not then they found the Defendant was Executor of his own wrong and so for the Plaintif and by all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif 13. IT was sayd by Drew arguendo That if the Grantee of a Rent charge release parcell of the Rent to the Grantor or his heires Rent charge the residue may be apportioned and the Land shall remain chargeable still for that residue but if he release in one Acre parcell of the Land charged then all the Rent is gone 14. IT was said by Glanvile in the argument of the case between Cromwell and Andrews Provisâ— that a Proviso in a conveiance to be performed on the part of the Lessee implies a re-entry allthough there be no speciall words of re-entry but otherwise it is when it ariseth on the part of the Lessor and Vouched bendlowes case where there was a Covenant going between the Habendum and Proviso But where the Proviso standeth substantively as where I grant a Rent charge Proviso that he shall not charge my person Condition this is no Condition but a Qualification Allso where a Feoffment is made upon Condition to grant me a Rent Charge payable at Easter and Christmas if the grant be not made before the first Feast which shall next happen the Condition is broken and he put a difference where the Condition must be performed by none but himself and where it may as well be performed by his Executors as himself And Drew said then that if there be a Feoffment upon Condition to Re-enfeoff the Feoffer there ought the Feoffor to make a request otherwise if it be to enfeoff another 15. SMith against Bonsall Common in effect the case was such In an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded his Freehold Hil. 39. Eliz. rot 1753. and the Plaintif replyed that A. was seised of a Yard-land to which he had Common of Pasture for all maner of Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the same Yard-land and of the Moity thereof did enfeoff the Plaintif the question was whether this Common may be apportioned or else it be extinct alltogether In the argument whereof Drew said that Common sans number cannot be granted over because if it should be granted to a rich man he may surcharge the Common then and leave none for the rest of the Commoners so of estovers uncertain for so the Grantee may burn all the Wood quod Walmisley concessit and he vouched 17 Eliz. in Dyer that a Commoner may purchase parcell of the Land out of which his Common is issuing Purchase after that it be improved by the Lord and not extinguish his Common thereby And he said that if parcell of the Common be inclosed Inclosure a Commoner ought to make but one gap to put in Cattell but Anderson said that he may make as many gapes as he will And it was said by Anderson and Beamont Appendant may be apportioned that Common appendant cannot be for all manner of Cattell but onely for such â—attell as compass the Land and that such Common may be apportioned into twenty parts Append. quid as any Common certain may be Walmisley Owen If my Land to which I claim Common belonging can yield me stover to find a hundred Cattell in Winter then shall I have Common in Summer for a hundred Cattell in the Land out of which I claim Common and so for more or fewer proporitionably which they did expound to be the meaning of pertinen Moity of a Mannor levan and cuban Walmisley If I grant away the moity of my Mannor we shall both keep Courts so if I be disseised of a Moity or that the Moity be in Execution by elegit and we shall both have Common and in apportionment of Common respect ought allwaies to be had to the quality of the Land unto wâ—ich it is alloted Copiholder And a Copyholder may prescribe for Common in the Lords Land within the same Mannor by usitatum fuit but if he claim any other Common he must lay the prescription in the Lord. De Term. Hill An Reg. Eliz. xliii 1. WAlter Ascough prisoner
in the Fleet Appearance was brought to the Common place bar by habâ—as corpus to the intent to have him appear to an Originall in debt brought against him And being demanded by Goldesburg Clark whether he were the same party against whom the Originall was brought confessed it but denied to appear to the Action Brâ—â—keâ— Prothonotary said the Court ought to record his appearance confessing himself to be the same person but the whole Court said this was no appearance whereby he was remanded to the Fleet And Tamworth the Plaintif proceeded to the outlary against him 2. PRice brought an Action of Trover against Sir Walter Sands Frandulent deeds Trin. xxxviii Eli. And this was for finding of Corn. And the first point of the case was That a man had a Lease in Reversion and granted it to another by fraud and his Grantee granted that over to Sir Walter Sands bona fide And if this Grant over bona fide being derived out of a Fraudulent Estate shall be void per the Statute of 27 Eliz. or not was the question Harris Serjeant It seemeth the Grant to Sir Walter Sands to be good And not within the Statute of 27 Eliz. For 33 Heâ— 6. 28. If a man make a Feoffment in Fee by Collusion to the intent to defraud the Lord of the Wardship And after this Feoffee by Collusion make a Feoffment over bona fide Now the Lord is without remedy for the Collusion is gone And in this case there is an ignorance in Sir Walter Sands the which is not willfull and for that it is not punishable Notice But if the other had taken the profits so that the purchaser might have notice there it should be otherwise The â— cause was non constat whether the Grant were before the Statute of 27 Eliz. or not For if it were before then the party shall not answer the mean profits Allso a third matter is ten yeares of the Term was granted for money But when he granted the Residue of the Term and no Consideration expressed Consideration expressed then there shall be no consideration intended And if there were no Consideration given he is not holpen by the Statute For that helpeth a Frandulent Conveyance against purchasers for Consideration given or paid Et non constat that any thing was paid by the Plaintif Allso it appeareth that Sir VValter Sands was in possession at the making of the Statute Allso here the party is charged with a speciall fraud And the other saith that it was made bona fide And this is a good course of pleading without any Traverse per 4 Ed. 4. 24. 3. HUgh Hall brought an Action upon his case for words and declared Slander that where he himself was robbed of divers parcels of Cloth per quendam ignotum and made his integrity and indeavour to apprehend the said thief praedictns tamen defendens praemissorum non ignarus dixit de praefato Hugone viz. Hugh Hall hath received three parcells of his Cloth again of the thief And if I receive any hurt henceforth I will charge him with it And by Judgement of the Court the words are not actionable 4. THe Lady VVilloughby Wife to the late Sir Francis VVilloughby Caveat sued in the Chancery as Administratrix of her said Husband against Percivall Willoughby which had maried one of the Daughters of the said Sir Francis And the Defendant pleaded that before any Administration commited to the said Plaintif he himself put in a Caveat in the Spirituall Court hanging which Caveat she hath attained these Letters of Administration Appeal whereby the Defendant hath appealed 〈◊〉 which appeal is not yet determined for which he demanded Judgement if hanging this appeal the said Plaintif shall be received to sue in this Court as Administratrix And it seemed to Egerton then Lord Keeper of the great Seal that the Defendants plea is good to stay the suit untill the appeal be determined But not to be dismissed out of the Court Appeal Erâ—â—â— Difference no more than an excommunication And he said there is difference between an appleal in Spirituall Law and a Writ of Error in our Law For by the purchasing of a Writ of Error the Judgement is not impeached untill the Record be rehearsed But the very bringing of an appeal is a suspension of the first Judgement in the Spirituall Court for the principall matter but not for the costs and for to prove that he cited 2 R. 2. Quare impedit 143. vide 27 H. 6. Gaud. 118. 2 M. 105. Dyer 7 Eliz. 240. 5. IN the Chauncery a speciall Verdict was retorned upon an extent Execution uâ—on an exteâ—t of a Remainder And the case was this that there was Tenant for liâ—e the Remainder in Tail and the Tenant in Remainder in Tail made a Statute Staple and after granted his Remainder And after the Tenant for life died 〈◊〉 Bull 〈◊〉 and the Grantee of the Remainder entered And whether Execution shall be sued of this land upon the said Statute insomuch that the said land was never in Demeasne in the hands of the Coâ—â—so◠〈◊〉 â—ames 〈◊〉 and so not extendable in his hands was the question And Sr. Thomas Egerton Lord Keeper of the great seal said that before that time there had been a difference taken between a Remainder and a Reversion depending upon an estate for life For to a Remainder are no services due nor incident and for that it is termed Seck But a Reversion hath services incident and those may be extended and by consequence the Reversion when it commeth in possession Bâ—t it seemed unto him that all was one for one may charge a Remainder when it happeneth aswell as a Reversion and a Statute is in the nature of a charge Cook the Queenes Attourney said there was no question in the Case for albeit there was some scruple made in 33 H. 8. B. 227. yet the Case is without question for if he in the Remainder make a lease for yeares to commence at a day to come Yet if he grant over his Remainder the Grantee shall hold that charged with his lease And every Statute is a charge Executory By which the said Lord Keeper awarded that there should be a liberate made to the Conusee upon the retorn above 6. OVerton brought an action of Debt against Sydall Debt by a Successor against an Executor after assignment And the case was that Prebendary made a lease for yeares rendring rent and the Lessee died and the Executors of the Lessee assigned over the Term and the Successor of the Prebend brought an action of Debt against the Executors for rent due after that they had assigned the estate over and the opinion of three Justices was that the action would not lye But Popham the chief Justice held the contrary For the Successor is privie to the Contract of the predecessor And so the Executor to the contract of the Testator
de D. and a Lease had been made by name de Minister domus de D. omitting this word Dei every one will agree that this is voyd but if a further addition be made to the Corporation the Lease is true Addition superfluous shall not hurt allbeit that it be varying as if the Lease had been Minister Dei omnipotentis the addition of this word omnipotent shall not hurt sic de similibus And allbeit that it be not agreeing in words yet if it agree in common understanding Common understanding it is good but if in common understanding the grant may not be taken according to the Foundation if it be not wrested to an unexpected understanding there it is not good and if the Foundation had been in English words Minister of God of the poor house of Donington and the Lease by name of Minister of the poor house of God of Donington every one will agree that this is palpable variance and the Lease not good And I doubt of the case of Everwick for there the Prior beatâ—â— Mariae brought an action by name of Prior beatâ—â— Mariae extramures civitatis Ebor and if this case were now to be adjudged that would be variance as the case of Bristoll Prior beatae Maria de Bristoll made a Lease by name of Prior beatae Maria juxta Bristoll and this Lease was adjudged voyd but if the case had been de Everwick juxta mures civitatis Ebor. this had been no materiall variance for it had been but an explanation which will never hurt and for that the Court was so divided in opinion that is to say two against two and the case concerned a poor house They moved the parties to comprimise 8. RUswell brought disceipt against Vaughan Disceipt and declared that the Defendant sciens that he had no title to the Advowson of D. took upon him to be owner of that and sold the profits of the sayd Advowson to the Plaintif pro quadam pecunia summa And it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintif did not aver ubi revera the Defendant had no title non allocatur 9. THe case was that the Queen made a Lease for years Burrough versus Taylor rendring rent at the receipt of her Exchequer or to the hands of her Baylif upon condition that if the rent be not payd that the estate shall cease Payment of rent the reversion being granted away by the Queen after the Queen granted over the reversion and whether the rent shall be now tendered upon the land or at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the person of the Assignee of the reversion was the question and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the reversion ought to demand the rent upon the Land or otherwise he shall not re-enter for the condition broken that for two causes the one for that that when the reversion was in the Queen Election the Lessee had election to pay it at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the hands of the Queens Baylif and when the Queen had granted over the reversion the election of the Lessee is tolled by which now the rent shall ensue the nature of other rents reserved by common persons The common receipt of the Exchequer and those are payable upon the lands another reason is every rent reserved by the Queen is of common right payable at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the Baylifs of the Queen without words appointing at what place it shall be payd for these are the usuall receipts of the Queen and so the words which appoint that to be payd at the receipt of the Excheq â—r to the hands of the Baylif of the Queen are idle words for that the Law appointeth so much of common right ex praerogativa Regis but when the reversion is transferred into the hands of a common person No prerogative can be granted over there this Prerogative ceaseth for it cannot be granted to a common person and by consequence the rent shall be payd upon the Land 10. THomas VVelcome Error Executor of Anthony VV. Executor of John VVelcome brought a Writ of Debt against S. S. in the Common-place and Judgement was given and entred quod praedictus Johannes VVelcome recuperet where it should have been quod praedictus Thomas VVelcome recuperet No amendment in point of judgement and for that Error was brought and Serjeant Heale moved that the Record might be mended for that it was the mis-entring of the Clerk but adjudged to the contrary for the Judgement is the act of the Court and not of the Clerk 11. EDmund Nevell brought an Action of Trespass against J. Sayle Abuttals and declared Quare clausum fregit in quodam loco vocato Claveringfield abuttan super quoddam molend in tenura J. S. Opinio Curiae If the Plaintif do not prove his Buttals he is gone And for that he could not prove that the Mill was in the tenure of J. S. the Jury being at bar was discharged and howbeit that there be a way between the Close and the Mill yet the Buttall is good 12. RIchard Somerstailes brought an Action upon the case for slanderous words Slanderous words that is to say R. S. is a very bad fellow for he made J. S. drunken in the night and consened him of an hundred Marks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment was stayed for the words are not sufficient to maintain an Action 13. IF the Heir of the Morgagee is in Ward Mortgage and the Morgager payeth the mony his entry is not lawfull upon the King but shall be put to monstrans de droit per Popham chief Justice 14. HAmond brought Debt upon an Obligation against Hatch Award of paâ—t onely and the Condition was That if the Obligor do well and truly perform and keep the Award of J. S. Arbitrator indifferently chosen between the Plaintif and the Defendant for and concerning the matters contained in 9 severall Articles bearing date the day of these presents So that the same be given up under the hand and seal of c. And the Arbitrator made an award of 7 of the sayd Articles omitting the other two and whether the Obligor ought to perform this Award was the question Man I think he ought to perform the Award for that he is bound by Obligation to perform it and to prove that he cited 5 Edw. 4. 19 Hen. 6. 17 Edw. 4. Gawdy The words of the Condition are so that the same Award be given up in writing before such a day and that shall have reference to all the Articles for the Submission was conditionall as 14 Elizab. And after Judgement was given quod quer nihil capiat per billam 15. How against Broom and others A Man leased a House and a Close rendring rent and the Lessor entered into the house and pulled that down and after
the Lessee re-entered into the Close Rent extinct by empairing the estate and whether the rent were revived or not was the question And Popham and Gawdy The rent is not revived and that the Lessee shall hold the Close discharged of any Rent by the folly of the Lessor to impair the estate of the Lassee 16. DOwnall brought a Writ of Formdon against Catesby in the Common-place Error and there was a speciall Verdict found and Judgement given for a default in the Writ against the Plaintif and the Plaintif brought Error and alleged for Error that after Verdict given no default in the Writ shall prejudice the party per le Statute de 18 Eliz. cap. 14. Popham chief Justice sayd if there be no Writ it is holpen by the Statute Insufficient Writ â—ot holpen but it is otherwise if there be an insufficient Writ in matter for that is not holpen but a Writ that is insufficient in form and sufficient in matter is holpen And in every Writ of Formdon there are two things requisite the one is the gift the other the conveyance to the Demandant and if either of these two fail the Writ is insufficient in substance and is not holpen by the Statute 17. PEter Palmer of Lincolns Inne brought an action upon the case against one Boyer Slander of a Counsellor at Law and declared how he was an Utter-barrester of the Law and got his living by practising of the Law and was Steward of divers Courts and namely of one John Petty Esquire and the Defendant praemissorum non ignarus to the intent to prejudice the Plaintif in his good name and practise sayd of the Plaintif these English words viz. Peter Palmer is a paltry Lawyer and hath as mâ—ch Law as a Jackanapes and it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the words would not maintain an action for they are not slanderous for it is not sayd he hath no more Law than hath a Jackanapes for then it had been clear that the action is maintainable for by that he had abated the opinion of his Learning but it is not so in this case for the words are that he hath as much Law as hath Jackanapes and this is no impeachment of his Learning for every man that hath more Law than Jackanapes hath as much Et non allocatur for the comparison is to be taken in the worst sense and tant amounts that he hath no more Law than Jackanapes per quod Judgement was given for the Plaintif for this is a slander in his profession by which he doth acquire his living 18. ONe libelled in the Spirituall Court for Tithe of Billet Prohibition Faggot ' and Talwood And averred that it came of Birch Maple Hasell and Hume and thereupon a Prohibition was sued surmising that they came of Oke Ash Elm and Birch And in the Spirituall Court allbeit one Libell for wood of one nature and that is found of another nature yet sentence shall be given for the Plaintif The Court said that was absurd Absurd practise of the spirituall Court and therefore they would hear a Civilian speak to that point Cook Attorney Generall If consultation shall not be granted then farewell all Tithe of Wood for in truth in every faggot of Birch there is put a great stick of Oak or Ash intending by that to privilege the whole faggot of Tithe Nam crescit in orbe dâ—lus Webb Clark said the cunning is of your side to Libell for fagot For if you had Libelled for Maple Birch or Hasell no Prohibition would have been sued And it was adjudged in this Court in Molins case one Libbelled for billet and fagot generally without shewing of what Wood they were made And upon pleading upon the Prohibition Partable tithable it appeared to the Court that part was tithable and part not And for that they could never obtain a Consultation Cook It doth not appear here that there was any mixture so the case is not like Webb You have no Right to have Tith of fagot for that part thereof is not tithable being Oak so by your Covetousness to have more than is your Right you have lost that that is your Right Et adjornatur And after at another day in the same Term it was moved again by Savile Lanes case which said that it was adjudged in Lanes case that tith shall never be paid for Hasell-wood wich is mixt with Oak in fagots quod Gawdie negavit Fenner He ought to have pleaded the speciall matter to have had a Consultation Seeciall pleading viz. how much of the fagot was Hasell for so it was done inter Molius Dames And therefore forasmuch as it is not so done Consultation shall not be granted for no part of that and of this opinion were all the Justices quod nota 19. NOta per Master Kemp Secondary of the Kings Bench Office Appearance if a Latitat goeth forth against the Husband and Wife and the Husband onely is taken The Husband shall find surety for himself and his Wife or otherwise he shall lie in Prison untill he find bail as well for his Wife as for himself and said that this hath been the use of the Kings Bench by the space of forty years of his knowledge 20. SCire facias was brought by Middleton against Hall Usury after Judgement to execute a Judgement The Defendant pleaded that he borrowed of the Plaintif 100. l. to give him 120. l. for the loan thereof for a year And the Plaintif for his assurance would have the Defendant confess this Judgement of 120. l. And so he pleaded the Statute of Usury in bar to this Scire facias and upon that the Plaintif demurred in Law Godfery prayed Judgement for the Plaintif The words of the Statute of Usury are all Bonds Contracts and assurances Collaterall or other made c. shall be utterly void But here this Judgement may not be said any assurance for the money but is a Judgement upon the assurance for which c. Clark contra But the whole Court being twise moved held clearly that this is no plea to defeat a Judgement But if such matter had been the Defendant ought to have pleaded that upon the first Action in bar and so not to suffer the Judgement Popham Here are two inconveniences one to defraud and defeat the Statute of Usury the other to avoid Judgements upon such suggestions which might be pleaded in bar in the first Action and after the Plaintif had Judgement to recover 21. MArtin Slander of an Attorney Attorney of the Kings Bench brought an Action of the case against Burling for slanderous words viz. Martin is he your Attorney he is the foolishest and simplest Attorney towards the Law And if he do not overthrow your cause I will give you my ears he is a fool and an ass and so I will prove him If these words be actionable or not was the question
view of the Record it appeared that no originall was certified and therefore could not be amended 33. EJectione firme inter Bulleyn Bulleyn Devise Cook Attorney Generall The case is that Simon Bulleyn being cestui que use before 27 H. 8. Devised to his Wife certain Land for her life that after her decease Robert Bulleyn his eldest sonne shall have the land ten pound under the price it cost Limitation and if he dyed without issue that Richard Bulleyn his second sonne shall have the land ten pound under the price it cost and if he dye without issue of his body then his two Daughters A. and B. shall have the land paying the value thereof to the Executors of his Wife and allso by the same Will he desired his Feoffees at the request of his Wife to make Estates accordingly The chief question and knot of the case is whether Robert Bulleyn the Devisee hath an estate tayl or not and he sayd it seemed to him he had but an estate tayl and for that we are to see whether the payment ought to precede or is subsequent to the estate and I think it is subsequent to the estate For the words are my sonne Robert shall have my laud ten pound under the price it cost and so by the words he ought to have the land before any payment and I think he shall have the land by course of limitation Limitation and if he doe not pay the money that R. B. shall have the land as Heir by limitation Crickmores case and for that purpose he cited Crickmores case in 3 Elizab. where a man had two Daughters and devised his land to his eldest daughter paying to the youngest ten pound there the eldest had all the land till she failed of payment of the ten pound and then it was adjudged that the youngest should have the moity by way of limitation Vellock Heymonds case And 32 Eliz. it was adjudged in this Court inter Vellock Heymond where a man devised Burrongh English land to the eldest brother paying to the youngest ten pound and after the elder failed of payment and the youngest entered by way of limitation And in this case these words that Robert my son shall have my land ten pound under the price it cost will make a condition as well as if he had sayd paying ten pound and to prove that he cited Sir Edward Cleres case Sir Edward Cleres case that these words upon trust and confidence will not make a Condition by reason that the Devisor had a speciall trust and confidâ—nce in the Devisee but it is otherwise here and in this case the estate of necessitie ought to precede the payment for it is appointed that the payment shall be made to the Executors of the woman and so if the estate doe not precede the payment then during the life of the woman the Devisee shall have no estate for during her life she cannot have Executors and so by consequence can there be no payment Allso the words of the Will are I desire my Feoffees to make an estate at the request of my Wife so that his meaning was plain that there should be an estate made in the life of the Wife for after her death she may not make request but it hath been sayd that the state should be Fee simple for that the words are that he shall have the land ten pound under the price it cost and so these words paying shall carry the Fee simple And as to that I say that it shall not against an expressed estate Expressed estate And for that 2 El. 117. a Frenchman devised lands to his Wife for life the remainder to C. F. and to the heirs Males of his body and if he dye without heirs of his body the remainder over and it was taken clearly that the generall limitation if he dyed without issue of his body shall not alter the speciall tayl for that the intent is apparent and allso he cited Claches case and Atkins case 34 Eliz. 33. Allso in this case Robert Bulleyn the Devisee is made Executor to the woman so that if it were a condition subsequent he may not make payment to himself but shall have the land discharged of the condition by reason of the impossibility as if the woman had dyed intestat there is no person to whom the payment ought to be made and so the Devisee is discharged of the condition Allso in this case the Devisee being eldest sonne may not forsake the Devise and take by descent as in 3 Hen. 6. 46. it is for the benefit of him in remainder but if he might waive he may not waive in pais as 13 Rich. 2. Joyntenancy is adjudged And allso when he enters at the first he is seised by the Devise for he hath no other right for if he might waive he in remainder shall not take Et adjornatur but the Court seemed to lean that the estate should be a Fee simple 34. BUry brought an Action upon his case for words against Chappell Slander viz. He hath been in Fowlers Tub innuendo the Tub of one Fowler a Chirurgeon in which Tub no person had been but those which were layd of the Pox I will not say of the Pox but he lay in the Tub that time that Lagman his Wife was layd of the Pox and tell thy Master his hair falls from his head and he is a pilled Knave and a Rascall Knave and a Villain and no Christian and thinks there is neither heaven nor hell and adjudged that the Action is not maintainable 35. A Man is arraigned of Felony and acquitted Flight for Felony but it is found that he fled for the Felony he shall not lose his goods that he had at that time of his flying but at the time of the acquittall tit Coronae Fiâ—zh 296. Bro. tit relation 31. 3 Ed 3. 36. WIlkinson brought Error upon a Judgment given against him in the Common place Variance between emparlance and judgment roll for date of the Obligation And the case was that in Debt brought against Wilkinson in the Common place upon an Obligation bearing date 1â— die Novembris the Defendant imparled and in the next Term the Plaintif declared a new prout patet upon an Obligation bearing date 12. Februarii and upon nihil dicit had judgment And now in the Writ of Error brought by the Defendant the Plaintif prayes that it may be amended Gawdie Fenner said it could not be amended but the Lord Popham and Clinch said it might be amended 37. SKelt brought an Assumpsit against Wright and declared that the Defendant in consideration of 10l assumed to make two lights into one New triall and upon non assumpsit pleaded they were at issue and the Record of nisi prius was to make two lights and one where it ought to be into one and upon that at the nisi prius the
Plaintif was non suit And it was now moved whether the Plaintif ought to have a new venire facias upon the first issue insomuch as the first venire facias did not issue forth upon the first Record and no non suit Et opiniâ— Curiae that he may go to a new triall but whether he shall have a venire facias de novo or that the old venire facias should serve the Court doubted for that the first Jury was sworn 38. FOrd brought an Action of Debt against Glanvile and his Wife Administratrix bonorum Catellorum qua fuerunt Johannis S. durante minore aetate T. S. Abatements The Defendant pleaded that hanging this action against them the said T. S. during whose nonage the Wife was Administratrix came to full age and if this were a good Plea or no was the question And adjudged a good Plea 39. UPon an information against Sr. Christopher Blunt a Juror was challenged for want of Free-hold Free-hold of a Juror and by examination was found that he had 20 shillings a year Fenner and Gawdy doubted whether this be sufficient Free-hold or not Popham and Clinch held it is sufficient for the Statute binds not the Queen and by the Common law if he had any Free-hold it was sufficient Fenner This is a Statute made for the benefit of the Common-wealth and therefore the Queen shall be bound by it though she be not named in it Gawdy Me thinks every Juror ought to have 40. s Free hold at the least by the Common-Law No bill of enception against the Queen Cook No certainly and if they doe take the Law to be so they may have a bill of exception Tanfield Wee cannot have a bill of exception against the Queen see the Statute of 1 Hen. 5. cap. 3. that that is between party and party and the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. the preamble is between party and party But Popham commanded the Jury to be sworn but Gawdy would have sent to the Justices of the Common Pleas for their opinion but the Juror was sworn by Commandment of Popham against the opinion of Justice Fenner 40. PEr Cook Proxime future If I am bound in an Obligation in Lent upon Condition to pay a lesser sum in quarta septimana quadragesima proximae futurae This money shall be paid in Lent Twelvemonth after And so it is upon the Feast day of St Michael I am bound to pay a lesser Summe upon the Feast day of Saint Michaell prox futur without question said he it shall be paid the Twelvemonth after and not the instant day 41. THE Duke of Norfolk Morgaged certain Lands to Rowland Haward Demand Alderman of London upon Condition that if the said Duke do repay to the said Alderman a certain Sum of money That then the Duke might re-enter and after the Duke was attainted before the day of payment Condition given to the Queen and all his Lands Tenements and Conditions were given to the Queen And the question moved at the Table in the Serjeants Inne was whether Sir Rowland ought now to make a Demand of the money upon the Land or to demand that at the Receipt of the Exchequer or that the Queen ought to make the tender upon the Land And it was agreed by all the Judges and Serjeants at dinner that the Queen ought to make no tender But the Alderman ought to make his Demand at the Exchequer and not upon the Land 42. REdfrein agaiust I. S. an Action of the case was brought for words Slander viz. I was robbed and you were privy thereunto and had part of my money It was pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the words will not maintain an Action For that a man may be privy to a robbery after that it is made and have part of the money by honest meanes and therefore it is no slander but the whole Court held the contrary Infected Smell of robbery as well as you are infected with a robbery and smell of the same will maintain an Action so will these words therefore Judgement was given for the Plaintif 43. MEggs against Griffyth brought an Action for these words Slander viz. A woman told me that she heard say that Meggs Wife poysoned her Husband in a mess of milk and Judgement given for the Plaintif 44. REvell against Hart A Parsons Lease the case was upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of Leases made by a Parson Serjeant Harris A Lease made by a Parson is not void against the Parson himself no more than a Lease made by a Bishop which is not void against the Bishop himself as was judged in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury Fenner The Law is as you said in a case of a Bishop but the case of a Parson percase will differ Popham If Rent be reserved Rent reserved it is good against the Parson himself otherwise not Clinch and Gawdy It is good against the Parson himself 45. WInch brought a Writ of Error against Warner Space in the roll upon a Judgement in a Writ of Debt in the Common place upon Arrerageâ— upon an account and it was assigned for Error for that the Plaintif in the Common place The emparlance roll is the Warrant in the first Declaration left a space for the day and year And after imparlance he put in a new Declaration which was perfect But for that the two Declarations did not agree and the first Declaration is the Warrant of all and therefore ought to be perfect therefore the Judgement ought to be Reversed for this default 46. IT appeared in Evidence inter Petties and Soam Foractor upon an Assumsit for ware bought by the Factor of Soam per opinionem Cur. If one be Factor for a Merchant to buy one kind of Stuff as Tin or other such like and the said Factor hath not used to buy any other kind of wares but this kind onely for his Master If now the said Factor buy Saies or other Commodities for his Master and assume to pay money for that Now the Master shall be charged in an Assumpsit for the money and for that let the Master take heed what Factor he makes 47. A. B. being seised in Fee Devise made his Will and devised his Land to his Wife for life the remainder to his Son in Tail and if he died without issue the Land to remain to R. W. and his Wife for their lifes and after their deceases to their children The question is whether the children of W. take by descent or as Purchasers Popham Gawdie were of opinion that they had an Estate Tail But Fenner Clinch but for life 48. WIlliam Gerrard was arrested by a Latitat and put in bail by the name of William Gerrat Bail by a false name and the Plaintif declared against him by the name of Gerrart and all the proceedings and issue was accordingly and Judgement was had
shall have the corn for if Lessee for life leaseth for years and this Lessee for yeers sowe the land and the Lessee for life dye now the Lessee for yeers shall have the corn by reason of his right to the land at the time of his sowing and never lawfully devested by any Act done by himself and he denyed the cases put by Mr. Tanfield and so concluded Gawdie The lessee for yeers of the Tenant for life shall have the corn and he denyed some of the cases put by Mr. Tanfield for in the case where Tenant for life sowes the land and after assigns over his esttae now if Tenant for life dye the Assigne shall have the corn as well as the Executors of the Tenant for life if he had not assigned over his estate But I agree the case of the devise for life of land sowed with the remainder for life for there he in remainder shall have them and the laches of the not entry of the Lessee for yeers shall not prejudice him Lessee for years ousted for it appeareth by 19. H. 6. if Lessee for yeers of Tenant for life be ousted and after the Tenant for life dye yet the Lessee for yeers shall have trespasse with a continuando for all the mean profits The which proves that they belong to him so is it in 38. H. 6. Lessee at wil ousted If Lessee at will be ousted and after the Lessor dye now the Lessee shall have a trespasse with a continuando without regress for when he may not enter Regress the law supplyeth it and the mean profits do belong to him And by consequence in this case the corn belongeth to the Lessee for yeers Ground let for life after sowing of the Tenant for life Popham Sir Henry Knevit shall not have the Corn for if a man lease for life ground which is sown and the Lessee dye now the Lessor shall have the Corn and not the Executors of the Lessee for life And he agreed with Mr. Tanfeild in the case of the Assignee of Tenant for life of ground sowed and the Tenant for life dye that he in Reversion shall have the Corn Disseisor sow the land of tenant for life And if a Disseisor sow the land of Tenant for life and the Tenant for life dye now the Executors of the Tenant for life shall have the Corn and not the Disseisor nor he in Reversion and by consequence the Lessee for years of the first Lessee for life in this case Fenner was of the same opinion and after it was adjudged that Knevit should have the land and that Poole should have the Corn because of his possession 61. RAme sued a Prohibition against Patteson Prohibition for Dotards and the question was if Trees which are above the age of twenty years become rotten and are cut down for fuell shall pay Tyths or not and the opinion of the Court was that they shall not for Tythes are payable for an increase and not for a decrease and being once privileged in regard of hie nature this privilege shall not be lost in regard of his decrepitage 62. PArtridge brought an Action of Debt against Naylor upon the Statute of 1 2 P. M. 12. Empounding For taking of a Distress in one County and driving it into another and the case was that three men distreined a flock of Sheep and them impounded in severall places and if every of them shall forfeit a hundred shillings severally or but all together a hundred shillings Common place The Court was divided for the words of the Statute is that every person so offending shall forfeit to the party grieved for every such offence a hundred shillings and treble damages but Walmisley thought that every one should forfeit a hundred shillings and he put a difference between person and party for many persons may make but one party 63. BY Popham chief Justice of England by the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 10. Fine for Error in inferior Courts Erroneous Judgement in London was a forfeiture of their Liberties but after that by the Statute of 1 Hen 4. cap. 15. this was mitigated and was made finable as in Chester if they give an erroneous Judgement they shall forfeit an hundred pound for these inferior Courts which have peculiar Jurisdictions ought to do justly for if these Courts shall not be restrained with penalties Justice will be neglected and before the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. those of London might not reform Errors in London 64. NOta per Doctor Amias in the Lord Souch his case Caveat if a Church become voyd and a stranger enters a Caveat with the Register of the Bishop that none be instituted to that Church untill he be made privy thereunto and the Bishop before that he have notice of the Caveat institutes an Incumbent the Institution is meerly voyd in the Spiritual Law for the Register ought to notifie the Caveat to the Bishop and his negligence in that shall not prejudice him that entered the Caveat and if the Bishop have notice of the Caveat and gives day to him that puts that in and before that day he institutes an Ineumbent this is meerly voyd for the entering of the Caveat is as a Supersedeas in our Law 65. THornton brought an Action upon an Assumpsit against Kemp Day of payment and declared that the Testator was indebted to him in ten pound and in consideration that the Plaintif would give day to the Defendant being Executor to pay that until Michaelmas he assumed to pay that in facto dicit that he hath given day and yet the Defendant hath not that payd The Defendant pleaded in bar that post praedictam assumptionem factam and before Michaelmas the Plaintif did arrest him for the same Debt and demands Judgement and upon that the Plaintif demurred Gawdy When he hath given to him day of payment usque ad Michaelmas allbeit he arrest him before that time yet if he do not receive the money before Michaelmas the consideration is performed Fenner I deny that for to what purpose is the giving of day of payment untill Michaelmas if in the mean time he may sue him Popham I agree with my brother Gawdy for insomuch that he onely forbears the payment untill Michaelmas and doth not promise to forbear to sue him the payment is forborn if the money be not received 66. SHerington â—ued a Prohibition against Fleetwood Parson de Orrell Prohibition in Com. Linc. for that that the sayd Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tyths of Agistments and the now Plaintif being Defendant in the Spirituall Court pleaded that he had allwayes payd twelve pence by the year for every Milch Cow going in such a Pasture and for this payment he had been discharged of payment of Tythes for all Agistments in that land Payment for one thing shall not discharge another Popham This payment of money for Milch
if this deniall was a Conversion they prayed the discretion of the Court. Fenner I think that the deniall is a Conversion Denial is a Conversion for when I lose my goods and they come to your hands by finding and you deny to deliver them to me I shall have an Action of Trespass against you as 33. Hen. 6. is Keeping is an Administration And the very keeping of goods by an Executor shall be counted as an Administration and by the same reason the deniall here shall be counted a Conversion Gawdy I am of the same opinion for by 2 of Hen. 7. If I deliver to you Cloth to keep and you keep it negligently I shall have detinue or an Action upon the case at my pleasure and by 20 Hen. 7. if a Baker contract for Corn and the party do not deliver it at the day the party may have Debt or an Action of the case Tanfield There was a case in this Court 30 Eliz. for the finding and Conversion of a horse But here was no request made by the Plaintif to deliver the horse For which Judgement was given against the Plaintif Curia This is not like our case for the request and deniall makes all the wrong in this case Adjornatur 80. WIseman brought a Writ of Error against Baldwin Limitation upon a Judgement given in Trespass in the Common place upon a speciall Verdict which was that Baldwin was seised of 24 Acres of Land and made his Will and by the same devised his said Land to Henry his youngest Sonne when he should accomplish the age of 24 years upon Condition that he should pay 20. l. to the Daughter of the Devisor And if he shall happen to dye before his age of 24 years then he willed that Richard his eldest Sonne shall have the same Land upon Condition that he should pay to the said Daughter 20. l. And he willed further by the said Will that if both his Sonnes failed of payment of the said 20. l. to his Daughter that the said Land should remain to his Daughter And after this Devisor died and Henry his younger Son entred after the age of 24 years and did not pay the said 20. l. to the Daughter and Richard the eldest Son did enter upon him and whether his entry were lawfull or not was the question Cook Attorney said it was a meer Limitation and no Condition and by consequence the entry of the eldest Sonne is not lawfull and to prove that he cited a Case which he said was in Justice Dallisont reports 9 Eliz. where a man devised Land to his youngest Son upon Condition of payment of a certain sum of money to his Daughter as our case is The Remainder over to another of his youngest Sonns and the first Devisee entred and did not pay the money and he in Remainder took advantage of that and so in our case by the Devise Richard is to have nothing if Henry the youngest Son did not die before 24 yeares and the intent of the Devisor appears that his Daughter shall have the Land for non payment of the money And therefore if the Heir enter for the Condition broken he destroies the whole intent of the Devisor And therefore the entry of the eldest Son is not lawfull Godfery I think it is a meer Condition for so are the words And then when the word subsequent limit a Remainder to the Daughter for default of payment that is not good and he denyed the case cited out of Justice Dallison for he said he was dead long before An. 9 Eliz. Gawdy I take the case of 29 Hen. 8. 33. to be a Limitation and no Condition for there a man devised to the Prior and Covent of St. Bartholomewes Ita quod reddant decano capitulo sancti Pauli 16. l. per An. And if they failed of paiment that their estate should cease and that the Land should Remain to the said Dean and Chapter and their Successors And it seemeth there that the Dean and Chapter for non payment shall not enter But I think the contrary and I think in this case it is a Limitation and no Condition A remainder and a recovery may be created by one deed Fenner If I make a Lease for life upon Condition with Remainder over may my Heir enter for the Condition broken Godfry Yes Sir Fenner Nay truly for then he shall defeat the Remainder which is well limited by me before the which I may not do and this is the reason if I make a Lease for life upon Condition and after grant the Reversion over that before the estate the Condition was gone for that if I re-enter I shall defeat my own grant Gawdy Per 29. Ass If a man devise to one upon Condition that if he shall be a Chaplin to remain over to a Corporation and the Tenant was made Chaplin by which the Heir entred and an Assise was adjudged maintainable against him for his entry was not lawfull Clinch The intent of the Devisor appears that for default of payment the Daughter shall have the Land and therefore the Sonne shall not enter And Wilcocks case in this Court was that a man seised of a Copyhold in the nature of Burrough English surrendred that to the use of his Will and by his Will devised the Land to his eldest Sonne upon Condition that he should pay to the youngest Sonne x. l. And after for non payment the youngest Sonne entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull Gawdy Wee three are agreed that it is a Limitation and no Condition by which the first Judgement was reversed 81. PYne of Lincolns Inne brought an Assumpsit against Widow Hide as Executrix of her Husband Assumpsit of the testator and declared that the Testator in Consideration that the Plaintif had leased to him certain Copyhold-land he assumed to pay to him 100. l. And the Defendant demurred in Law for that the Action is not maintainable against any Executor upon an Assumption of the Testator Popham For the Contrariety of opinion in this Case between the Judges of the Common-place and us we will make it an Exchequer-Chamber case and so try the Law 82. ONe Jackson prayed a Prohibition Prohibition for a Parsons lease and shewed for his Cause thâ— the Parson sued him in the spirituall Court for tithes And ho wt the Statute of 13 El. cap. 20. c. That if any Parson make a Lease for years of his Parsonage and absent himself by the space of 80 daies that the Lease shall be void And the Parson shall forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year and the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. c. That all bonds and Covenants for suffering or permiting any Parson to enjoy any Benefice or to take any Benefice or to take the profits and fruits thereof shall be adjudged of such force and Validity as Leases made by the same persons of benefices and not otherwise and after the
Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 11. c. appoints that the Ordinary after complaint made and sentence given against any such incumbent whereby he ought or shall lose one years profits of his Benefice shall grant Sequestration to one of the inhabitants of the same Parish as he shall think meet And upon default there in by the Ordinary that it may and shall be lawfull to every Parishoner where the Benefice is to retein and keep his or their tithes and likewise for the Church-wardens to enter and take the profits of the Glebe lands and other Rents and duties of every such Benefice to be imployed to the use of the poor and he shewed how that the Parson made a Covenant and a Bond that he would permit I. S. to take the profits of his Benefice for a year And whether this were such a Lease for which the Parson ought to forfeit the profits ut super he prayed the opinion of the Court and it seemed to them it is not the reason seemeth to be because he doth not aver him to be absent above 80 daies in the same year 83. PEr Popham If a man find my horse Conversion and after ride him and then delivers the horse unto me and I bring an Action of Trover for the Conversion It is no plea that you have delivered the horse to me before the Action brought for you ought to answer to the Conversion 84. CHesson brought an assumpsit against D. K. Abatement of debt and declared that where I. S. was indebted to him in 64l The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would abate 10l parcell of the said Debt and also would give day to the said I. S. untill Michaelmas then next following for payment of the said 54 l. residue That the next day after she the said Defendant would become bound to the now Party for the payment of the said 54. l. at the said Feast of St. Michael and the Plaintiff in facto saith that he hath abated 10. l. parcell of the said 64. l. and yet the Defendant did not become bounden for the payment of the said 54. l. residue per quod actio accrevit The Defendant pleaded in Barre That after the said day given and before Michaelmas scil tali die the Plaintiff entred a plaint in London for the Debt aforesaid of 64. l. Arrest before the day given for payment and then caused the said I. S. to be arrested and demanded judgement si actio Tanfield The Declaration is sufficient for you have delared that you have abated part of the debt but you have not shewed how that was defaulked and therefore not good for we may take issue upon that if we will and if a man be bound in an Obligation to discharge me of certaine rent it is no plea for him to say that he hath me discharged without shewing how for that that I may take issue upon thaâ— Also to the second matter the Plaintiff ought not onely to give day of payment but also to forbeare to molest I. S. untill the day be come Cook to the contrary And as to the first poiut it seemeth that the discharge ought to be upon the entring into bond Bond for parcell of a contract for if a man make a Contract for 10. l. and after enter into bond for 5 l. parcell of that all the Contract is gone as appears per 3. H. 4. And as to the second point I think the promise is broken by the Defendant for that he did not enter into Bond the next day after the assumption made Gawdie I doubt whether the Declaration be good or not for it seems to me that the Plaintiff ought to shew how he hath defaulked the 10. l. part of the 64. l. for it may not be intended a defaulking in Law but of a defaulking indeed and for that it is not like the case cited in 3. H. 4. But the Plaintiff ought to doe an Act himselfe And 17. Eliz. A man was bound to allow ratifie and confirm a term for yeers And it is no Plea to say that he hath that confirmed But he ought to shew how because every Confirmation must be by Deed but if the Declaration were good then perchance the Barre would not be good And howbeit that Mr. Attorney hath said that there is a breach for not entring into Bond yet the Plaintiff may not sue Every discharge to be by writing if he have not performed his promise Fenner It will be hard to make the Declaration good for when one promiseth to defaulk his debt this shall be intended a lawfull discharge which cannot be otherwise than by writing and per 20. E. 3. Accompt If a man be bound to acknowledge a Statute For the intent must also be performed and he doth acknowledge the same but yet keeps the same in his own hands this is no performance And as to the second point when one promiseth in confideration of one thing to doe another there ought to be performance of the first as if a man be bound to make a new Pale Disturbance of the consideration as 9. Edw. 4. 20. 15. Edw. 4. 2. 3. is having the old pale for his labour there if the old pale be taken from him he is not bound to make the new pale Popham I am of the same opinion 85. DIxon brought an Action upon the case against Adams Assumpâ—it in consideration that a man will voluntarily do that act which otherwise he should have been compelled to doc and declared that whereas I. S. was indebted to the said Adams in 60. l. forwhich the said Adams arrested the said I. S. and the said Dixon was 〈◊〉 for the said I. S. in the said suit and the said Adams recovered in the said suit and after sued forth a Scire facias against the said Dixon being bail whereupon the said Adams in confideration that the said Dixon would pay him the 60. l. the said Adams assumed to assigne over unto him the said first Obligation in which the said I. S. was bound unto him and upon which the first action was brought and the judgement thereupon had and the Plaintiff dixit in facto that he had paid the 60. l. to the Defendant Sed â—radictus defend promissionem assumptionem suas minime curans hath not assigned over to the Plantiff the said Obligation and Judgement per quod act accrevit and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff for the consideration was holden good 86. ROsse brought an Ejectione firme against Thomas Ardwick Limitation and the case was such that one Norwood was seised in see and leased to one Nicholas Ardwick and his Assignes for his own life and for the lives of Thomas Andrew and John Ardwick and after Norwood the Lessor leased the Reversion to Rosse the now Plaintif for 21 years and after Nicholas Ardwick made a lease of the same land to Thomas Ardwick to hold at will and
dyed and if the estate of Tho. was determined by the death of Nich. was the question Johnson There are two points in the case the first if by this word Assignee an Occupant shall have the land and I think he shall not And the second point is when a lease is made to one and his Assignees for his own life and the lives of two others if now his own life confound the other two lives for that that it is greater to the Lessee than the other two lives and he said the Lessee hath no estate but for his own life and when he dyed the state is determined and to prove that he cited the opinion of Knightley in 28 Hen. 8. 10. Where he saith if a lease be made to one pur auter vie without impeachment of Wast the remainder to him for his own life that now he is punishable of Wast for that that when the remainder is limited unto him for his own life Wast against the surviving Joyntenant this drowneth the estate pur auter vie which was in him before And by 3 Edw. 3. If a lease be made to two for their lives without impeachment of Wast and one of them purchase the Fee simple and dye now his heir shall have Wast against the Survivor And I have heard that this was the case of the Lord Aburgaveney for a house in Warwick lane Cook è contra And the case is no more but that a lease is made to one and his Assignes for his own life Remainder for years to the tenant for life and for the lives of two others and I think that all may stand together for a man may have an estate for his own life the remainder for yeares and both may stand together in him simul semel for that that albeit that the Lessee may not have that during his own life yet he may dispose of that and by that means shall have the benefit and so in this case and allso an estate pur auter vie shall be in esse in the Lessee for the benefit of the Occupant and the inconveniencies shall be exceeding many in this case if the estate doth not endure for all their lifes for the Statute of 32 H. 8. inableth Tenant in tayl to make leases for 3 lives or 21 years and usually Tenants in tayl make such leases as these be and for that the generality of the case ought greatly to be regarded and there was a case adjudged in the Common place between Chambers and Gostock Chambers against Gostock where a lease was made to two for their lives and the life of a stranger and one of the Lessees dyed and the Survivor granted the land for his life and the life of the stranger Burdels case and it was no forfeiture and allso it was Burdels case in the Common-place 32 Eliz. where a lease was to him for his own life and the lives of two others and a good lease for all their lives Occupant And for the point of the Occupant there is no question but that the state of him that first enters is better than the state of him that enters under the state of the Lessor Gawdy The cases put by Mr. Johnson are not like to the case in question The greater estate preceding the less both may stand and I will agree them for here the greater estate precedeth the lesser I hold that a lease made to one for his life the remainder to him for anothers life is good for he may it grant over and so I think in this case that so long as any of the lives remain living that the estate remains Fenner I am of the same opinion for I think that the state pur auter vies is in the party to dispose at his pleasure so Judgment was given for the Defendant 87. HArding brought an Action of Trover of goods against Shâ—rman Visne and declared of a Trover at D. in the County of Hunt The Defendant pleaded that he bought the goods of one I. S. at Roiston in the County of Hertford in open Market and demanded Judgement The Plaintif replied that the Defendant bought the same goods of the said I. S. at D. aforesaid in the County of Huntington by fraud and Covin And after bought them again at Roiston as the Defendant supposeth the Defendant rejoines that he bought the same goods bona fide at Roiston Absque hoc that he bought them by fraud apud D. in Com. Hunt Glanvile pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the Visne ought to be of both Counties Gawdy seemeth to agree but for that that Clinch and Fenner held strongly that the Visne was well awarded in one of the Counties therefore Gawdy gave Judgement for the Plaintif for by this speciall Traverse the buying at Roiston shall not come in question 88. PAyton being High-Sherif Keep harmless brought Debt upon an Obligation against his under-Sherif and the Condition was to perform all Covenants in a pair of Indentures conteined and one Covenant was that the under-sherif shall keep all the Prisoners committed to him untill they be delivered by the Law and allso to save Mr. Payton harmless of all escapes made by the said Prisoners And the Defendant pleaded performance of all Covenants Godfry The Plea is not good for one part is in the Affirmative and the other in the Negative By which the Defendant ought to plead that the Plaintif non fuit damnifieatus and so was the opinion of the Court by which day was given to the Deâ—endant to amend his plea. 89. A Man brought an Action of Trespass for entring into an house and breaking of his close in Dale Variance between the declaration and the new assignment or the title of the Plaintif The Defendant said that the said house and close in which the Trespass is supposed to be done conteins twenty Acres and is at the time of the Trespass supposed was his Freehold And the Plaintif replyed quod locus clausa in quo supponitur transgressio est anum messuagium and makes him a Title to it To which the Defendant pleaded non Cul. And it was found for the Plaintif and for that that the Plaintif by his Replication made to him Title but to a messuage and doth not maintain his Declaration which was for the messuage and the close therefore it was awarded quod querens nihil capiat per Billam sed quare if this do not amount to a discontinuance of the close onely and so helped by the Verdict 90. THomas Allen brought a Writ of Debt against William Abraham upon an Obligation bearing date in October Counterbond for an Obligation allready forfeited The Condition was that whereas the sayd Thomas Allen at the request of the above bounden William Abraham standeth bound together with the sayd William unto one J. S. in an Obligation for the true payment of 11. l. the 15. day of May the which May was before the
date of the sayd Obligation whereof the Action is brought if the said W. A. do save and keep harmless the sayd T. A. of and from the said Obligation that then c. The Defendant pleaded payment secundum formam effectum condition is praedictae and upon this Plea the Plaintif demurred in Law and Judgement given for the Plaintif for the Defendant ought to plead non damnificatus 91. HUntley brought a Writ of Accompt against Griffith Account Baron Feme and the case was that one devised a certain sum of money to a Feme covert And the Husband and Wife made a Letter of Attorney to the Defendant to receive the same money of the Executor who did receive it accordingly to the use of the woman And the Husband and Wife both dye and the Administrator of the Womans Husband brings this Action Tanfeild argued that the Action is not maintainable for when the Legacy was devised to the woman the Husband and Wife ought to joyn in the Action and if the Wife dye the Husband hath no remedy And when the Husband and the Wife make a Letter of Attorney to receive the money this principally is to be sayd the act of the woman and the Husband joyneth with her but for conformity and for that it appears in 19 Eliz. 354. if Baron and Feme levy a Fine of the Wives land and the Wife onely declares the use of the Fine it is good and by 16 Ed. 4. 8. If a man be a Receiver to a woman sole which afterwards takes a Husband and he and his Wife assign Auditors to the Receiver they both shall joyn in an Action of Debt for the Arrerages Altam è contra and sayd that the concourse of all our Books are that when money is delivered to deliver over to another Letter of Attorney by the Husband only Debt due to a Feme sole that other shall have an Action of Accompt allbeit that before that time he had not any property And 6 Ed. â— 1. that proveth Gawdy It seems to me the Action is well brought for the matter whereupon you stand is the Letter of Attorney and I say if the Husband sole had made the Letter of Attorney For by the entermartage the duty became the husbands if he could attain it in the life of the wife which he did by the receipt of his Bayly it had been well enough and when the money is received to the use of the Husband and the Wife now by that the Husband hath interest Popham I am of the same opinion for if Debt be due to a woman sole upon an Obligation and after she take an Husband and the Husband sole makes a Letter of Attorney to J. S. to receive that and J. S. receives the same now the Husband sole shall have an accompt against J. S. Fenner accord so Judgement was given for the Plaintif 92. THe Lady Gresham brought a Scire facias upon a Recognisance against William Man as terr Verdict in a Scire fac upon Recognisance Tenant The Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ that one Bedingfield was seised in Fee of three Acres of land not named Judgement si execut c. And the issue was if the aforesaid three Acres of land were the land of the aforesaid Bedingfeild or not and the Jury found that B. and J. S. were Jointenants of the said three Acres and whether this Verdict hath found for the Plaintif or Defendant was the question Whether Joyntenancy shal be sayd a Seisin Gawdy I think it may never be said the Land of Bedngfield onely And to prove that he vouched 28 Hen. 8. Dyer 32. in debt for Rent the Plaintif declared of a demise of 26 Acres rendring the said Rent The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif demised to him 26 Acres and 4 Acres more without that that he demised the twenty Acres onely And the Jury found that he Leased but 22 Acres and there that was good for the Defendant hath confessed a demise of 26 Acres and then the Verdict should have been that the 4 Acres ultra were not demised and allso he said when two men made a Feoffment the Feoffee shall be in by both the which is a strong proof that the one sole is not seised Fenner According to the matter in question I think it is found for the Plaintif for the pretence of the Defendant is to have a companion against whom the Scire facias shall be as well brought as against himself And in 46. Edw. 3. That in casu proviso if issue be taken upon an Alienation in Fee Forfeiture by alienation and the Jury find an Alienation pro Termino vitae this is a Verdict good enough and the Plaintif shall recover for the Alienation to the Defendants Inheritance is the question And whether it be in Fee or for life it is but form and so in this case Popham by pleading of the truth the Defendant might have been holpen but not as he hath pleaded here as if one plead his Freehold and another say his Freehold absque hoc that it is the Freehold of the Plaintif and upon that they are at issue And the Verdict finds that the Plaintif and Defendant are Tenants in Common Now this Verdict is found for the Plaintif for he that makes the first lie shall be triced and this was the Defendant Fenner In this case one Tenant may not have an Action against an other Iointenants make a statute and it was agreed in this case if there are two Jointenants and the one make a Statute and after joines with his companion in a Feoffment of that Land now the moity of the Land may be extended upon this Statute Godfry When it appears unto the Court that there is another against whom the extent shall be then the Plaintif his Writ shall abate Gawdy No truly for by 44 Edw. 3. if a Writ of Dower be brought against the issue in tail which is remited and the Defendant plead ne unques seisi que Dower and the Verdict find the remitter yet the Plaintif shall have the Judgement for the Tenant if he will have advantage of that ought to plead it 93. THe Parson of Ramesey â—ued in the spirituall Court for Tithes of Asp Prohibition for Asp and a Prohibition was awarded And Fenner said that it was adjudged before that time that Asp should not pay Tithes and also it was agreed if a man cut trees for Housboot No Tithes for housboots c. or other usuall bootes Hedgboot Ploughboot Cartboot and Fireboot Tithes shall not be paid of them 94. NOta per Fenner Justice Account that an Action of accompt shall be maintainable against a servant but not against an Apprentice 95. HOme was indicted for that he had spoken against the book of Common prayer Depravation upon endictment Yelverton The Indictment as it appears is taken before the Lord Anderson and Baron Gent Justices of
the Gaol delivery and hath not shewed that they are Justices of Oyer and Terminer nec de Assize as the Statute appointeth and for that it is void Also the Indictment is quod recusavit uti communi precatione et Administrare sacramenta and doth not say appointed by the book of common prayer also the Defendant was twise indicted and upon the second Indictment the Judgement was given before the said Justices that he should be deprived of his Benefice and this is a Spirituall act the which the Temporall Judges have not to deal withall Fenner I doubt whether they may give Judgment of deprivation albeit the Statute say that the Offendor shall be deprived ipso facto no more than the Statute of 5. Ed. 6. which saith thatfor the striking in the Church the Offender shall be excommunicated ipso facto Also it doth not appear whether the Defendant be Curate of the parish where he refused to say divine service or not and if he be not then his refusall is not punishable by the Statute 96. COok Attorney generall demanded this question of the Court Disseism if there be Disseisor and Disseisee and during the Disseism the Disseisee when he hath nothing but a right levies a Fine to a stranger If by this Fine the right of the Disseisee be gone and if the Disseisor shall take advantage of that Popham and Gawdy Nay truly 97. RObins brought an ejectione firme against Prince and upon the speciall Verdict Mr. Frauncis Moor arguing for the Plaintif did observe three points in the case Qualification and non residence The first was when a Chaplin which is beneficed above the value of 8l is admitted and instituted into another benefice 1 point and before induction gets a qualification and after is inducted If now the benefice which he had first be void for that that the qualification comes between the Admission and the induction The second point is when the dispensation is entred in the Chancery in a paper book 2 point and not enrolled in parchment If this be a sufficient enrollment for that that the usuall manner of inrollments is in parchment And the third point was when a Parson is inhibited by the Arch-Bishop that he shall not intermeddle with the Benefite 3 point adâ—â—dged by meanes whereof the Parson is absent by the space of lxxx daies If such absence shall make a lease made by the Parson void And as to the last point all the Judges agreed that such absence doth not make the lease void For it must be a voluntary absence for such an absence the Statute doth intend and this absence is by reason of an inhibition And the case was argued for the other side by Mr. Crook but I could not hear him and the next Term it was argued again by Mr. Tanfield for the Plaintif and lie said that the principall point of the case is whether the first benefice be void insomuch that the incumbent hath gotten a qualification before induction into the second benefice And I think the first is void for the intent of the Statute was that the cure might be well served and that poor people might be well relieved And as no man may serve two masters so no man may serve two Cures and before induction the Church is full Parson before induction and the Parson hath Curam Animarum and is rector Ecclesiae before induction and if a gift be made to such a Parson before induction it is good and so if he alien by consent of the Patron and Ordinary it is good Presentation excuted before induction And if the grantee of the next Presentation present a Clerk that is admitted and instituted and dyes before induction yet the graunt of the grantee is executed and he shall not present again Colchils case death of the presentee before induction 2 point And so it was adjudged in Colsills case M. 10. 17. Eliz. Rot. 4. And the wordes of the Statute of 22. H. 8. cap. 13. are that every Dutchess Marquess Countess and Baroness being Widowes may have two Chaplins whereof every one of them may purchase licence or dispensation to receive have and keep two benefices with care of Souls And before induction he recepit habuit custodivit two benefices and then he was not quallified So the first was void and as to the point of the enrollment it is clear there ought to be a parchment roll for that was the meaning of the law and not to make an entry in the paper book Lawton contra for all the body of the act of 22. H. 8. extendeth to the possession of the benefice and the Proviso ought to be construed according to the body of the act and before induction he doth not offend the law and therefore the dispensation which comes before the induction comes in good time for if the Kings Tenant make a Feoffment and Letter of Attorney to make Livery and seizin Licence of alienation this is no offence for if he after purchase a Licence of Alienation and then Livery and seisin is made this Licence is good Gawdy Before induction the first Benefice is not void And you shall find 2 3 Mar. 130. that issue was taken upon the induction but a Common person may not change his presentment after admission and before induction Plenarty against a common person and Plenarty is a good plea against a Common person in such a case But yet before induction he is not a full Parson to all intents for a grant of an Annuity before induction is not good Com. 526 for the induction makes it notorious that he is Parson then when he after his admission gets a qualification The Commencement of the fault it seems to me that the qualification shall not help him for the Commencement of the fault was before the qualification and the Induction after relates to the admission and to prove that he cited 1 Mar. 99. where a man bought beasts out of the Market and gave 5. s to have election to have the refusall in the Market the next day and in the Market he agreed to have the beasts and paid Toll and holden clearly that this shall relate to the contract out of the Market so in this case Allso here the words are shall take receive and have after qualification two Benefices And before the induction he takes the benefices in this case for before the induction Death or departure after qualification and taking another benefice and at the time of admission the Ordinary said to him Accipe curam tuam meam And if a Parson be once qualified and after take a second Benefice and then his Master dies yet his qualification remaines so is it if he depart from the service of his Master Then for the second point for the enrollment it seemeth it is good for that it hath been allwaies so used For the Statute which saith a man arraigned of
the Kings-bench against one Fuller And the said Felix Marshall became Bail for the said Fuller in the said suit Scilicet That if the said Fuller should be condemned in that Action and did not either pay that condemnation or yield his body to prison that then Felix Marshall should pay the condemnation for him according to the ordinary course of Bailes But yet in pleading of this Recognisance he said further Et si defecerit in solutione tuuc vult concedit quod pradictum debitum levetur de terris et tenementis suis And Gawdy Justice said he did not use any such wordes when he took Bail And after this Bail taken and before Judgement given in the said suit the said Hoo the Testator released to the said Marshall all actions and demands And after Judgement was given for the said Hoo the Testator against Fuller and thereupon the Testator brought a Scire facias against M. as appears before and M. pleaded the said release and hanging this Plea Hoo the Testator dyed and then the Executors brought another Scire facias against the said M. And he pleaded this release again in barr Learning for releases Gawdy I doubt of the case for 5 Eliz. 217. the Covenantee released all actions suits quarrels debts executions and trespasses and this was before any Covenant broken And it is there holden that it is no barr to an action of Covenant afterwards brought upon a Covenant after broken Annuity And per. 4. Ed. 4. 40. If a Grantee of an Annuity release all actions to the Grantor before the day of payment Read against Bullock this will discharge the arrearages before accrued but not those payments after And by Read and Bullocks Case a release is not available to any other right or action than such as a man hath at the time of the release for it is against the nature of a release to take effect in tempore futuro and in the case in question there was no action nor demand before judgement given against Fuller Difference where the first delivery is void and where not And I doubt of the case cited in 27 H. 6. 7. where an Obligation is delivered as an escrowl and the Obligee release to the Obligor all actions after the Obligation is delivered as the deed of the party whether this release do that discharge or not it shall not by P. 5. H. 7. fo 27. Infant So there are many other cases there put as if an Infant deliver a deed as an Escrowl to be delivered as his deed when he comes of full age There I take the Law clear that if the condition be performed at ful age of the Infant yet this is not his deed And so of a Feme Covert which delivers a deed as an Escrowl to be delivered upon Condition when she is sole Feme â—oveâ—t if after the deed be delivered when the Woman is sole yet this is not her deed for in these two last cases the first act which was the delivery as an Escrowl was meerly void And if a man be indicted by conspiracy and after release to the conspirators all actions and after that the party indicted is arraigned upon this Indictment and by Triall is acquitted I doubt whether this release shall barr him in an action of conspiracy or not Fenner said that the Recognisance is immediatly a Debt and for that this release shall be a Barr for by Lytt a release of all actions is no bar in a fieri fac to have execution within the year but in a Scire fac after the year it is a good bar Release after delivery is an Escrowl and so in this case it is a barr which was not a bar at the first And I see not any reason forwhich if the King release a Recognisance which is not yet broken it should not be a discharge of the Recognisance Except it be for that that the generall words in the Kings grant shall not extend to discharge such a Recognisance without speciall words And I think that a deed which is delivered as an Escrowl is not a deed but onely after the delivery of that as a deed and shall not relate to be a deed ab initio And for that a release made before the delivery as a deed albeit that after that it is delivered as an Escrowl shall not discharge it Pas 5. H. 7. 27. Clinch I think that this release shall be a good barr for if the Defendant at the time when he entered bail had had his land and had sold it afore the Judgement given against Fuller for whom he was bâ—il none will deny but that this land shall be lyable which proves that this is a Recognisance and a Debt immediately Popham This is aprettie case but there will be a difference between a duty upon a contingent and a duty absolute for if I covenant to â—ufeoff you of the mannor of Dale before such a day Duties absolute contingent differece and bind my self by Obligation to perform the covenants and before the day you release to me all actions there the Obligation is discharged but not the Covenant for the Obligation was an absolute duty and the Covenant but contingent Obligation to perform covenants discharged but not the covenant and it seemeth that a deed delivered as an Escrowl may not be discharged by release made before that the Escrowl be delivered as a deed And in the case at bar there is no duty but upon a Contingent that is to say if the party be condemned and do not satisfie the Debt nor render his body to prison And for that before that it become a duty such a release will never be a discharge being but a possibility for it hath been adjudged that where a lease hath been made to two for their lives A possibility cannot be discharged or surrendred the Remainder which shall first happen to dye for forty yeares that neither the one nor the other nor both together may grant this term of 40. yeares before it be setled if I release all demands before that the rent is due the rent is gone But it is otherwise of a release of all actions Gawdie I agree that a release of all demands will discharge rent due Release of demands actions difference Popham If I make a lease to I. S. for so many yeares as I. K. shall name this I. S. may not surrender his term before that I. K. name the yeares And he denyed that the land of Marshall the manucaptor which he had at the time of the Bayl should be bound being sold before the Judgement against Fuller as Justice Clinch did affirm in his argument Fenner There is a difference between an Action and an Interest And after Judgement was given that the release was no bar 99. MAckerell brought an Assumpsit against Bachelor Necessary apparell and declared that in consideration that the Plaintif did deliver unto
the Defendant divers Suits of Apparell that is to say a Sattin Dublet and Hose with silver and gold lace and one velvet Jerkin and Hose and one fustian Dublet and cloth Hose to-his own proper use the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintif forty pound when he should be required The Defendant pleaded that tempâ—re assumptionis he was within age and the Plaintif replyed that at the same time the sayd Defendant was servant and attending upon the Earl of Essex in his chamber and that this Apparel was delivered unto him for his necessary apparel during the said time of his said service and upon that the Defendant demurred and the Court caused the Declaration to be read openly in Court to see of what degree the Defendant was of his Addition and upon reading of the Record it appeared by the Declaration that the Defendant was there written Gentleman for which the Court agreed clearly that Sattin with gold and silver lace or Jerkin or Hose of Velvet are not necessary Apparel for a Gentleman Severa prises good in a declar and so an Infant is not bound to pay for such Apparell and therefore the Action for so much will not lye but for the residue to wit for the Dublet of fustian and Hose of cloth it seemeth the Action is well maintainable for the prices of every of them is set down severally in the Declaration Satisf of parcel Popham The Plaintif in his Declaration hath confessed he is satisfied of part of his contract but non constat for what part of the clothes the mony received was payd that is whether for the necessary or unnecessary Gawdy Truly it shall be intended for the necessary Apparel 100. GOodale brought an Information against one Butler Non-residence upon the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. cap. 13. for not being resident upon his Benefice whereof he was Parson by the space of six moneths for which the Defendant ought to forfeit for every moneths absence 10. l. And it was found by speciall Verdict that the Defendant had demissed his Parsonage-house to another excepting one chamber for himself And within the same Parish had hired another house and there kept Hospitality and was allwaies dwelling there And whether this be a Non-residence within the Statute for that he doth not dwel within the Parsonage-house but inhabiteth within the Parish in another house is the question Clinch Fenner were of opinion that if he be resident within his Parish albeit he doth not dwel within the Parsonage-house that yet this is a sufficient residence within the Statute for the Glebe land and other profits within the Parish makes the Benefice Beneficium for a Benefice is derived of this word Beneficium the which is a profit or a commodity and if he be resident in any part of his Parish he may well enough execute all the Functions Spirituall and Temporall and keep Hospitality to relieve his Parishioners and these were the chiefest points that the makers of the Statute intended to provide for Proviso And Fenner sayd the Proviso helpeth not and that the words of the Statute are That every Spirituall person ought to be resident at in or upon his Benefice in the disjunctive and if that be performed in any of those points then that sufficeth Cont. per Popham 68. But if the words were that he shall be resident upon his Benefice there peradventure he ought to dwell in the Parsonage-house onely Popham and Gawdy to the contrary For Residence is a commorancy and where he hath his Tithes that is a profit but yet it is no Benefice intended by the Statute for when the Statute saith that he shall be resident upon his Benefice this shall be expounded upon the Parsonage-house for the Statute may not be so unreasonably construed that only will compel the Parson to be resident in any other place of the Parish than where he hath his house And for that Colthurst and Beâ—ishins case in the Comment 20. Le Prior of Bath was seised of a Grange or Farm called Barton near Bath in Fee and he and the Covent leased that by Deed indented to H. B. and to his Wife for life the remainder to W. B. their Son for his life si ipse inhabitare vellet residens esse omnino de super praedict Grangium And if it shall be intended in this case that the Lessee may be resident upon any other place than in the Grange-house then by possibility the intent of the Lessor might be defeated utterly which was that the Grange-house should be repaired Allso a reason that moved the makers of the Statute to be of opinion to make the Parsons resident was for that by this means the Parsonage-house should be well kept in reparations Reparations and should not be left to the successor in Delapidations And the Proviso in the end of the Statute will not help the matter Proviso for the Proviso is that it shall be lawfull for any Spirituall person to take to farm any Mansion-house having but an Orchard or Garden in any City Burrough or Town so that by that they have no liberty of Non-residence by colour of the sayd Proviso Absence compulsary And Popham sayd if a man be Non-resident by compulsion that is not within the Law And if a Parson purchase a parcell of Land within his Parish and dwell upon that he purchased and lease out his Parsonage-house this is a means to make the Parsonage-house to come to destruction and ruin And the meaning of the Law-makers was Three things provided for by the Statute to provide for three things For Hospitality for Divine service and to prevent Delapidations and so in this case the Defendant is within the penalty of the Statute And to that my brother Fenner hath sayd That these words in at or upon will make a difference truly that is not so for those words are all of one substance in this case Et adjâ—rnatur 101. NOta that in a Scire fac between Fâ—e and Balton of the County of Norfolk it was holden by Popham and Gawdy Fieri facias executed but not returned and not denyed by any if a Fieri fac goe forth to a Sherif and he levy the Debt of the goods of the Defendant but doth not retorn his Writ if the Plaintif after sue another Scire fac against the Defendant upon the Judgement he may plead this matter and the Plaintif shall be put to his remedy against the Sherif for the sale of the Defendants goods by the Sherif is good and not to be defeated and so is a good Plea in bar of the other Execution otherwise the Defendant shall be put to a great mischief vide 20 Hen. 6. 24. 29. 19 Edw. 3. Scire facias 44 E. 3. 18. Quaere if he shall not have an audita querela if the Plaintif take out a new Scire facias within the year 102. NOta per Mr.
say they shall take that as Legatees and not as Executors in respect of the 100. l. which they are to have to then proper use 126. NOta Second deliverance if a man have Judgement to have Retorn upon a Nonfuit in a Replevin and the Plaintif bring a second Deliverance this is a Supersede as of the Retorn yet the Defendant in the first Replevin shall have a Writ to enquire of the damages which shall not beestaid by the second Deliverance but if he have Iudgement in the second Deliverance then shall be retorn Irreplevisable and shall recover damages 127. STitch against Wisdom Thoughts are not to be uttered an Action upon the case was brought for words viz he did better than many an honest man did For there is many a truer and honester man hang'd and there was a Robery committed whereof I think him to be one and I verily think him to be an Horse-stealer and upon non Cul. pleaded It was found for the Plaintif and pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that it is not expresly affirmed that the Plaintif was one of the Robbers neither that he was a Horse-stealer precisely but that he thought him to be one and thought is free for every man and no slander but this notwithstanding Judgement was given for the Plaintif for thoughts tending to slander may not be uttered 128. NOta per Gawdy Felony That a man may be accessary to the stealing of his own goods As if he confederate with an other to steal goods from his Bayly to the intent to charge his Baily this is Felony 129. THynn brought Debt against Cholmley for 300. l. Arrerages of a nomine poenae Nomine poene against an Assignee And declared of a Lease for years made by him to one Ager rendring Rent and if default of payment be made of the said Rent at any day Trin. 36. E. rot 842. in which it ought to be paid Quod tunc toties the said Ager his Executors and Assignes shall pay iij. s iiij d. pro quolibet die donec praedictus reddit so behind shall be satisfied And shewed how the Rent was behind and not paid by the space of two years but did not shew that he demanded the Rent Jackson The sum demanded is by computation more than should be true But it seems that the Plaintif intends to have every iij. s iiij d. doubled for every day that the Rent is behind And if that be his intent then he demands too little Demand for in 2 years that will be infinite Gawdy He shall have but iij. s iiij d. for every day Fenner I think that he ought to make a demand of the Rent Or otherwise he shall not have the nomine poene Gawdy Nay truly no more than in Debt upon an Obligation and he cited 21 Hen. 6 21. Edw. 4. 22. Edw. 4. Fenner Not like for in debt upon an Obligation it is a duty but otherwise of Rent and it was agreed that it lies against the Assigne in this case 130. HArbin against Barton A Jointenants Lease to begin after his death The case was that two Jointenants for life the one made a Lease for 80 years to begin after his death and after died And whether the Lease is good against the Survivor or not is the question Gawdy said that the Lease was good and cited 2 Eliz. 187. Popham Fenner è contra After this Lease was adjudged a good Lease by all the Judges of England for every Jointenant hath interest during his life and the life of his companion Ewdalls case For it was Ewdalls and Paramores case 31. Eliz. Where a Lease was made to the Father during his life and the life of two of his Sons The Father assigned over and adjudged to continue after the death of the Father The like between Gutter Locrofts and between Orwin and others 131. Baddock against Ja. S. and declared in an Action upon the case for words Insufficient declar for words quod in praesentia diversorum leigiorum dixit de praefat quer haec verba Anglicana viz. Thy Father praedictum quer innuendo is a thief for he stole my sheep The Defendant justified the words and at the Assisâ—s it was found for the Plaintif and exception was taken in arrest of Judgement For that it is not shewed in the Declaration Substance Form in a Declaration that the words were spoken to the son of the Plaintif Gawdy I think it is good for that the Defendant hath Justified the words spoken of the Plaintif tota Cur. è contra But if the Declaration be uncertain in form yet the bar may make it good But if the Declaration want substance as in this case it doth there the bar cannot make it good 132. RObert Sharples and Grace his Wife Debt brought Debt upon an Obligation against N. Hankinson the Obligation boar date xiij die Octobris An. xxxj Eliz. The Condition was if N. H. did pay viij l. of lawfull money c. in the year of our Lord God 1599. At or upon the 13th day of October which shall next ensue the date herof The Defendant pleaded that the day of payment was not come Gawdy I think the day of payment is the 13th day of October next after the date of the Obligation And that these words in the year of our Lord God 1599. are meerly â—oid Fenner Justice I think that the payment shall be in the year of our Lord 1599. For when a certainty appears allbeit afterwards an incertainty come yet that shall not hurt the certainty but the first certainty shall stand and the incertainty shall be void And in this case the An. Do. 1599. is sufficicient certainty and therfore the subsequent words are void Popham I think that the payment shall be the 13 day of October prox post An. Dom. 1599. For the words are that the Obliger shall pay viij l. of lawfull money of England in the year of our Lord God 1599. And if the payment shall be before this time none may know but by the spirit of Prophecie what money shall be current in England that year before the year come and it is impossible to pay that before and if I am bound to enfeoff before Easter Impossible condition void him that comes first to Pauls upon Michaelmas day next this is void because it is impossible 133. BOyer brings a Writ of Error against Jenkings Teste of the Venire mistaken and the Error assigned was for that the suit was commenced 35 Eliz. And the Venire fac to try this issue bore Teste 33 Eliz. Gawdie a Venire fac which bears Teste 33 Eliz. cannot possible be to try an issue in 35 Eliz. which is two years after and therefore here is no venire fac and so holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz. after Verdict Tunfield This very case was Yorks case adjudged in this Court that it was not holpen by
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good
pag. 40. pl. 18. pag. 41. pl. 18. pag. 158. pl. 86. By what acts an Obligation shall be forfeited by what not pag. 49 50. pl. 10 11. What shall be forfeited to the King by Utlawry what not pag. 55. pl. 8. pag. 103 104. pl. 9. pag. 105. pl. 9. pag. 189. pl. 136. VVhere one shall forfeit his goods where not pag. 135. pl. 35. By what acts a copyhold is forfeited by what not pag. 143. pl. 59. pag. 188. pl. 136. By what acts a liberty may be forfeited by what not pag. 146. pl. 63. Fresh suite Where fresh suit is required and where not pag. 60 61. pl. 18. Fraud vide covin What shall be said fraud what not pag. 116. pl. 12. pag. 118. pl. 2. pag. 176. c. pl. 111. G GRrants of the King and common persons Where an incertain grant may take effect afterwards pag. 7. pl 11. VVhaet grant by the King is good what not pag. 7. pl. 11. VVhat grant by Tenant in tail shall bind the issue pag. 7. pl. 11. VVhat things are grantable over what not pag. 31. pl. 1. pag. 74 75. pl. 2. pag. 81. pl. 18. pag. 112. pl. 19. pag. 117. pl. 15. pag. 184. pl. 123. pag. 186. pl. 134. VVhat grant of a reversion is good what not pag. 26. pl. 7. VVhat construction grants shall have pag. 121. pl. 7. H HEretick Who is an heritick who not pag. 36. pl. 10. Heir What things the Heir shall have what not pag. 98. pl. 17. pag. 129. pl. 24. Heriot What Remedy the Lord hath for his Herriot pag. 189. pl. 138. Homage Where one shall not do Homage pag. 14. pl. 13. Hue and cry Where Hue and cry is requisite where not pag. 56. pl. 10. pag. 60 61. pl. 18. Hundred Where an Action lies against an Hundred where not pag. 55 pl. 9. pag. 56. pl. 10. pa. 58. pl. 16. pag. 60 61. pl. 18. pa. 70. pl. 74. pag. 86. pl. 11. pag. 148. pl. 69. Husband and Wife What Acts of the Husband shall bind the Wife and what not pag. 13 14. pl. 13 14. In what Actions the Husband and Wife may joyn in and what not pag. 52. pl. 1. pag. 159. 160. pl. 91. VVhat Acts the wife may do without her Husband what not pag. 110. pl. 15. pag. 160. pl. 91. VVhat Acts the husband is compellable to do for the Wife pag. 127. pl. 19. I IEofail VVhat things are helped by the Statute of Jeofailes what not pag. 38. pl. 10. pag. 47 48. pl. 7. pag. 49. pl. 9. 16. pag. 90. pl. 1. pa. 109. pl. 157. pag. 126. pl. 16. pag. 159. pl. 89. pag. 181. pl. 32. How the Statute of Jeofailes shall be interpreted pag. 48. pl. 5. Imprisonment By what warrant one shall be said to be committed by what not pag. 133. pl. 31. Inquest What Inquest is good what not pag. 172 173. pl. 105. Infant What Acts of an Infant shall bind him and what not pag. 168. pl. 99. pag. 169. pl. 9. Incumbent Who shall be an Incumbent in a Church who not pag. 162. c. pl. 97. Interpretation How a Proviso shall be interpreted pag. 116 117. pl. 16. Indictment What is a good Indictment and what not pag. 132. pl. 29. pag. 162. pl. 95. Institution What is a good Institution to a church what not pag. 146. pl. 64. Interest VVhat shall make an interest in Land what not pag. 59. pl. 17. Who have an interest in Land and who not pag. 78. pl. 9. Intendment How Intendments shall be taken to inure pag. 70. pl. 13. Jointenants Who shall be Jointenants who Tenants in common pag. 28. pl. 2. pag. 29. pl. 2. pag. 141. pl. 53. Jointure Where a woman may refuse her Jointure where not pag. 84 85. pl 6 Issue and Issues What shall be a good issue what not pag. 39. pl. 16. Where an issue ought to be tried where not pag. 61. pl. 19. How issues ought to be levied pag. 140. pl. 50. Jury Who is a sufficient Juror and who not pag. 136 137. pl. 39. Judgement How a Judgement ought to be entred pag. 41. pl. 18. pag. 42. pl. 2. pag. 64. p. 3. Where Judgement shall be for the Plaintif where for the Defendant pag. 73. pl. 19. What Judgement is good what not pag. 119. pl. 4. pag. 162. pl. 95. How a Iudgement ought to be avoided pag. 128. pl. 20. Iurisdiction Where the temporall court hath Iurisdiction where not pag. 149 150. pl. 75. L LApse Who shall present by Lapse who not pag. 78. pl. 107. pag. 83 84. pl. 4. pa. 86. pl. 9. Lease Where a Lease shall be determined and where not pag. 71. pl. 16. pag. 179. pl. 112. What Leases are good what not pa. 120. pl. 7. pa. 138. pl. 44. pa. 154 155. pl. 82. pag. 157. 158. pl. 86. pag. 162. c. pl. 97. pa. 171. pl. 102. pag. 173. p. 106. pag. 186. pl. 130. Levy What is a good Levy what not pag. 140. pl. 50. Liberate Where a Liberate shall issue forth where not pa. 119. pl. 5. Licence What is a good Licence to do a thing what not pag. 163. pl. 97. 166. pl. 97. Livery and seisin How a Livery and seisin must be defeated pag. 178. pl. 111. What Livery and seisin is good what not pag. 1. pl. 4. pag. 13. pl. 13. Limitation Where one shall take Lands by way of Limitation where not pag. 134 135. pl. 33. pag. 152 153 154. pl. 80. What words make a Limitation what not pag. 179. pl. 112. M Maintenance What shall be said Maintenance what not pag. 101 102. pl. 6. pag. 113. pl. 1. pag. 118. pl. 120. Where an Action for maintenance must be brought where not pa. 113. pl. 1. Melius inquirendum For what cause a melius inquirendum issueth forth pag. 2. pl. 14. Mean profits Where one shall answer the mean profits and where not pag. 118 119. pl. 2. Member What is a member of a thing what not pag. 105 106. pl. 10. Misnameing What Misninameing shall hurt what not pa. 120 1211 122 123. pl. 7. Monstrans de droit Where one is put to his Monstrans de droit where not pag. 125. pl. 13. Murder What shall be accounted murder what not pag. 107. pl. 110. N Notice Where Notice ought to be given of a thing to be done and where not pag. 34. pl. 10. pa. 139 140. pl. 49. pa. 141. pl. 52. pag. 146. pl. 64. pag. 147. pl. 67. What shall be a good Notice what not pag. 147. pl. 67. Nonsuit Who may be Nonsuit who not pag. 53. pl. 3 Nonresidency What is Nonresidency what not pag. 169 170. pl. 100. O Obligation VVhat Obligation is good and what is not pag. 61. pl. 20. pag. 54. pl. 6. pag. 66. pl. 9. pag. 186 187. pl. 132. pag. 189. pl. 137. Occupancie Where there shall be an occupancy where not pag. 157. 158. pl. 86. Office How Offices shall be taken to inure in the case of the King and how in the case of a Common person
came to the Bar and demanded Judgement for the Plantif The case and rehersed the case in this sort The Prior of St Johns of Jerusalem in England by deed Indented A. 29 H. 8. Devised a Mesuage called the high House 13 Cotages one Stable and 14 Gardens for 59 yeares to one Cordaâ—l rendring 5. l. 6. s 11. d. viz. For the 13 Cotages iij. l. And for the high house xiiij s and for the Stable xx s and for c. And if it happen the Rent to be behind by three months then the Prior to reenter after by an act of Parliament An. 31. Hen. 8. the Priory was given to the King and hee Vested in actuall Possession thereof with all Conditions and Covenants c. as the Lessor had Afterwards the King 29. Sept. An. 36. by Letters Patents gave the Stâ—ble to the same Cordall and one H. Audley in Fee and the Reversion of the other Parcells descended to the Queen which now is whereupon 8 die Maii An. 23. Issued a Commission out of the Exchequer to enquire si praedict Cordall assign sui perimplevissent performassent omnes conventiones promissiones fact reservat super praedict Indent dimissionis praemissis fact c. And the Commission was retourn'd in Michaelmas Term after and it was found that the four usuall Terms in London are the Feasts of St. Michael the Birth of our Lord the Annunciation and the Birth of St. John Baptist for the Rent was to be paid ad quatuor terminos Anni infra Civitatem London usuales Vsuales terminos And further by the same Iury being a Iury of Middlesex it was found that 37. s 5. d. ob Part and Parcell of the said Rent were behind not paid by three Months next after Michaelmas last past before the taking of the said Inquisition Cordall made Burnell his Executor and died Burnell granted all the Term to Brech the Defendant Afterwards the Queen 5 Augusts An. 23. which was before the return of the Inquisition and before any Entry or Seisure made by her or by any other to her use granted the high House to Sir John Fortescue and Thekston in Fee and they entred upon Berch and made the Lease to the Plantif for three yeares c. And first it is to be considered if they be severall Rents in this case or no Severall Rents because he saith viz. For the high house 14. s c. For that I take the Law to be very strong Coâ—cessum per Fenner Rodes that they be severall Rents for allthough that he saith first requiring 5. l. 6. s xj d. which is an entire summe yet when he saith afterwards for the high House so much and for the Stable so much c. This maketh a severance and for that I will remember the case in Dyer fo 308 Feoffment per deux so I hold the Law if a Feoffment be made by two rendring xx l. a year viz. x. l. to the one and x. l. to the other these are severall Reservations but because I hold the Law clear in this point I will speak no more to it Another matter is when the Commission issueth to enquire of all Covenants and Promises conteined in the Indenture to be performed by Cordall Conc. per Rodes Lease sur condicion en un proviso if the finding by the Jury be conteined within these words Covenants and Promises c. And I think they be for if a man make a Lease to one for years and if it happen the said Rent to be behind that then it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter as I think this is a Proviso for the Rent so the case in 22 Hen. 6. A Lease was made for years Rent an agreement rendring Rent the Lessee is bound to perform all covenants and agreements if he do not pay the rent the obligation is forfeit Coâ—cess per Fenner for the payment of the rent is an agreement So in this case the proviso doth extend to the payment of the rent And as for the exception which was taken viz. That the Jury find that 37 s of the rent was behind and doe not say expresly for the house which is now in question I hold that a vain exception for when they have found that more was behind than that which was now in question allthough that it be in generality yet it is good for the particularity and for that matter I could remember many cases but I will not doubt of a matter as I think without doubt But for the condition which is the great matter of the case First the condition is vested in the King by the express words of the Statute and Condition as I think grant of parcell shall not extinguish the whole condition In the case of a common person the condition shall be utterly gone and so are our Books otherwise peradventure I would doubt of that allso but because the Book is so in Dyer 14 Eliz. fol. 309. I will speak no more of it but the case of the King differs from a common person Rent charge to the King rent seck for as he is the Head and supreme Governour of the Commonwealth so he is the superior in Prerogatives and Preheminences 13 Ed. 3. 14 Ed. 3. A rent charge granted to the King he shall distrein for it in all the lands of the Grantor and 8 Hen. 5. if a rent seck cometh to the King he shall distrein for it and yet it is called seck because no distress is incident thereto And there the principall case was of a Fieri facias No demand by the King 2 Hen. 7. the King shall not demand his rent But it hath been sayd that because conditions go to the destruction and determination of estates Cond strictly taken that therefore they shall be tâ—ken strictly to which I agree but not in the case of the King as in Bro. Apportionment 23. 168. and so are the presidents in the Exchequer if a man be bound in a Statute Merchant and after the Conisor enfeoffes the King of parcel of the land Conisor enfeoffes le Roy. and enfeoffes a stranger of another parcell and afterwards the Statute is forfeit to the King by atttainder the King shall have execution against the other feoffee And in many other cases the King is privileged especially in things entire For if there be two Coparceners and one be in ward to the King Entire presentation he shall have the entire presentation of all And in this case I think that before the condition shall be destroyed that the Patent made to Cordall shall be voyd for it is not ex certa scientia merâ— motâ— but it is generall and it was not the intent of the King to take away the intire condition And allthough the King grants the reversion yet the condition which was once vested in the King as I think remains in him
have against him untill the 24 of June then next following which was half a year after and because he had not performed this an action upon an Assumpsit was brought and Judgement given for the Plaintif and all the Justices agreed that this was Error because that this thing arbitrated was out of the submission and so voyd for they have no authority to arbitrate that which is not submitted unto them Submission and the submission is onely of things passed and not to come but because that the Defendant had not heard of this Error before therefore they gave him day Afterwards the case was moved again and Anderson sayd that damages recovered doe not lye in arbitrement Damages recovered Peryam Amongst other things they will lye well enough quod Anderson non negavit But they all sayd that they may well assume upon consideration and an Action will be maintainable for it 5. THomas Mounson Esquire Term extinguished sonne and heir apparent to Sir Iohn Mounson Knight brought an Action of Trespass against VVest who pleaded not guilty and upon Evidence it appeared that Sir Iohn Mounson had an estate for years the Remainder in tayl to the Plaintif with divers Remainders over and the Lessee made a Feoffment to divers and a Letter of Attorney to others with commission to enter into the lands and to seal the Feoffment and deliver it in his name to the use of the sayd Thomas and his heirs and another by commandement or Letter of Attorney of the sayd Thomas entred in his name And the Court held this a good Feoffment notwithstanding that both the Lessee and the Attorney were disseisors Disseisors for it is good between the Feoffor and the Feoffee for they sayd that by the Feoffment to the use of him in the remainder and his heirs if he in remainder enter he is remitted and the estate for years is gone implicatively Freehold joyned to the term Morgage for Peryam sayd that in all cases where the Freehold cometh to the term there the term is extinguished And therefore if a man morgage his reversion to the Lessee for years and after perform the condition yet the Lease for years is utterly extinguished And the Evidence on both parts was very long and the chief matter was whether a Deed were forged by Rob. Mounson lately one of the Justices of the Common-pleas by which Devise lands were conveighed to him by William Mounson his Father whose heir at the Common Law Sir John Mounson is viz. the Sonne of Roberts eldest brother and the Deed was shewed by VVest and it was perished with Mice all the Seal and part of every side but yet by the last Will of the sayd VVilliam Mounson and by divers other proofs it was evident that the Deed was good and but little in effect was shewed to prove the Deed forged Misdemenour yet the Jury went together and tarryed there all night and in the mean time some of them had victualls with them for one had Cheese and another had Pruens another had Pippins and another had an Orange but he which had the Orange swore that he brought it onely for the smell and therefore he was excused and he which had Pruens had given half a Pruen to one of his companions which eat it and he which had Cheese had eat thereof therefore all those which had victuals Fine and imprisonment were fined at 40 s and they which had eaten at 5 l. every of them and all committed to the Fleet but because they were agreed therefore the Verdict was taken and the Verdict was given for the Plaintif viz. that the Deed was forged by Justice Mounson and the Verdict taken de bene esse and all this matter commanded to be entred for the Justices doubted whether it were a good Verdict This matter was moved divers Terms afterwards and at the last adjudged a good Verdict 6. IN an Ejectione firme by Ashby against Laver for Lands in Westminster Countermand it was sayd by all the Justices to the Jury that if a man hath a Lease and disposeth of it by his will and after surrenders it and takes a new Lease and after dyeth that the Devisee shall not have this last Lease because this was a plain countermand of his Will 7. IN Trespass by Johnson against Astley it was said by the Justices to the Jury that if there were a Chauntery in reputation allthough it be none in right as if it be gone by disseisin yet the Queen shall have the Lands 8. AT Serjeants-Inne in Fleet-street Rent suspended the Justices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled for divers Errors in the Kings-bench and the case of Rawlins was moved again and Anderson and Peryam retained their former opinions and Peryam sayd that he would differ from all the cases of collaterall conditions Feoffment upon condition which may be put for he sayd that if a man make a Feoffment in fee of 20 Acres of land upon condition that if he pay to the Feoffee xx l. at Easter that then it shall be lawfull for him to re-enter allthough that he be re-enfeoffed of 10 Acres yet he ought to perform the condition because it is collaterall But Cook the famous Utter-barrister sayd Truly it hath been adjudged to the contrary and I was privy to it for when he took as high an estate again as he had before by that the condition is confounded and the case of the Corody in 20 Ed. 4. will prove this case Rodes I see no diversity Peryam It is collaterall there but so it is not here but afterwards those two Judges changed their opinions and so the first Judgement was affirmed 9. BRown recovered against Garbrey in an Assumpsit Consideration and thereupon Garbrey brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that there was no Consideration for the Declaration was that whereas there was a communication between Brown and a woman for Mariage between them that the Father of Brown had promised to the Wife that if she would marry his Son he would make a Feoffment of his land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of them two in tayl the remainder c. and that Garbrey assured to the Wife in consideratione praemissorum that if the Father did not doe so then he would give the Wife a hundred pound ac licet the Father did not give to them in tayl secund agreament praedict yet Garbrey refused c. And Cook moved that this should be no Consideration for the communication of Mariage was not by him but between strangers to him but if the Father had assumed in consideration of Mariage then that should have been good against the Father but against Garbrey it is â—o otherwise than as if one promise to you to Enteoff you and I say that if he doe not so then I will give you a hundred pound this is