praedicto loco c. but doth not say tempore quo c. for a Herriot tempore quo c. being left out and so doth not say a Herriot was due at the time of the taking of the Goods But he answered That that was usual and common and of that Opinion were all the Iustices and so it was held good It was farther objected That here is a variance between the Avowry and the finding in the Special Verdict The Avowant says that the Rent was 12 s. and 4 d. and the Iury find that it was but 3 s. and 1 d. He also saith that the Herriot was due upon every Alienation without notice and they find it due with or without notice But to that he said the Iury have doubted only of the last Point for the Avowry was not for Rent but for the Herriot so the substance is whether he had good cause to distrein for the Herriot or not Postea And as to that the Substance is sufficiently found like the Case in Dyer 115. Debt upon Bond for performance of Covenants and not to do waste the Breach assigned was that the Defendant felled twenty Oakes who pleads Non succidit viginti quercus praed ' nec earum aliquam the Iury find he cut down ten yet the Plaintiff recovered for though the intire Allegation of the Breach was not found because ten did not prove the issue of twenty literally yet the Substance is found which is sufficient to make the Bond forfeited So in Trespas where the Plaintiff makes a Title under a Lease which commenced on Lady-day Habendum à Festo c. and the Issue was non demisit modo forma the Iury found the Lease to be made upon Lady-day Habendum à confectione and so it commenced upon Lady-day and not à Festo c. which must be the day after the Feast yet 't was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the * Moor 868. Yelv. 148. Substance was whether or no the Plaintiff had a Lease to intitle himself to commence an Action Hob. 27. But in Ejectment or Replevin such a Declaration had been naught because therein you are to recover the Term and therefore the Title must be truly set out and in Replevin you are to have a Retorn̄ habend ' but in Trespas 't is only by way of excuse Sed quaere A second Reason is because both Plaintiff and Defendant in pleading have agréed the matter in this particular for both say the Rent was 12 s. and 4 d. 'T is a Rule in Law That what the Parties have agreed in pleading shall be admitted though the Iury find otherwise 2 Ass pl. 17. 18 E. 3. 13. b. 2 Co. 4. Goddard's Case Iurors are not bound by Estoppel ad dicend ' veritatem for they are sworn so to do unless the Estoppel be within the same Record but here that which is confessed cannot be matter of Issue not being Lis contestata It has beén objected that in 33 H. 6. 4. b. the Plaintiff brought Debt for 20 l. the Iury found the Defendant only owed 10 l. and the Plaintiff could never recover But that must be intended of a Debt due upon Contract and there the least variance will be fatal 38 H. 6. 1. As to the second variance 't is not material for 't is not true as the Avowant hath said for if the matter in issue be found the finding over is but surplusage both the Verdict and the Avowry agree that the Defendant may take a Distress in case of Alienation without notice And so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Judgment for the Defendant The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant for what is agréed in pleading though the Iury find contrary the Court is not to regard and here the substance of the Issue as to the second Point is well found for the Defendant Iudge Atkins told Serjeant Wilmot who argued for the Plaintiff that he had cited many Cases which came not up to the matter and so did magno conatu nugas agere for which reason I have not reported his Argument Smith versus Feverel Case for surcharging a Common THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant setting forth that he had right of Common in A. and that the Defendant put in his Cattel viz. Horses Cows Hogs c. ita quod Communiam in tam amplo modo habere non potuit The Defendant pleads a Licence from the Lord of the Soil to put in Averia sua which was agreéd to comprehend Hogs as well as other Cattle in the most general sense The Defendant demurs and after Argument the Court were all of opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant in his Plea hath not alledged that there was sufficient Common left for the Commoners for the Lord cannot let out to pasture so much as not to leave sufficient for the Commoners And though it was objected that the Plaintiff might have replyed specially and shewn there was not enough yet it was agreed by the Court that in this Case he need not because his Declaration to that purpose was full enough and that being the very Gist of the Action the Defendant should have pleaded it It was held indéed that in an Action upon the Case by the Commoner against the Lord he must particularly shew the Surcharge but if the Action be brought against a Stranger such a shewing as is here is sufficient North Chief Iustice said and it was admitted that the Licence being general ad ponend ' averia it should be intended only of Commonable Cattel and not of Hogs Sed contra if the Licence had been for a particular time Anonymus A Man devises Land to A. his Heir at Law Devise and devises other Lands to B. in Fee and saith If A. molest B. by Suit or otherwise he shall lose what is devised to him and it shall go to B. The Devisor dies A. enters into the Lands devised to B. and claims it the Court were of Opinion that this Entry and Claim is a sufficient breach to entitle B. to the Land of A. It was also agreed that these words If A. molest B. by Suit c. make a Limitation and not a Condition Pl. Com. 420. the Devise being to the Heir at Law for if it were a Condition it descends to him and so 't is void because he cannot enter for the breach 3 Co. 22. Cro. Eliz. 204. Wellock and Hamonds Case Paying in the case of the eldest Son makes a Limitation Owen 112. So in the Case of Williams and Fry in an Ejectione firmae in B. R. lately for Newport-House A. deviseth to his Grand-daughter Provided and upon Condition that she marry with the consent of the Earl of Manchester and her Grandmother 't is a Limitation 2dly It was agreed That an Entry and Claim in this Case was a sufficient molestation for when the
ought to bring his Action Pemberton Serjeant for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. That this Covenant is not conditional for the words paying and performing signifie no more than that he shall enjoy c. under the Rents and Covenants and 't is a Clause usually inserted in the Covenant for quiet Enjoyment Indeed the word paying in some Cases may amount to a Condition but that is where without such construction the party could have no remedy But here are express Covenants in the Lease and a direct reservation of the Rent to which the party concerned may have recourse when he hath occasion A liberty to take Pot-water paying so many Turns c. 't is a Condition The Words paying and yielding make no Condition Cook and Herle Postea Vaugh. 32. nor was it ever known that for such Words the Lessor entred for Non-payment of Rent and there is no difference between these Words and the Words paying and performing Bennet's Case in B. R. ruled no Condition Duncomb's Case Owen Rep. 54. Barrel Serjeant for the Defendant said Ex parte Def. that the Covenant is to be taken as the parties have agreéd and the Lessor is not to be sued if the Lessée first commit the breach Modus Conventio qualifie the general Words concerning quiet Enjoyment The Court took time to consider and afterwards in this Term Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Sid. 266 280. that the Covenant was not conditional Atkins Iustice doubted Simpson versus Ellis Debt by a Bailiff of a Liberty DEBT upon Bond by the Plaintiff who was chief Bailiff of the Liberty of Pontefract in Yorkshire but he did not declare as Capital Ballivus but yet by the whole Court it was held good for otherwise the Defendant might have craved Oyer and have it entred in haec verba and then have pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. that it was taken * Sand. 161. Sid. 383. Latch 143. colore Officii but now it shall be intended good upon the Demurrer to the Declaration And Ellis Iustice said that so it was lately resolved in this Court in the Case of one Conquest And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mason versus Stratton Executor c. Judgment kept on foot per Fraudem 2 Cro. 35 102. Vaugh. 103 104. DEBT upon Bond. The Defendant pleads two Iudgments had against his Testator and sets them forth and that he had but 40 s Assets towards satisfaction The Plaintiff replies that the Defendant paid but so much upon the first Iudgment and so much upon the second and yet kept them both on foot per Fraudem Covinam And the Defendant demurred specially 1 Roll. Abr. 802. 2 Cro. 626 Because the Replication is so complicated that no distinct Issue can be taken upon it for the Plea sets forth the Iudgments severally but the Plaintiff puts them both together when he alledges them to be kept per Fraudem But on the other side it was said that all the Presidents are as in this Case Sid. 333. 8 Co. Turner's Case 132. 9 Co. Meriel Tresham's Case 108 And of that Opinion was all the Court that the Replication was good And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Suffeild versus Baskervil No Breach can be assigned upon a Promise DEBT upon Bond for performance of all Covenants Payments c. In an Indenture of Lease wherein the Defendant for and in consideration of 400 l. lent him by the Plaintiff granted the Land to him for 99 years if G. so long lived provided if he pay 60 l. per annum quarterly during the Life of G. or shall within two years after his death pay the said 400 l. to the Plaintiff then the Indenture to be void with a Clause of Reentry for Non-payment The Defendant pleads performance The Plaintiff assigns for breach that 30 l. for half a year was not paid at such a time during the Life of G. The Defendant demurrs For that the breach was not well assigned because there is no Covenant to pay the Mony only by a Clause Liberty is given to re-enter upon Non payment The Court inclined that this Action would not lie upon this Bond in which there was a Proviso and no express Covenant and therefore no Breach can be assigned Benson versus Idle AUdita Querela The Case upon Demurrer was Estoppel not well pleaded with a Traverse That before the Kings Restauration the now Defendant brought an Action of Trespass against the Plaintiff for taking his Cloath who then pleaded that he was a Souldier and compelled by his Fellow Souldiers who threatned to hang him as high as the Bells in the Belfry if he refused To this the Plaintiff then replied de injuriâ suâ propriâ c. And it was found for him and an Elegit was brought and the now Plaintiffs Lands extended Then comes the Act of * 12 Car. 2. cap. 11. Indempnity which pardons all Acts of Hostility done in the Times of Rebellion and from thenceforth discharges personal Actions for or by reason of any Trespas comitted in the Wars and all Iudgments and Executions thereon before the first day of May 1658. but doth not restore the party to any Sums of Mony mean Profits or Goods taken away by virtue of such Execution or direct the party to give any account for the same which Act made by the Convention was confirmed by 13 Car. 2. cap. 7. And upon these two Acts of Parliament the Plaintiff expresly averring in his Writ that the former Recovery against him was for an Act of Hostility now brought this Audita Querela The Defendant pleads the former Verdict by way of Estoppel and concludes with a Traverse absque hoc that the taking of his Goods was an Act of Hostility This was argued by Holloway Serejant for the Plaintiff and by Jones Serjeant for the Defendant who chiefly insisted That the Defendant having pleaded the substance of this Matter before and being found against him that he being now Plaintiff could not averr any thing against that Record But the Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for his remedy was very proper upon the Convention and without the Statute of Confirmation and here is no Estoppel in the Case for whether this was an act of Hostility or not is not material neither was it or could it be an Issue upon the former Tryal because all the Matter then in Question was concerning the Trespass which though found against the now Plaintiff yet it might be an act of Hostility but if it were an Estoppel 't is not well pleaded with a Traverse and the Court hath set it at large DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 27 Caroli II. in Communi Banco Mayor and Cominalty of London versus Gatford IN an Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiffs Construction of an Act of Parliament for a Fine of 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. set upon the
after the Partition 2. The Rejoynder is a departure from the Plea which is that the Plaintiff never had any thing but joyntly with others and the Rejoynder is that at the time of the conversion he was joyntly possessed which is a manifest difference in point of time and such as will make a Departure 33 H. 14. Bro. Departure 28. 13. Ex parte Def. It was argued by Serjeant Hopkins for the Defendant that the Replication was not good for the Plaintiff therein had alledged a Partition by Deed and doth not say hic in Curia prolat̄ And in all Cases where a Man pleads a Deed by which he makes himself either party or privy he must produce it in Court As where the Defendant justifies in Trespass that before the Plaintiff had any thing One Purfrey was seised in Fee of the place where c. And by Indenture c. demised it to Corbet excepting the Wood c. Habendum for the Life of Ann and covenanted quod licitum foret for the said Corbet to take House-boot c. That he assigned his Interest to Ann and that the Defendant as her Servant took the Trees and upon Demurrer the Plea was held naught because though a Servant having justified by force of a Covenant he did not shew the Indenture 2 Cro. 291. Purfrey versus Grimes 6 Rep. Bellamy's Case 1 Leon. 309. Rol. Rep. 20. If a thing will pass without a Deed yet if the Party pleads a Deed and makes a Title thereby he must come with a * profert hic in Curia As to the Objection That there was a Departure he argued to the contrary For the Defendant in his Rejoynder insists only on that which was most material and the Plaintiff in his Replication had given him occasion thus to Rejoyn and though he had left out some of the time mentioned in the Bar yet the would hurt the Pleadings because a fair Issue was tendred for if at the time of the conversion he was joyntly seised he could not be entituled to the Action alone Judgment And afterwards in Trinity-Term following the Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was good in Barr though pleaded in Abatement and the Defendant hath election to plead either in Barr or Abatement the nature of a Plea in Abatement is to intitle the Plaintiff to a better Writ but here the Defendant shews that the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action and so it shall be taken to be in Barr And it hath been expressly resolved That where the Plea is in Abatement if it be of necessity that the Defendant must disclose matter of barr he shall have his election to take it either by way of Barr or Abatement 2 Roll. Rep. 64. Salkil versus Shilton So where Waste was brought in the tenet the Tenant pleads a Surrender to the Lessor and demands Iudgment if he should be charged in the tenet because it should have been in the tenuit and this was held a good Plea 10 H. 7.11 Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice at first doubting about the Departure and advised the Plaintiff to wave his Demurrer and to take issue upon payment of Costs Daws versus Harrison THE Plaintiff intitles himself as Administrator to Daws Administration pleaded and not loci istius ordinarius good and shews that Administration was granted to him by the Official of the Bishop of Carlisle but did not alledge him to be loci istius Ordinarius And Jones Serjeant demurred to the Declaration because it did not appear that the Official had any Iurisdiction Pl. Com. 277. a. 31. H. 6. 13. Fitz. Judg. 35. 22 H. 6. 52. 36 H. 6. 32 33. Sed non allocatur For the whole Court were of Opinion That the Declaration was good and that he shall be intended to have Iurisdiction but if it had been in the Case of a Peculiar Cro Jac. 556. Palm 97. Sid. 322. it cannot be intended that they have any authority unless set forth And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mason versus Caesar IN Trespass for pulling down of Hedges Commoner may abate Hedges made upon his Common the Defendant pleads that he had right of Common in the place where c. and the Hedges were made upon his Common so that he could not in ea parte enjoy his Common in tam amplo modo c. and so justifies the pulling them down And they were at issue whether the Defendant could enjoy the Common in tam amplo modo c. and there was a Verdict for the Defendant and Iudgment being staied 'till moved on the other side Scroggs Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Plea was ill and the Issue frivolous for 't is impossible that he should have Common where the Hedges are 5 Rep. 100. 9 Rep. 55. And therefore the Defendant ought to have brought an Action upon the Case or a quod permittat He cannot abate the Hedges though he might have pulled down so much as might have opened a Way to his Common 2 Cro. 195 229. The Lord hath an Interest in the Soil and a Commoner hath no authority to do any thing but to enter and put in his Beasts and not to throw down Quick-Set Hedges for that is a shelter to his Beasts But the Court were of Opinion That the Defendant might abate the Hedges for thereby he did not meddle with the Soil but only pulled down the erection and the Book of 29 E. 3. 6. was express in this point Vide 17 H. 7. 10. 16 H. 7. 8. 33 H. 6. 31. 2 Ass 12. And nothing was said concerning the Plea and so the Defendant had Iudgment Hocket and his Wife versus Stiddolph and his Wife Verdict cured a bad Declaration IN an Action of Assault and Battery brought by the Plaintiff and his Wife against the Defendant and his Wife the Iury found quoad the beating of the Plaintiffs Wife only that the Defendants are Guilty and quoad resid ' they find for the Defendants And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Scroggs Serjeant That the Declaration is not good because the Husband * Yelv. 106. Drury versus Dennis Sid. 376. joyns with the Wife which he ought not to do upon his own shewing for as to the Battery made upon him he ought to have brought his Action alone and the finding of the Iury will not help the Declaration which is ill in substance and thereupon Iudgment was staied but being moved again the next Term the Court were all of Opinion That the Declaration was cured by the Verdict and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Goodwin qui tam c. versus Butcher AN Information was brought upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Buying a pretended Title cap. 9. made against buying pretended Titles which gives a Forfeiture of the value of the Land purchased unless the Seller was in possession within a
year before the Sale After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Barrell because the Information had set forth the right of these Lands purchased to be in J. S. and that the Son of J. N. had conveyed them by general words 2 Anders 57. as descending from his Father which Title of the Son the Defendant bought whereas if in truth the Title was in J. S. then nothing descended from the Father to the Son and so the Defendant bought nothing Sed non allocatur for if such construction should be allowed there could be no buying of a pretended Title within the Statute unless it was a good Title but when 't is said as here that the Defendant entred and claimed colore of that Grant or Conveyance which was void yet 't is within the Statute so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Wine versus Rider al. TRespass against five Quare clausum fregerunt Traverse immaterial and took Fish out of the Plaintiffs Several and Free-Fishery Four of them pleaded Not Guilty and the fifth justified for that one of the other Defendants is seised in Fee of a Close adjoyning to the Plaintiffs Close and that he and all those c. have had the sole and separate Fishing in the River which runs by the said Closes with liberty to enter into the Plaintiffs Close to beat the Water for the better carrying on of the Fishing and that he as Servant to the other Defendant and by his Command did enter and so justified the taking absque hoc that he is Guilty aliter vel alio modo The Plaintiff replies That he did enter de injuria sua propria absque hoc That the Defendants Master hath the Sole Fishing The Defendant demurs Ex parte Def. and Newdigate Serjeant argued for him That the Iustification is good for when he had made a local justification 2 Cro. 45 372. he must traverse both before and after as he has done in this Case 2. The Plaintiffs Replication is ill for he ought not to have waved the Defendants Traverse and force him to accept of another from him because the first is material to the Plaintiffs Title and he is bound up to it Hob. 104. 3. There was no occasion of a Traverse in the Replication for where a Servant is Defendant de injuria sua propria is good with a Traverse of the Command Ex parte Quer. But on the Plaintiffs side Serjeant Baldwin held the Defendants Traverse to be immaterial for having answered the Declaration fully in alledging a Right to the sole fishing and an Entry into the Plaintiffs Close 2 Cro. 372. 't is insignificant afterwards to traverse that he is guilty aliter vel alio modo Then the matter of the Plea is not good because the Defendant justifies by a Command from one of the other Defendants who have all pleaded Not-guilty and they must be guilty if they did command him for a Command will make a Man a Trespasser Curia The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For as to the last thing mentioned which was the Matter of the Plea they held it to be well enough for the * Mires and Solebay Post Servant shall not be ousted of the advantage which the Law gives him by pleading his Masters Command Then as to the Replication 't is good and the Plea is naught with the Traverse for where the Iustification goes to a time and place not alledged by the Plaintiff there must be a Traverse of both In this Case the Defendant ought to have traversed the Plaintiffs free fishing as alledged by him in his Declaration which he having omitted the Plea for that reason also is ill and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Termino Paschae Anno 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Lee versus Brown IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Where reputed Lands shall pass under general words viz. There were Lands which re vera were not parcel of a Mannor and yet were reputed as parcel A Grant is made of the Mannor and of all Lands reputed parcel thereof and whether by this Grant and by these general Words those Lands would pass which were not parcel of the Mannor was the Question This Term the Lord Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That those Lands would pass Postea Cro. Car. 308. and they grounded their Opinions upon two Authorities in Co. Entr. fol. 330 384. The King versus Imber Wilkins If the Iury had found that the Lands in question had beén reputed parcel of the Mannor it would not have passed had they found no more because the Reputation so found might be intended a Reputation for a small time so reputed by a few or by such as were ignorant and unskilful But in this Case 't is found that not only the Lands were reputed parcel but the reason why they were reputed parcel for the Iury have found that they were formerly parcel of the Mannor and after the division they were again united in the possession of him who had the Mannor which being also Copyhold have since béen demised by Copy of Court Roll togethet with the Mannor and these were all great marks of Reputation and therefore Iudgment was given that the Lands did well pass 2 Roll. Abr. 186. Dyer 350. Wakeman versus Blackwel Common Recoveries how to be pleaded QUare Impedit The Case was The Plaintiff entituled himself to an Advowson by a Recovery suffered by Tenant in Tail in pleading of which Recovery he alledges two to be Tenants to the Praecipe but doth not shew how they came to be so or what Conveyance was made to them by which it may appear that they were Tenants to the Praecipe and after search of Presidents as to the form of pleading of Common Recoveries the Court inclined that it was not well pleaded but delivered no Iudgment Searl versus Bunion Justification where good IN Trespass for taking of his Cattel The Defendant pleads that he was possessed of Blackacre pro termino diversorum annorum adtunc adhuc ventur̄ and being so possessed the Plaintiffs Cattle were doing damage and he distrained them Damage fesant ibidem and so justifies the taking c. The Plaintiff demurrs and assigns specially for cause that the Defendant did not set forth particularly the commencement of the Term of years but only that he was possessed of an Acre for a Term of years to come and regularly where a Man makes a Title to a particular Estate in pleading he must shew the particular time of the Commencement of his Title that the Plaintiff may replie to it Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court held that the Plea was good upon this difference where the Plaintiff brings an Action for the Land or doing of a Trespass upon the Land he is supposed to be in possession
Case of * Sid. 233. the Marquess of Dorchester He is no more to be valued than the Black Dog which lies there which were Words of disesteem and only the Opinion of the Defendant in which Case Iudgment was affirmed in a Writ of Error Object If it be objected to what purpose this Statute was made if no Action lies upon it but what lay at the Common Law Answ The Plaintiff now upon the Statute must prosecute tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso which he could not do at the Common Law And it has beén held in the Starr-Chamber that if a Scandalum Magnatum be brought upon this Statute the Defendant cannot justifie because 't is brought qui tam c. and the King is concerned but the Defendant may explain the Words and tell the occasion of speaking of them if they are true they must not be published because the Statute was to prevent Discords Object These Words carry in them no disesteem Answ According to a Common Vnderstanding they are Words of disrespect and of great disesteem for 't is as much as to say that the Plaintiff is a Man of no Honour he is one who lives after his own Will and so is not fit to be employed under the King if any precedent discourse had qualified the speaking these Words it ought to have been shewn by the Defendant which is not done and therefore he concluded that the Words notwithstanding what was objected were actionable and so by the Opinion of him Wyndham and Scroggs Iustices Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Atkins Iustice of a contrary Opinion Anonymus AN Action of Assault Battery Amendment after a Demurrer joyned and before Judgment given good Wounding and false Imprisonment for an hour was brought against the Defendant who pleads quoad venire vi armis Not-Guilty and as to the Imprisonment he justified as Servant to the Sheriff attending upon him at the time of the Assize from whom he received a Command to bring the Plaintiff being another of the Sheriffs Servants from the Conventicle where finding of him he to wit the Defendant did molliter manus imponere upon the Plaintiff and brought him before his Master quae est eadem transgressio To this the Plaintiff demurred and shewed for Cause 1. That the Substance of the Iustification is not good 2 Cro. 360. because the Servant could not thus justifie though his Master might for the Lord may beat his Villain without a Cause but if he command another to do it an Action of Battery lies against him 2 H. 4. 4. But though this might have been good if well pleaded yet 't is not good as pleaded here for 2. The Defendant saith quoad venire vi armis Not-Guilty Harding and Ferne Postea but saith nothing of the wounding which cannot be justified and therefore this Plea is not good for which reason it was clearly resolved that the Plea was ill but the Court inclined that the Substance of the Plea was well enough The Chief Iustice and Iustice Scroggs were of Opinion that a Man may as well send for his Servant from a Conventicle as from an Alehouse and may keep him from going to either of those places And the Chief Iustice said that he once knew it to be part of a Marriage Agreement that the Wife should have leave to go to a Conventicle But in this Case Leave was given to amend the Plea Sid. 107. and put in quoad vulnerationem Not-Guilty and it was held that though the Parties had joined in Demurrer yet the Defendant might have Liberty to amend before Iudgment given Singleton versus Bawtree Executor Traverse must be where the Charge in the Declaration is not fully answered ASsumpsit against the Defendant as Executor who pleads the Testator made one J. S. Executor who proved the Will and took upon him the Execution thereof and administred the Goods and Chattels of the Testator and so concludes in Abatement Et petit Judicium de Brevi with an Averment that J. S. Superstes in plena vita existit To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred because the Defendant ought to have traversed absque hoc that he was Executor or administred as Executor and so are all the Pleadings 9 H. 6. 7. 4 H. 7. 13. 7 H. 6. 13. But Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendant said that there is a difference when Letters of Administration are granted in case the Party die intestate and when a Man makes a Will and therein appoints an Executor for in that Case the Executor comes in immediately from the death of the Testator but when a Man dies intestate the Ordinary hath an Interest in the Goods and therefore he who takes them is Executor de son tort and may be charged as such but 't is otherwise generally where there is a Will and a rightful Executor who proveth the same for he may bring a Trover against the Party for taking of the Testators Goods though he never had the actual possession of them and therefore the taking in such case will not make a Man Executor de son tort because there is another lawful Executor but 't is true that if there be a special Administration 't is otherwise as if a Stranger doth take upon him to pay Debts or Legacies or to use the Intestates Goods such an express Administration will make him Executor de son tort and liable as in Read's Case 5 Co. So in this Case the Defendant pleads that J. S. was Executor which prima facie discharges him for to make him chargeable the Plaintiff ought in his Replication to set forth the special Administration that though there was an Executor yet before he assumed the Execution or proved the Will the Defendant first took the Goods by which he became Executor of his own Wrong and so to have brought himself within this distinction which was the truth of this Case and that would have put the matter out of dispute which not being done he held the Plea to be good and so prayed Iudgment for the Defendant The Court were of Opinion that prima facie this was a good Plea for where a Man * 2 Sand. 28. confesses and avoids he need not traverse and here the Defendant had avoided his being chargeable as Executor de son tort by saying that there was a rightful Executor who had administred the Testators whole Estate but the Surmise of the Plaintiff and the Plea of the Defendant being both in the * 2 Cro. 579. pl. 9. Sid. 341. 1 Sand. 338. affirmative no Issue can be joined thereon and therefore the Defendant ought to have traversed that he was Executor or ever administred as Executor the rather because his Plea gives no full Answer to the Charge in the Declaration being charged as Executor who pleads that another was Executor and both these matters might be true and yet the Defendant liable as Executor de son tort which
gave him the Goods at London by force whereof he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry because by such Gift or Delivery he might justifie the taking any where as well as where the delivery was made 2. That the Declaration was ill for the Agreement was to deliver the Goods at London and the breach was that he left them at London and so but argumentative Aston pl. Red. 62. Herns Pleader 76. Brownl Pleadings 139. But the Court were of Opinion that the Declaration was good and the Plea was naught in substance but if it had been good the Traverse notwithstanding had been ill because the justification was not local 2 Cro. 45 372 though Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Nota Visne altered Propter necessiatem The Plaintiff had leave given by the Court to alter the Visne from London to Middlesex because all the Sittings in London were on a Saturday and his Witness was a Jew and would not appear that day Mendyke versus Stint PRohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London Prohibition to the Sheriffs Court after Verdict and Judgment comes too late The Suggestion was That the Plaintiff was sued in that Court in an Action on the Case and sets forth the Proceedings at large that there was a Verdict against him there and averred that the Contract upon which he was sued there revera was made in Middlesex and so the cause of Action did not arise within their Iurisdiction and upon Demurrer to the Prohibition Serjeant Pemberton argued 2 Inst 229 243 601. West 1. c. 35. F. N. B. 45. b. Hob. 106. 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to any Court as well Temporal as Spiritual where such Courts exceed their Bounds for both those Iurisdictions are united to the Imperial Crown it may be granted to the Dutchy Court if they hold Plea of Lands not parcel of the Dutchy 2. Though the Iury have here found that the Defendant assumpsit modo forma yet such finding as to time and place is not material nor is it any Estoppel in a new Action laid in another County to aver that it was for the same thing 'T is true both time and place may be made material by pleading and so it had been in this Case if the Iury had found the place precisely for it would have been an Estoppel The Verdict therefore is nothing and all they have done is coram non Judice The Case of * Antea Squib and Holt. Squib and Hole he cited as an Authority in point where it was adjudged no Escape in the Officer to let a Man at Liberty who was in Execution upon a Bond sued in an Inferior Court the Bond not being made within the Iurisdiction thereof Ex parte Def. But Maynard Dolben Goodfellow and Sympson Serjeants contra They agreed that where it appears by the Plaintiffs Libel that the Court had no Iurisdiction there a Prohibition lies at any time but if what is in the Declaration is laid infra jurisdictionem there the Party must plead extra jurisdictionem and if they refuse to plead to the Plea a Prohibition will lie after Sentence But here is an Action on the Case brought of which the Sheriffs Court can hold Plea and which is laid to be infra jurisdictionem and not denied by the Plaintiff in his Plea and therefore now after Verdict and Iudgment he comes too late for a Prohibition and upon this difference Prohibitions have been usually either granted or denied to the Spiritual Courts Though the Court hath not cognisance of the Cause yet the Proceedings are not coram non Judice for if it be alledged to be within the Iurisdiction and the Defendant takes no exception to it and then Sentence is given against him he hath there by admitted the Iurisdiction So where a Man sued for a Legacy in the Prerogative Court where the Will was proved Stiles 45. by the Opinion of Rolls C. J. 2 Roll. Abr. 318. and Sentence given and an Appeal to the Delegates and Sentence affirmed and then a Prohibition granted but without notice upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. for that the Parties lived in another Diocess but the Plaintiff having allowed the Iurisdiction in all the former proceedings though the Prohibition was granted the Court would not compel the Party to appear and plead but granted a Consultation Cro. Car. 97. Smith versus the Executors of Pondrel In Hillary-Term 1675. in B.R. between Spring and Vernon and in Michaelmas-Term in 22 Car. 2. B. R. Buxton's Case and in Hillary Term the 22 23 Car. 2. in the same Court between Cox and St. Albon Prohibitions were denied after the Iurisdiction adadmitted by Pleading Mod. Rep. 81. The Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkyns upon the first Argument enclined that a Prohibition ought to be granted because the admittance of the Party cannot give a Iurisdiction where originally there was none but afterwards they were all of Opinion That the Prohibition should not go but said that the Plaintiff in the Inferiour Court ought to have been Non-suited if it appeared upon the Evidence that the Cause of Action did arise extra jurisdictionem In this Case these things were agreed by the Court. 1. Sid. 151. That if any matter appears in the Declaration which sheweth that the Cause of Action did not arise infra jurisdictionem there a Prohibition may be granted at any time 2. If the subject matter in the Declaration be not proper for the Iudgment and determination of such Court there also a Prohibition may be granted at any time 3. If the Defendant who intended to plead to the Iurisdiction is prevented by any Artifice as by giving a short day or by the Attornies refusing to plead it c. or if his Plea be not accepted or is over-ruled in all these Cases a Prohibition likewise will lie at any time And the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustices were of Opinion that after the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction by pleading to the Action especially if Verdict and Iudgment pass the Court will not examine whether the Cause of Action did arise out of the Iurisdiction or not But Atkyns and Scroggs Iustices said nothing to this last point but that many times an advantage given by the Law was lost by coming too late and instanced that a Visne may be changed in time but not if the Party come too late so if the time of the promise be laid above six years from the time of the Action brought if the Statute of Limitations be not pleaded the Defendant cannot take afterwards advantage of it Whereupon a Prohibition was denied and Iudgment was given for the Defendant Birch versus Wilson Plea tho' it amount to a general Issue if it doth disclose matter of Law besides it shall not be demurred unto IN an Action on the Case the Plaintiff declared
Plaintiff Blackbourn versus Conset Place where it shall be intended tho' not laid in the Pleading IN Replevin the Avowant pleads an Execution taken out and that a Term for years was extended and an Assignment thereof made by the Sheriff but alledges no place where the Assignment was made But upon Demurrer it was held good for it shall be intended to be assigned where the Land doth lie Hall versus Carter Bond to render himself a Prisoner good IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the Defendant craves Oyer of the Condition which was That if another person who was arrested at the Suit of the Plaintiff and for whom the Defendant was now bound should give such Security as the Plaintiff should approve of for the payment of 90 l. to him Sid. 132. pl. 4. or should render his Body to Prison at the return of the Writ then the Obligation to be void The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23. H. 6. cap. 10. That this Bond was given pro easimento favore And this Case coming to be argued upon a Demurrer the question was whether such Bond be within the Statute or not And the Court were of Opinion that it was not If the Sheriff takes Bond in another Man's name to elude the Statute such Bond is void but the Plaintiff may give directions to the Officer to take such Bond as this to himself 't is only an expedient to prevent a new Arrest and the Agreement of the Plaintiff makes it good If a Capias be taken out against the Defendant and a third person gives the Plaintiff a Bond that the Defendant shall pay the Mony or render himself at the Return of the Writ 't is a good Bond and not within the Statute because 't is not by the direction of the Officer but by the agreement of the Plaintiff and there is no Law that makes the Agreement of the Parties void and if the Bond was not taken by such Agreement it might have been traversed But Iustice Atkyns doubted because a Bond to render himself a Prisoner is void Bewfages's Case 10 Co. But if it had been to pay the Mony or appear at the Return of the Writ it had been good But notwithstanding Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Shaxton versus Shaxton THE Condition of a Bond was Non damnificatus not a good Plea where the person and Lands are to be indempnified Antea That the Defendant should save harmless Thomas Shaxton and the Mortgaged Premisses and should pay the Interest for the prinicipal Sum. The Defendant pleads that Thomas Shaxton non fuit damnificatus for that the Defendant had paid the 120 l. principal mony with all the arrears of Interest due at such a day And upon a Demurrer this was held no good Plea because the first matter non damnificatus goes to the Person and not to the Premisses And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus After acquittal for a Common Trespass an Action on the Case will not lie Sid. 465 466. Antea THE Defendant was Indicted for a Common Trespass and Acquitted and now was Plaintiff in an Action on the Case against the Prosecutor And by the Opinion of the Chief Iustice the Action will lie for the Charges and Expences in defending the prosecution which the acquittal proves to be false and the Indicting him proves to be malicious for if he had intended any thing for his own benefit or recompence he might have brought a civil Action and then if he had been found Not Guilty he would have had his Costs allowed Though the prosecution be for a Trespass for which there is a probable cause yet after Acquittal it shall be accounted malicious the Difference only is where the Indictment is for a Criminal matter but where 't is for such a thing for which a Civil Action will lie the Party can have no reason to prosecute an Indictment it is only to put the Defendant to charges and make to him pay Fees to the Clerk of the Assises Penrice and Wynn's Case Habeas Corpus may be granted in Civil matters SErjeant Maynard moved for a Habeas Corpus for them being committed to the Poultry Compter by the Commissioners of Bankrupts for refusing to be examined and sworn touching their Knowledge of the Bankrups Estate The Process against them in this Court was an Attachment of Priviledge which was a Civil Plea and of which the Court had Iurisdiction and therefore the Habeas Corpus must be granted And the Chief Iustice said that it might be without motion because all the Habeas Corpus's in that Court were ad faciendum recipiend and they issue of course Antea but in the Kings-Bench they are ad subjiciendum which are in Criminal Causes and not to be granted without motion Then the Serjeant moved that the Sheriff might Return his Writ which was done and being filed he took Exceptions to the Return by which the ground of the Commitment appeared to be by virtue of a Warrant under the Hands and Seals of the Commissioners c. which he said was ill for want of an Averment of their refusal to come and be sworn for it did not appear that they did refuse and they ought not to be committed without refusing so that should have been positively averred viz. That they did refuse and still do for if they are willing at any time they ought to be discharged and so they were but were ordered to put in Bail upon the Attachment Abbot versus Rugeley THE Plaintiff declared in an Action of Assault and Battery to which the Defendant pleaded non cul Plea puis darrein continuance must be certified as part of the Record of Nisi prius and at the Assises a Plea was put in puis darrein continuance and a Demurrer thereunto The Court were clear of Opinion That if the Plea had been issuable it could not have been then tried neither could the Demurrer be there argued but must be certified up hither by the Iudge of Assise as part of the Record of Nisi prius Yelv. 180. Hawkins versus Moor. Ballard versus Oddey It was ruled in this Case The Contract it self must be Usurious to make it void 1 Sand. 295. Mod. Rep. 69. That to avoid a Security by reason of Vsury the Contract it self must be usurious for if the Party takes afterwards more than is allowed that will not make it so so that if the Agreement of the Parties be honest but made otherwise by the mistake of a Scrivener yet 't is not Vsury As if a Mortgage be for 100 l. with a Proviso to be void on payment of 106 l. at the end of one year and no Covenant for the Mortgagor to take the Profits till default be made in paiment so that in strictness the Mortgagee is intituled both to the Interest and the Profits yet if this was not express'd the Agreement is not Vsury DE Term. Sanctae Trin.
Heir enters and claims generally it shall be intended as Heir and the words that he shall not molest by Suit or otherwise are to be intended occasione praemissorum 3dly There is no néed of Entry to avoid an Estate in case of a Limitation because thereby the Estate is determined without Entry or Claim and the Law casts it upon the Party to whom it is limited and in whom it vests till he disagrées to it A. devises Land to B. and his Heirs and dies 't is in the Devisee immediately but indeed till Entry he cannot bring a possessory Action as Trespass c. Pl. Com. 412 413. 10 Co. 40. b. where a Possession vests without Entry a Reversion will vest without Claim Nota. Curtis versus Davenant Prohibition A Bishop cannot appoint Commissioners to tax the Parish for building or repairing a Church IN a Prohibition the Question was whether if a Church be out of repair or being so much out of order that it must be re-edified whether the Bishop of the Diocess may direct a Commission to impower Commissioners to tax and rate every Parishioner for the re-edifying thereof The Court did unanimously agree such Commissions were against Law and therefore granted a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court to stop a Suit there commenced against some of the Parishioners of White-Chappel for not paying the Tax according to their proportions It was agréed that the Spiritual Court hath power to compel the Parish to repair the Church by their Ecclesiastical Censures but they cannot appoint what Sums are to be paid for that purpose because the Churchwardens by the consent of the Parish are to settle that As if a Bridge be out of repair the Iustices of Peace cannot set Rates upon the persons that are to repair it but they must consent to it themselves These Parishioners here who contribute to the charge of repairing the Church may be spared but as for those who are obstinate and refuse to do it the Spiritual Court may proceed to Excommunication against them but there may be a Libel to pay the Rates set by the Church-wardens Nurse versus Yearworth in Cancellaria Bill in Cancellaria for the Assignment of a Term. RIchard Yearworth being seised of Lands in Fee makes a Lease to the Defendant Christopher Yearworth for 99 years to such use as by his last Will he should direct Afterward he makes his Will in writing having then no Issue but his Wife grossement enseint and thereby devises the same Land to the Heirs of his Body on the Body of his Wife begotten and for want of such Issue to the said Christopher the Defendant and his Heirs Richard dies and about a month after a Son is born the Son by vertue of this Devise enjoys the Land but when he attains his full age of one and twenty years he suffers a Common Recovery and afterwards devises the Land to the Complainant Nurse and dies The Complainant exhibits a Bill against the Defendant to have the Lease for 99 years assigned to him and whether he should have it assigned or not was the Question 1. It was pretended that an Estate in Fée being limited by the Will to Christopher who was Lessee for 99 years the Term is thereby drowned 2. It was objected that the Devise by Richard to the Infant in ventre la mere was void and then the Complainant who claimed by a Devise from the Posthumus could have no Title but that the Defendant to whom an Estate was limited by the Will of Richard in Remainder should take presently But notwithstanding what was objected the Lord Keeper Finch decréed that the Lease which was in Trust should be assigned to the Complainant Nurse He said that at the Common Law without all question a Devise to an Infant in ventre sa mere of Lands devisable by Custom was good so that the doubt arises upon the Statute of H. 8. Roll. Abr. tit Devise 609. lit H. pl. 2. Godb. 385. 11 H 6. 13. dubitatur which enacts That it shall be lawful for a Man by his Will in writing to devise his Lands to any person or persons for in this Case the Devisée not being in rerum naturâ in strictness of spéech is no person and therefore it hath beén taken that such a Devise is void Moor's Rep. and 't is left as a Quaere in the Lord Dyer 304. But in two Cases in the Common Pleas one in the time when the Lord Chief Iustice Hale was Iudge there the other in the Lord Chief Iustice Bridgman's time it hath been resolved that if there were sufficient and apt words to describe the Infant though in ventre sa mere the Devise might be good But in the King's Bench the Iudges since have been divided upon this Point that as the Law stands now adjudged this Devise in our Case seems not to be good But should the Case come now in question he said he was not sure that the Law would be so adjudged for 't is hard to disinherit an Heir for want of apt Words to describe him and 't is all the reason in the World that a Mans intent lying in extremis when most commonly he is destitute of Council should be favoured Whitrong versus Blaney Process into Wales THIS Term the Court delivered their Opinions in this Case North Chief Iustice who had heard no Arguments herein being absent The Case was this The Plaintiff upon a Iudgment in this Court sues out a Scire facias against the Heir and the Ter-tenants which was directed to a Sheriff of Wales the Defendant is returned Tertenant but he comes in and pleads Non tenure generally and traverses the Return the Plaintiff demurs Two Points were spoke to in the Case 1. Whether the Defendant can traverse the Sheriffs Return And all the three Iustices agreéd that he cannot 2. Whether a Scir̄ Fac̄ Ca. Sa. Fi. Fa. c. would lie into Wales on a Iudgment here at Westminster And they agréed it would well lie An Indictment may be removed 2 Cro. 484. Ellis Iustice agreéd If Iudgment be given in Wales it could not be removed into the Chancery by Certiorari and sent hither by Mittimus and then Execution taken out upon that Iudgment here because such Iudgments are to be executed in their proper Iurisdictions and such was the Resolution of the Iustices and Barons Cro. Car. 34. But on a Iudgment obtained here Execution may go into Wales No Execution can go into the Isle of Man because 't is no part of England but Wales is united to England by the Statute of 27 H. 8. c. 26. And therefore in Bedo and Piper's Case 2 Bulstr 156. it was held that such a * Het 20. 2 Cro. 484. The Opinion of Dodderidge Roll. 395. 2 Sand. 194. Twisden denied it Writ of Execution goes legally into Wales He said he had a Report of a Case in 11 Car. 2. where a Motion was made to quash an Elegit into Wales
could not possibly secure them in his own House without subjecting himself to an Action and an Award that one Man shall take the Goods of another is void But if the Plea is not good yet if the Vmpirage be naught Iudgment is to be given for the Defendant for the advantage is saved to him upon the Demurrer And as to that the Vmpirage is but of one side for the Plaintiff is to do nothing nor is the Defendant to be acquitted of all Suits To which it was answered by the Plaintiff's Council That the Vmpirage was of both sides for there being Suits depending 't is awarded that each shall bear his own Charges which is a benefit to the Defendant for otherwise seing the right was in the Plaintiff the Defendant should have paid the Plaintiffs Costs as well as his own for which he cannot now sue without forfeiting his Bond Curia advisare vult Squibb versus Hole THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Escape Escape Action of Escape the Process was upon Bond not made within the Jurisdiction of an Inferiour Court and therefore no Escape and declares That he prosecuted one J. S. in the court of Ely upon a Bond made infra Jurisdictionem of that Court upon which he was taken and the Defendant suffered him to Escape Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict to this effect viz. That there was such a Bond upon which there was such a prosecution and such an Escape as in the Declaration but they find farther that this Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae Maynard Serjeant who Argued for the Plaintiff said that this Action was commenced in an Inferiour Court upon a Bond which the Plaintiff sets forth to be infra Jurisdictionem Curiae and that the Defendant was Arrested and suffered to Escape and whether if in truth the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem an Action of Escape would lye or whether all the proceédings are coram non Judice was the doubt He took a difference where an Inferiour Court hath an Original Iurisdiction of the Cause and hath conusance of such a Suit as is brought there for in such Cases the proceedings are not extra-judicial but if an Action is brought where properly no Action doth lye all the proceedings there are coram non Judice At the Common Law one who had a particular Iurisdiction to hold Pleas within a Liberty could not hold any Plea of a thing which did arise out of the Liberty for though it was transitory in its nature yet being alledged not within his Iurisdiction it was ill 2 Inst 231. But when the cause of Action arises infra Jurisdictionem that gives them Authority to proceed and therefore it would be hard that the Iudge and Officer should be punished by a construction to make all extra judicial when they have no possible way of finding whether in truth the Cause did arise within the * Post Crowder and Goodwin Iurisdiction of the Court or not But the Officer is bound to obey the Process of the Court if it appear as in this Case that they had conusance of it the Iudge is likewise bound to grant the Process otherwise he is subject to the Plantiffs Action for his refusal In some Cases the Plaintiff himself may not know where the Bond was made as if he be Executor of the Obligee c. Besides in this Case 't is set forth That in the Action below the Defendant pleaded non est factum and so had admitted the Iurisdiction or at least had waived it and it would be an insufferable mischief if after all this labour and charge the Defendant might avoid all again North Chief Iustice said That if this Cause had been tryed before him he would have Non-suited the Plaintiff because he had not proved the truth of what he laid down in his Declaration viz. That the Bond was made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae But as to the Matter as it stood upon the special Verdict he inclined that as to the Plaintiff who knew where the Bond was made all the proceedings were coram non Judice but as to the Officer it was otherwise for the Pleint and Process would be a good Excuse for him in an Action of false Imprisonment Judgment And afterwards by the Opinion of three Iudges viz. the Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkyns Iustices Iudgment was given for the Defendant That this was no Escape and that though the Party had admitted the Iurisdiction by his Plea of non est factum below yet that could not give the Court any Iurisdiction which had not any originally in the Cause and the Case of * Roll. Abt. tit Escape 809 pl. 45. Richardson versus Bernard was cited as an Authority in point where the Plaintiff in an Action brought against an Officer declared in Hull upon a Bond made at Hallifax and had Iudgment and Execution and the Defendant escaped And in an Action brought for this Escape the Declaration was held ill because it did not alledge the Bond to be made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae Ellis Iustice of a contrary Opinion in omnibus Sams versus Dangerfield THE Plaintiff being Collector of the Hearth-Mony Departure brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against his Sub-Collector conditioned to pay such Sums as he should receive within 14 days after receipt at such a place in the City of Worcester as the Plaintiff should appoint The Defendant pleads payment The Plaintiff assigns a breach in non-payment of such a Sum received at a place by him appointed The Defendant rejoyns that the Plaintiff appointed no place and the Plaintiff demurr'd And after Argument for the Plaintiff by Jones Serjeant this was adjudged a departure because the Defendant ought to have pleaded first that he had paid all but such a Sum for which as yet the Plaintiff had appointed no place of payment and Iudgment was given accordingly Smith versus Hall IN an Action brought against the Defendant for false Imprisonment he justified by virtue of a Latitat False Imprisonment doth not lye but an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for refusing sufficient Bail which the Plaintiff agreed in his Replication but farther set forth that after the Arrest and before the Return of the Writ he tendered sufficient Bail which the Defendant refused and Issue was joyned upon the tender which was found for the Plaintiff Newdigate Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Though it was an Offence in the Defendant who was the Sheriff's Bayliff to refuse good Bail when tendred yet 't is not an Offence within the Statute 23 H. 6. cap. 10. because a Sheriffs Bayliff is not an Officer intended in that Statute neither will this Offence make him a Trespasser ab initio because the taking was by lawfull Process Cro. Car. 196. * Roll. Abr. 2 part 561. pl. 9. Salmon versus Percival The Defendant as Bayliff to the Sheriff is not the proper Officer to
take Bail but the Sheriff himself must do it and therefore an Action on the Case must lye against the Bayliff for not carrying the Party before the Sheriff in order to put in Bail but an Action of false Imprisonment will not lye 2. The action is laid quare vi armis c. in ipsum the Plaintiff insultum fecit ipsum imprisonavit ut Prisonat à tali loco ad talem locum adducebat detinuit contra consuetudinem Angliae sine cause rationabili per spacium trium dierum The Defendant pleaded quoad venire vi armis necnon totam transgressionem praeter the taking and deteining him three days non Culp and as to that he pleaded the Latitat Warrant and Arrest ut supra but the Verdict being only against the Defendant upon the second Issue and nothing appearing to be done upon this and entire Damages given 't is for that reason ill North Chief Iustice If the Writ and Warrant were good then the refusing Bail is an Offence within the Statute of 23 H. 6. And as 't is an Oppression so 't is an Offence also at the Common Law but an Action on the Case and not of false Imprisonment lyeth against the Officer for it would be very unreasonable by the refusal of Bail to make the Arrest tortious ab initio A special Action on the Case had therefore been the proper remedy against the Sheriff but not against the Officer for an Escape will not lye against him but it must be brought against the Sheriff Kren versus Kirby Surrender by a Disseisor not good IN Ejectment the Lessor of the Plaintiff claimed under a Surrender made to him by William Kirby who had an Estate in the Land after the decrease of his Father but entred during his Life and thereby became a Disseisor and his Estate being now turned into a Right he made the Surrender to the Lessor of the Plaintiff all which was found by special Verdict at the Tryal and it was adjudged that the Surrender was void It was pretended at the Trial that the Father who was Tenant for Life had suffered a Common Recovery in the Lords Court and so his Estate was forfeited for which the Son might enter and then his Surrender is good But the Court answered that without a particular Custom for the purpose the suffering a Recovery would work no Forfeiture of the Estate but if it did 't is the Lord and none else who can enter And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Duck versus Vincent DEBT upon Bond conditioned to perform Covenants Plea to debt upon bond not good one of which was for payment of so much Mony upon making such Assurances The Defendant pleaded he paid the Mony such a day but doth not mention when the Assurance was made that it might appear to the Court the Mony was immediately paid pursuant to the Condition and for that reason the Court were all of Opinion that the Plea was not good And Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff upon Demurrer Smith versus Shelberry IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that he was possessed of a Term of 80 years Assumpsit upon a mutual promise and it was agreed between him and the Defendant that he should assign all his interest therein to the Defendant who proinde should pay 250 l. and that he promised that in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request had likewise promised to perform all on his part that he would also perform all on his part and then sets forth that the Defendant had paid a Guinea in part of the said 250 l. and that he viz. the Plaintiff obtulit se to assign the Premisses by Indenture to the Defendant which was written and sealed and woud have delivered it to him but he refused and assigns the breach in Non-payment of the Mony to which the Defendant demurred And it was said for him by Baldwin Serjeant Ex parte Def. that this was not a good Declaration because the Assignment ought to precede the Payment and that it was not a mutual promise neither was the obtulit se well set forth but this was a Condition precedent on the Plaintiffs side without the performance whereof no Action would lie against the Defendant Vide 7 Co. Ughtreds Case fol. 10. b. because it was apparent by the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Mony was not to be paid till the Assignment made for the Plaintiff is to assign and the Defendant proinde which is as much as to say pro assignatione is to pay the Mony Like the Case in Dyer 76. a. Assumpsit against the Defendant that he promised pro 20 Marks to deliver 400 Weight of Wax to the Plaintiff the Pronoun Pro makes the Contract conditional Ex parte Quer. But Pemberton Serjeant for the Plaintiff held the Declaration good and that it was a mutual promise and that the Plaintiff need not averr the performance Hill Thorn Postea for in such Cases each has remedy against the other and 't is as reasonable that the Plaintiff should have his Mony before he make the Assignment as that the Defendant should have the Term assigned before he paid the Mony And of that Opinion was the Court only Iustice Atkins doubted Ellis Iustice cited a Case adjudged in the King's Bench which was as he thought Stiles Rep. 186 Postea very hard viz. An Assignment was made between A. and B. that A. should raise Souldiers and that B. should transport them beyond Sea and reciprocal promises were made for the performance as in this Case that A. who never raised any Souldiers may yet bring his Action upon this promise against B. for not transporting them which is a far stronger Case than this at Barr. It was agréed here that the Tender and Refusal had it beén well pleaded would have amounted to and have been equivalent with a full performance but the Plaintiff hath not done as much as he might for he should have delivered the Indenture to the Defendants use and then have tendered it But Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hays versus Bickerstaffe Covenant not conditional by the words paying and performing IN Covenant brought by the Lessee who declared that the Lessor covenanted with him that he paying the Rent and performing the Covenants on his part to be performed shall quietly enjoy The breach assigned was a disturbance by the Lessor who pleads that till such a time the Plaintiff did quietly enjoy the thing demised without disturbance but then he cut down Wood which was contrary to his Covenant and then and not before he entred and so by the Plaintiffs not performing his Covenant the Defendants Covenant ceases to oblige him whereunto the Plaintiff demurred The Question was Whether the Defendants Covenant was conditional or not For if it amount to a Condition then his Entry is lawful but if it be a Covenant 't is otherwise for then he
Barr. COnspiracy Rozal declares That a Replevin was brought against him and others and that the Defendant Lampen appeared for him without any Warrant and avowed in his Name and suffered Iudgment to pass against him and that 22 l. 10 s. Damages were recovered against him at such a place Lampen pleads a Recovery in a former Action brought by the now Plaintiff the Record of which being recited in the Plea appears to be the same with this but only here the place is mentioned where the Damages were recovered which was omitted in the former Action to which Lampen had pleaded a Reteiner by one of the then Defendants in Replevin and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment But the truth of the Case was That Iudgment was not then given for him that his Plea was good for the Court were all of Opinion that it was naught but because the Declaration was not good for want of mentioning the place where the Damages were recovered which the Plaintiff had amended now The Plaintiff demurred again because of this Variance between the two Actions upon the Defendants own shewing Ex parte Quer. Post Rose and Standen Putt and Roster Sir Robert Shaftoe for the Plaintiff insisted That a Recovery in an Action is no barr where there is a substantial variance as here there is and that so it has been adjudged in the Case of Leach and Thompson 1 Roll. Abr. 353. lit B. pl. 1. where the Plaintiff declared That he at the Defendants request having promised to Marry the Defendant's Daughter he promised to pay him 1000 l. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded Iudgment was given for the Defendant And the Plaintiff brought another Action for the same Sum and then laid the promise to pay 1000 l. cum inde requisitus esset and it was adjudged that the former Iudgment was no bar to the last Action because there was a Material difference between the two Promises one being laid without Request and so the Money was to be paid in a convenient time and in the last the Request is made part of the Promise and must be specially alledged with the time and place where it was made So in this Case The Plaintiff had not declared right in his first Action which he had amended now and therefore the former Iudgment shall be no barr to him In Robinson's Case there was a Mistake in the Writ viz. A Formedon in Remainder for that in Reverter and held no barr so by a parity of reason there shall be no barr here because the first Declaration was mistaken Stat. 3 H. 7. c. 1. Syd 316. and it was vitium Clerici Vide 2 Cro. 284. Level versus Hall Barton Serjeant contra This is no new Action Ex parte Def. for the ground of it is not where the Damages was done or recovered but the appearing without a Warrant and so having pleaded a Reteiner and had Iudgment and now pleading that Iudgment to this Action and averring 't was for one and the same thing 't is a good barr which the Plaintiff by his Demurrer hath confessed Adjornatur Milward versus Ingram INdebitatus Assumpsit for 50 l. and quantum meruit One promise pleaded in discharge of another good before the breach Mod. Rep. 205. the Defendant confesses both but pleads That after the promise made and before the Action brought they came to an Accompt concerning divers Sums of Money and that he was found in arrear to the Plaintiff 30 s. whereupon in consideration the Defendant promised to pay him the said 30 s. the Plaintiff likewise promised to release and acquit the Defendant of all Demands The Plaintiff demurred Seys Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. that though one promise may be discharged by another yet a duty certain cannot as in this Case where a demand was of a Sum certain by the Indebitatus besides this Plea is in nature of an Accord which cannot be good without an averment of satisfaction given Broke Accompt 46 48. Neither is it said that the Plaintiff promised in consideration that the Defendant ad instantiam of the Plaintiff had promised Ex parte Def. But it was answered by Serjeant Hopkins and admitted to be true That where a Matter is pleaded by way of accord it must be averred to be executed in all Points but that was not the present Case ◠Cro. 100. The Defendant hath pleaded that he and the Plaintiff had accounted together and so the Contract is gone by the Accompt 2. That he was discharged of the Contract by parol both which the Plaintiff had now admitted by his Demurrer And it will not be denied that a Parol discharge of an Assumpsit is good as if A. promises to perform such a Voiage within a time limited and the breach assigned was that he did not go the Voiage The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff exoneravit eum and upon Demurrer it was held good 22 Ed. 4. 40. 3 H. 6. 37. Object If it be objected that 't is no Consideration to pay a just Debt for if 30 s. were due of right it ought to be paid and that can be no reason upon which to ground a Promise Answ 'T is a good Consideration to pay Mony on the day which the party is bound to upon Bond because it is paid without Suit or Trouble which might be otherwise a loss to the Plaintiff But in this Case here is an express Agréement and before there was only a Contract in Law Cro. Car. 8. Flight versus Crasden Curia North Chief Iustice It has béen always taken that if there be an Assumpsit to do a thing and there is no breach of the promise that it may be discharged by Parol but if it be once broken then it cannot be discharged without Release in a writing In this Case there are two Demands in the Declaration to which the Defendant pleads an Accompt stated so that the Plaintiff can never after have recourse to the first Contract which is thereby merged in the Accompt If A. sells his Horse to B. for 10 l. and there being divers other dealings between them if they come to an accompt upon the whole and B. is found in arrear 5 l. A. must bring his insimul computasset for he can never recover upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit and of the same Opinion were the other three Iustices and though it was not said ad instantiam of the Plaintiff that he promised yet it was adtunc ibidem and so should be intended that the Defendant made the Promise at the instance of the Plaintiff and so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Daws versus Sir Paul Pindar COvenant to pay a Sum of Mony within a year after one Nokes shall be admitted to the Office of Secretary to the Governour of Barbadoes Barbadoes whether governed by the Laws of England so that the Statute of buying Offices extends to it The Defendant pleads that that the
an Estate Tail and therefore the pleading the Lease is not material for if it were a Lease expired yet the Plaintiff could not recover and therefore the praeter is wholly idle and insignificant of which the Plaintiff ought not to take notice because the Lands which come under the praeter are not chargeable The Plaintiff hath traversed as he ought what is material and is not bound to take notice of any thing more And of that Opinion was the whole Court and held the praeter idle and the general Replication good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Prince versus Rowson Executor of Atkinson EXecutor de son tort cannot retain Executor de son tort cannot retain The Defendant in this Case pleaded that the Testator owed his Wife dum sola 800 l. and that he made his Will but doth not shew that he was thereby made Executor and therefore having no Title he became Executor de son tort for which cause his Plea was held ill and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Norris versus Palmer THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant for causing him falso malitiose to be indicted for a Common Trespass in taking away one hundred Bricks Case after an acquittal upon an Indictment for Trespas by which means he was compelled to spend great Sums of Mony and that upon the Trial the Iury had acquitted him The Defendant demurred to the Declaration and Barrel Serjeant said for him that the Action would not lie and for a President in the Case he cited a like Iudgment between Langley versus Clerk in the King's Bench Trin. 1658. 2 Sid. 100. In which Action the Plaintiff was indicted for a Battery with an intent to ravish a Woman and being acquitted brought this Action and the Court after a long Debate gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff but agréed that the Action would not lie for a Common Trespass as if it had beén for the Battery only but the Ravishing was a great scandal and for that reason the Plaintiff recoverd there but this is an ordinary Trespass and therefore this Action will not lie But Pemberton Serjeant held that the Action would lie because it was in the nature of a Conspiracy Sid. 463 464. 1 Cro. 291. and done falsly and malitiously knowing the contrary and thereby the Plaintiff was put to great Charges all which is confessed by the Demurrer And the Case cited on the other side is express in the Point for the Court in that Case could take notice of nothing else but the Battery for the intent to ravish was not traversable and therefore it was idle to put it into the Indictment It is now settled that an Action on the Case will lye for a malitious Arrest where there is no probable cause of Action and this Case is stronger than that because in the one the party is only put to Charges and in the other both to Charges and Disgrace for which he hath no remedy but by this Action The Court agreéd that the Action would lie after an acquittal upon an Indictment for a greater or lesser Trespass The like for citing another into the Spiritual Court without cause 3 Ass 13. 1 Rol. Abr. 112. pl. 9. Postea F. N. B. 116. D. 7 E. 4. 30. 10 H. 4. Fitz. Conspiracy 21. 13. 3 E. 3. 19. The Defendants Council consented to wave the Demurrer and plead and go to Tryal The King versus Turvil The King presented being intituled by a Simoniacal Contract his Presentee shall not be removed though the Symony is pardoned QUare Impedit The King was intituled to a Presentation by the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. because of a Simoniacal Contract made by the rightful Patron and he accordingly did present Then comes the Act of General Pardon 21 Jac. cap. 35. by which under general Words it was now admitted that Symony was pardoned In which Act there is a beneficial Clause of Restitution viz. The King giveth to his Subjects all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amerciaments Forfeitures and Sums of Mony forfeited by reason of any Offence c. done And whether the Kings Presenteé or the Patron had the better Title was the Question This Case was only mentioned now but argued in Michaelmas Term following by Serjeant Jones that the Kings Presenteé is intituled he agreed that Symony was pardoned but not the consequences thereof for 't is not like the Case where a Stroak is given at one time and death happens at another if the Stroak which is the first offence is pardoned before the death of the party that is a Pardon likewise of the Felony for 't is true the Stroak being the cause of the death and that being pardoned all the natural Effects are pardoned with the Cause But legal Consequences are not thus pardoned as if a Man is outlawed in Trespass and the King pardons the Outlawry the Fine remains 6 E. 4. 9. 8 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. Abr. 179. In this Act of Pardon there are words of Grant but the Presentation is not within the Clause of Restitution for 't is an Interest and not an Authority vested in the King and therefore a thing of another nature than what is intended to be restored because it is higher and shall not be comprehended amongst the general words of Goods and Chattels c. which are things of a lower nature and are all in the personality Cro. Car. 354. Conyers Serjeant argued for the Title of the Patron Ex parte Def. and said that there were three material Clauses in this Act. 1. A Pardon of the Offences therein mentioned in general and particular words 2. That all things not excepted shall be pardoned by general words as if particularly named 3. The Pardon to be taken most favourably for the Subject upon which Clauses it must necessarily follow that this Offence is pardoned and then all the consequences from thence deduced will be likewise pardoned and so the Patron restored to his Presentation for all Charters of Restitution are to be taken favourably Pl. Com. 252. The Presentation vests no legal Right in the Presentee for in the Case of the King 't is revocable after Institution and before Induction Co. Lit. 344. b. So likewise a second Presentation will repeal the first Rolls 353. And if the Kings Presentee dies before Induction that is also a Revocation if therefore the Party hath no legal Right by this Presentation and the King by the Simony had only an authority to present and no legal Interest vested then by this Act he hath revoked the Presentation and the right Patron is restored to his Title to present The Court were all of Opinion absente Ellis That the Kings Presentee had a good Title and by consequence the Patron had no right to Present this turn for here was an Interest vested in the King like the Case where the King is intituled to the Goods of a Felo
de se by Inquisition and then comes an Act of Indempnity that shall not divest the King of his Right But where nothing Vests before the Office found a Pardon before the Inquisition extinguishes all Forfeitures as it was resolved in Tomb's Case So if the Pardon in this Case had come before the Presentation the Party had been restored Statu quo c. The King can do no more the Bishop is to do the rest neither is the Presentation revoked by this Act it might have been revoked by implication in some Cases as where there is a second Presentation but such a general revocation will not do it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error brought but the Cause was ended by Agreement Hill versus Pheasant Gaming at several meetings whether within the Statute AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 16 Car. 2. cap. 7. made against deceitful and disorderly Gaming which Enacts That if any person shall play at any Game other than for ready Mony and shall lose any Sum or other thing played for above the Sum of 100 l. at any one time or meeting upon Tick and shall not then pay the same that all Contracts and Securities made for the payment thereof shall be void and the person winning shall pay treble the Mony lost It happened that the Defendant won 80 l. at one meeting for whcih the Plaintiff gave Security and another meeting was appointed and the Defendant won 70 l. more of the Plaintiff being in all above 100 l. And if this was within the Statute was the Question The like Case was in the Kings-Bench Trin. 25 Car. 2. Rot. 1230. between Edgberry and Roseberry and in Michaelmas Term following this Case was argued and the Court was divided which the Plaintiff perceiving Anonymus Postea desired to discontinue his Action but the better Opinion was that it was not within the Statute though if it had been pleaded That the several meetings were purposely appointed to elude the Statute Sid. 394. in might be otherwise Calthorp versus Heyton Traverse not good viz. Absque hoc quod legitimo modo oneratus IN Replevin The Defendant avowed for that the King being seised in Fee of a Mannor and of a Grange which was parcel of the Mannor granted the Inheritance to a Bishop reserving 33 l. Rent to be yearly issuing out of the whole and alledges a Grant of the Grange from Sir W. W. who claimed under the Bishop to his Ancestors in Fee in which Grant there was this Clause Viz. If the Grantee or his Heirs shall be legally charged by Distress or with any Rent due to the King or his Successors upon account of the said Grange that then it should be lawful for them to enter into Blackacre and distrein till he or they be satisfied And afterwards the Grantee and his Heirs were upon a Bill Exhibited against them in the Exchequer decreed to pay the King 4 l. per Annum as their proportion out of the Grange for which he distreined and so justified the taking The Plaintiff pleads in barr to the Avowry and traverseth that the Defendant was lawfully charged with the said Rent and the Defendant demurred Baldwyn Serjeant maintained the Avowry to be good Ex parte Def. having alledged a legal charge and that the Barr was not good for the Plaintiff traverseth quod Defendens est ligitimo modo oneratus which being part matter of Law and part likewise matter of Fact is not good and therefore if the Decree be not a legal charge the Plaintiff should have demurred But on the other side it was argued by Seys Serjeant Ex parte Quer. That the Avowry is not good because the Defendant hath not set forth a legal charge according to the Grant which must be by Distress or some other lawful way and that must be intended by some execution at Common Law for the coactus fuit to pay is not enough a Suit in Equity is no legal disturbance Moor 559. The same Case is Reported in 1 Brownl 23. Selby versus Chute Besides the Defendant doth not shew any Process taken out or who were Parties to the Decree and a Que estate in the Case of a Bishop is not good for he must pass it by Deed. North and the whole Court A Rent in the Kings Case lies in Render and not in Demand and after the Rent day is past he is oneratus and the Decree is not material in this Case for the charge is not made thereby but by the Reservation for payment whereof the whole Grange is chargeable The King may distrain in any part of the Land he is not bound by the Decree to a particular place that is in favour only to the Purchasor that he should pay no more than his proportion As to the Que estate the Defendant hath admitted that by saying bene verum est that Sir W. W. was seised The Traverse is ill and Iudgment was given for the Avowant Vaughan versus Wood. Trespass justified for taking corrupt Victualls Mod. Rep. 202. TRespass for taking Beef The Defendant pleads a Custom to choose Supervisors of Victuals at a Court Leet That he was there chosen and having viewed the Plaintiffs Goods found the Beef to be corrupt which he took and burned The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Custom is unreasonable and when Meat is corrupt and sold there are proper remedies at Law by Action on the Case or presentment at a Leet 9 H. 6. 53. 11 Ed. 3. 4. 6. Vide Stat. 18 Eliz. cap. 3. But the Court held it a good Custom and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice being not clear in it Chapter of Southwel versus Bishop of Lincoln Grant of next Avoidance not bind the Successor Mod. Rep. 204. IN a Quare Impedit the Question upon pleading was Whether the Grant of the next Avoidance by the Chapter was good or not to bind the Successor The doubt did arise upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which was objected not to be a publick * Yelv. 106. Act because it extends only to those who are Ecclesiastical persons or if it should be adjudged a publick Law yet this is not a good Grant to bind the Successor for though the Grant of an Avoidance is not a thing of which any profit can be made yet it is an * Cro. Eliz. 441. Hereditament within the meaning of that Statute by which among other things 't is Enacted That all Grants c. made by Dean and Chapter c. of any Lands Tythes Tenements or Hereditaments being parcel of the Possessions of the Chapter other than for the Term of 21 Years or 3 Lives from the time of the making the said Grant shall be void But it was agreed by the Court to be a general Law like the Statute of Non Residency which hath been so ruled and that this Presentment or Grant
is altogether incertain for it doth not appear what is due 28 H. 8. Dyer 28. 9 Ed. 4. 16. 12 H. 8. 6. a. Ex parte Def. But it was argued for the Defendant that he need not Traverse the Accompt As to the first Objection made that the Plea is not good because it doth not answer the Declaration the Rule as to that purpose is generally good but then the Plaintiff must tell all his Case which if he omits he must then give the Defendant leave to tell where his omission is Sometimes a thing which belongs properly to another may be pleaded in bar or discharge to avoid circuity of Actions as one Covenant may be pleaded to another 1 H. 7. 15. 20 H. 7. 4. So where the Lesseé is to be dispunishable of waste he may plead it to a Writ of waste The Books note a difference where the Covenant is one or two Sentences for in the first case one Covenant may be pleaded in discharge of another but not in the last Keilway 34. 'T is true if the second Covenant had been distinct and independent it could not have been thus pleaded but in this Case 't is not said that the Covenantor for himself his Executors and Administrators doth Covenant c. but ulterius agreat̄ provisum est so that as t is penned provisum est makes a Condition and then the sense is I will accompt if you will discompt and if you refuse to discompt I cannot be charged Dyer 6. 'T is inutilis labor to make up an accompt If the other will not allow what he ought if there be an Annuity pro consilio impenso c. and he will not pay the Mony the other is not to be compelled to give his advice Fitzh Annuity 27. 25 E. 2. Annuity 44. Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for Arbitrations Wills and Acts of Parliament are to be taken according to the meaning of the Parties and Damages are to be given according to the merit of the Case In this Case the Defendant is bound to accompt upon request and to pay what Mony is due upon the Accompt and 't is an impertinent question for the Defendant to ask him to make allowance for Parsons Dinners before they come to accompt 'T is as if a Bailiff should say to his Lord I have laid out so much Mony and I will not accompt with you unless you will allow it this is a Capitulation before-hand and is very insignificant by way of discharge They have each a remedy upon these mutual Covenants and the provisum agreat̄ est doth not amount to a Condition but is a Covenant and Iudgment was given accordingly Iustice Ellis said he had a Manuscript Report of the Case of Ware and Chappel which he said was adjudged upon great Debate Stoutfil's Case PRohibition Tythes not to be paid for Brick or Pidgeons It was agreed clearly that no Tythes ought to be paid for Brick because 't is part of the Soil and so it has been often adjudged And it was also said that Tythes shall not be paid for Pidgeons unless it be by special Custom Columbel versus Columbel THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 500 l. Award pleaded under Seal and not under Hand not good The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was to observe an Award of A. B. Arbitrator indifferently chosen to determine all manner of Controversies Quarrels and Demands concerning the Title of certain Lands so as the said Award were made and put into writing under the Hand and Seal of the Arbitrator c. and then he pleads that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replies an Award by which such things were to be done and sets it forth in haec verba under the Seal of the Arbitrator The Defendant rejoyns that the Arbitrator made no Award under his Hand and Seal according to the Condition of the Bond. The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Defendant ought to plead the Award under the Hand as well as the Seal of the Arbitrator for when he produces it in Court as he doth by a profert hic in Curia he must plead it formally as well as produce it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Norris versus Trist Livery secundum formam Chartae where good IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was A Deéd is made to threé Habendum to two for their Lives Remainder to the third for his Life and Livery and Seisin is made to all thrée secundum formam Chartae And whether the Livery so made as if they had all Estates in possession whereas in truth one of them had but an Estate in Remainder was good was the Question On the one side it was said by Serjeant Seys that possession in this Case was delivered according to the form of the Deéd within mentioned which must be to two for Life Remainder to the third person and Livery and Seisin being only to accomplish and perfect the Common Assurances of the Land ought to be taken favourably ut res magis valeat quam pereat and therefore if a Feoffment be made of two Acres and a Letter of Attorny to give Livery and the Attorny only enters into one Acre and gives Livery secundum formam Chartae both the Acres pass Dyer 131 40. Coke Litt. 52. a. But on the other side Serjeant Maynard said that there was something more in this Case than what had béen opened for there was a Letter of Attorney made to give Livery to two and instead of doing that he makes Livery to them all which is no good Execution of his Authority and therefore no Livery was made the Authority not being pursued As to the Case in the 1st Institutes my Lord Coke errs very much there in that discourse for in saying that if there be a Feoffment of two Acres and a Letter of Attorney to take possession of both and he maketh Livery of both but taketh possession but of one and that both pass 't is not Law but if the Authority be general as to make Livery and Seisin and he take possession of one and then makes Livery of more secundum formam Chartae that is good and this is the difference taken in the Books 5 Ed. 3. 65. 3 Ed. 3. 32. 43 Ed. 3. 32. 27 H. 8. 6. The Remainder Man in this Case is a méer Stranger to the Livery There is also a manifest difference betwéen a Matter of Interest and an Execution of an Authority for in the first Case it shall be construed according to the Interest which either hath but an Authority must be strictly pursued The Court were all of Opinion that the Livery in this Case was good to two for their Lives Remainder to the third person Curia And the Chief Iustice said that whatever the ancient Opinions were about pursuing
Case could not be supposed to prevent the Forfeiture because if that had been the Iury would have found it the meaning of the Parties must make a Construction here and that seems very strong that 't is a good Lease but they gave no Iudgment Wilkinson versus Sir Richard Lloyd Where the Parties shall join in an Action where not THE Defendant covenanted that he would not agreé for the taking the Farm of the Excise of Beer and Ale for the County of York without the Consent of the Plaintiff and another and the Plaintiff alone brought this Action of Covenant and assigns for breach the Defendants agréeing for the said Excise without his Consent upon which the Plaintiff had a Verdict and 1000 l. damages given And Serjeant Pemberton moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that an Action of Covenant would not lie in this Case by the Plaintiff alone because he ought to have joined with the other both of them having a joint Interest and so is Slingsby's Case 5 Co. If a Bond is made to two joyntly and severally they must both join in an Action of Debt so here 't is a joint contract and both must be Plaintiffs So also if one covenants with two to pay each of them 20 l. they must both join 'T is true in Slingsbies Case 't was held if an Assurance is made to A. of White Acre and to B. of Black Acre and to C. of Green Acre and a Covenant with them and every of them these last Words make the Covenant several But here is nothing of a several interest no more than that one covenants with two that he will not join in a Lease without their Consent so that their Interest not being divided the Covenant shall be entire and taken according to the first Words to be a joint Covenant and the rather because if the Plaintiff may maintain this Action alone the other may bring a second Action and the Defendant will be subject to entire damages which may be given in both Judgment But the Court was of another Opinion that here was no joint Interest but that each of the Covenantees might maintain an Action for his particular damages or otherwise one of them might be remediless for suppose one of them had given his Consent that the Defendant should farm this Excise and had secretly received some satisfaction or recompence for so doing is it reasonable that the other should lose his remedy who never did consent For which reason the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Page versus Tulse Mil ' alios Vic' Midd ' THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for a false Return Case lies not against the Sheriff for returning a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though the Party doth not appear Mod. Rep. 239. Ellis and Yarborough post setting forth that he sued a Capias out of this Court directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex by vertue whereof he arrested the Party and took Bail for his appearance and at the day of the Return of the Writ the Sheriff returned Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he had not the Body there at the Return of the Writ but suffered him to escape The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. and saith that he took Bail viz. two sufficient Sureties and so let him go at large c. The Plaintiff demurrs and whether this Action lies against the Defendant was the Question who refused to proceed against him by way of Amerciament or to take an Assignment of the Bail-Bond This Case depended in Court several Terms It was argued by Serjeant Pemberton and Serjeant Coniers for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant George Strode for the Defendant and Iudgment was given in Easter Term in the 29th year of this King In the Argument for the Defendant that this Action would not lie it was considered Ex parte Def. 1. What the Common Law was before the making of this Statute 2. What alteration thereof the Statute had made At the Common Law Men were to appear personally to ansswer the Writ the Form of which required it and no Attorney could be made in any Action till Edw. 1. de gratia speciali gave leave to his Subjects to appoint them and commanded his Iudges to admit them 2 Inst 377. After the Arrest the Sheriff mighttie the Party to what Conditions he pleased and he might keep him till he had complied with such Conditions which often ended in taking extravagant Bonds and sometimes in other Oppressions for remedy whereof this Statute was made in which the Clause that concerns this Case is viz. If the Sheriff return upon any person Cepi Corpus or Reddidit se that he shall be chargeable to have the Body at the day of the Return of the Writ in such form as before the making the Act so that as to the Return of the Writ this Statute hath made no alteration the Sheriff being bound to have the Party at a day as before All the alteration made of the Common Law by this Statute is that the Sheriff now is bound to let the Party out of Prison upon reasonable Sureties of sufficient persons which before he was not obliged to do and it would be a Case of great hardship upon all the Sheriffs of England if they being compellable to let out the Party to Bail should also be subject to an Action for so doing because they have him not at the day so that the intent of the Law must be when it charges the Sheriff to have the Body at the Return that he should be liable to a Penalty if the Party did not then appear not to be recovered by Action but by Amerciament Cro. Jac. 286. The Security directed by this Act is to be taken in the Sheriffs own Name 't is properly his business and for his own Indempnity and therefore it is left wholly in his power for which reason no Action will lie against him for taking insufficient Bail that being to his own prejudice in which the Plaintiff is no wise concerned for if that had beén intended by the Act some Provision would have beén made as to his being satisfied in the sufficiency of the Persons When the Security is thus taken if the Defendant doth not appear at the Return of the Writ the Plaintiff by Amerciaments shall compel him to bring in the Body or to assign the Bond either of which is a full satisfaction and as much as is required If the Sheriff refuse to take 2 Sand. 59 154 1 Roll. Abr. 807 808. Cro. Eliz. 460 852. Noy 39. Moor 428. Sid. 23. sufficient Sureties when offered he is liable to an Action on the Case at the Suit of the Defendant for his refusal and it would be very unreasonable to enforce him to have the Party in Court at the Return when he is obliged under a Penalty to let him at large This Action is grounded upon a false Return when in
truth there is no Return made or if any 't is a very imperfect Return till the Body be in Court and this is the reason why the Court will not allow it but amerce the Sheriff till he make the Party appear 't is not like a compleat Return as a Non est inventus or the Return of Nulla Bona upon a Fi. Fa. The Case of * ◠Roll Abr. 93 pl. 17. Postea Bowls and Lassels is full in the Point where it was adjudged that this Action would not lie because the Sheriff had not done any thing unjustly but what he was commanded to do by the Statute and therefore he is to be amerced if the Defendant doth not appear Ex parte Quer. But for the Plaintiff it was said that unless this Action lye he is remediless and that for two Reasons 1. Because the Assignment of the Bail Bond is at the discretion of the Court and not demandable by the Plaintiff in foro 2. The Plaintiff hath no benefit by the Amerciaments because they go to the King and in some places are granted to Patenteés now 't is agreéd that the Sheriff may be amerced and certainly if an Action be brought against him he is but in the same Case for still he is to pay And if it be objected that the Amerciaments may be compounded cheaper then the Plaintiff hath not so good remedy nor is so likely to recover his Debt as if the Action would lie which would be a greater penalty upon him than the Amerciaments on the Sheriff Neither will it follow that because the Sheriff may be amerced therefore no Action will lie against him for in many Cases he may be amerced and yet an Action on the Case will lie against him at the Suit of the Party 41 Ass pl. 12. fol. 254. Latch 187. That this Action will not lie is against the very end of the Statute and the reasonable construction thereof in the last Clause which Enacts That if the Sheriff return a Cepi Corpus he shall be charged to have the Body at the Return as before the making of the Statute now before this Law he was lyable to an Action if after such a Return made the Party did not appear and therefore this Action being grounded upon the Common Law is still preserved since no alteration hereof hath beén made by this Statute 'T is true an Action of Escape is taken away but not an Action on the Case for a false Return and upon this difference are all the Authorities cited on the other side as Cro. Eliz. 416 621. Cro. Jac. 286. Moor 428. and the Case of Bowls and Lassels And for an Authority in Point is the Case of Franklin and Andrews 24 Car. 1. where Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in an Action brought for a false Return of Cepi Corpus and the Statute pleaded as in this Case It has béen objected that Iudgment was there given upon the defect of Pleading because the Traverse was naught 't is true there was a Traverse absque hoc quod the Defendant retornavit aliter vel alio modo but that was held good because it answered the falso alledged in the Plaintiffs Declaration In this Case there is no Traverse but 't is confessed by the Demurrer that he did falsly and deceitfully return Cepi Corpus and so the Plaintiff is at apparent damage and hath no remedy without this Action and the Defendant is at no prejudice but hath his remedy over on the Bail Bond. North Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices Judgment held that the Action would not lie for when the Sheriff returns Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though he have him not in Court 't is no false Return for if he hath taken Bail he hath done what by Law he ought to do if he Arrest a Man in Yorkshire the Law will not compel him to bring the Party hither to the Bar because of the charge if he make an insufficient Return neither the Party or the Court are deluded because the common method in such cases must be pursued by which the Party will have remedy This Return is true and Iustice Atkyns held that the Sheriff was not obliged by the Statute to return only a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo but might return that he took Bail for the Statute provides that if he return a Cepi Corpus he shall be chargable as before but doth not enjoyn him to make such return the Case of Bowles and Lassels is full in this point and therefore Iudgment was given for the Defendant But Iustice Scroggs was of another Opinion says he this Action being brought because the Defendant said he had the Body ready when in truth he had not was an apparent injury to the Plaintiff of whom the Statute must have some consideration for it doth not require the Sheriff to say Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he must make his Return good or otherwise those words are very insignificant and if the Statute obliges him to let the party to Bail and nothing more is thereby intended for the benefit of the Plaintiff why doth the Court amerce the Sheriff and punish him for doing what the Statute directs Therefore if the Plaintiff brings a Habeas Corpus upon the Cepi and the Defendant doth not appear the Plaintiff is then well entituled to this Action Hollis versus Carre in Cancellaria Decree of the Execution of a Fine in specie THE Lord Chancellor Finch having called to his assistance Iustice Wild and Iustice Windham to give their Opinions what relief the Plaintiff was to have for the recovering of 6000 l. which was his Ladys Portion After those Iudges had spoken shortly to the matter he put the Case Viz. The Plaintiff by his Bill demands 6000 l. due to him for his Wives Portion with Interest for non-payment according to the purport of certain Articles of Agreement dated in August 1661. and mentioned to be made between old Sir Robert Carr the Defendants Father his Lady and Son the now Defendant and Lucy Carr his Daughter on the one part and my Lord Hollis and Sir Francis his Son the now Plaintiff on the other part The Articles mention an Agreement of a Marriage to be had between the said Sir Francis Hollis and Lucy Carr with Covenants on the Plaintiffs side to settle a Ioynture c. and on the other side to pay 6000 l. and 't is agreed in the Articles that a Fine was intended to be levied of such Lands c. for securing the payment of 6000 l. c. The Marriage takes effect but old Sir Robert Carr did never Seal these Articles the Lady Carr Seals before and the Defendant after Marriage Sir Francis had Issue on his Lady Lucy one Child since dead the Lady is likewise dead the Ioynture was not made nor the Portion paid Afterward viz. Anno 1664. an Act of Parliament was made for setling old Sir Robert Carr's Estate whereby the
of Record the Proceedings may be denied and tryed by Iury. But the Court inclined that it was pleaded well enough and that it was the safest way to prevent mistakes but if the Plaintiff had replied de injuria sua propria absque tali causa that had traversed all the Proceedings Quaere whether such a Replication had been good because the Plaintiff must answer particularly that Authority which the Defendant pretended to have from the Court but no Iudgment was given Sherrard versus Smith TRespass Quare clausum fregit and for taking away his Goods the Defendant justifies the taking by the command of the Lord of the Mannor of which the Plaintiff held by Fealty and Rent and for non-payment thereof the Goods were taken nomine Districtionis The Plaintiff replies that the locus in quo est extra Hors de son Fee when to be pleaded absque hoc quod est infra feodum The Defendant demurrs specially because the Plaintiff pleading hors de son fee should have taken the Tenancy upon him 9 Co. Bucknal's Case 22 H. 6. 2 3. Keilway 73. 14 Ass pl. 13. 1 Inst 1. b. where this is given as a Rule by my Lord Cook Serjeant Pemberton on the other side agreed Ex parte Quer. 13 Assize 28. 28 Assise 41. that in all cases of Assize hors de son fee is no Plea without taking the Tenancy upon him 2 Ass placito 1. And in 5 E. 4. 2. 't is said that in Replevin the Party cannot plead this Plea because he may disclaim but Brook placito 15. tit hors de son fee saith this is not Law and so is 2 H. 6. 1. and many Cases afterwards were against that Book of Ed. 4. and that a Man might plead hors de son fee as if there be a Lord and Tenant holding by Fealty and Rent and he makes a Lease for years and the Lord distrains the Cattel of the Lessee though the Tenant hath paid the Rent and done Fealty there if the Lessee alledge that his Lessor was seised of the Tenancy in his demesn as of fee and held it of the Lord by Services c. of which Services the Lord was seised by the hands of his Lessor as by his true Tenant who hath leased the Lands to the Plaintiff and the Lord to charge him hath unjustly avowed upon him who hath nothing in the Tenancy 't is well enough 9 Co. Case of Avowries and the reason given in 5 Edw. 4. about disclaimer will not hold now for that course is quite altered and is taken away by the Statute of the 21 H. 8. cap. 19. which Enacts That Avowries shall be made by the Lord upon the Land without naming his Tenant But in case of Trespass there was never any such thing objected as here for what Tenancy can the Plaintiff take upon him in this case He cannot say tenen ' liberi tenementi for this is a bare Action of Trespass in which though the pleading is not so formal yet it will do no hourt for if it had been only extra feodum without the Traverse it had been good enough and of that Opinion was the Court in Hillary-Term following when Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff absente Scroggs And the Chief Iustice said That the Rule laid down by my Lord Coke in 1 Inst 1. b. that there is no pleading hors de son fee without taking the tenancy upon him is to be intended in cases of Assize and so are all the Cases he there cites for proof of that Opinion and therefore so he is to be understood but this is an Action of Trespas brought upon the Possession and not upon the Title In the Case of Avowry a Stranger may plead generally hors de son fee and so may Tenant for years and this being in the Case of a Trespass is much stronger and if the Plaintiff destroys the Defendants justification 't is well enough Sir William Hickman versus Thorne alios Prescription against another Prescription not good without a Traverse IN a Replevin The Defendant justifies the taking for that the locus in quo was his Freehold and that he took the Cattel there damage fesant The Plaintiff in bar to the Avowry replies that the locus in quo c. is parcel of such a Common Field and prescribes to have right of Common there as appendant to two Acres which he hath in another place The Defendant rejoyns that there is a Custom that every Free-holder who hath Lands lying together in the said Common Field may enclose against him who hath right of Common there and that he had Lands there and did enclose The Plaintiff demurs and Serjeant Newdigate took Exceptions to the Rejoynder Ex parte Quer. 1. For that he did not averr that the Lands which he enclosed did lye together and therefore had not brought his case within the Custom alledged Sed non allocatur because he could not enclose if the Lands had not laid together 2. He gives no answer to the Plaintiffs right of Common but by argument which he should have confessed with a bene verum est and then should have avoided it by alledging the Custom of Enclosure like the Case of * 2 Leon. 209. Russel and Broker where in Trespass for cutting Oaks the Defendant pleads that he was seised of a Messuage in Fee and prescribes to have rationabile estoverium ad libitum capiend ' in boscis the Plaintiff replies that the locus in quo was within the Forest and that the Defendant and all those c. habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium c. per liberationem Forestarii and upon a Demurrer the Replication was held naught because the Plaintiff ought to have pleaded the Law of the Forest viz. Lex Forestae talis est or to have traversed the Defendants Prescription and not to have set forth another Prescription in his Replication without a Traverse 3. The Defendant should have pleaded the Custom and then have traversed the Prescription of the Right of Common for he cannot plead a Custom against a Custom 9 Co. 58. Aldred's Case where one prescribes to have a Light the other cannot prescribe to stop it up Serjeant Pemberton contra Ex parte Def. He said that which he took to be the only Question in the Case was admitted viz. That such a Custom as this to enclose was good and so it has béen adjudged in Sir Miles Corbet's Case 7 Co. But as to the Objections which have been made the Defendant admits the Prescription for Right of Common but saith he may enclose against the Commoners by reason of a Custom which is a Barr to his very Right of Common and therefore need not confess it with a bene verum est neither could he traverse the Prescription because he hath admitted it 'T is true where one prescribes to have Lights in his House and another prescribes to stop them up this is not good because
Construction can be made of them but that an Estate in possession was thereby intended to pass 4. Object That this Fine and Grant must be construed to enure according to the intent of the Parties ut res magis valeat and they never intended to make a Forfeiture Answ Certainly no Man ever intended to make a Forfeiture of his own Estate those are generally the effects of Ignorance and not of the Will as the Case of Gimlet and Sands Cro. Car. * 1 Roll. Abr. 856. 391. where Tenant in Fee makes a Feoffment to two to the use of himself for Life then to the use of his Wife for Life Remainder in Tail to his Son and Heir Remainder to his own right Heirs and afterwards he made another Feoffment to Smith with Warranty the Mother and Son join in another Feoffment adjudged that this was a Forfeiture of her Estate for life though she had no notice of the Warranty made by her Husband for the Feoffment made by him was a publick Act upon the Land and she ought to have taken notice of it and though by her joining in the Feoffment with her Son she did not intend to forfeit her Estate yet the Law adjudges according to what is done But in the Case at Barr the intention of the Parties may be collected by the Act done and there is great reason to presume that the Parties thereby intended to displace the Reversion for the Husband joyning in the Fine and in the Warranty if it was no divesting the Warranty is of no use Another Objection has been only mentioned which is that admitting this should amount to a displacing if the Estate had been in possession yet in this Case it would not because it was prevented by the Lease for years in being But that cannot hinder the execution of this Fine 't is a Fine sur concessit which is executory in its nature and doth not pass any Estate or take any effect 'till executed and so is the Book 41 5. 3. 14. b. But in this Case the Fine was executed which may be by matter in pais as well as by Scire facias and as to this purpose may be executed by the entry of the Conusor 1 Rep. 106. Dyer 376. b. without suing out any Execution 38 Ed. 3. Brook tit Scire facias 199. If there had been a Fine executed there would have beén little doubt left in this Case and by the Attornment of the Lessee for years it must be admitted that this Fine was executed as 8 Ed. 3. f. 44. For a Fine of a Reversion may be executed to all purposes by the Attornment of the Lessee for years and if so when a Fine executory is once executed 't is as good as a Fine sur Conusance de droit come ceo to make a forfeiture of the particular Estate Where a Feoffment is made and a Lease for years is in being the Feoffment is not good because in such case there must be a present transposition of the Estate Postea Moor and Pitt which is hindred by the Lease But in case of a Fine which is a Feoffment upon Record a Lease for years is no impediment or displacing of the Reversion for if Tenant in Tayl expectant upon a Lease for years levy a Fine 't is a discontinuance of the Tayl and notwithstanding this Lease the Fine has such an operation upon the Free-hold that it displaces the Reversion in Fee Co. Lit. 332. And therefore if a Lease for years prevents not a Discontinuance it will much less hinder a displacing in this case But no Iudgment was given now in this Case another matter being debated whether the Plaintiff could have Iudgment because he was barred by the Statute of Limitations for it did not appear that he had been in possession for twenty years past and the Verdict hath not found any Claim or that the Plaintiff was within the Proviso of the Act. Waterfield versus the Bishop of Chichester Oath Ex Officio not to be administred A Prohibition was granted last Easter-Term to the Bishop of Chichester upon a Suggestion made by Waterfield that he being chosen Churchwarden of the Parish Church of Arundel in the County of Sussex the Bishop tendered him an Oath ex officio which was that he should Present every Parishioner who had done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a printed Book delivered to him some of which Articles concern the Church-warden himself and so in effect he was to swear against himself in case of any default which is expressly against the Statute of 13 Car. 2. Sid. 232 cap. 12. which prohibits any person having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction to administer the Oath ex officio or any other Oath whereby the person to whom 't is administred may be charged to accuse himself of any criminal matter whereby he may be lyable to any Censure or punishment and because the Bishop had Excommunicated him for refusing such Oath he prayed a Prohibition which was granted quoad the compelling him to make any answer to the said Articles concerning himself and the Excommunication was discharged But now upon the motion of Serjeant Brampston a Consultation was awarded because it appeared by the Affidavit of the Commissary who tendred this Oath and likewise by the act of the Court that he was Excommunicated for refusing to take the Oath of a Church warden according to Law which was the only Oath tendred and therefore the ground of the Prohibition being false a Consultation was awarded In this Prohibition it was recited That the Bishop cannot give an Oath but in two cases viz. in matters Testamentary and Matrimonial whereas they have authority in many cases more 't is true also that until his Iurisdiction was increased by Act of Parliament he could hold Plea in none but those two causes 2 Inst 487 537. but by the Statute De circumspecte agatis and of Articuli Cleri he may now hold Plea in many other cases The Bishop informed the Lord Chief Iustice that the Plaintiff Waterfeild had caused 2000 of the Prohibitions to be printed in English and had dispersed them all over the Kingdom intituling them a true translated Copy of a Writ of Prohibition granted by the Lord Chief Iustice and other the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas in Easter-Term 1676. against the Bishop of Chichester who had proceeded against and Excommunicated one Thomas Waterfield a Churchwarden for refusing to take the Oath usually tendred to persons in such Office by which Writ the Illegality of all such Oaths is declared and the said Bishop commanded to take off his Excommunication And this was declared by the Court to be a most seditious Libel and gave order to enquire after the Printer that he might be prosecuted Eleanor Plummer versus Sir Jeremy Whitchot Intr. Trin. 27 or 28 Car. 2. Rot. 301. in B. R. IN an Action of Debt for an Escape Vpon Nil debet
to shew that the Proceedings of that Court did not alter but interpret the Law But admitting the Case of the Duke of Norkfolk to be Law yet it concerns not this because the Sub Marshal there was taken as a Deputy but there is no such Officer as a Sub-Warden for Duckenfield had it for Life And then a Deputy being a person removable at pleasure will not be so considered in Law as one who hath a more fixed Estate for having nothing to lose it cannot be intended that he will be so careful in the execution of his Office as the other and therefore 't is reasonable in such Case that the Superiour should answer But he who hath a Freehold for Life hath an Estate of some value in the Law which he cannot be supposed easily to forfeit and therefore 't is reasonable that he alone should be lyable for his own Miscarriages for if the Defendant should be charged by the same reason the Grantee of the Reversion may be charged who is altogether an innocent person and so may be liable to a vast Sum for the Fault of another for which Reasons he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant The Court delivered no Opinion this Term Judgment but took time to advise and afterwards in Easter Term following Rainsford Chief Iustice delivered the Opinions of Twisden Wild and Jones Iustices who said they were all agreéing in the main Point but thought the Verdict imperfect and not to warrant the Plaintiffs Case for he declared that at the time when the Grant was made to Duckenfield when the Commitment was and when the Escape was suffered and ever since that Duckenfield was insufficient and not able to answer the Plaintiff but the Iury in the Special Verdict do not find the insufficiency at that time when this Action was brought But as to the main Question they were of Opinion that the Defendant was Superior and that he is chargeable for this insufficiency of Duckenfield but if he had béen sufficient when the Plaintiff brought this Action it might have been otherwise but his Inability being fully averred in the Declaration and the Defendant denying it and the Iury having found nothing against it but there being strong Suspicions of the truth of the Fact the Court would not make an intendment to the contrary The Iury have found expresly that Duckenfield was insufficient at the time of the Escape which was within six Weeks of the time when the Action was commenced so that having once found him disabled unless it appear that he was of Ability afterwards the Court will not intend him so but rather that he was insufficient at the time of the Action brought for there being strong surmises of it and there being no ground within the Record to intend him sufficient a Fact may be collected that is not found in the Verdict Fulwoods Case 4 Co. The King versus Moor. Difference between a prohibitory Clause and a Clause which gives a Penalty in a Statute AN Information was brought upon the Statute of the 4th 5th of Philip and Mary cap. 8. which Enacts That if any Person c. above the Age of 14 shall after the first day of April next after the making the Statute unlawfully take a Maid or Woman unmarried being within the Age of 16 years c. the Party shall suffer two years Imprisonment or pay such Fine as shall be assessed in the Star Chamber and that the Defendant existens supra aetatem quatuordecim annorum did take a young Maid away unmarried and kept her three days contra formam Statuti upon which he was found Guilty and now moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. It was said for the Defendant that this Court could not Fine him upon this Statute because when the Informer entitles himself by a Statute he must take the remedy therein prescribed and so 't is not like an Information at the Common Law for in such case this Court might Fine the Plaintiff 2. It is not averred that the party offending was above the age of 14 years at the time of taking but only that he being above the age of 14 such a day did take Where there are not Negative Words the Court of Kings Bench is not restrained Mod. Rep. 34. Sid. 359. Sir William Jones contra If the first Objection hath any weight in it 't is to bring the Party to an Imprisonment for the space of two years which is a punishment directed by that Statute but the Fine is limited to the Star Chamber and those Offences which were punishable there are likewise to be punished here because there are no Negative words in this Statute to abridge the authority of this Court which is never restrained but when the Statute directs before whom the Offence shall be Tried and not elsewhere It was the Opinion of my Lord Chief Iustice Hales That where there is a prohibitory Clause in a Statute and another Clause which gives a Penalty if the Party will go upon the prohibitory Clause Postea he is not confined to the manner expressed in the Statute but if he will go upon the Penalty he must then pursue what the Statute directs The first part of this Statute is but a Declaration of the Common Law the second Clause is introductive of a new Law as to the Court of Star Chamber but is not a restriction as to this Court which might have punished the Defendant if there had been no such Law The first Clause is prohibitory viz. That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away a Maid unmarried and upon this Clause this Information is brought The second Clause is distinct and directs the punishment viz. Upon Conviction to suffer Imprisonment for two years Now by taking away the Court of Star Chamber this prohibitory Clause is not repealed upon which a Man may be Indicted without demanding the Penalty and the Statute having directed that the Offence shall be heard and determined before the Kings Council in the Star Chamber or before the Iudge of Assise and no Negative words to restrain this Court therefore the Chief Iustice who is the Iudge of * Cro. Car. 463. Assise in the County of Middlesex may hear and determine this Offence and by consequence Fine the Party if he be found Guilty As to the second Objection That it is not averred that the Party offending was above the age of 14 years at the time of the taking it had been better if it had been said tunc existen ' supra aetatem quatuordecim annorum but notwithstanding 't is well enough for 't is said that being above the age of 14 years such a day he did take c. so that it cannot be otherwise but that he was of such an age at the time when the Maid was taken and the Iury found him Guilty contra formam Statuti which may likewise be an Answer to the first Objection for he being found Guilty contra formam
Assurances c. of Land not being the Lands of the late King Queen Prince c. and not being Land sold for any pretended Delinquency since the first of June 1641. and all Statutes and Judgments suffered by the Offenders from being impeached from which it appears that the Parliament lookt upon entailed Lands as forfeited for if Estates made to others upon a valuable consideration had need of a Proviso to save them from Forfeiture à fortiori the Estates out of which those are derived have need of such a saving and therefore must be forfeit by the Act for which Reasons these Lands are forfeited As to the great Objection which hath been made and insisted on the other side and which is Trudgeons Case 22 Eliz. 1 Inst 130. Where Tenant in Tail was attainted in a Praemunire and it was adjudged that he should forfeit his Land but during his Life for though the Statue of 16 R. 2. cap. cap. 5. Enacts That in such Case their Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels shall be forfeited to the King yet that must be understood of such an Estate as he may lawfully forfeit and that is during his own life and therefore being general Words they do not take away the force of the Statute de donis so that his Lands in Fee-simple for life c. shall be forfeited but the Land entailed shall not during his life But the Answer is plain For in the Reign of R. 2. when the Statute of Praemunire was made Estates Tail were under a Perpetuity by the said Statute de donis which Statute is now much weakened in the Point of Alienation and the Law is quite altered since that time and 't is apparent by multitude of Presidents that such strict Constructions have not been made since that time to preserve Estates Tail from Forfeitures without special and particular Words 4 Co. 164. and therefore in the Case of Adams and Lambert which is a Case in Point the Iudges there construed Estates Tail to be forfeit for want of special Words in the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. to save it and that was only a Law made for suppressing of superstitious Vses upon a politick consideration but this is a much greater Offence intended to be punished by this Act in which there are demonstrations both from the Words and intent of the Law-makers to make this Estate forfeited to the Crown than in that Case so much relied on And Iudgment was given accordingly Wyld died before Iudgment was given but Iustice Twisden said he was of that Opinion and Jones Iustice concurred Basset versus Salter After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Ca. Sa. or Sci. Fa. against the Sheriff IN an Action for an Escape the Question was whether the Plaintiff may take out a Ca. Sa. or have a Fi. Fa. against the Defendant after the Sheriff or Gaoler voluntarily suffer him to escape but the Court would not suffer it to be argued because it had been lately settled that it was at the Election of the Plaintiff to do either and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber the Iudges there were of the same Opinion But in the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan's time the Court of Common Pleas were divided but 't is since settled 1 Roll. Abridg. 901 902. If there be an Escape by the Plaintiffs consent though he did not intend it the Law is hard that the Debt should be thereby discharged as where one was in execution in the Kings Bench and some Proposals were made to the Plaintiff in behalf of the Prisoner who seeing there was some likelyhood of an Accomodation consented to a Meeting in London and desired the Prisoner might be there who came accordingly and this was held to be an Escape with the * If it had been by the consent of the Sheriff he could never take him again but the Plaintiff might Sid. 330. consent of the Plaintiff and he could never after be in Execution at his Suit for the same Matter Peck versus Hill In Communi Banco Bond good given in discharge of another Mod. Rep. 221. DEBT upon a Bond brought against the Defendant as Administrator who pleads that he gave another Bond in his own Name in discharge of the first Bond and upon Issue joined it was found for the Defendant and it was moved that Iudgment might not be entred hereupon because it was a bad Plea But North Chief Iustice and Wyndham and Scroggs Iustices were of Opinion that it was a good Plea because there was other Security given than what the Plaintiff had before for upon the first Bond he was only lyable de bonis Intestatoris but now he might be charged in his own Right Co. Lit. 122. b. which may be well said to be in full satisfaction of the first Obligation for where the Condition is for payment of Mony to the Party himself there if he accept any collateral thing in satisfaction 't is good If a Security be given by a Stranger it may discharge a former Bond and this in effect is given by such And 't is not like the Case in Hobert where a Bond was given by the same Party upon that very day a former Bond was payable and adjudged not a good discharge for the Obligee was in no better condition than he was before Iustice Atkins doubted but inclined that one Bond cannot be discharged by giving another though the Discharge be applied to the Condition of the Bond and for this he cited Cro. Car. 85. Cro. Eliz. 716 727. which was a Case adjudged so in Point and therefore this Plea upon Demurrer should have been over-ruled yet since Issue was taken upon it and a Verdict for the Defendant the Plea is helped by the Statute of Jeofails 32 H. 8. here being a direct Affirmative and Negative But as to that the Chief Iustice and Scroggs Iustice replied that an immaterial Issue no ways arising from the Matter is not helped as an Action of Debt upon a Bond laid to be made in London and the Defendant saith that it was made in Middlesex and this is tried 't is not aided by the Statute but there must be a Repleader But because it was sworn that the Obligor who was the intestate was alive four years after the time that the second Bond was given and for that reason it could not be given upon the accompt of the Defendants being liable as Administrator but must be intended a Bond to secure a Debt of his own therefore a new Trial was granted Cook and others versus Herle Covenant will lie in the personalty tho' the Grant be executed by the Statute of Uses which makes a Distress the proper remedy Mod. Rep. 223. IN Covenant the Case was this Charles Cook made a Iointure to Mary his Wife for life and died without Issue the Land descended to Thomas Cook his Brother and Heir who grants an Annuity or Rent Charge of 200 l. per
annum to the Plaintiffs in Trust for Mary and this was to be in discharge of the said Iointure Habendum to them their Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns in Trust for the said Mary for Life with a Clause of Distress and a Covenant to pay the 200 l. per annum to the said Trustees for the use of the said Mary the Breach assigned was that the Defendant had not paid the Rent to them for the Use of Mary The Defendant demurred specially for that it appears by the Plaintiffs own shewing that here is a Grant of a Rent-Charge for life which is executed by the Statute of Vses and therefore there ought to have been a Distress for Non-payment which is the proper remedy given by the Statute and this Action will not lie in the personalty 2. 'T is said the Defendant did not pay it to the Plaintiffs for the use of Mary which is a Negative pregnant and implies that it was paid to them 3. 'T is not averred that the Mony was not paid to Mary and if 't is paid to her then the Breach is not well assigned Ex parte Quer. But Serjeant Baldwin for the Plaintiff replyed that it was not a Question in this Case whether this Rent Charge was executed by the Statute or not for quacunque via data an Action of Covenant will lie and that the Breach was assigned according to the Words of the Covenant and so prima facie 't is well enough for if the Defendant did pay the Mony to the Plaintiffs he may plead it and so he may likewise if he paid it to Mary Curia The Court were all of Opinion that this Rent-Charge was executed by the Statute of Vses by the express Words thereof which executes such Rents granted for Life upon Trust as this Case is and transfers all Rights and Remedies incident thereunto together with the possession to Cestuy que use so that though the power of distraining be limited to the Trustées by this Deéd yet by the Statute which transfers that power to Mary she may distrain also but this Covenant being collateral cannot be transferred The Clause of Distress by the express Words of the Act is given to the Cestuy que use but here is a double Remedy by Distress or Action for if the Lessée assign his Interest and the Rent is accepted of the Assignee yet a Covenant lies against the Lessée for Non-payment upon the express Covenant to * Hayes and Bickerstaff Hollis and Carr Antea pay so if a Rent be granted to S. and a Covenant to pay it to N. for his use 't is a good Covenant And it was agreed that the assignment of a Breach according to the Words of the Covenant is good enough and that if any thing be done which amounts to a performance the other side must plead it as in this Case the Defendant might have pleaded that the Mony was paid to Mary which is a performance in substance but it shall not be intended without pleading of it Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Read versus Dawson DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Executor Repleader after an immaterial Issue Issue was joyned whether the Defendant had Assets or not on the thirtieth day of November which was the day on which he had the first notice of the Plaintiffs original Writ and it was found for the Defendant that then he had not Assets It was moved for a Repleader because it was said this was an immaterial Issue for though he had not Assets then yet if he had any afterwards he is liable to the Plaintiffs Action But Barrel Serjeant moved for Iudgment upon this Verdict by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. which helps in Cases of Mispleading or insufficient Pleading 'T is true there are many Cases which after Verdict are not aided by this Statute as if there are two Affirmatives which cannot make an Issue or when after a Traverse Issue is joyned with an hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam this is no Issue 2 Anders 6 7. Yelv. 210. Hob. 126. So if there be no Plea at all as if an Action is brought against Baron and Feme and she pleads only 2 Cro. 288. So if the Party puts himself super patriam where it should be tried by Record or if the Plea be nothing to the purpose or lie not in the Mouth of the Parties such immaterial Issues as these cannot be good The difference in Moor 867. is if the Plea on which the Issue is joyned hath no colourable pretence in it to barr the Plaintiff or if it be against an express Rule in the Law there the Issue is immaterial and so as if there was no Issue and therefore 't is not aided by the Statute but if it hath the countenance of a legal Plea though it want necessary matter to make it sufficient there shall be no Repleader because 't is helped after Verdict Here the Parties only doubt whether there were Assets at the time of the notice and 't is found there were none and so Iudgment was to be given accordingly and of that Opinion was the whole Court But Iustice Atkins was clear of Opinion that if the Parties join in an immaterial Issue there shall be no Repleader because 't is helped after Verdict by these Words in the Statute viz. any Issue 'T is not said an Issue joined upon a material Point and the intent of the Statute was to prevent Repleaders and that if any other Construction should be made of that Act he was of Opinion that the Iudges sate there not to expound but to make a Law for by such an Interpretation much of the benefit intended by the Act to the Party who had a Verdict would be restrained Curia The other Iustices were all of Opinion that since the making of this Statute it had been always allowed and taken as a difference that when the Issue was perfectly material there should be no Repleader but that it was otherwise where the Issue was not material And Iustice Scroggs asked merrily If Debt be brought upon a Bond and the Defendant pleads Robin Hood dwelt in a Wood and the Plaintiff joyns Issue that he did not this is an immaterial Issue and shall there not be a Repleader in such Case after Verdict Ad quod non fuit responsum Beaumont versus ........ Wager of Law THE Plaintiff brings an Action of Debt upon a Iudgment obtained against the Defendant in a Court Baron having declared there in an Action on the Case upon an Assumpsit and recovered The Defendant came to wage his Law and was ready to swear that he owed the Plaintiff nothing Sid. 366. but the Court held that he was not well advised for by the Recovery in the inferior Court it became now a Debt and was owing and being asked whether he had paid the Mony he answered that he owed nothing Whereupon the Court
concluded that he had not paid it and therefore they would not admit him to wage his Law without bringing sufficient Compurgators to swear that they believed he swore Truth but such not appearing the Defendant defecit de Lege and Iudgment had been given against him but he offered to bring the Mony recovered and the Costs into the Court and to go to a new Tryal it being a very hard Case upon him at the former Trial where the Demand was of a Quit-Rent of 18 d. per annum the Defendant promised that if the Plaintiff would shew his Title and satisfie him that he had a Right to demand it he would pay him the Rent and at the Tryal express Oath was made of a Promise to pay upon which the Verdict was obtained whereas it was then urged that the Freehold would come in question upon that Promise and so the inferior Court could have no Iurisdiction And afterwards the Chief Iustice said that it hath béen adjudged in the Kings Bench that an inferior Court cannot hold Plea on a quantum meruit for Work done out of the Iurisdiction though the Promise be made within and that he knew where a Person of Quality intending a Marriage with a Lady presented her with a Iewel and the Marriage not taking effect he brought an Action of Detinue against her and she taking it to be a Gift offered to wage her Law but the Court was of Opinion that the property was not changed by this Gift being to a specifical intent and therefore would not admit her to do it Quod nota Styleman versus Patrick AN Action on the Case was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for eating of his Grass with his Sheep Costs allowed so that he could not in tam amplo modo enjoy his Common there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and it was now moved that he should have no more Costs than Damages because this was a Trespass in its own nature and the Iudge of Assise had not certified that the Title of any Land was in question Bur the Court were all of Opinion Curia that this Case was not within the Statute For it was not a frivolous Action because a little damage done to one Commoner and so to twenty may in the whole make it a great Wrong if the Cause were frivolous the Iudge of Assize may mark it to be such by vertue of the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 6. and then there shall be no more Costs than Damages and though in this Case the Plaintiff hath in his Declaration set out a Title to his Common yet the Title of the Land cannot possibly come in question and therefore not to be certified as in Cases of Trespas neither is there any need of a Certificate if it appears by the Pleading that the Title of the Land is in question The Court being against the Defendant as to the Costs his Council then moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Plaintiff sets forth his Right to the Common only by way of Recital with a cumque etiam Postea c. that he had a Right to Common in such a place sed non allocatur for 't is affirmative enough and afterwards he is charged with doing the Plaintiff damage and so the Case is not like to an Action of Trespas quare cum he did a Trespass for there the sense is imperfect DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 28 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco James versus Johnson IN Trespass Que Estate where 't is pleadable Mod Rep. 231. the Defendant justified by a Prescription to have Toll and Issue being joyned thereupon the Iury found a special Verdict in which the Case upon the Pleadings was viz. Before the dissolution of Priories the Mannor now in the possession of the Defendant was parcel of the Priory of B. which came to the Crown by the said dissolution and the King made a Grant thereof to Sir Jervas Clifton in Fee together with the said Toll adeo plene as the Prior had it and the Defendant having brought down a Title by several mesne Assignments claims by vertue of a Lease from Sir Jervas for seven years then in being alledging that the said Sir Jervas and all those whose Estate he had might take Toll and whether this Pleading by a Que Estate to have Right of Toll was good in Law the Iury doubted Baldwin Serjeant for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. argued that the Iustification was not good because there are two sorts of Toll viz. Toll through and Toll traverse and is in the Kings High Way and the other in a Man 's own Soil and it doth not appear for which the Defendant hath justified If it be for the first then he ought to shew that he did make a Causeway or some other thing that might be an advantage to the Passengers to entitle himself to a Prescription but if it be for the other then he must also shew it was for passing upon his Soil which implies a Consideration 22 Assize Kelw. 148. Pl. Com. 236. Lord Berkley's Case 1 Cro. 710. Smith versus Sheppard by which Cases it appears that the justification ought to be certain Then as to the point in Question he said that Toll cannot be appurtenant to a Mannor and so the Pleading by a Que estate is not good but if that should be admitted yet the Mannor being vested in the Crown by the dissolution the Toll then became in gross and could never after be united to the Mannor or appurtenant thereunto But it was argued for the Defendant by Maynard Serjeant and the whole Court were clear of Opinion that the Issue was upon a particular point and the Title was admitted and that nothing remained in question but the Point in pleading And as to what had been objected That Toll cannot belong to a Mannor 't is quite otherwise for an Advowson a Rent a Toll or any Profit apprender may be appurtenant to it T is true a Man cannot prescribe by a Que Estate of a Rent Advowson Toll c. but he may of a Mannor to which these are appendant 't is likewise true that if the Defendant had said this was Toll for passing the Highway he must shew some cause to entitle himself to the taking of it as by doing something of publick advantage But this general way of pleading is the most usual and so are the Presidents and it ought to come on the other side and to be alledged that the Defendant prescribed for Toll in the High-way and in this Case though the Mannor came to the Crown the Toll remained appurtenant still and so it continued when it was granted out The difference is between a thing which was originally a Flower of the Crown and other things which are not as Catalla Felonum c. if such come again to the King they are merged in the Crown but 't is otherwise in cases of a Leet Park Warren
made so taketh upon him long after the Will to be Executor it shall make him such by relation from the time of the death of the Testator but here is no Executor nor ever was 'T is true that one was named but as soon as he heard of the Will he renounced and therefore there being no Executor in this Case nothing now can hinder the Administration to be granted cum Testamento annexo If the Testator should dye indebted or have Debts owing to him and the Executor refuses Probate and renounces his Executorship Administration must be granted for Lex fingit ubi subsistit Aequitas and the Executor having a possibility to be such and by his refusal becoming no Executor why should the bare naming of him to be an Executor have relation to make such Administration void since 't is not the Name but the doing of the Office which makes him Executor Dyer 372. If all these Executors had dyed after Administration thus committed it cannot be said that they ever were Executors There can be no inconvenience that this Administration should be good for 't is just that Creditors should have their Debts and Purchasors should be secure in the things purchased If the Testator was indebted an Action will lie against an Executor de son tort for such Debt which Executor is altogether as wrongfull as the Administrator to whom Administraton is committed and the Will afterwards proved by the rightful Executor and if such Executor of his own wrong be possessed of a term for years and a Creditor recovers against him that Crecutor shall have the Term in satisfaction of his Debt and by the same reason shall the Administrator here have a good title to this Term which he sold for the payment of a just Debt and there is no authority for making such Administration void unless it be where the Executor proves the Will but never when he renounceth Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that an Executor of an Executor hath all the Interest which the first Executor had so that being an Executor the Administration ganted by the Ordinary is void and the renunciation afterwards shall never make it good and this will appear by the different Interests which the Ordinary and the Executor have by Law 1. The Ordinary originally had nothing to do with the Estate of the Intestate for * Godolph 59. bona intestati capi solent in manus Regis Afterwards two Statutes were made which establish his power the first was Westm 1. cap. 19. and the other was 31 E. 3. c. 11. Yet no power was thereby given him to dispose of the Goods to his own use or to the use of any other he had only a property secundum quid and not an absolute and uncontroulable Right in the Estate 2. But the Executor hath a Right and Interest given to him by Law when a Will is made and may * 5 Co. Middleton's Case release before probate if he therefore hath an absolute Right and the Ordinary hath only a qualified property how can he grant the Administration of the Goods which at the same time are lawfully vested in another Suppose the Executor sells such Goods to one Man and the Administrator to another 2 Anders 150. Case 83. the Sale of one of them must be void and for the said Reasons and by the constant course of the Law it must be the latter It hath been objected that here was no Executor at all only one named or if it be admitted that there was an Executor yet his refusal shall relate to the time of the Administration committed and make that good which might not be so before But as to that he said that here was an Executor appointed by the Will who had an Interest and Administration being granted to another 't is void ab initio and what is once void cannot be made good by any subsequent act Mod. Rep. 214. 10 Co. 62. a. Here was a want of power in him who did this Act for the Ordinary could not grant Administration where there is an Executor and therefore no relation shall be to make that good which was once void but if it had béen only voidable it might have been otherwise A Relation may be to inable the Party to recover the Goods of the Intestate and to punish Trespasses as if a Man die possessed of Goods and a Stranger convert them and afterwards Administration is granted to S. this Administration shall * 2 Roll Abr. 399. relate to the time of the death of the Intestate so that he may maintain Trover before the Ordinary had committed it to him but it will never aid the Acts of the Parties to avoid them by Relation as if a Man makes a Feoffment to a Feme Covert and afterwards devises the same Land the Husband disagrées this shall have relation between the Parties so as the Husband shall not be charged in damages but it shall not make the void Devise good 3 Co. 28. b. Butler and Baker's Case So if a Man makes a Release and afterwards get Letters of Administration that shall not relate to make his Release good to barr him neither shall his refusal of the Executorship do it because at the time of the Release or the refusal there was not any right of Action in him for that commences in the one Case after Administration and in the other after the Probate of the Will Notwithstanding such refusal this Executor may afterwards administer at his pleasure Godolph 141. and intermeddle with the Goods of the Testator and if the Administration should be good also then they would have a power over the same Estate by two Titles at the same time which cannot be The greatest Argument which can be brought against this is ab inconvenienti because it cannot be safe to purchase under an Administrator since a Will may be concealed for a time and afterwards the lawful Executor therein appointed may appear but this is more proper for the Wisdom of a Parliament to redress than that the Law should be altered by a judicial determination of the Court and therefore he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant The Court was of Opinion that the Ordinary cannot grant Administration where there is an Executor named in the Will Judgment and therefore gave Iudgment for the Defendant against the Vendée of this Term. The Lord Townsend versus Dr. Hughes In C. B. THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Scandalum Magnatum for these Words spoken of him by the Defendant No new Trial in an Action of Scandalum Magnatum Mod. Rep. 232. viz. He is an unworthy Man and acts against Law and Reason Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Case was tried and the Iury gave the Plaintiff 4000 l. damages The Defendant before the Trial made all possible submission to my Lord he denied the speaking the Words and made Oath that he never spoke the same after the Trial he
likewise addressed to my Lord as before making several Protestations of his Innocency But having once in a Passion said that he scorned to submit My Lord for that Reason would not remit the Damages it was therefore moved for a new Tryal upon these Reasons 1. Because the Witnesses who proved the Words were not Persons of Credit and that at the time when they were alledged to be spoken many Clergy-men were in Company with the Defendant and heard no such Words spoken 2. It was sworn that one of the Iury confessed that they gave such great damages to the Plaintiff not that he was damnified so much but that he might have the greater opportunity to shew himself noble in the remitting of them 3. And which was the principal Reason because the Damages were excessive Curia The Court delivered their Opinions seriatim and first The Chief Iustice North said In Cases of Fines for criminal Matters a Man is to be fined by Magna Charta with a salvo contenemento suo and no Fine is to be imposed greater than he is able to pay but in Civil Actions the Plaintiff is to recover by way of compensation for the damages he hath sustained and the Iury are the proper Iudges thereof This is a Civil Action brought by the Plaintiff for Words spoken of him which if they are in their own nature actionable the Iury ought to consider the damage which the Party may sustain but if a particular Averment of special damages makes them actionable then the Iury are only to consider such damages as are already sustained and not such as may happen in futuro because for such the Plaintiff may have a new Action He said that as a Iudge he could not tell what value to set upon the Honour of the Plaintiff the Iury have given 4000 l. and therefore he could neither lessen the Sum or grant a new Trial especially since by the Law the Iury are Iudges of the damages and it would be very inconvenient to examine upon what account they gave their Verdict they having found the Defendant guilty did believe the Witnesses and he could not now make a doubt of their Credibility Wyndham Iustice accorded in omnibus Atkins Iustice contra That a new Trial should be granted for 't is every days practice and he remembred the Case of Gouldston and Wood in the Kings Bench where the Plaintiff in an Action on the Case for Words for calling of him Bankrupt recovered 1500 l. and that Court granted a new Tryal because the damages were excessive The Iury in this Case ought to have respect only to the damage which the Plaintiff sustained and not to do an unaccountable thing that he might have an opportunity to shew himself generous and as the Court ought with one Eye to look upon the Verdict so with the other they ought to take notice what is contained in the Declaration and then to consider whether the Words and Damages bear any proportion if not then the Court ought to lay their hands upon the Verdict 'T is true they cannot lessen the damages but if they are too great the Court may grant a new Tryal Scroggs Iustice accorded with North and Wyndham that no new Tryal can be granted in this Cause He said that he was of Council with the Plaintiff before he was called to the Bench and might therefore be supposed to give Iudgment in favour of his former Client being prepossess'd in the Cause or else to shew himself more signally just might without considering the matter give Iudgment against him but that now he had forgot all former relation thereunto and therefore delivered his Opinion that if he had been of the Iury he should not have given such a Verdict and if he had been Plaintiff he would not take advantage of it but would overcome with Forgiveness such Follies and Indiscretions of which the Defendant had been guilty but that he did not sit there to give Advice but to do Iustice to the People He did agrèe that where an unequal Tryal was as such must be where there is any Practice with the Iury in such Case 't is good reason to grant a new Tryal but no such thing appearing to him in this Case a new Tryal could not be granted Suppose the Iury had given a scandalous Verdict for the Plaintiff as a Penny Damages he could not have obtained a new Trial in hopes to increase them neither shall the Defendant in hopes to lessen them and therefore by the Opinion of these three Iustices a new Tryal was not granted Afterwards in this Term Serjeant Maynard moved in Arrest of Iudgment and said that this Action was grounded upon the Statute of R. 2. Which consists of a Preamble reciting the Mischief and of the Enacting part in giving of a Remedy and that the Defendants Case was neither within the Mischief or the Remedy This Statute doth not create any Action by way of particular design and if the matter was now Res integra much might be said that an Action for Damages will not lye upon this Statute for the Statute of Westm 2. appoints that the Offender shall suffer imprisonment until he produces the Author of a false Report Ca. 33. and the Statute of 2 R. 2. which recites that of Westm 2. gives the same punishment and the Action is brought qui tam c. and yet the Plaintiff only recovers for himself It was usual to punish Offenders in this kind in the Star Chamber as in the * Earl of Northampton's Case where one Goodrick said of him That he wrote a Book against Garnet and a Letter to Bellarmine 12 Co. 132. intimating that what he wrote in the Book was not his Opinion but only ad captandum populum which was a great disgrace to him in those days being as much as to say he was a Papist Cro. Eliz. But the Serjeant would not insist upon that now since it hath been ruled that where a Statute prohibits the doing of a thing which if done might be prejudicial to another in such case he may have an Action upon that very Statute for his Damages But the ground on which he argued was that these words as spoken are not within the meaning of the Act for they are not actionable 1. Because they are no scandal and words which are actionable must import a great Scandal which no circumstance or occasion of speaking can excuse and if they are scandalous and capable of any mitigation by the precedent discourse the pleading of that matter will make them not actionable and for this the Lord * 4 Co. Cromwel's Case is a plain Authority the Words spoken of him were You like those that maintain Sedition against the King's Person the occasion of speaking of which was to give an account of his favouring the Puritan Preachers which was all that was intended by the former discourse for that Lord had approved a Sermon which was preached by a Parson
should take revenge themselves for which reasons he held the Action will lye Atkyns Iustice contra This is not a common Action upon the Case but an Action founded upon the Statute of the 2 of R. 2. upon the Construction whereof the Resolution of this Case will depend whether the Action will lie or not And as to that he considered 1. The Occasion 2. The Scope 3. The parts of the Statute 1. The occasion of it is mentioned in Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower f. 173. nu 9 and 10. At the summoning of this Parliament the Bishop of St. Davids declared the Causes of their meeting and told both the Houses of the Mischiefs that had hapned by divers slanderous Persons and sowers of Discord which he said were Dogs that eat raw Flesh the meaning of which was that they devoured and eat one another to prevent which the Bishop desired a Remedy and his Request seemed to be the Occasion of making this Law for ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur Leges 2. The Scope of the Act was to restrain unruly Tongues from raising false Reports and telling Stories and Lyes of the Peers and Great Officers of the Kingdom so that the design of the Act was to prevent those imminent dangers which might arise and be occasioned by such false Slanders 3. Then the parts of the Act are three viz. reciting the Offence and the Mischief then mentioning the ill Effects and appointing of a Penalty From whence he Observed 1. That here was no new Offence made or declared for nothing was prohibited by this Statute but what was so at the Common Law before The Offences to be punished by this Act are mala in se and those are Offences against the Moral Law they must be such in their nature as bearing of false Witness and these are Offences against a common Person which he admitted to be aggravated by the eminency of the person against whom they were spoke but every uncivil Word or rude Expression spoken even of a Great Man will not bear an Action and therefore an Action will not lie upon this Statute for every false Lye but it must be horrible as well as false and such as were punishable in the High Commission Court which were enormous Crimes 12 Co. 43. By this description of the Offences and the consequences and effects thereof he said he could better judge whether the Words were actionable or not and he was of Opinion that the Statute did not extend to Words of a small and trivial nature nor to all Words which were actionable but only to such which were of a greater magnitude such by which Discord might arise between the Lords and Commons to the great peril of the Realm and such which were great Slanders and horrible Lies which are words purposely put into this Statute for the aggravation and distinction of the Crime and therefore such Words which are actionable at the Common Law may not be so within this Statute because not horrible great Scandals He did not deny but that these were undecent and uncivil words and very ill applied to that honourable person of whom they were spoken but no body could think that they were horrible great slanders or that any debate might arise between the Lords and Commons by reason such words were spoken of this Peer or that it should tend to the great peril of the Kingdom and the quick destruction thereof such as these were not likely to be the effects and consequences of these Words and therefore could not be within the meaning of the Act because they do not agree with the discription given in it 2. Here is no new punishment inflicted on the Offender for at the Common Law any person for such Offences as herein are described might have been Fined and Imprisoned either upon Indictment or Information brought against him and no other punishment is given here but Imprisonment Even at the Common Law scandal of a Peer might be punished by Pillory and loss of Ears 5 Co. 125. De Libellis Famosis 12 Co. 37. 9 Co. 59. Lamb's Case So that it appears this was an Offence at the Common Law but aggravated now because against an Act of Parliament which is a positive Law much like a Proclamation which is set forth to enforce the execution of a Law by which the Offence is afterwards greater He did agree that an Action would lie upon this Statute though there were no express Words to give it to a Peer because where there is a Prohibition and a Wrong and Damage arises to the Party by doing the thing prohibited in such Case the Common Law doth intitle the Party to an Action 10 Co. 75. 12 Co. 100 103. And such was the Resolution in the Earl of Northampton's Case upon construction of the Law as incident to the Statute and as the Offence is greater because of the Act and as the Action will lie upon the Statute so the Party injured may sue in a qui tam which he could not have done before the making this Law 3. But that such words as these were not actionable at the Common Law much less by the Statute for the Defendant spoke only his Iudgment and Opinion and doth not directly charge the Plaintiff with any thing and might well be resembled to such Cases as are in Rolls Abridgm 1 part 57. pl 30. which is a little more solemn because adjudged upon a special Verdict the Words were spoken of a Iustice of Peace Thou art a Blood-Sucker and not fit to live in a Commonwealth These were not held actionable because they neither relate to his Office or fix any Crime upon him Fol. 43. in the same Book Thou deservest to be hanged not actionable because it was only his Opinion So where the Words are general without any particular Circumstances they make no impression and gain no credit and therefore in Cro. Car. 111. 1 Roll. Abridgm 107. pl. 43. You are no true Subject to the King the Action would not lie In this Case 't is said the Plaintiff acts against Law which doth not imply a Habit in him so to do and when Words may as well be taken in a mild as in a severe Sense the Rule is quod in mitiori sensu accipienda sunt Now these Words are capable of such a favourable construction for no more was said of the Plaintiff than what in some sense may be said of every person whatsoever for who can boast of his Innocency who keeps close in all his actions to Law and Reason and to say A Man acts against both may imply that he departed from those Rules in some particular Cases where it was the Error of his Iudgment only In the Duke of Buckingham's Case Sheppard's Abridgment 1 part f. 28. Viz. You are used to do things against Law and mentions a particular fact there indeed because of Usage of the ill practice it was held that an Action lies but if he had been
charged for doing a thing against Law but once an Action would not lie He then observed how the Cases which have been adjudged upon this Statute agree with the Rules he had insisted on in his Argument which Cases have not been many and those too of late times in respect of the Antiquity of the Act which was made almost 300 hundred years since Anno 1379. and for 120 years after no Action was brought the first that is Reported was 13 H. 7. Keilway 26. So that we have no contemporanea expositio of the Statute to guide an Opinion which would be a great help in this Case because they who make an Act best understand the meaning but now the meaning must be collected from the Statute it self which is the best Exposition as the Rule is given in Bonham's Case 8 Co. Vide the Case in 13 H. 7. The next Case in time is the Duke of Buckingham's Case 4 H 8. Cromp Jur. of Courts f. 13. You have no more Conscience than a Dog Lord Abergavenny against Cartwright in the same Book You care not how you come by Goods in both which Cases the Words charge the Plaintiff with particular matter and give a Narrative of something of a false Story and do not barely rest upon an Opinion In the Bishop of Norwich his Case Cro. Eliz. 1. Viz. You have writ to me that which is against the Word of God and to the maintainance of Superstition These were held actionable because they refer to his Function and greatly defame him and yet he had but 500 Marks Damages 29 30 Eliz. 1 Cro. 67. The Lord Mordant against Bridges My Lord Mordant did know that Prude robbed Shotbolt and bid me compound with Shotbolt for the same and said he would see me satisfied for the same though it cost him an hundred pounds which I did for him being my Master otherwise the Evidence I could have given would have hanged Prude These Words were held actionable and 1000 l. Damages given and in all the other Cases which have been mentioned upon this Statute and where Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff the Words always charge him with some particular Fact and are positive and certain but where they are doubtful and general and signifie only the Opinion of the Defendant they are not actionable The Words in the Case at Bar neither relate to the Plaintiff as a Peer or a Lord Lieutenant and charge him with no particular Crime so that from the authority of all these Cases he grounded his Opinion that the Action would not lie and he said If Laws should be expounded to wrack People for Words instead of remedying one Mischief many would be introduced for in such Case they would be made Snares for Men. The Law doth bear with the Infirmities of Men as Reliligion Honour and Vertue doth in other Cases and amongst all the excellent Qualities which Adorn the Nobility of this Nation none doth so much as forgiving of Injuries Solomon saith That 't is the Honour of a Man to pass by an Infirmity Which if the Plaintiff should refuse yet the Defendant if he thinks the Damages excessive is not without his remedy by Attaint for he said he could shew where an Attaint was brought against a Iury for giving 60 l. Damages He farther said that he could not find that any Iudgment had been either reversed or arrested upon this Statute and therefore it was fit that the Law should be setled by some Rule because 't is a wretched condition for People to live under such Circumstances as not to know how to demean themselves towards a Péer and since no Limits have been hitherto prescribed 't is fit there should be some now and that the Court should go by the same Rules in the Case of a Peer as in that of common person that is not to construe the Words actionable without some particular Crime charged upon the Plaintiff or unless he alledge special damages for which Reasons he held that this Action would not lye Wyndham Iustice accorded with Scroggs and the Chief Iustice North agreed with them in the same Opinion his Argument was viz. First he said that he did not wonder that the Defendant made his Case so solemn being loaded with so great damages but that his Opinion should not be guided with that or with any Rules but those of Law because this did not concern the Plaintiff alone but was the Case of all the Nobility of England but let it be never so general and the Conveniences or Incoveniences never so great he would not upon any such considerations alter the Law He said that no Action would lie upon this Statute which would not lie at the Common Law for where a Statute prohibits a thing generally and no particular Man is concerned an Offence against such a Law is punishable by Indictment but where there is a particular damage to any person by doing the thing prohibited there an Action will lie upon the Statute and so it will at the Common Law The Words therefore which are actionable upon this Statute are so at the Common Law This Statute extends only to Peers or other great Officers now every Peer as such is a great Officer he has an Office of great Dignity he is to support the King by his advice of which he is made capable by the great Eminency of his Reputation and therefore all Words which reflect upon him as he is the Kings Councellor or as he is a Man of Honour and Dignity are actionable at the Common Law In the ordinary Cases of Officers 't is not necessary to say that the Words were spoken relating to his Office as to say of a Lawyer that He is a Sot or an Ignoramus or of a Tradesman He is a Bankrupt the Action lies though the Words were not spoken of either as a Lawyer or Tradesman He did not think that Iudges were to teach Men by what Rules to walk other than what did relate to the particular matter before them all other things are gratis dicta neither would he allow that distinction that an Action would not lie where a Man spoke only his Opinion for if that should be admitted it would be very easie to scandalize any Man as I think such a Judge is corrupt or I am of Opinion that such a Privy Councellor is a Traytor and can any Man doubt whether these or such like Words are actionable or not because spoken only in the sense of the person 'T is true in some Cases where a Man speaks his own particular disesteem an Action will not lie as if I say I care not for such a Lord but that differs much where a Man speaks his Opinion with reference to a Crime for Opinions will be spread and will have an implicit Faith and because one Man believes it another will and 't is upon this ground that all the Cases which have been since the Statute are justified and so was the late
notwithstanding Iniquum non est praesumendum may be well intended here and so Iudgment was given against the Defendant that this was no good Plea Adams versus Adams DEBT upon Bond to perform an Award Award Exceptions thereunto overruled so that it be made before or upon the 22d day of December or to choose an Vmpire The Defendant pleads no Award made The Plaintiff replies and sets forth an Award and assigns a Breach The Defendant demurrs 1. That here is no good Award Mod. Rep. 274. because the Arbitrators were to make it before or upon the 22d day of December and if they could not agrée to choose an Vmpire 2 Sand. 133. Now the Award set forth in the Replication was made by an Vmpire chosen after the 22d day of December which the Arbitrators had not power by the Submission to choose Sed non allocatur because they might have made their Award upon the 22d of December and therefore could not choose an Vmpire till afterwards for their Power was only determined as to the making an Award 2. Antea Because the Vmpire recites that the Parties submitting had bound themselves to stand to his Award which is not true Sed non allocatur because 't is but Recital 3. The Award is that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff two Sums at several times and that several Releases shall be given presently and so the Bond and the Mony would be discharged and for that reason the Awarding the Release was void against the Plaintiff and by consequence there is nothing on his side to be done and the Court were all of Opinion that for this last reason the Award was not good Serjeant Baldwyn who was of Council for the Plaintiff said that it was an Exception which he could not answer if true but said that the Award was not that Releases should be given presently but that the Mony should be paid and Releases given by which it appears by the very Method and Order of the Award that the general Releases were not to be given till after the Mony paid and that being the Case the Court were clear of Opinion that it was well enough and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Brook versus Sir William Turner Feme Covert made a Will and disposed of her Estate and good IN a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court to prove the Will of Philippa Brooks by Sir William Turner her Executor A Tryal at the Barr was had in which the Case was viz. That James Phillips by Will in Writing dated 24 Aprilis 1671. inter alia gave to Philippa for Life in lieu and full of her Dower all his Houses in Three Crown Court in Southwark purchased by him of one Mr. Keeling another House in Southwark purchased of one Mr. Bowes and all his Houses in New Fishstreet Pudding-Lane Buttolph Lane Beer Lane Duxfield Lane and Dowgate London and died That afterwards there being a Treaty of Marriage between the Plaintiff Mr. Brooks and Philippa Phillips it was agréed that all the said Houses and Rents and Profits thereof and all Debts Ready Mony Iewels and other real and personal Estate whatsoever or wherein Philippa or any in Trust for her were interessed or possessed should at any time as well before as after the Marriage be disposed in such manner as should be agreed on between them And thereupon by Indenture tripartite between Mr. Brook of the first part the said Philippa Phillips of the second part and William Williams and Francis Gillow of the third part reciting the said Will of James Phillips and the said Agréement the said Philippa in consideration of a Shilling paid to her by Williams and Gillow did with the full and free Consent of the said Edward Brook the now Plaintiff grant bargain and sell to the said Williams and Gillow all the said Houses devised by the last Will of the said James Phillips in Trust that the said Trustees should permit her to receive and enjoy the whole Rents and Profits of all the Houses purchased of Mr. Keeling and of all the Houses in Beer Lane and of two of the Houses in Broadstreet in the possession of James and Worsley and the Quarters Rent only due at Christmas then last past and no more saving to Philippa all former Rents and Arrears thereof to be received by her and not by Mr. Brook and to be imploied as therein after was mentioned And upon this farther Trust that after Mr. Brooks death in case the said Philippa survived that then the Trustées should permit Philippa and her Assigns from time to time to grant sell and dispose of the rest of the Premisses and all others whereof she was seised or possessed as she should think fit and also to receive dispose of and enjoy all the Rents and Profits of the Premisses not thereby appointed to be received by the Plaintiff for her only particular and separate use and not for the use of the Plaintiff without any account to be given for the same and not to be accounted any part of Mr. Brook's Estate and that the Acquittances of the said Philippa be good discharges against the Plaintiff and the said Trustees to joyn with Philippa in the Sale and disposition of the Premisses And Philippa in farther consideration of the said Marriage agreed to pay to Mr. Brook on the day of Marriage 150 l. and to deliver him several Bonds and Securities for Mony in the said Indenture particularly named And the said Philippa in farther pursuance of the said Agreement and in consideration of a Shilling paid to her by the said Trustees did with the like assent assign to them all her Iewels Rings Mony c. and other her real and personal Estate upon Trust that they should permit her to enjoy the same to her own separate and distinct use and to dispose thereof from time to time as well before the said Marriage as afterwards as she should think fit without any Accompt and for want of such Limitation or Appointment in Trust for her her Executors Administrators or Assigns and the Plaintiff not to hinder or impeach the same and not to be taken as any part of his Estate or be subject to his Debts Legacies or Engagements And the Plaintiff covenanted that if the Marriage took effect the Trustees should quietly enjoy the Premisses and Philippa to dispose thereof without trouble or molestation by him his Executors c. and that Philippa notwithstanding the Marriage should at any time either before or after have liberty by Deed or Will in Writing by her published in the presence of two or more credible Witnesses or otherwise howsoever at her pleasure to give and dispose all her real and personal Estate Goods Chattels c. whereof she was possessed before the said intended Marriage or at any time after or any other person in Trust for her except such part thereof as was thereby agreed to be paid to and received by the Plaintiff
Witton versus Bye 45 Ed. 3. 8. 20 E. 4 13. Covevenant will lie upon the Words Yeilding and Paying If then here is a good Rent reserved the Wife who receives the Profits becomes Executrix de son tort and so is lyable to the payment It hath been held there cannot be an Executor de son tort of a Term but the Modern Opinions are otherwise as it was held in the Case of Porter and Sweetman Trin. 1653. in B. R. And that an Action of Debt will lie against him Indeed such an Executor cannot be of a Term in futuro and that is the Resolution in Kenrick and Burgesses Case Moor Rep. Where in Ejectment upon Not Guilty pleaded it appeared that one Okeham had a Lease for years of the Lands in question who dyed Intestate which Lease his Wife assigned by parol to Burgess and then she takes out Letters of Administration and assigns it again to Kenrick who by the Opinion of the Court had the best Title But if one enter as Executor de son tort and sell Goods the Sale is good which was not so in this Case because there was a Term in Reversion whereof no Entry could be made for which reason there could be no Executor de son tort to that and therefore the Sale to Burgess before the Administration was held void And that there may be an Executor de son tort of a Term there was a late Case adjudged in Trin. 22 Car. 2. between Stevens and Carr which was Lessee for years rendring Rent dies Intestate his Wife takes out Letters of Administration and afterwards Marries a second Husband the Wife dies and the Husband continues in Possession and receives the Profits It was agreed that for the Profits received he was answerable as Executor de son tort and the Book of 10 H. 11. was cited as an authority to prove it Pemberton Serjeant for the Defendant Ex parte Def. would not undertake to answer these Points which were argued on the other side but admitted them to be plain against him for he did not doubt but that Debt would lie upon the Contract where the whole Term was assigned and that there may be an Executor de son tort of a Term but he said that which was the principal point in the Case was not stirred The question was whether an Action of Debt will lie against the Defendant as Executor de son tort where there is no Term at all for 't is plain there was none in being in this Case because when the Lessee Re-demised his whole Term to the Lessor that was a Surrender in Law and as fully as if it had been actually surrendred and therefore this was quite different from the Case where Lessee for years makes an Assignment of his whole Term to a Stranger Debt will lie upon the Contract there because an Interest passes to him in Reversion and as to this purpose a Term is in esse by the Contract of the Parties and so it would here against the first Lessor who was Lessee upon the Re-demise but now because of the Surrender the Heir is intituled to enter and the Mother who is the Defendant enters in his Right as Guardian which she may lawfully do If therefore Debt only lies upon the Contract of the Testator as in truth it doth where the whole Term is gone the Plaintiff cannot charge any one as Executor de son tort in the debet and detinet And the whole Term is gon here by the Re-demise which is an absolute Surrender and not upon Condition for in such Case the Surrenderor might have entred for non-performance and so it might have been revived And of this Opinion was the whole Court in both points and would not hear any farther Argument in the Case the Plaintiff having no remedy at Law the Court told him that he might seek for relief in Chancery if he thought fit Harman's Case IN Covenant the breach assigned was that the Defendant did not repair He pleads generally quod reparavit de hoc ponit se super patriam this was held good after a Verdict Quadring versus Downs al' Wardship cannot be where there is no descent IN a Writ of right of Ward the Case was Viz Sir William Quadring being seised of Lands in Fee by Deed and Fine settles them upon his Son William and his Wife for their Lives the Remainder to the second Son in Tail with divers Remainders over The Grandfather dyes the Father and Mother dyes the eldest Son dyes without Issue and so the Land came to the second Son The Plaintiff intitles himself as Guardian in Socage to the Wardship both of the Person and Lands of the Infant whom the Defendant detained and Serjeant Newdigate for him demurred because where there is no descent there can be no Wardship for the second Son is in by purchase and not by descent for here is no mention of the Reversion in Fee and therefore it may be intended that it was conveyed away and besides if it should be intended to continue to Sir William Quadring the Grandfather after this Settlement yet it cannot be thought to descend to the Ward because 't is not said who was Heir for though it be said that the Father of the Ward was Son to Sir William yet 't is not said Son and Heir and of that Opinion was the whole Court in both points for there must be a descent or else there can be no Wardship and it doth not appear that any descent was here because 't is not said that the Reversion did descend nor who was Heir to Sir William which the Plaintiff perceiving prayed leave to amend and it was granted In this Case it was said at the Bar that one might be a Ward in Socage though he be in by Purchase for the Guardian is to have no profit but is only a Curator to do all for the benefit of the Ward and so there need be no descent as is necessary in the Case of a Ward in Chivalry for that being in respect of the Tenure the Guardian is to have profit The Lord Chief Iustice North said Nota. he knew where there was some doubt of the sufficiency of the Guardian in Socage that the Court of Chancery made him give good Security Harding versus Ferne. IN an Action of Assault Battery and Imprisonment Antea Anonymus 'till the Plaintiff had paid 11 l. 10 s. The Defendant pleads and justifies by reason of an Execution and a Warrant thereupon for 11 l. and doth not mention the 10 s. And upon demurrer for this Cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff upon the first opening because it appeared the Defendant took more than was warranted by the Execution Ellis versus Yarborough Sheriff of Yorkshire IN an Action of Escape the Plaintiff sets forth that the Defendant Arrested a Man upon a Latitat directed to him at the Suit of the Plaintiff Case lies not against
upon complaint made and Conviction he shall forfeit 500 l. so that as to himself whatever he doth in his Office is void but it was never the intent of the Act to work a Mischief or Wrong to Strangers for the Law favours what is done by one in reputed authority as if a Bishop be created who upon a Presentation made admits a Parson to a Benefice or collates by Lapse the former Bishop not being deprived or removed such acts are good and not to be avoided Cro. Eliz 699. Cro Car. 97. 2 Cro. 260. But admitting it to be an Error it cannot now be assigned for such because the Parties in Pleading have allowed the proceedings to be good upon Record and there is Iudgment against the Defendant but if he had been taken upon that Iudgment he might have brought an Action of false Imprisonment 2 Cro. 359. Cro. Eliz. 320. Wild Iustice You shall not assign that for Error which you might have pleaded especially having admitted it by pleading and one Musgrave's Case was cited which was that there is an Act of Parliament which lays a Tax upon all Law proceedings and makes them void if the Kings Duty be not paid and it was adjudged That if the Duty was not paid but admitted in pleading you shall not afterwards alledge what before was admitted viz. That the Duty was not paid Vpon a Writ of Error in Parliament it cannot be assigned for Error that the Chief Iustice of the Kings-Bench had not taken this Oath the same might be also of a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber for an Error in Fact cannot be there assigned Sid. 253. but at the last the Iudgment was Reversed See the Reasons thereof by the Chief Iustice Jones in his Reports folio 81. Higginson versus Martin in C. B. IN an Action of Trespass and false Imprisonment If Cause of Action doth not arise within the Jurisdiction tho' Judgment is given below an Action will lie here the Defendant justifies by Process issuing out of the Court of Warwick upon a Iudgment obtained there and sets forth that there was a Plaint there entered in placito transgressionis to which the Defendant appeared super quo taliter processum fuit that Iudgment was given against him upon which he was taken and Imprisoned The Plaintiff replies That the Cause of Action did not arise within the Iurisdiction of that Court. The Defendant rejoyns that the Plaintiff is now estopped to say so for that the Declaration in the Inferiour Court against the now Plaintiff did alledge the cause of Action to be infra jurisdictionem of the Court to which he pleaded and Iudgment was given against him The Plaintiff demurrs And Newdigate Serjeant took Exceptions to the Plea 1. Ex parte Quer. 'T is said a Plaint was entered in placito transgressionis but 't is not said what kind of Trespass it was whether a clausum fregit or other Trespass 2. 'T is said that the Defendant appeared super quo taliter processum fuit that Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Antea and no mention was made of any Declaration and the pleading taliter processum est in an Inferiour Court is not good 3. The Iustification is ill because the Inferiour Court had no Iurisdiction and so the Proceedings are coram non Judice for the Plaintiff in his Replication saith That the Trespass for which the Recovery was had in the Court of Warwick Moor 422. Latch 180. Cro. Jac. 184. was done at a place out of the Iurisdiction of the Court which the Defendant hath admitted by relying on his Plea by way of Estoppel 4. It did not appear by what Authority the Court at Warwick was held whether by Grant or Prescription These Exceptions were answered by Serjeant Hopkins Ex parte Def. and first he said That the Plaintiff there sets forth that levavit quandam querelam in placito transgressionis which was well enough Secondly taliter processium fuit is the shorter and better way of Pleading and therefore in a Scire Facias nothing is recited but the Iudgment 't is true in a Writ of Error the whole Record must be set out but that is not necessary here Thirdly 't is too late now to question the Iurisdiction of the Inferiour Court after the Party hath admitted it below he ought first to have pleaded to the Iurisdiction but now is Estopped by his own admittance there and since Iudgment is given upon it 't is not now to be questioned but however this being in the Case of an Officer if it was out of the Iurisdiction he is bound to execute the Process of the Court and so this is a good excuse for him Dyer 61. 10 Co. 77. But let the Pleadings be good or bad if the Declaration here be ill the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgment and that it was so he said that the Writ alledged an Imprisonment generally but the Count an Imprisonment donec he paid 5 l. 10 s. which is variant and the Prothonotaries said that the Writ used always to mention donec c. Curia But the Court were all of Opinion that the Count was well enough for there was no matter therein contained which was not in the Writ the Imprisonment was the Gist of the Action and the donec c. might have been given in Evidence because 't is only an aggravation and a consequence of the Imprisonment so that the Count is not larger but more particular than the Writ And as to the two first Exceptions the Court was also of Opinion that there was no difficulty in them or in the last Exception but thought the Plea was well enough as to those And they also agreed that the Officer in this Case was to be discharged for though the Process be erronious yet he is to obey and not to examine 2 Cro. 3. Weaver versus Clifford The great doubt in this Case was upon the third Exception as to the point of Iurisdiction Sid. 151. Latch 181. and whether the other Defendant who was the Plaintiff below should be likewise discharged was the Question And as to that the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustice were of Opinion That this was no good justification as to the Plaintiff below for if the cause of Action did arise without the Iurisdiction of which he is bound to take notice the proceedings quoad him are all coram non Judice and he cannot justifie the serving of any Process so that if the Trespass was done out of the Iurisdiction of the Court the Defendant below may bring an Action against the Plaintiff and is not concluded here by the proceedings there but may alledge the cause of Action to arise out of the Iurisdiction and as to his being Estopped by admitting of the Iurisdiction below that cannot be because an admittance cannot give the Court a Iurisdiction where it had none originally and so he said it was resolved in one Squib's Case in a
is not like the Case at the Barr where 't is not a Stranger but the Obligee himself that must procure the Conveyance for 't is to be advised by his Council and to be done at his Costs and therefore in * 5 Co. 23. Lamb's Case it was held that if a Man be bound to give such a Release before such a day as the Iudge of the Admiralty shall direct there 't is no Plea to say that he appointed none for the Iudge being a Stranger to the Condition 1 Roll. Abr. 452. lit L. placito 6. the Defendant is to apply himself to him having undertaken to perform it at his peril which is the same Resolution with Moor's Case in Crook So that he took it for a Rule in all Cases that where the Act of God or of the Obligée discharges the Obligor from one part of a disjunctive Obligation that the Law discharges him of the other and therefore prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Dyer 361. Ex parte Quer. Serjeant Pemberton contra It appears that one thing or the other was to be done in this Case for if the Plaintiff demanded and tendred an Annuity the Defendant was to seal it and if he did not tender it then likewise the Defendant was to do something viz. to pay 300 l. So that the Plaintiff was either to have the Annuity or the Mony He agreed that where the Obligor hath the Election if in such Case the Obligée shall wilfully determine it that the Bond is thereby discharged But if a Stranger take away the Election 't is no discharge for in such case the other part is to be performed In this case the Plaintiff hath done no wilful Act to determine the Defendants Election but all which is pretended is that he hath not done something necessary to be performed which is that he hath not made a request But by his omission thereof the Defendants Election is not taken away for though no request was made within the six Months yet the Defendant might have prepared a Grant of the Annuity himself and have offered it to the Plaintiff within the six Months upon the last part of the day and if he had thus set forth his case and alledged that the Plaintiff made no request nor tendered him a Grant of the Annuity to Seal this had been a good performance of the Condition for he had done that which was the substance which though it was to be done at the Plaintiffs charge yet the Defendant might have brought an Action for so much Mony by him laid to the use of the other and the Cases put in the principal Case in Moor 645. are expressly for the Plaintiff in this Case where the Iudgment was That if there be a Statute with a Defeazance to make such Conveyance as the Council of the Conusee shall direct the Cognisor must prepare the Conveyance if the other doth not and there is a Case put where a thing was to be done at the Costs of the Plaintiff yet the Defendant did it at his own Charge which he recovered of the other North Chief Iustice Judgment and the whole Court were of Opinion that the Plea was good because the Defendant had the benefit of Election and the Plantiff not making the request within the six Months had dispensed with one part of the Condition and the Law hath discharged the Defendant of the other part and they relied upon the Case of Grenningham and Ewre which they held to be good Law and an Authority express in the very point In this Case the Obligee was to do the first act Viz. To make the request Where the Condition is single concilium non dedit advisamentum is a good Plea to discharge the Defendant so here the Condition is but single as to the Defendant for though it be disjunctive yet the Plaintiff hath taken away the benefit of Election from the Obligor of doing the one and therefore he shall be excused from doing the other The Pleading as alledged by the Council of the Plaintiff would not have been a good performance of the Condition for if one be bound to Convey as the Council of the other shall advise and he makes the Conveyance himself this is not such a Deed as was intended by the Parties and so no performance of the Condition But however the Defendant need not plead it for he is not bound so to do Here if the Plaintiff had requested the Sealing of such a Grant of an Annuity even the Defendant had liberty either to execute it or to pay the 300 l. and where the Election is on the Obligors part neither the act or neglect of the Obligee shall take it away from him for it would be unreasonable that the Obligee should have his choice either to accept of the Annuity or the 300 l. when 't is a known Rule That all Conditions where there is a Penalty in the Bond are made in favour and for the benefit of the Obligor and the 300 l. in this case to be paid upon the refusal of the Defendant to make such Grant is in the nature of a Penalty to enforce him to do it The principal Case in Moor 645. was agreed to be Law but the Rule there put was denied as not adequate to the present Case which was that if by the Act of God or of the Party or through default of a Stranger it becomes impossible for the Obligor to do one thing in a disjunctive Condition he is notwithstanding bound to do the other This is true only as to the last Case but not to the two first and for an Authority * 5 Co Laughter's Case was full in the Point which is that when a Condition consists of two parts in the disjunctive and both are possible at the time of the Bond made and afterwards one becomes impossible by the Act of God or of the Party the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Smith versus Tracy In Banco Regis Distribution shall be equally made amongst the Children of the whole and half Blood Mod. Rep. 209. Jones 93. 1 Ventris 307 IN a Prohibition The Case was A Man dies intestate having three Brothers of the whole Blood and a Brother and Sister of the half Blood and the Question was whether they shall be admitted to a distribution in an equal degreé Mr. Holt argued that they were all in aequali gradu because before the Act of Distribution the Ordinary had power to compel the Administrator to give and allot filial Portions to the Children of the deceased out of his Estate And by the Civil Law such provision is made for the Children of the Intestate that the Goods which either the Father or Mother brought to each other at the Marriage shall not remain to the Survivor but the use and occupation of them only during Life for the Property did belong to the Children
and yet it was objected that there he was a Iudge Quaere Brook 204. March 117. for which Reasons he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Curia But the whole Court were of Opinion that the bringing of this Action was a greater Offence that fining of the Plaintiff and committing of him for Non-payment and that it was a bold attempt both against the Government and Iustice in general The Court at the Old-Bayly had Iurisdiction of the Cause and might try it and had power to punish a Misdemeanour in the Iury they thought it to be a Misdemeanour in the Iury to acquit the Prisoners which in truth was not so and therefore it was an Error in their Iudgments for which no Action will lie How often are Iudgments given in this Court reversed in the Kings Bench And because the Iudges have been mistaken in such Iudgments must that needs be against Magna Charta the Petition of Right and the Liberties of the Subject These are mighty words in sound but nothing to the Matter There hath not béen one Case put which carries any resemblance with this those of Iustices of the Peace and Mayors of Corporations are weak instances neither hath any Authority been urged of an Action brought against a Iudge of Record for doing any thing quatenus a Iudge That Offences in Iury-men may be punished without Presentment is no new Doctrin as if they should either eat or drink before they give their Verdict or for any contempt whatsoever but 't is a new Doctrin to say that if a Fine be set on a Iury-man at the Old-Bayly he hath no remedy but to pay it for a Certiorari may be brought to remove the Order by which it was imposed and it may be discharged if the Court think fit As to what hath been Objected concerning the Liberty of the Subject that is abundantly secured by the Law already a Iudge cannot impose upon a Iury for giving their Verdict contrary to Evidence if he doth any thing unjustly or corruptly complaint may be made to the King in whose Name Iudgments are given and the Iudges are by him delegated to do Iustice but if there be Error in their Iudgments as here 't is void and therefore the Barons of the Exchequer might refuse to issue Process upon it and there needs no Writ of Error for the very Estreats will be vacated Though the Defendants here acted erroneously yet the contrary Opinion carried great colour with it because it might be supposed very inconvenient for the Iury to have such liberty as to give what Verdicts they please so that though they were mistaken yet they acted judicially and for that Reason no Action will lie against the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly The Case of the Warden of the Fleet. COmplaint was made by Serjeant Turner on the part of the Parishioners of St. Brides London against the Warden of the Fleet and his Prisoners for that he suffered several of them to be without the Walls of his Prison in Taverns and other Houses adjoyning to the Prison and fronting Fleet-Ditch where they committed Disorders and when the Constable came to keep the Peace and to execute a Warrant under the Hand and Seal of a Iustice of Peace they came in a tumultuous manner and hindered the execution of Iustice and rescued the Offenders and often beat the Officers the Warden often letting out 20 or 30 of his Prisoners upon any such occasion to inflame the Disorder It was prayed therefore That this Court to which the Prison of the Fleet doth immediately relate might give such Directions to the Warden that these Mischiefs for the future might be prevented and that the Court would declare those Houses out of the Prison to be subject to the Civil Magistrate The Court were all of Opinion but Iustice Atkins Curia who doubted that nothing can properly be called the Prison of the Fleet which is not within the Walls of the Prison and that the Warden cannot pretend an exemption from the Authority of the Civil Magistrate in such places as are out of the Prison Walls though Houses may be built upon the Land belonging to the Fleet for the preservation of the Kings Peace is more to be valued than such a Private Right But Iustice Atkyns said if such places were within the Liberties of the Fleet he would not give the civil Magistrate a Iurisdiction in prejudice of the Warden but thought it might be fit for the Court to consider upon what reason it was that the Warden of the Fleet applied such Houses to any other uses than for the benefit of the Prisoners whereupon the Court appointed the Prothonotaries to go thither and give them an account of the matter and they would take farther Order in it St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey Church in Southwark In Scaccario Rate for Building a Church shall be set by the Parishioners Jones 89. Mod. Rep. 236. IN a Prohibition it was the Opinion of the whole Court That if a Church be so much out of Repair that 't is necessary to pull it down and that it cannot be otherwise repaired that in such case upon a general warning or notice given to the Parishioners much more if there be notice given from House to House the major part of the Parishioners then present and meeting according to such notice may make a Rate for pulling down of the Church to the Ground and Building of it upon the old Foundation and for making of Vaults where they are necessary as they were in this Church by reason of the springing Water and though the Rate be higher than the Mony paid for doing all this yet 't is good and the Churchwardens are chargeable for the Overplus they not being able to compute to a Shilling That if any of the Parishioners refuse to pay their Proportion according to the Rate they may be Libelled against in the Spiritual Court and if the Libel alledge the Rate to be pro reparatione Ecclesiae generally though in strictness Ecclesia contains both the Body and Chancel of the Church yet by the Opinion both of the Court of Common Pleas and of the Exchequer It shall be intended that the Rate was only for the Body of the Church but in this Case it was made appear clearly that the Rate was only for the Body and that the Minister was at the charge of the Chancel And both Courts agreed That when a Prohibition is moved and desired on purpose to stop so good a Work as the Building a Church the Court will not compel the Parties to take Issue upon the Suggestion when upon examination they find it to be false and therefore will not grant a Prohibition for if the Rate be unduly imposed the Party grieved hath a Remedy in the Spiritual Court or may Appeal if there be a Sentence against him The Bishop or his Chancellor cannot set a Rate upon a Parish but it must be done by the Parishioners themselves
Ex parte Def. Mr. Holt contra held that the Estate is not determined but had a continuance still In his Argument he considered these four things 1. Whether upon Dr. Vossius's coming into England being under the displeasure of the Government where he was born he was an Exile And he held that he was an Exile which Word in plainness of Speech doth not only concern a person prohibited to live in his Native Country by act of State but one who leaves his Country upon other occasions and Calvin the Civilian in his Lexicon tells us That an Exile is one qui extra solum habitat and in all the descriptions of exilium 'tis divided into voluntary and involuntary Plutarch and Livy use it in the sense of a voluntary leaving of a Native Country where 't is said of Petrellus in voluntarium profectus est exilium If a Man leaves his Country upon the displeasure of the Governours or fearing any Danger of Life or even upon the Loss of his Livelyhood this is little different from involuntary Exile and this is the Case of the Defendant who though he is not prohibited to continue in such Exile yet he is disabled to return and though he is not punished for staying yet if he return he is in danger of being starved As for the Case of exilium de hominibus it makes for the Defendants purpose for in the 1 Inst 53. b. 't is said if Tenants be impoverished that is an Exilium and have not the States taken away the Doctors Livelyhood and impoverished him as much as they can and therefore he had good cause to seek relief elsewhere Now the same cause continues still for 't is not found by the special Verdict that there was any reconciliation betwéen the States and him or that he may have his Pension again if he should return but on the contrary that 't is disposed of to another and 't is apparent that there was a great Friendship between the Testator and the Defendant who took notice of the Circumstances of Dr. Vossius's condition at that time which is in no sort altered from what it was at the time of the making of the Will so that by the Word restored nothing else could be intended by Dr. Brown than when his Friend should have the favour of the States and a comfortable subsistence in his own Country 2. Dr. Vossius is not to be considered with any relation to the War because he came into England before the War proclaimed neither doth it appear by the special Verdict that he was any wise concerned in it If a Subject of England go into Holland and a War break out 't is no restraint of his person if he be not active in it for he may return as he hath opportunity so to do 3. Admitting Dr. Vossius to be concerned in the War yet the Peace ensuing can be no Restitution of him to his Country that only extinguishes the Hostility between the two Nations and doth not restore the Doctor who during the War adhered to the King of England and so was a Rebel to the States and for that reason a Peace shall not extend to pardon him 4. Admitting the Doctor to be no Exile then the Limitation in the Will is void and a void Limitation is like a void Condition and then the Estate is absolute in him if it had been a Condition precedent as a Devise to him in case he was not an Exile that had prevented the vesting of the Estate but if the subsequent Limitation be impossible they must shew on the other side that the Estate is determined Rainsford Chief Iustice was clear of Opinion that the Estate doth continue in the Defendant by this Limitation until the Circumstances of his Case as to the Favour of the States and the offer of his Pension or some competent way of Livelyhood differ from what they did at the time of the making of the Will and it doth not appear that there was any alteration of his Condition nor any expectation of a Pension from the States now more than he had at that time Whereupon in Michaelmas-Term following Iudgment was given for the Defendant Vossius by the Opinion of the whole Court of King's Bench. Strangford versus Green IN an Action on the Case for Non-performance of an Award Award that all Suits shall cease amounts to a Release the Defendant having in behalf of himself and his Partner referred all Differences and Controversies between the Plaintiff and them to Arbitrators and promised to perform their Award which was that all Suits which are prosecuted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant shall cease and that he shall pay the Plaintiff so much c. And for Non-payment this Action was brought upon this special Declaration to which the Defendant did demurr 2 Cro. 639 663 1. Because the Submission was only of Matters concerning the Partnership and the Award was that all Suits shall cease 2. It was of all Matters between the Plaintiff and the Partner and the Award is that all Suits prosecuted against the Defendant only shall cease 3. The Award is not mutual for the Defendant is to pay Mony but the Plaintiff is to give no Release 't is only said that all Suits shall cease 4. The other Partner is not made a Party to the Submission 2 Cro. 663. But these Exceptions were not allowed for no difference shall be intended but what concerned the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the Defendant was concerned with his Partner in Trade only unless the contrary did appear and if any such were they should be shewn on the other side And it shall be intended likewise that all Suits shall cease only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that was an Award on both sides for the awarding that all Suits shall cease hath the effect of a Release and the Submission and Award may be pleaded in discharge as well as a Release and likewise the Defendant may undertake for his Partner and having engaged for him and promised that he should perform the Award on his part notwithstanding the Partner is not bound so to do yet if he refuse 't is a Breach of the Defendants promise and so the Plaintiff had Iudgment upon the first Argument Sir John Shaw against a Burgess of Colchester THIS was upon a Tryal at the Barr wherein the Case was this viz. The Plaintiff was a Serjeant at Law and Recorder of Colchester and the Defendants resolving to turn him out procured Articles of Misdemeanour to be drawn against him and then all who had liberty to vote proceeded to vote for and against him and a Poll was granted to decide the Controversie it not appearing upon the View which had the Majority of Votes but before the Plaintiff had taken all the Names and whilst he was taking of the Poll the Defendants took away the Paper and would not suffer him to proceed the Iury gave him 300 l. damages
of a Bond was that the Defendant should shew the Plaintiff a sufficient discharge of an Annuity who pleaded that he tendered a good and sufficient discharge in general without setting it forth it was not good Mod. Rep. 67. 3. The Plea is that the Indenture had the usual Covenants but doth not set them forth and for that cause 't is also too general In 26 H. 8. 1. The Condition was for the performance of Covenants one whereof was that he should make such an Estate to the Plaintiff as his Council should advise The Defendant pleaded that he did make such Conveiance as the Council of the Plaintiff did advise and the Plea was held ill and too general because he shewed not the Nature of the Conveyance and yet performance was pleaded according to the Covenant But notwithstanding these Exceptions the whole Court were of Opinion that this Plea was good for if the Defendant had set forth the whole Deed verbatim yet because the Lands are in Jamaica and the Covenants are intended such as are usual there the Court cannot judge of them but they must be tried by the Iury. He hath set forth that the Conveyance was by a Deed of Bargain and Sale which is well enough and so it had been if by Grant because the Lands lying in Jamaica pass by Grant and no Livery and Seisin is necessary if any Covenants were unreasonable and not usual they are to be shewed on the other side And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Spring versus Eve Verdict cures the misrecital of the time of the Session of Parliament DEBT upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 4. by the Sheriff for his Fées for serving of an Execution After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in an arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Pemberton because the time of holding the Parliament was mis-recited being mistaken in both the Statute Books of Poulton and Keble as it appeared by the Parliament Roll whereupon Iudgment was staied till this Term and the Court had Copies out of the Rolls of the time when the Parliament was held and they were all clear of Opinion that the time was mistaken in the Declaration and so are all the Presidents for the Plaintiff here declared that this Statute was made at a Session of Parliament by Prorogation held at Westminster 15 Febr. 29 Eliz. and there continued till the dissolution of the same whereas in truth the Parliament began 29 Octob. and not on the 15th of February for it was adjourned from that time to the 15th of February and then continued till it was dissolved My Lord Coke in his 4th Institutes fol. 7. takes notice of this mistake in the printed Books But the Court were all of Opinion Curia that though it was mistaken and ought to have been otherwise yet being after * Dyer 95. Yelvert 127. 2 Cro. 111. pl. 9. Br. Abr. tit Parl. 87. Verdict 't is well enough and the rather because this is a particular Act of Parliament and so they are not bound to take notice of it and therefore if it be mistaken the Defendant ought to have pleaded Nul tiel Record but since he hath admitted it by Pleading they will intend that there is such a Statute as the Plaintiff hath alledged and they could not judicially take notice of the contrary The Serjeant perceiving the Opinion of the Court desired time to speak to it being a new Point and told the Court that they ought to take notice of the Commencement of private Acts which the whole Court denyed And the Chief Iustice said that they were not bound to take notice of the Commencement of a general Act for the Court was only to expound it and though this had not been in the Case of a particular Act where 't is clear the Defendant ought to plead Nul tiel record yet being after Verdict 't is well enough because the Party took no benefit of it upon the Demurrer and because of the multiplicity of Presidents which run that way So in the Case upon the Statute of Tythes though it be mistaken yet it hath often been held good as if an Action be brought upon that Statute for not setting out of Tythes declaring quod cum quarto die Novembris anno secundo Edw. 6. It was Enacted c. and the Parliament began 1 Ed. 6. and was continued by Prorogation until 4 Novembris yet this hath often been held good and Multitudo errantium tollit peccatum And though in this Case the Parliament was adjourned but in that upon the Statute of Ed. 6. it was prorogued yet the Chief Iustice said that as to this purpose there was but little difference between an Adjournment and a Prorogation for an Adjournment is properly where the House adjourn themselves and a Prorogation is when the King adjourns them But Iustice Atkins doubted whether the Court ought not to take notice of the Commencement of a general Act and could have wished that there had been no such resolution as there was in the Case of Partridge and Strange in Pl. Commentaries for that he was satisfied with the Argument of Serjeant Morgan in that Case who argued against that Iudgment and held that he who vouched a Record and varies either in the Year or Term hath failed of his Record But since there had been so many Authoritis since in confirmation of that Case he would say nothing against it But he held that there was a manifest difference betwéen an Adjournment and a Prorogation for an Adjournment makes a Session continue but after a Prorogation all must begin de novo and that an Adjournment is not always made by themselves for the Chancellor hath adjourned the House of Péers ex mandato Domini Regis and Queen Elizabeth adjourned the House of Commons by Commission under the Great Seal 4 Iust 7 Mires versus Solebay Servant shall not be charged in Trover for taking Goods by the Command of his Master IN a Special Verdict in Trover and Conversion the Case was this viz. H. being possessed of several Sheep sells them in a Market to Alston but did not deliver them to the Vendée and afterwards in that very Market they discharge each other of this Contract and a new Agreément was made between them which was that Alston should drive the Sheep home and depasture them till such a time and that during that time H. would pay him so much every Week for their Pasture and if at the end of that time then agreed between them Alston would pay H. so much for his Sheep being a price then also agreed on that then Alston should have them Before the time was expired H. sells the Sheep to the Plaintiff Mires and afterwards Alston sells them to one Marwood who brought a Replevin against the Plaintiff for taking of the Sheep and the Officers together with Solebay the Defendant who was Servant to Marwood did by his Order and in assistance
Profits of a Parsonage as in the Case of a Sequestration upon a Iudgment obtained against a Spiritual Person where a Fi. Fa. is directed to the Sheriff upon that Iudgment and he returns Clericus beneficiatus non habens Laicum feodum for which reason he cannot meddle with the Profits of the Glebe but the Bishop doth it by a Sequestration to him directed He may likewise retain for the supply of the Cure and pay only the residue which hath been omitted on the other side As the Ordinary might dissolve a Vicaridge endowed where the Parsonage was in the Hands of a Dean so he may sequester an Appropriation in any Spiritual Person and there is no Statute which exempts an Impropriation from such a Sequestration because 't is onus reale at the Common Law and as the Lay Impropriator may sue for Tythes and receive them as before the making this Statute 't is as reasonable since he hath the same advantage that he should have the same Charge and the rather because the saving in the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. doth still continue the same Authority the Bishop had before though the possession was thereby given to the King The Words of which are viz. Saving to all and every person c. such Right which they might have had as if the Act had not been made which must be the Right of the Ordinary and of no other person An Impropriator pays Synodals and Procurations as well as an Appropriation in the Hands of Ecclesiastical Persons and it would be very inconvenient if a Sequestration should not lie which would quicken them more than an Excommunication and it was said that in England there were above 1000 Appropriations belonging to Corporations aggregate as Deans and Chapters which could not be excommunicated and if the Bishop could not sequester then there was no remedy to repair the Chancel For which Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant But the whole Court besides Iustice Atkins held that the Lay Impropriation was not to be sequestred for the Repairs of the Chancel And the Chief Iustice said that the Repair of the Chancel was an Ecclesiastical Cause but that the Rectory and Impropriator were Lay and not to be sequestred as the possessions in the Hands of Ecclesiastical Corporations may which he did agree could not be excommunicated but the persons who made up such Corporation might And as to the Sequestration upon a Iudgment it made nothing for the Matter to entitle the Ordinary to a Sequestration in this Case because what he doth in that is in the nature of a temporal Officer for the Sequestration is like the Fieri Facias and being directed to the Bishop he is in that Case if he may be so called an Ecclesiastical Sheriff and by virtue thereof may do as the Sheriff doth in other Cases that is he may seise Ecclesiastical things and sell them as the Sheriff doth Temporal things upon a Fieri Facias but 't is to be observed that he must return Fieri feci and not Sequestrari feci upon this Writ And as to the Saving in the Statute that doth not alter the Case for if any Right be thereby saved 't is that of the Parson for the Parishioners have no right to sit there indeed the Vicar may because he comes in under the Parson So that this Case is not to be put as at the Common Law but upon the Statute of Dissolutions by vertue whereof the Rectory being in the Hands of a Lay Person is become a Lay Fee and so cannot be subject to a Sequestration if it should the next step would be that the Bishop would increase Vicaridges as well in the Case of an Impropriation as Appropriation which would lessen the possessions of such as have purchased under the Act. But Iustice Atkins was of a contrary Opinion he said that it was agreed by all that an Impropriator is chargeable with the Repairs of the Chancel but the Charge was not personal but in regard of the profits of the Impropriation which are originally the Debtor according to the first Donation That the primary Rights of Rectories are the performance of Divine Service and the Repairs of the Chancel and that the Profits which are over and above must then go to the Imprpriator and are to be esteemed then a Lay Fée but that those Duties are the first Rights and therefore must be first discharged That this Right this duty of Repairing was certain and therefore shall not be taken away by Implication but by express Words in the Act which if wanting shall remain still and the Parties shall be compelled to repair under the same Penalties as before But admitting it should be taken away yet the saving in the Act extends to the Right of the Parishioners which is not to sit in the Chancel but to go thither when the Sacraments are administred of which they are deprived when 't is out of Repair nor can they have the use of the Church which properly belongs to them because when the Chancel is out of Repair it not only defaces the Church but makes it in a short time become ruinous He denied that a Sequestration in Chancery cannot be pleaded to barr a Trespass at the Common Law for if it be said that the Chancery have issued such Sequestrations it will be as binding as any other Process issuing according to the Rules of the Common Law And he also denied the Case put by the Chief Iustice that the Lands of the Parishioners might as well be sequestred for the repair of the Church as those of the Impropriator for repair of the Chancel because the Profits of the Rectory might originally be sequestred but the Lands of the Parishioner could not and so the Cases are quite different Judgment But in Easter Term following Iudgment was given against the Defendant upon the point of Pleading which the Court all agreed to be ill 1. The Defendants should have averred that the Chancel was out of repair 2. That no more was taken than what was sufficient for the repair thereof 3. For that the Plaintiff had declared for the taking of several sorts of Grain and the Defendant justifies the taking but of part and saith nothing of the residue and so 't is a Discontinuance and the general Words quoad residuum transgressionis will not help because he goes to particulars afterwards and doth not ennumerate all and thereupon Iudgment was given accordingly Edwards versus Weeks ASsumpsit Parol discharge good before breach of Promise but not afterwards Mod. Rep. 262. The Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his Request had exchanged Horses with him promised to pay him 5 l. and he alledged a breach in the Non-performance The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff before any Action brought discharged him of his Promise And upon a Demurrer the Question was whether after a breach of a Promise a parol discharge could be good The
here for want of * 2 H. 4. 12. Bro Accompt 24 65 89. privity and because there is no contract 't is only a tort a disseisin and the Plaintiff might have brought an Assise for this Office which lies at the Common Law and so it hath been adjudged in Jehu Webb's Case 1 Inst 212. 8 Co. 4. Which is also given by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 25. for a profit apprender in alieno solo The Plaintiff might have brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant for disturbing of him in his Office and that had been good because it had been grounded on the wrong In this Case the Defendant takes the Profits against the will of the Plaintiff and so there is no Contract but if he had received them by the consent of the Plaintiff 6 H. 6.9 1 Roll. Abr. 597 pl. 5. yet this Action would not lie for want of privity 'T is true in the Case of the King where his Rents are wrongfully received the party may be charged to give an accompt as Bayliff so also may the Executors of his Accomptant because the Law createth a privity but 't is otherwise in the Case of a common person 10 Co. 114. b. 11 Co. 90. b. Because in all Actions of Debt there must be a Contract or quasi ex contractu and therefore where Iudgment was had and thereupon an Elegit and the Sheriff returned that he had apprised the Goods and extended such Lands which he delivered to the Plaintiff ubi revera he did not per quod actio accrevit which was an Action of Debt but it was adjudged that it would not lie because the Sheriff had not returned that he medled with the Goods or with the value of them and therefore for want of certainty how much to charge him with this Action would not lie but an Action on the Case for a false Return but if he had returned the Goods sold for so much Mony certain Godb. 276. 2 Sand. 344. 2 Cro. 566. which he had delivered then an Action of Debt would lie for though 't is not a Contract 't is quasi ex contractu Hob. 206. 3. Point The Iury find that the Defendant received the Profits for seven years and that the Plaintiff had his Patent but two years and do not shew what was received by the Defendant within those two years and then the Court cannot apply it But on the other side it was said by Sawyer Ex parte Quer. That this Non obstante was good for where an Act of Parliament comes to restrain the Kings power and prerogative it was always held so to be and he relied upon the Iudgment of 2 H. 7. f. 6. that the King might dispense with the Statute of 23 H. 6. Pl. Com. 502. b. Dyer 303. which he affirmed to be the constant Vsage ever since and that therefore the Law is so taken to be at this day As to the second Point both he and the Sollicitor General Winnington said That an indebitatus assumpsit would lie here for where one receives my Rent I may charge him as Bayliff or Receiver or if any one receive my Mony without my order though 't is a tort yet an indebitatus will lie because by the Receipt of the Mony the Law creates a promise and the Action is not grounded on the tort but on the receipt of the Profits in this Case As to the Objection about the finding they held that to be nugatory and idle for it cannot be intended that the Damages given were for the time the Defendant received the Profits before the Plaintiff had his Patent neither is there any thing found in the Verdict to that purpose In Michaelmas-Term following Judgment the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiffs 1. They held that the King might dispense with this Statute for the Subject had no interest nor was in any wise concerned in the Prohibition it was made only for the ease of the King Hob. 146. and by the like reason he might dispense with the Statute of 4 H. 4. 24. That a Man shall hold the Office of Dyer 203. Aulnager without a Bill from the Treasurer and with the Statute of 31 H. 6. 5. That no Customer or Comptroller shall have any Estate certain in his Office because these and such like Statutes were made for the ease of the Sovereign and not to abridge his Prerogative and that the general Clause of Non obstante aliquo alio Statuto was sufficient 2. 4 H. 7. 6. b. Moor 458 An Indebitatus Assumpsit will lye for Rent received by one who pretends a Title for in such case an Accompt will lye wherever the Plaintiff may have an Accompt an Indebitatus will lye As to the finding 't is well enough for the Iury assess Damages occasione praemissorum in narratione mentionat which must be for the time the Plaintiff had the Office and that a Patent would make a Man an Officer before admittance Steward Executor of Steward versus Allen. Demand must be made where an Interest is to be determined DEBT for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years in which there was a Proviso That if the Rent be behind and unpaid by the space of a Month next after any or either of the Daies of payment then the Lease to be void The Plea was That the Rent was behind a Month after a day on which it was reserved to be paid and so the Lease is void to which Plea the Plaintiff demurred because the Defendant did not say that the Plaintiff demanded the Rent for though the Rent be due without demand yet the Interest shall not be determined without it which must be expressly laid in the Pleading and of that Opinion was the Court except Iustice Atkyns who doubted Searl versus Long. Quare Impedit real mainpernors must be returned upon the Summons Pone and Grand Cape 2 Inst 124. Mod. Rep. 248. IVdgment final was given in a Quare Impedit according to the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 12. Which Serjeant Pemberton moved to set aside He said that at the Common Law the Process in a Quare Impedit was Summons Pone and Distress infinite which being found mischievous in respect of a Lapse it was therefore provided by this Statute that if the disturbers do not appear upon the Summons then they shall be Attached to appear at another day c. Now here upon the Attachment the Sheriff hath returned Attachiatus fuit by John Doe and Richard Roe who are feigned persons and not mainpernors for the Defendant hath made Oath That he did not know any such persons neither was he ever Attached so that 't is not only a matter of Form for he ought to have that notice which the Law requires it being so penal upon him 'T is probable this Mistake might arise from Mr. Dalton who in his Book of the Office of Sheriffs in the Returns of Writs
there hath put down these feigned Attachers for Examples sake from whence the Sheriff in this Case might inferr that they need not be real persons as in truth they ought both upon the Summons Pone and Distress and he cited a Case lately adjudged where the like Return was made upon the Grand Cape and the Iudgment set aside and of this Opinion was the whole Court and said Where the Process is so fatal the Party ought to be duly served and that the Sheriff ought to have gone to the Church and to have seised the Profits and if there be nothing to return a Nihil and though the Iudgment was given before the Term or long since yet when 't is Irregular 't is to be set aside and so it was now and being moved again the Court continued of their former Opinion The like Case was moved in Michaelmas-Term following between Fleming and Lee where the Patron Defendant was thus summoned and never appeared and the Incumbent did cast an Essoign and a Case was cited betwéen Vivian and the Bishop of London Mich. 23 Car. 2. in C. B. where the like Iudgment was set aside But on the other side it was objected that leaving due notice upon the Summons was as much as was required for the other Writs are only to give the Defendant time to plead and therefore 't is not necessary that notice should be given upon every one of the Writs for if once served 't is enough 11 H. 6. 3 4. 36 H. 6. 23. 8 H. 6. 8. Long 5 to E. 4. 26. 29 E. 3. 42 43. Doctor and Stud. 125 126. 21 H. 6. 56. But the Court were of Opinion that the Defendant having not appeared nor cast an Essoign and Iudgment final being given Curia it was reason that all the Process should be served really of which there had been no occasion if he had either appeared or essoined and therefore the Process not being duly served Iudgment was set aside Rast Ent. 217. And they held that the Essoign of the other Defendant was no wise binding to the Patron Defendant because they may sever in Pleading and so that Iudgment was likewise set aside DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Sir John Otway versus Holdips Executor c. Bond to pay 40 l. when an Accompt shall be stated 't is a Covenant and not a Solvendum DEBT upon Bond brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant as Executor wherein the Testator did acknowledge himself to be indebted to the Plaintiff in 40 l. which he thereby did covenant to pay when such a Bill of Costs should be stated by two Attornies indifferently to be chosen between them and sets forth in his Declaration that he named one Attorny and desired the now Defendant to name another which he refused and so intitles himself to this Action The Defendant pleads Non detinet to which the Plaintiff demurred But the Plea was not offered to be maintained because the Executor cannot plead Non detinet but where the Testator himself might plead Nil debet which in this Case he could not do But it was insisted that the Declaration is not good because the Mony was to be paid upon an accompt stated which not being done by the Plaintiffs own shewing 't is not yet due and this ought to be taken as penned viz. Solvendum and not an express Covenant But on the contrary it was held not to be a Solvendum but a Covenant to pay the Mony the Debt and the Duty being in the first place ascertained but if it be a Solvendum and repugnant to the Obligatory Clause 't is void 21 Ed. 4.36 As the Defendant would have it expounded it would be in his power totally to defeat the Bond either way for if he would never chuse an Attorny there could be never any thing due The whole Court were of Opinion that it was not a Solvendum but a Covenant which did not take away the Duty ascertained by the Obligation and if it should not be a Covenant but an entire Bond then it would be in the Power of the Obligor whether ever it shall be payable but be it either the one or the other the Plaintiff having named an Attorny ought to recover and Iudgment was accordingly given for him Dunning versus Lascomb DEBT on a Bond the Condition was to pay Mony when a Ship should go from A. to C. and from thence to Bristol and should arrive there or at any other Port of discharge in England the Ship going from A. to C. took in Provisions at Bristol but not to be discharged there but proceeded in her Voiage to Cales and was cast away And by the Opinion of the Court the Mony was not payable but if he had never intended to perform the Voyage it might have been otherwise 1 Roll. Abr. 142. 39 H. 6.10 Iudgment for the Defendant nisi Atkins versus Bayles AN Information was exhibited against the Defendant Outlary pleaded to an Information good being a Iustice of the Peace for refusing to grant his Warrant to suppress a Conventicle The Defendant pleads an Outlary in disability and the Plantiff demurred 1. 3 Inst 194. This Plea is not good because the King is interested qui tam c. and therefore where the Informer dies the Attorny General may proceed 2. The Statute gives power to any person to inform c. by which general Words the Disability of this person is removed But the Court held that there was no colour in either of these Objections 3. 'T is not pleaded sub pede sigilli sed non allocatur for it need not be so pleaded being in the same Court 4. 'T is not averred that the Plaintiff was the same person who was outlawed but it was answered that the praedictus makes that certain and that though the King be interessed yet the Informer only is Plaintiff and intituled to the benefit and that though he was disabled yet he might sue for the King Moor 541. Dyer 227. b. Cro. Eliz. 583. but not for himself and therefore Iudgment was given that the Plea was good Harwood Bincks versus Hilliard c. Notice where 't is agreed to be in writing must be so pleaded BY an Agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Testator of the Defendant a parcel of Lands was to be sold for 400 l. but if it did not arise to so much then they covenanted with each other to repay proportionable to the Abatement and the Defendant's Testator covenanted for himself and his Executors to pay his proportion to the Plaintiffs so as the Plaintiffs gave him notice in writing of the said Sale by the space of ten days but doth not say that such notice was to be given to his Executors or Administrators And now the Plaintiffs averred that they gave notice accordingly to the Defendant who was Executor and the breach assigned was that he hath not paid c. The
taken in Execution 1 Cro. 239. Hob. 180. Rol. Rep. 233. 2. The Promise here was not to pay the Mony absolutely but sub modo so that the Evidence did not maintain the Action and the Plaintiff was Nonsuited Nichols versus Ramsel Release of all Demands usque 26 Apr. a Bond dated that day is not released TRespass done 24 Martii 26 Car. 2. usque 26 Augusti 28 Car. 2. diversis diebus vicibus c. The Defendant pleaded that on the 24th day of April in the 26th year of King Charles the Second he paid the Plaintiff 6 d. which he received in full satisfaction of all Trespasses usque ad the said 24th day of April absque hoc that he was guilty ad aliquod aliud tempus praeter praedictum 24 Aprilis anno 26 Car. 2. aut aliquo tempore postea but leaveth out the 24th day of April and for that Reason the Plaintiff demurred because the Defendant had not answered that day for the Word usque excludes it So where Debt was brought upon a Bond dated 9 Julii the Defendant pleaded a Release of all Actions Owen ' 50. 2 Rol. Abr. 521. c. the same day usque diem dati ejusdem scripti the Bond was not discharged because the Release excludes the 9th day on which it was made But Serjeant Weston contra Though generally in pleading the Word usque is exclusive yet in the Case of Contracts because of the intent of the Parties 't is inclusive and therefore in one Nichol's Case 20 Car. 2. in B. R. Rot. 21. the Term was not named a Lease was made Habendum from Lady-day usque Festum Sancti Michaelis 1665. paying the Rent reserved at Michaelmas during the Term the Rent shall be paid on Michaelmas-day 1665. and so the day shall not be excluded So where a Man prescribes to put Cattle from and immediately after Lady-day where they are to stay till Michaelmas-day the putting them in on Lady-day and driving them away on Michaelmas-day is not justifiable in strictness yet it hath been allowed good So in a Devise the Question was whether the Testator was of Age or not and the Evidence was that he was born the first day of January in the Afternoon of that day and died in the Morning on the last day of December And it was held by all the Iudges that he was of full Age for there shall be no fraction of a day North Chief Iustice said that prima facie this is to be intended good for a day is but Punctum temporis and so of no great consideration But the other three Iustices were of Opinion that the Word Usque was exclusive and that the Plaintiff should not be put to shew that there was a Trespass done on the 24th of April and said that in a Release of all Demands till the 26th of April a Bond dated that day is not released wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trevil versus Ingram COvenant to pay an Herriot post mortem J. S. or 40 s. at the election of the Plaintiff Release of all Demands doth not barr a future Duty Mod. Rep. 216. and sets forth the death of J. S. and that afterwards he chose to have the 40 s. for which he brought this Action and assigns the Breach for Non payment The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff released to him all Actions and Demands c. But this Release was made in the Life time of J. S. and there was an Exception in it of Herriots The Plaintiff demurred and Serjeant George Strode argued that this Action was not discharged by that Release and cited Hoes Case 5 Co 70. where it was held that a Duty incertain at first which upon a Condition precedent was to be made certain afterwards was but a possibility which could not be released that the Duty in this Case was incertain because the Plaintiff could not make his Election till after the death of J. S. A Covenant to repair 2 Cro. 170. Roll. Abr. 407. But a Release of all Covenants in such an Indenture had been a Barr 5 Co. 71. a. and a Release pleaded to it within thrée days after the date of the Indenture And upon a Demurrer it was held that it being a future Covenant and not in demand at the time of the Release although it was of all Demands yet that Covenant was not thereby released So here neither the Herriot nor the 40 s. were either of them in demand at the time of the Release given and it plainly appears by the Exception in the Release that it was the intention of the Parties not to release the Herriots 2 Cro. 623. and of that Opinion was the whole Court whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff North Chief Iustice It is the Opinion of * Sect. 508 510. 2 Roll. Abr. 408. Sid. 141. Littleton That a Release of all Demands doth Release a Rent And of that Opinion was Iustice Twisden in the Argument of Hen and Hanson 's Case though it was resolved there that a Release of all Demands did not discharge a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years because such Rent is executory and incident to the Reversion 2 Cro. 486. and grows every year out of the Land but when it is severed from the Reversion as by assigning over the whole Term then it becomes a Sum in gross and is due upon the Contract and in that Case a Release of all Demands discharges a Rent afterwards due DE Term. Sancti Hill Annis 29 30 Car. II. in Communi Banco Shambrok versus Fettiplace PRohibition Prescription to have an Isle in a Church because of repairing no good cause for a Prohibition Hob. 69. The Question was whether a Prescription be good to an Isle in a Church which he and all those c. used to repair as belonging to a Mannor where he had no Dwelling House but only Land and Serjeant Geo. Croke argued that it was good and cited the Case of Boothby and Bayly where such a Prescription as this was held to be a good ground for a Prohibition Vide Moor Rep. 878. contra The Court inclined that it was not good but ordered the Prohibition to go and the Defendant to plead that it might come Iudicially before them to be argued Dashwood versus Cooper alios in Cammera Scaccarii ERror of a Iudgment in Trespass In a Negative Plea viz. That three did not such a thing it must be said nec eorum aliquis wherein Cooper and others brought an Action of Trespass against Dashwood for entring into a Brew-house and keeping of possession and taking away of 50 s. The Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiffs had committed an Offence against the Statute of 12 Car. 2. cap. 23. by which it is Enacted That all Offences thereby prohibited except in London shall be heard by two or more of the next Justices of Peace and in case of their neglect or refusal by
the space of 14 days after complaint made then the Sub-Commissioners of the Excise are to determine the same from whom no Appeal doth lye to the Justices of the Peace at their next Sessions which Commissioners of Excise Justices of the Peace and Sub-Commissioners amongst other things are inabled by the said Act to Issue out Warrants under their Hands c. to levie the Forfeitures and so justified the Entry under a Warrant from the Sub-Commissioners three Iustices having refused to hear and determine this Offence To this Plea the Plaintiffs demurred and had Iudgment in the Court of Kings-Bench and a Writ of Inquiry of Damages was Executed and 750 l. Damages given and it was alledged that the Defendant could not move to set aside the Iudgment in that Term it was given because the Writ of Inquiry was executed the last day of the Term and the Court did immediatly rise and that he could not move the next Term because the Iudgment was given the Term before the Writ of Error was brought The Attorny General therefore said that this was a hard Case and desired a Note of the Exceptions to the Plea which he would endeavour to maintain which Mr. Pollexfen gave him and then he desired time to answer them The Exception to the Plea upon which the Iudgment was given was this Viz. The Act giveth no power to the Sub-Commissioners to hear and determine the Offences and so to issue out Warrants for the Forfeitures but where the Iustices or any two of them refuse And though it was said by the Defendant that three refused yet it was not said that two did refuse for there is a great difference between the allegation of a thing in the Affirmative and in the Negative for if I affirm that A. B. C. did such a thing that affirmation goes to all of them but negatively it will not hold for if I say A. B. C. did not such a thing there I must add nec eorum aliquis So if an Action be brought against several Men and a Nolle prosequi is entred as to one and a Writ of Enquiry awarded against the rest which recites That the Plaintiff did by Bill implead naming those only against whom the Inquiry was awarded and leaves out him who got the Nolle prosequi this is a variance for it should have been brought against them all 'T is true where a Iudgment is recited 't is enough to mention those only against whom it is had but the Declaration must be against all so in a Writ of Error if one is dead he must be named and so the Iustices ought all to be named in this Case viz. that the three next Iustices did not hear and determine this Offence nec eorum aliquis Wells versus Wright In Communi Banco DEBT upon Bond conditioned Bond with an insensible Condition good that if the Obligée shall pay 20 l. in manner and form following that is to say 5 l. upon four several days therein named but if default shall be made in any of the Payments then the said Obligation shall be void or otherwise to stand in full force and vertue The Defendant pleads that tali die c. non solvit 5 l. c. and upon this the Plaintiff demurred Barrel Serjeant The first part of the Condition is good which is to pay the Mony and the other is surplusage void and insensible but if it be not void it may be good by transsposing thus viz. If he do pay then the Obligation shall be void if default shall be made in Payment then it shall be good and for Authority in the Point the Case of Vernon and Alsop was cited Sid. 105. 1 Sand. 66. 2 Sand. 79. Hill 14 Car. 2. Rot. 1786. in B. R. Where the Condition was that if the Obligée pay 2 s. per Week until the Sum of 7 l. 10 s. be paid viz. on every Saturday and if he fail in Payment at any one day that the Bond shall be void and upon the like Plea and Demurrer as here it was adjudged that the Obligation was single and the Condition repugnant The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff and the Chief Iustice said that he doubted whether the Case of 39 H. 6. 9 10. was Law Brittam versus Charnock Where the the Heir takes by the Will with a Charge he is a Purchaser and the Lands shall not be Assets DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Heir Vpon Riens per discent pleaded the Iury found a Special Verdict in which the Case was viz. The Father was seized of a Messuage and thrée Acres of Land in Fee and devised the same to his eldest Son the Defendant and his Heirs within four years after his decease provided the Son pay 20 l. to the Executrix towards the Payment of the Testators Debts and then he deviseth his other Lands to be sold for payment of Debts c. The Father dies the Son pays the 20 l. and if this Messuage c. was Assets in the Hands of the Defendant was the Question Cro. Car. 161. Cro. Eliz. 431. 833. Vaugh. 271. That it was not Assets it was said because the Heir shall not take by descent but by Purchase for the Word Paying is no Condition if it should the Heir is to enter for the breach and that is the Defendant himself and for that reason it shall be a Limitation Southcot and Stowel Antea 'T is true where there is no alteration of the Estate the Heir must take by descent but in this Case there is an alteration of the Estate from what is directed by the Law viz. the manner how he shall come by the Estate for no Fee passeth to him during the four years But this was denyed by Serjeant Pemberton for he said if a Devise be of Land to one and his Heirs within four years it is a present Devise and if such be made to the Heir 't is a descent in the mean time and those Words within four years are void so that the Question will be whether the Word Paying will make the Heir a Purchaser and he held it would not He agreed that it was usual to make that a Word of Limitation and not a Condition when the Devise is to the Heir and therefore in a Devise to the Heir at Law in Fée he shall take by descent Styles Rep. 148. But if this be neither a Condition or Limitation 't is a Charge upon the Land and such a Charge as the Heir cannot avoid in Equity North Chief Iustice and Atkins Where the Heir takes by a Will with a Charge as in this Case he doth not take by Descent but by Purchase and therfore this is no Assets Moor versus Pit SPecial Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Surrender of a Copyhold to a Disseisor whether good to extinguish the Right viz. A Copyholder for Life the Remainder for Life he in
particular Estate to support it for it shall descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen 't is not like a Remainder at the Common Law which must vest eo instanti that the particular Estate determines but the Learning of Exeecutory Devises stands upon the Reasons of the old Law wherein the intent of the Devisor is to be observed For when it appears by the Will that he intends not the Devisee to take but in futuro and no disposition being made thereof in the mean time it shall then descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen but if the intent be that he shall take in praesenti and there is no incapacity in him to do it he shall not take in futuro by an executory Devise Sid. 153. pl. 2. A Devise to an Infant in ventre sa mere is good and it shall descend to the Heir in the mean time for the Testator could not intend he should take presently he must first be in rerum natura 3 Co. 20. a. 1 Inst 378. a. If an Estate be given to A. for Life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. this is a contingent Remainder and shall be governed by the Rules of the Law for if B. dye during the Life of A. 't is good but if he survive 't is void because no Body can be his right Heir whilst he is living and there shall be no descent to the Heir of the Donor in the mean time to support this contingent Remainder that so when B. dies his right Heirs may take In this Case a Fée did vest in Benjamin presently and therefore after his death without Issue the Defendant is his Heir and hath a good Title if not as Heir at Law yet she may take by way of Executory Devise as Heir of the Body of her Father which though it could not be whilst he was living because nemo est haeres viventis yet after his death she was Heir of his Body and was then of Age at which time and not before she was to take by the Will That Elizabeth the general Heir had only an Estate for years till Benjamin should or might be of Age And so by the Opinion of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Evered versus Hone. SPecial Verdict in Ejectment wherein the Case was thus viz. A Man hath Issue two Sons Thomas his eldest and Richard his youngest Son Thomas hath Issue John Richard hath Issue Mary The Father devised Lands to his Son Thomas for Life Constructi-of Words in a Devise and afterwards to his Grandson John and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Issue Male then to his Grandaughter Mary in Tail and charged it with some Payments in which Will there was this Proviso viz. Provided if my Son Richard should have a Son by his now Wife Margaret then all his Lands should go to such first Son and his Heirs he paying as Mary should have done Afterwards a Son was born and the Question was whether the Estate limited to Thomas the eldest Son was thereby defeated And the Court were all clear of Opinion that this Proviso did only extend to the Case of Mary's being intituled and had no influence upon the first Estate limited to the eldest Son Anonymus IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor Executor of an Executor de son tort not liable at Law the Lord Treasurer and two Chief Iustices the Case was thus viz. The Plaintiff had declared against the Defendant as Executor of Edward Nichols who was Executor of the Debtor The Defendant pleads that the Debtor died intestate and Administration of his Goods was granted to a Stranger absque hoc that Edward Nichols was ever Executor but doth not say or ever administred as Executor for in truth he was Executor de son tort The Plaintiff replies that before the Administration granted to the Stranger Edward Nichols possessed himself of divers Goods of the said Debtor and made the Defendant Executor and dyed and the Defendant demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff but reversed here for an Executor of an Executor de son tort is not lyable at Law though the Lord Chancellor said he would help the Plaintiff in Equity But here Administration of the Goods of the Debtor was granted before the death of the Executor de son tort so his Executorship vanished and nothing shall survive The Lady Wyndham's Case IF Flotsam come to land and is taken by him who hath no Title the Action shall not be brought at the Common Law and no Proceedings shall be thereon in the Court of Admiralty for there is no need of Condemnation thereof as there is of Prizes By the Opinion of the whole Court of Common Pleas. Rose versus Standen Action where misconceived by the Plaintiff and Verdict against him no Barr to a new Action IN Accompt for Sugar and Indigoe the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit a quantum meruit and an insimul computasset for 100 l. due to him for Wares sold to which he pleaded Non assumpsit and that there was a Verdict against him and then averrs that the Wares mentioned in that Action are the same with those mentioned here in the Action of Accompt The Plaintiff demurred and it was said for him that he had brought his former Action on the Case too soon for if no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case on the Insimul computasset will not lye and so the former Verdict might be given against him for that Reason Ex parte Def. But on the contrary the Defendant shall not be twice troubled for the same thing and if the Verdict had been for the Plaintiff that might have been pleaded in Barr to him in a new Action Curia 2 Cro. 284. But the Court were of another Opinion that this Plea was not good and that if the Plaintiff had recovered it could not have been pleaded in Barr to him for if he misconceives his Action and a Verdict is against him and then brings a proper Action the Defendant cannot plead that he was barred to bring such Action by a former Verdict Antea Putt and Roster Postea Rosal and Lamper Ante. because where 't is insufficient it shall not be pleaded in Barr as in Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleaded another Action upon the same Bond and the Iury found Non est factum the Entry of the Verdict was that the Defendant should recover damages eat inde sine die but not quod Querens nil capiat per Breve so no Iudgment to barr him 2 Cro. 284. But pending one Action another cannot be brought for they cannot both be true If no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case upon an Insimul computasset would not lye the Insimul computasset implies an Accompt and upon Non assumpsit pleaded the Defendant might have given payment in Evidence and for that
reason the Iury might find for him 'T is true he might have pleaded Plene computavit which is the general Plea But it may as well be presumed that the Verdict was against the Plaintiff because the Action would not lye and the Matter being in dubio the Court will intend it against the Pleader he not having averred to the contrary and so they held the Plea to be ill DE Termino Paschae Anno 30 Car. II. in Communi Banco Osborn versus Wright ACtion on the Case for words Viz. The Plaintiff declares that she was unmarried but about to marry one J. S. and that the Defendant to hinder her Marriage spoke these Words of her Viz. She is a Whore a Common Whore and N's Whore per quod maritagium amisit The Iury found the Defendant guilty of speaking the Words but that she did not lose her Marriage thereby and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that these Words are not actionable being only Scolding and of that Opinion was all the Court and Iudgment was arrested Hambleton versus Justice Scroggs alios In Camera Scaccarii Serjeant at Law whether Priviledge to be Sued only in the Common-Pleas AN Assault and Battery was brought against the Defendants in the Kings-Bench to which one of them pleaded that he was a Serjeant at Law and so ought to have his Priviledge to be sued by Bill in the Common Pleas and in no other Court To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given in my Lord Chief Iustice Hales's time by the Opinion of him and the whole Court of Kings-Bench That a Serjeant at Law might be sued there and was not suable in the Court of Common-Pleas only 2. That in this Action the Defendant should not have his Priviledge because it was brought against him and another And afterwards a Writ of Error was brought upon this Iudgment returnable before the Lord Chancellor and Chief Iustices of the Kings-Bench and Common-Pleas and the Errors were argued before the two Chief Iustices at Serjeants-Inn in Chancery Lane Mr. Holt for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error Ex parte Quer. That a Serjeant at Law is to be sued only in the Court of Common-Pleas and not elsewhere because there is an absolute necessity of his Attendance there He is sworn and no other person can plead at that Bar and therefore if he should be sued in any other Court Vaugh. 155. it would be an Impediment to the Business of that Court where not only the Officers but their Servants have Priviledge In the 11th of E. 4. 2. There was some discourse about the Priviledge of Serjeants at Law where it was held that he is not to be sued in that Court by Bill but by Original but either way he is to have his Priviledge So the Servant of an Officer is not to be sued by Bill Cro. Car. 84. but he is still to have the Priviledge of the Court and so had Serjeant Hedley's Clerk in the Reign of King Charles the first The Serjeants receive a kind of Induction to the Bar and have a place assigned them and that they ought to have Priviledge the very Words of the Writ are observable Viz. mentioning a Serjeant at Law ex officio incumbit in Curia illa And though it hath been said and given as an answer to that Case in Cro. Car. That where the Serjeants Clerk was Arrested in an Inferior Court as in that Case he was there he shall have Priviledge but not against the other great Courts in Westminster-Hall this is a difference never yet taken notice of in any Book nor doth the Writ warrant this distinction 2. He shall have his Priviledge though he be joyned with another because the Action is joynt and several and the one may be found guilty and the other acquitted and it would be an easie way to oust a Man of his Priviledge if it might be done by joyning him with another who hath none 14 H. 4. 21. But the Person with whom the Serjeant is joyned may be sued in the Common-Pleas likewise so that he shall not hinder him from having Priviledge who of right ought to have it 10 E. 4. 15. Offley contra As to the first point Ex parte Def. the Court of Kings-Bench agreed that a Serjeant at Law shall always have the Priviledge of the Court of Common-Pleas against all Inferiour Courts but not against the other Courts in Westminster Hall for he may be sued in any of them A Serjeant is not like the Common Officers of the Court for they are to be attendant there and no where else but a Serjeant at Law is not confined to that Court alone he may be assigned of Council in any other Court and doth usually put his hand to Pleas both in the Kings-Bench and the Exchequer but a Philazer or Attorny of that Court cannot practise in his own Name in any other All Cases of Priviledge ought to be taken strictly And that which was cited concerning the Priviledge of a Serjeants Clerk is not like this because the Arrest was in an Inferiour Court In the 11 E. 4. 2. b. The Chief Iustice of the Kings-Bench came to the Common-Pleas Bar and told a Serjeant who he had assigned for a Pauper That if he would not come into that Court and plead for his Clyent he would forejudge him so that if he could be fetch'd out of the Common Pleas and carried to the Kings-Bench he is not confined to that Court alone In the 5 H. 5. nu 10. Complaint was made that the Subjects of the King were not well served in his Courts the Parliament thereupon Ordered that one Martin and others should take upon them the Dignity of Serjeants at Law so that it appears that their Business lies in other Courts as well as in that of the Common-Pleas 2. As to the second Point Here is a joynt Action for any thing that appears to the contrary 2 Rol. Abr. 275. pl. 4. and the Plaintiff may proceed against one in the Kings-Bench and therefore the other shall be ousted of his Priviledge if he have any in the Common-Pleas Moor 556. 20 H. 6. 32. North Chief Iustice said That he always took it to be an uncontroverted point That a Serjeant at Law should be sued only in the Court of Common-Pleas by Bill he is bound by Oath to be there and when he brings a Writ of Priviledge 't is always out of that Court and no other Curia advisare vult The Attorny General versus Sir John Read In Scaccario INformation A special Verdict was found Disability by a Statute ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office The Case was thus Viz. Sir John Read 1 Apr. 24 Car. 2. was by Sentence in the Spiritual Court divorced a Mensa Thoro and for Non payment of Alimony was excommunicated Afterwards it was Enacted by the Statute of 25 Car. 2.
as much as is required by Law 'T is true a Subject is bound to serve the King in such capacity as he is in at the time of the Service commanded but he is not obliged to qualifie himself to serve in every capacity Neither doth it appear in this Case that the Defendant was able to remove this Incapacity and that should have been shewn on the other side and all Iudges are to judge upon the Record The intent of the Statute is That if persons will not qualifie themselves they shall not execute any Office and it was made to keep Roman Catholicks out of Places but not to force them to accept of Offices of Trust in the Government and it designs no punishment for quitting but for executing of a place contrary to the Law but if this be an Offence this Information will not lie and for that 2. It was argued That if a thing be either commanded or forbidden by a Statute the transgression in either Case is an Offence punishable by Information 25 H 6. pl. 9. b. 7 H. 4. 5. but when an Act doth not generally command a thing but only sub modo the party offending is punishable no otherwise than designed by that Law as where the Statute of 18 H. 6. cap. 11. prohibits any Man from being a Iustice of the Peace unless he have 40 l. ê‘ AnÌ„ and the Statute of 5 6 E. 6. cap. 16. which makes such Bargains as are therein mentioned about buying of Offices void if such Office be forfeitable then an Information will lie but when 't is ipso facto void as in both the former Cases then 't is otherwise because the punishment is executed by the Statute it self and therefore where the avoidance is made by the Act there is no need of an Information And the Objection of impotentia voluntatis is not material to this purpose because Symony buying of Offices not subscribing the 39 Articles according to the Statute of the Queen these are all voluntary Acts yet no Information lies against such Offenders because the Statutes execute the punishment The intent of the Parliament is here declared the disability of the person makes the Office void void to all intents for the Right of Infants or Men in Prison is not saved so that admitting it to be an Offence if the Duty be not performed yet if such a qualification be requisit to make a Man to act in such an Office or perform such a Duty if that qualification be wanting the Party is only punishable by the loss of the Office The Act doth not distinguish between Offices of Trust and Profit And as to the other Objection viz. That 't is in the power of the Defendant to qualifie himself the same might as well be objected against all the Popish Recusants upon the Statute of 3 Jac. and if a Statute doth disable persons or abridge the King of their Services there is no injury done because the King himself is party to the Act but if mischiefs were never so great since they are introduced by a Law they cannot be avoided till that Law is changed 3. But admitting the Information to be good and that this is an Offence for which it will lie yet the Excommunication is a sufficient excuse it appears by the Verdict that the Defendant was absolutely disabled to be Sheriff for if he is to take the Oath and receive the Sacrament in order to it if he cannot be admitted to the Sacrament as being under the Sentence of Excommunication that is an excuse The Defendant is only argued into a Guilt for the Iury have not found any they do not say that it was in his power to yield Obedience or that he might have enabled himself they only find his incapacity and though it was a voluntary Act which was the cause of his disability yet in such Cases the Law doth not look to Causes so remote If a Man be in Prison for Debt it is his own Act for contracting it and not paying but yet an Outlary against him whilst in Prison shall be reversed because the immediate Cause viz. the Imprisonment and the Iudgment was in invitum and the Law looks no farther and so Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant But the Court were all of Opinion that this Information would lye and that the Defendant was punishable for not removing the disability it being in his power to get himself absolved from the Excommunication And so Iudgment was given against him and a Writ of Error brought c. Godfrey versus Godfrey In Communi Banco Intrat ' Hill ult Rot. 321. DEBT upon a Bond for performance of an Award Award of a lesser Sum in satisfaction of a greater and good in which the Arbitrators had taken notice of 72 l. in controversie and had awarded 50 l. in satisfaction The Defendant pleads Nullum fecerunt Arbitrium the Plaintiff replies an Award and sets it forth and assigns a Breach to which the Defendant demurred because it appeared by the Award that 72 l. was in controversie for Rent due and that 50 l. was awarded in full satisfaction of 72 l. and general Releases to be given but it did not appear that any other Matter was in Controversie between the Parties though the Submission was general and Arbitrators may reduce incertain things to a certainty but they cannot make a Debt certain to be less except there were other differences for which likewise this Release was to be given 10 H. 7. 4. But the whole Court were of Opinion that the Award was good Curia for that the Arbitrators might consider other Matters between the Parties neither did it appear by the Award that the 72 l. was due but in demand only and 't is unreasonable for him to find fault with his own case for he alledges that he ought to pay 72 l. and complains because the other Party is contented with 50 l. and demands no more Iudgment for the Plaintiff Wright versus Bull. Condition where 't is disjunctive 't is in the Election of the Party to have either DEBT upon a Bond for payment of 40 l. The Condition whereof was That if the Defendant should work out the said 40 l. at the usual Prices in packing when the Plaintiff should have occasion for himself or his Friends to imploy him therein or otherwise shall pay the 40 l. then the Bond to be void The Defendant pleads that he was always ready to have wrought out the 40 l. but that the Plaintiff did never imploy him and upon Demurrer the Plea was held ill because the Defendant did not averr that the Plaintiff had any occasion to make use of him and for that it was at his Election either to have Work or Mony Basket and Basket Antea and not having imployed him but brought his Action that is a request in Law and so he hath determined his Election to have the Mony and Iudgment was accordingly given for the
Anno 30 Car. II. in Communi Banco The Case of one Randal and his Wife an Administrator c. Judgment may be avoided without a Writ of Error by a Plea where the Party is a Stranger to it DEBT upon a Bond against the Defendant as Administrator They plead a Iudgment recovered against the Intestate in Hillary Term 26 27 Car. 2. and that they had not Assets ultra The Plaintiff replies that there was an Action against the Intestate but that he dyed before Iudgment and that after his death Iudgment was obtained and kept on foot per fraudem The Defendant traversed the Fraud but did not answer the death of the Intestate and upon a Demurrer it was said for the Plaintiff that the Iudgment was ill and that he being a Stranger to it could neither bring a Writ of Error or Deceit and had no other way to avoid it but by Plea and that 't is put as a Rule That where Iudgment may be reversed by a Writ of Error the Party shall not be admitted to do it by Plea but a Stranger to it must avoid it by Plea because he is no Party to the Iudgment as if a Scire Facias be brought against the Bail 't is a good Plea for them to say that the Principal was dead before Iudgment given by way of excusing themselves to bring in the Body but 't is not good to avoid the Iudgment because 't is against the Record Cro. Eliz. 199. which must be avoided by Writ of Error 1 Roll. Abr. 449 742. The Court were of Opinion that the Plaintiff might avoid the Iudgment without a Writ of Error especially in this Case where 't is not only erroneous but void Hill versus Thorn IN an Arbitrament it was held by the Court Rules in an Award that if two things be awarded the one within and the other not within the Submission the later is void and the breach must be assigned only upon the first 2. If there be a Submission of a particular difference and there are other things in Controversie if in such Case a general Release is awarded 't is ill and it must be shewed on the other side to avoid the Award for that cause 3. If the Submission be of all differences till the 10th day of May 1 Sand. 33. and a Release awarded to be given of all differences till the 20th day of May if there be no differences between those two days the Award is good if any it must be shewed in Pleading 1 Roll. Abr. 257. otherwise the Court will never intend it 4. Smith and Shelbury Antea That reciprocal Covenants cannot be pleaded in barr of another and that in the assigning of a Breach of Covenant 't is not necessary to averr performance on the Plaintiffs side Staples versus Alden DEBT upon a Bond conditioned to deliver forty pair of Shooes within a Month at Holborn-Bridge to Henry Knight a Common Carrier to G. for the use of the Obligee Tender of Goods to the Man shall be a Tender to the Master The Defendant pleaded that in all that space of a Month Henry Knight did not come to London but that such a day at Holborn-Bridge he delivered forty pair of Shooes to A. G. the Carriers Porter To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred for that the Condition being to do something to a Stranger the Defendant at his peril ought to perform it 33 H. 6. 13. 4 H. 7. 4. like the Case where the Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond conditioned that the Defendant should give such a Release as the Iudge of the Prerogative Court should think fit the Defendant pleaded that the Iudge did not appoint any Release and it was adjudged no good Plea because the Obligation is on his part and he ought to tender a Release to the Iudge Cro. Eliz. 716. But on the other side it was said that a delivery to the Servant is a delivery to the Master himself and if parcels of Goods are delivered to the Porter and lost an Action lies against the Master Curia The Court absente North Chief Iustice held the Plea to be good and that such a Construction was to be made as was according to the intent of the Parties and that a delivery to the Man was a delivery to the Master whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Gillmore versus Executor of Shooter In Banco Regis A new Act shall not take away an Action to which the Plaintiff was entituled at the Commencement of the Act. INdebitatus Assumpsit There was a Treaty of Marriage between the Plaintiff who was of kin to the Testator and the Daughter of one Harris with whom he afterwards had 2000 l. as the Marriage Portion and Mr. Shooter in his Life time promised to give the Plaintiff as much or to leave him worth so much by his Will This Promise was made before the 24th day of June before this Action brought the Marriage took effect Harris paid the 2000 l. and Shooter dyed in September following having made no payment of the Mony or any Provision for the Plaintiff by his Will This Action was commenced after Shooter's death and upon the Tryal a Special Verdict was found upon the Act of Frauds and Perjuries 29 Car. 2. c. 29 Car. 2. which Enacts That from and after the 24th day of June in the year 1677. no Action shall be brought to charge any person upon any Agreement made in consideration of Marriage c. unless such Agreement be in Writing c. And that this was a bare Promise without Writing And by Wyld and Jones absente Twisden Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for it could not be presumed that the Act had a retrospect to take away an Action to which the Plaintiff was then intituled For if a Will had been made before the 24th day of June and the Testator had dyed afterwards yet the Will had been good though it had not been in pursuance of the Statute Aster versus Mazeen In C. B. IN Covenant Breach assigned did relate to three Covenants the Declaration concludes sic fregit Conventionem and good the Plaintiff declared upon an Indenture in which the Defendant had covenanted that he was seised in Fee c. and would free the Premisses from all Incumbrances in which there was also another Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and the Breach assigned was upon an Entry and Eviction by another and concludes sic Coventionem suam praedictam fregit in the singular Number And upon a Demurrer to the Declaration Maynard Serjeant said That the Breach did relate to all the three Covenants and therefore the Conclusion was ill because he did not shew what Covenant in particular and if he should obtain a Iudgment upon such a Declaration the Recovery could not be pleaed in Barr to another Action brought upon one of the other Covenants But Conyers for the Plaintiff said that Conventio is
Nomen collectivum and if twenty Breaches had been assigned he still counts de placito quod teneat ei Conventionem inter eos fact ' And of that Opinion was the Court and that the Breach being of all three Covenants the Recovery in one would be a good Barr in any Action afterwards to be brought upon either of those Covenants Parrington versus Lee. INdebitatus Assumpsit Limitation of personal Actions only extends to accompt between Merchants Mod. Rep. 268. 2 Sand. 125 127. Pl. Com. 54. for Mony had and received to the use of the Plaintiff a quantum meruit for Wares sold and an Insimul computasset c. The Defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations viz. non assumpsit infra sex annos The Plaintiff replyed that this Action was grounded on the Trade of Merchants and brought against the Defendant as his Factor c. The Defendant rejoyns that this was not an Action of Accompt and the Plaintiff demurred for that this Statute was made in restraint of the Common Law and therefore is not to be favoured or extended by Equity but to be taken strictly and that if a Man hath a double remedy he may take which he pleaseth and here the Plaintiff might have brought an Action of Accompt or an Action on the Case grounded on an Accompt But Baldwyn Serjeant insisted that the Declaration was not full enough for the Plaintiff ought to set forth that the Action did concern Merchants Accompts and that the Replication did not help it The Court were of another Opinion for that it need not be so set forth in the Declaration because he could not tell what the Defendant would plead so that supposing him to be within the Saving of the Act his Replication is good and 't is the usual way of Pleading and no departure because the Plea of the Defendant gives him occasion thus to reply But the Saving extends only to Accompts between Merchants their Factors and Servants and an Action on the Case will not lie against a Bayliff or Factor where Allowances and Deductions are to be made unless the Accompt be adjusted and stated as it was resolved in Sir Paul Neals Case against his Bayliff Where the Accompt is once stated as it was here the Plaintiff must bring his Action within six years but if it be adjusted and a following Accompt is added in such case the Plaintiff shall not be barred by the Statute Mod. Rep. 71. because 't is a running Accompt but if he should not be barred here then the Exception would extend to all Actions between Merchants and their Factors as well as to Actions of Accompt which was never intended and therefore this Plea is good and the Saving extends only to Actions of Accompt whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Astry versus Ballard In Banco Regis Principals in Execution the Bail are lyable 1 Ventris 315 THE Defendant became Bail for six persons against whom the Plaintiff got a Iudgment and two were put in Execution the Plaintiff afterwards brought a Scire Facias against the Bail who pleaded that two of the Principals were taken in Execution before the Scire Facias brought and whether the Bail was not discharged thereby was now the Question It was agreed that if five had surrendred themselves after Iudgment 2 Cro. 320. 1 Roll. 897. yet the Bail had been lyable but are not so if the Plaintiff as in this Case hath once made his Election by suing out Execution against the Principals and thereupon two are taken and in Custody Before the Return of the second Scire Facias they have Liberty by the Law to bring in the Principals but the Plaintiff having taken out Execution he hath made it now impossible for the Bail to bring them in to render themselves But Sypmson argued that the Bail was not discharged for he ought to bring in the other four or else he hath not performed his Recognizance and so it was adjudged by the Court Sid. 107. for the Law expects a compleat satisfaction The like Resolution was in this Court between Orlibear and Norris Steed versus Perryer IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment the Case was this Republication makes it a new Will viz. Robert Perryer being seised in Fee of the Lands in question had Issue two Sons William his eldest and Robert his youngest Son and being so seised he devises these Lands to his youngest Son Robert and his Heirs Robert the Devisee dies in the Life time of his Father Jones 135. 1 Ventris 341 Mod. Rep. 267. and leaves Issue a Son named Robert who had a Legacy devised to him by the same Will The Grandfather afterwards annexed a Codicil to his Will which was agreed to be a Republication and then he expresly publishes the Will de novo and declared that his Grandson Robert should have the Land as his Son Robert should have enjoyed it had he lived And whether the Grandson or the Heir at Law had the better Title was the Question Pemberton and Maynard Serjeants argued for the Title of the Plaintiff who was Heir at Law That if a Devise be to S. and his Heirs if S. dye living the Devisor the Heir shall take nothing because no Estate vested in his Ancestor so if a Devise be to the Heirs of S. after his decease the Heir shall take by Purchase for he cannot take as Heir for the Reason aforesaid By the death of Robert the Son the Devise to him and his Heirs was void and the annexing a Codicile and Republication of the Will cannot make that good which was void before if it cannot make it good then the Heir cannot take by Purchase and by descent he cannot take for his Ancestor had no Estate and therefore he shall have none Besides this is not a good Will within the Statute which requires it to be in Writing Now the Devise by the written Will was to the Son and the Republication to the Grandson was by Words and not in Writing so that if he cannot take by the Words of the Will he is remediless and that he cannot take as Heir because his Ancestor dyed in the Life time of the Testator Moor 353. Cro. Eliz. 243. Cro. Eliz. 422. Moor 353 404. Skipwith and Barrel on the other side That the new Publication makes it good for it makes a new Will in Writing and it shall take according to the Publication which makes it have the effect of a new Will 'T is true Deeds shall not be extended father than the intent and meaning of the Parties at the time of the Delivery but Wills are to be expounded by another Rule therefore though by the death of the Son the Will was void yet by the Republication it hath a new Life 1 Roll. Abr. 618. 5 Co. 68. 8 Co. 125. The Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices were of Opinion for the Grandson against the Heir at Law viz. That the Republication made it a
new Will and the Grandson should take by the Name of Son And Iustice Atkins relied on the Case of Brett and Rigden in the Commentaries where new purchased Lands passed by a Republication but a Writ of Error being brought upon this Iudgment in the Kings Bench it was reversed Anonymus In Banco Regis MR. Sanders moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court in the Case of the Children of one Collet and Mary his Wife to stay Proceedings there upon a Libel against them that the said Collet had married Anne the Sister of the said Mary They both appear and confess the Matter upon which a Sentence of Divorce was to pass whereas in truth Collet was never married to Ann but it was a contrivance between him and his Wife to get themselves divorced and the Marriage declared void ab initio to defeat their Children of an Estate settled upon them in Marriage with Remainders over by bastardizing them after they had been married and lived together 16 years The Reason why a Prohibition was prayed was because Marriage or no Marriage was to be tried in pais for that the Inheritance and Freehold of Land were concerned in this Case The Court directed that they should suggest this Matter Curia and that it was a Contrivance to obtain a Sentence of Divorce to defeat them of their Estate entailed on them and then to move for a Prohibition Smallwood versus Brickhouse THE Suggestion was Spiritual Courts are proper to determine where a person is capable of making a Will Godolph 276. that B. being under the Age of sixteen years had made a Will and that the Prerogative Court proceeded to the proof of it whereas by the Common Law a person is not capable till 17 years and therefore a Prohibition was prayed And that the Common Law hath determined the time my Lord Coke's Comment upon Littleton was cited 1 Inst 89. b. where 't is said That at 18 years of Age he may make his Testament and constitute Executors and the Age of a person is triable also in pais But the Court said Curia that the Proof of Wills and the Validity of them doth belong to the Ecclesiastical Court and if they adjudge a person capable the Court will not intermeddle for 't is within their Iurisdiction to adjudge when a person is of Age to make a Will and sometimes they allow Wills made by persons of 14 years of Age and the Common Law hath appointed no time it depends wholly on the Spiritual Law and therefore a Prohibition was denied Joan Bailies Case NOTA. One Joan Bayly being in Execution Administration was committed to the Debtor in Execution the Plaintiff dyed intestate and the Right of Administration came to her and a Motion was made for a Habeas Corpus to bring her from the Compter into this Court for that having administred to her Creditor she might be discharged but it was denyed for she could not be thus discharged because non constat de persona neither can she give a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge satisfaction therefore let her renounce the Administration and get it granted to another and then she may be discharged by a Letter of Attorny from such Administrator Anonymus Mandamus MAndamus to swear one who was elected to be one of the Eight Men of Ashburn Court it was denyed because it is incertain for it ought specially to be inserted what the Office is and what is the place of one of the Eight Men of Ashburn Court that it may appear to the Court to be such a place for which a Mandamus doth lye and though such a Writ hath been granted for one of the approved Men of Guilford yet it was specially set forth what his Office was Birch versus Lingen Trin. 34 Car. 2. in B. R. Discontinuance where amendable JVdgment was obtained upon a Bond 25 years since and in one of the Continuances from one Term to another there was a blank The Executors of the Defendant now brought a Writ of Error and the Plaintiff in the Action got a Rule to amend and insert the Continuance suggesting to the Court that it was a Iudgment of a few Terms and so aided by the Statute of 16 17 Car. 2. cap. 8. Hughes Abr. tit Costs 480. 2 Sand. 289. Moor 710. Cro. Eliz. 320 489 553 619. Cro. Jac. 211 353 528. Vpon this Rule the Plaintiff fills up the Blank and the Record was certified so filled up into the Exchequer-Chamber And Mr. Pollexfen moved for the Defendant that the Record might stand as it did at first and that the Rule was got by a trick and on a false Suggestion it being a Iudgment before the Restoration of this King and a Discontinuance not amendable for 't is the Act of the Court and for an Authority in the Point the Case of Friend and Baker was cited where after a Record certified Stiles 339. a Motion was made to amend it because day was given over to the Parties from Easter to Michaelmas-Term and so Trinity-Term left out where by the Opinion of Roll Chief Iustice that the giving of a day more than is necessary is no Discontinuance but where a day is wanting 't is otherwise But Sanders for the Plaintiff said that this was only a Misprision of the Clerk and no Discontinuance but amendable The Clerks commonly leave Blanks in the Venires and if they neglect to fill them up 't is only a Misprision and amendable by the Court and the Record being now filled up by the Rule of the Court ought not to be razed to make an Error The Chief Iustice was of Opinion That this was not a discontinuance but an insufficient continuance and an omission of the Clerk only who if he had filled up this Blank himself without Rule it could not afterwards be set aside But Iustice Jones was of another Opinion That it was such a misprision of the Clerk as was not amendable by the Statute of H. 6. since it was not the same Term and all the Proceedings being in the Breast of the Court only during the Term it ought not to be altered but left in Blank as it was for where Iudgment is entred for the Plaintiff the Court may upon just cause alter it the same Term for the Defendant but not of another Term the whole Term being but one day in Law And though the Writ of Error be returned into the Exchequer that will make no alteration for the Record it self remains still here and 't is only a Transcript that is removed thither Sed Adjornatur Anonymus TRespass for breaking of his Close The Defendants plead Power where 't is coupled with an Interest is assignable That the place where were c. the Lands of one Martin who made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff and did thereby except the Trees growing on the same In which Lease the Plaintiff did Covenant with the said Martin his
Heirs and Assigns that he and they from time to time during the said Lease should have liberty and full power to Fell the said Trees and root them up repairing the Hedges where they did grow That the said Martin granted some of the Trees to the Defendant by virtue whereof he and the rest of his Servants did cut them down which is the same breaking of the Close of which the Plaintiff complains To which Plea Mr. Pollexfen did demurr for the Insufficiency because the Defendant did not shew that upon cutting down the Trees he did repair the Hedges as by the Agreement ought to have been done for this being a limited and qualified power ought to be set forth at large and that it was a power only annexed to the Reversion and not assignable to any one else and so the Defendant hath wholly failed in his Plea he might have justified under Martin but not in any of their own Rights But the Court were of Opinion That an Action doth lie in this Case both against the Lessor and his Assignee acting under his Power and they agreed that a bare power was not assignable but where 't is coupled with an Interest it may be assigned and here was an Interest annexed to the power for the Lessor might sever the Trees from the Reversion Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Scoble versus Skelton Presciption must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee THE Plaintiff declared That he was seised of a Tenement called East and the Defendant of another Tenement called West Travallock and that he and all those whose Estate he had did use to fetch Pot Water from the Defendants Close c. Issue was taken upon this Prescription and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Mr. Pollexfen moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration did set forth generally that he was seised and it did not appear it was in Fee for if it be for Life only then the Action doth not lie because a Prescription cannot be annexed to an Estate for Life Tremain insisted that the Declaration was sufficient and certain enough for when the Plaintiff doth alledge that he was seised generally it shall be intended a seisin in Fee especially after Verdict But the Court held the Declaration to be defective in Substance because a Prescription cannot be annexed to any thing but an Estate in Fee and therefore 't is not helped after Verdict The Iudgment was reversed Putt versus Roster A Recovery in Trespass good Plea in bar to an Action of Trover TRespass for taking of his Cattle The Defendant justifies for a Herriot and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment The Plaintiff did afterwards bring an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same Cattle and the Defendant pleaded the former Iudgment in Trespass in barr to this Action of Trover and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Maynard argued That the Plea was not good because Trespass and Trover are distinct Actions and one may be where the other is not as if an Infant give Goods to one an Action of Trover doth lie to recover them but Trespass will not So if Goods be delivered to another and he refuse to deliver them upon demand Trover but not Trespass will lie and therefore these being different Actions a Recovery in one shall be no barr to the other A Formedon brought in the Descender and Iudgment thereon is not pleadable in barr to a Formedon in Remainder There is a great difference between a barr to the Action 5 Co. 33.6 Co. 37. a. Cro. El. 667. Eo Entr. 38. b. 2 Cro. 15. pl. 20. Antea and to the Right as where an Administrator sues not knowing that he was made Executor and Iudgment against him and he afterwards proved the Will and brought an Action as Executor the former Iudgment had against him as Administrator shall not be a barr to this new Action because 't is not a barr to the Right for by misconceiving his Action the former abated But Mr. Holt argued That these were Actions of the same nature and therfore a Iudgment in one was a good Plea in barr to the other Trespass or Trover lies for taking or carrying away the Goods of another and when he hath made his Election which to bring a Recovery there shall be a perpetual barr to the other In an Appeal of Mayhem 4 Co. 39. the Defendant pleaded a former Recovery in an Action of Assault and Battery and held good though one is of a higher nature than the other But the Court were of Opinion Curia Rose and Standen Antea That an Action of Trover doth lie where a Trespass doth not and if the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action that shall be no barr to him As to the Case put of the Mayhem Rozal and Lampen Antea that doth not agree with this because there can be no Mayhem without an Assault but there may by a Trover without a Trespass and though the Appeal of Mayhem be of a higher nature than the Assault because it doth suppose quod felonice Mayhemiavit yet the Plaintiff can only recover damages in both If a Man bring Trespass for the taking of a Horse and is barred in that Action yet if he can get the Horse in his possession the Defendant in the Trespass can have no Remedy because notwithstanding such Recovery the Property is still in the Plaintiff The Defendant in this Case hath justified the taking of the Cattle for a Herriot and by the Demurrer the justification is confessed to be true in fact now by the taking for a Herriot the property of the Goods was altered and wherever the Property is determined in Trespass an Action of Trover will never lie for the same but 't is a good Plea in barr and so it was adjudged here James versus Trollop Prescription for a Modus good ERror of a Iudgment in the Common-Pleas on an Action upon a Prohibition where the Plaintiff did suggest That William late Prior of Norbury in Staffordshire was seised of the said Mannor and of the Tythes thereof simul semel as of a portion of Tythes c. That the said Prior 25 H. 1. granted the said Mannor and Tythes to William Fitzherbert and his Heirs rendring Rent That the said Fitzherbert did Enter and was seised and held it discharged of Tythes that his Heirs afterwards granted two Hides of Land part of the said Mannor to S. with the Tythes at 5 s. Rent and so draws down a Title by Descent for 300 years to F. who being seised devised the same to Dorothy James under whom the Plaintiff in the Prohibition claimed and then concludes That Fitzherbert and all those whose Estate c. did pay the said Rent to the said Prior which since the Dissolution was paid to the King and his Assigns in discharge of all Tythes c. The Defendant having craved Oyer of the Deed demurred to the Suggestion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff
Case there are general Words and the same as in * 10 Co. 63. Postea Atturney General against Turner Whistler's Case yet this differs from that for here 't is granted adeo plene as the Abbot had it by those Words it doth not pass for then it was appendant but now it is in gross and if the King intended to pass an Advowson as appendant when 't is in gross the Grant is void Hob. 303. In Whistler's Case there are the Words Adeo plene as in this and the Advowson was appendant still but yet there are general Words here that will pass it Adeo plene as the Archbishop had it will not serve because he never had it neither will Adeo plene as the Abbot had it pass this Advowson because he had it in gross but Adeo plene as the King had it by any ways or means whatsoever those general Words are sufficient to pass it The King grants the Mannor and the Advowson of the Church of Laburn which is certain and by particular Name part of what follows as spectan ' to the Archbishop is false for it never belonged to him because it was excepted in the Grant of the Mannor to him but the first discription being full and certain the falsity of the other shall not avoid the Grant especially when the King is not deceived in his Title nor in the Value and when there is a certainty of the thing granted Some false suggestions may make his Grant void as if he grant the Mannor of D. reciting that it came to him by Attainder when it came by Purchase Hob. 229. Lane 11. But if the mis-recital concerns not the Kings Title or Profit it doth not vitiate the Grant 10 H. 2. 4. Sir John Lestrange's Case where the King by Office found had the Wardship of a Mannor and makes a Grant thereof reciting Quod quidem Manerium in manus nostras seisit̄ c. which was not true yet the Grant was held good because it was only to make that certain which was certain enough before by a particular description So in Legat's Case 10 Co. 113. wherein is cited the Case of the Earl of Rutland and Markham to whom the Queén had granted the Office of Parkership c. quod quidem Officium the late Earl of Rutland habuit when in truth the Earl never had it before yet the Grant was held good So also if he grants for and in consideration of Service done or Mony paid if false it avoids not the Grant because such Considerations when past are not material whether they are true or false Cro. Jac. 34. If the King let the Mannor of D. of the value of 4 l. per annum if it be more it is ill but if he let it by a particular Name and then adds Quod quidem Manerium is of such a value 't is good because the * 2 Cro. 34. Quod quidem is but the addition of another certainty so here the Advowson is granted by special and express Name but the Clause that follows Dudum spectan̄ to the Archbishop implies a mistake and had there beén no more in the Case this falsity would never have avoided the Grant But when the King had enumerated several ways by which he thought he might be intitled at last as a proof that he was resolved to pass it he adds these Words viz. as it is in our hands by any way or means whatsoever Atkins Iustice of the same Opinion Where the thing is not granted by an express Name there if a falsity is in the description of that thing the Grant is void even in the case of a common person as if he grant Lands lately let to D. in such a Parish and the Lands were not let to D. were also in another Parish the Grant is void because the Lands are not particularly named Anders 148. Heywood's Case A fortiori in the Case of the King as if he grant omnia illa tenementa situata in Wells when in truth the Lands did not lie there for this reason the Grant was void because it was general and yet restrained to a particular Town and the Pronoun illa goes through the whole sentence But if a thing is granted by an express Name though there is a Falsity in the description yet in the Case of a common person 't is good As when the Subchantor and Vicars Choral of Lichfield made a Grant to Humfrey Peto of 78 Acres of Glebe and of their Tythes Predial and Personal and also of the Tythe of the Glebe All which late were in the occupation of Margaret Peto which was not true yet the Grant was adjudged good for the Words All which are not Words of restriction unless when the Clause is general and the Sentence entire but not when it is distinct Cro. Car. 548. But in the Case of the King if there is a falsity by which the King hath a prejudice and a Falsity upon the suggestion of the Party it will make the Grant void but every Falsity will not avoid his Grant if it be not to his prejudice But let the Falsity in this Case be what it will the Adeo plene as it is in our hands helps it and though it hath been objected that these Words will not help the Grant because nothing new is granted that being done before 't is true there is nothing new granted but that which was before was not well granted till this Clause came which supplies and amends the Falsity for now 't is apparent that the King intended to pass the Advowson as well as the Mannor and therefore at last grants it be his Title what it will In all Cases where the Kings Grant is void because of any mistake in his Title 't is to be intended the King would not make the Grant unless the Title were so as 't is recited but here 't is apparent the King resolved to grant it Judgment Wyndham Iustice agreéd and Iudgment was given accordingly Wilcox versus the Servant of Sir Fuller Skipwith Replevin Justification for an Herriot IN Replevin the Defendant justifies the taking of the Cattle for a Herriot which he alledges to be due upon every Alienation without notice The Plaintiff denies the Herriot to be due upon Alienation And thereupon Issue is joyned The Special Verdict finds the Tenure to be by Fealty and the Rent of 3 s. 1 d. though the Defendant in his Avowry had alledged the Rent to be 12 s. 4 d. and the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry had confessed it to be so Suit of Court and an Herriot which was payable upon every Alienation with or without notice And whether upon this Special Verdict Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff or the Avowant was the doubt Ex parte Def. Vpon the point of Pleading Serjeant Jones for the Defendant said it had béen objected that the Avowry was ill for ut Ballivus c. bene cogn̄ captionem in
Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Naylor versus Sharpless and other Coroners of Lancashire AN Action on the Case was brought for a False Return in which the Plaintiff sets forth Case for a false Return Mod. Rep. 198. that upon a Writ issuing out of this Court to the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster Process was directed to six Coroners being the Defendants which was delivered to one of them being then in the presence of the Party who was to be arrested but he did not execute it and afterwards at the Return of the Writ they all returned Non est inventus This Action was laid in Middlesex and upon Not-Guilty pleaded the Cause came to Tryal and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff Baldwyn Serjeant moved in arrest of Iugdment 1. Except That the Action ought not to be laid in Middlesex but in Lancashire where the Tort was committed But as to that it was answered by Serjeant Turner when two Matters both of which are material and are laid in two Counties the Action may be brought in either as if two libel in the Admiralty for a Contract made at Land in Dorsetshire and for which the Plaintiff brings an Action in London against one of them it has been adjudged the Action lies in either County 2. Except The Action will not lie against the six Coroners for the Tort was done by one alone As to that it was said all the Coroners are but one Officer so if one Sheriff suffer an Escape both are liable but in this Case it had been ill to have brought the Action only against one because the ground of it is the false Return which was made by six Coroners And as to the first Exception there could be no doubt now since after Verdict 't is * Stat. 16 17 Car. 2. c. 8. helped though the Trial be in a wrong County But the Court said that Statute helps a Mistrial in the proper County but not where the County is mistaken and inclined likewise that this Action was well brought against the six for this Tort committed by one Coroner but if it had béen for not arresting the Party in such a Case it ought to have been brought against the Coroner who was present with the person to be arrested for that had béen a personal Tort which could not have been charged upon the rest Edwards versus Roberts That he did totally forbear and doth not say hucusque good THE Plaintiff declares that the Defendant promised to pay him so much Mony in consideration that he would forbear to sue him and then he avers that he did extunc totaliter abstinere c. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was now moved by Turner Serjeant in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Except The consideration intends a total forbearance and the averment is that from the making of the promise he did totally forbear but doth not say hucusque Sed non allocatur for that shall be intended And it was the Opinion of the whole Court that if the Consideration be as in this Case wholly to forbear the Plaintiff by an Averment that from the making the promise hucusque he did forbear is well entituled to an Action A like Case was this Term where the Consideration was as before and the Averment was that he forbore seven Months and being moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Baldwyn because 't is not said hucusque which implies that after the seven Months he did not forbear it was notwithstanding held good it being a reasonable time and the rather because if the Action had been brought within the seven Months and the Plaintiff had averred that hucusque he forbore it had been good enough Quaere Reed versus Hatton IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Question did arise upon the construction of the Words in a Will Devise paying 5 l. per annum 't is a Fee The Case being this John Thatcher was seised in Feé of the Houses in question and did devise them to his Son Robert in which Will there was this Clause viz. Which Houses I give to my Son Robert upon this Condition that he pay unto his two Sisters five pounds a year the first payment to begin at the first of the four most usual Feasts that shall next happen after the death of the Testator so as the said Feast be a Month after his death with a Clause of Entry for Non-payment The Testator dies the Houses are worth 16 l. per annum and whether Robert the Son shall have an Estate for Life only or in Fee was the Question This was argued by Jones Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Seys Serjeant for the Defendant And for the Plaintiff it was said Ex parte Quer. that Robert had but an Estate for Life 'T is true in most Cases the Word paying makes a Fee where there is no express Fee limited but the difference is viz. where the Mony to be paid is a Sum in gross let it be equivalent or not to the value of the thing devised the Devisee shall have a Fee though the Estate be not devised to him and his Heirs but if it be an annual payment out of the thing devised as in this Case it will not create a Fee without apt words because the Devisée hath no loss and therefore it hath beén held that if a Devise be made to two Sons to the intent that they shall bear equal share towards the payment of 40 l. to his Wife for Life the Sons had only an Estate for Life because 't is quasi an annuel Rent out of the Profits and no Sum in gross * Jones 211. Cro. Car. 157. Broke Abr. tit Estate 78. And * 6 Co. 16. Colliers Case was much relied on where this very difference was taken and allowed that paying 25 l. in gross makes a Fee but paying 50 s. per annum creates only an Estate for Life All Devises are intended for the benefit of the Deviseé and therefore where a Sum in gross is devised to be paid which is done accordingly in such Case if the Deviseé should die soon after the Mony would be lost if he should have only an Estate for Life but in the Case at Bar the Testator by a nice calculation had appointed when the first payment should be made viz. not until a Month after his decease which hath prevented that damage which otherwise might have happened to the Devisee if no such provision had béen made Vide Hob. 65. Green's Case Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that Robert had a Fée for though here is a Sum to be paid annually 't is a Sum in gross and Collier's Case was also relied upon on this side It was agreed where payment is to be made by which the Devisee can sustain no loss the Word Paying there will not make a Fée but if there
be any possibility of a loss there it will create a Fee which is the express resolution in Collier's Case Here the five pounds is payable quarterly and the first payment is to be made the next Quarter after the death of the Testator so as it be a Month after his decease if then he should die a Month before Christmas the Deviseé is to pay the whole quarterly payment at Christmas So that if he should dye the next day after instead of having any benefit he would lose by this Devise in case it should be construed that he had an Estate only for Life The Court were of Opinion that a Legacy or Devise is always intended for the benefit of the party so that 't is reasonable to make such construction of the Will that he may have no possibility of a loss And it hath been resolved where a Devise was to A. upon Condition to pay a Sum of Mony to B. and in case of failure that B. may enter 't is no Condition but an Executory Devise and that * 10 Co. 36. Mary Portington's Case was denyed to be Law in the Resolution of Fry and Porter's Case in the King 's Bench. Judgment And afterwards in this Term Iudgment was given for the Defendant For if there be a Devise to one upon Condition to pay a Sum of Mony if there be a possibility of a loss though not very probable that the Devisee may be damnified it shall be construed a Fee and such Construction hath been always allowed in Wills If A. devise 100 l. per annum to B. paying 20 s. 't is not likely that the Devisee should be dampnified but 't is possible he may and therefore the Estate in this Case being limited to Robert and charged with payments to the Sisters during their Lives doth plainly prove the intent of the Testator was that the Devisee should have an Estate in Fee simple and Iudgment was given accordingly Bridges versus Bedingfield DEBT was brought upon a Bond of Award Arbitrament Where the thing awarded is hindred to be done by the Act of a Stranger and the breach assigned was for not delivering of quiet possession to the Plaintiff of Seats in a Church The Defendant craves Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was for performance of an Award to be made de praemissis vel aliquâ parte inde and if there should be no Award made then for the performance of an Umpirage and pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award de praemissis but the Vmpire awarded that the Plaintiff should abinde upon all occasions hold two Seats quietly and peaceably in such a Church without any disturbance made by the Defendant and that on the first day of November following the Defendant should deliver up the Seats to the Plaintiff and that each should bear his own charge and by his Plea he farther sets forth that the Plaintiff enjoyed the Seats prout till the 30th day of October next following on which day the Seats were pulled down without his knowledge or consent per quod he could not deliver them to the Plaintiff on the said first day of November The Plaintiff demurred Ex parte Quer. and Serjeant Jones maintained the Demurrer and said that the Pleading of nullum fecerunt Arbitrium is not good for 't is said de praemissis only whereas it should have been nec de aliqua parte inde for if a Bond be to perform an Award of two persons or either of them it will not be sufficient to plead that those two persons made no Award without adding nec eorum aliquis But if an Award be to be made of the Mannors of Dale and Sale or either of them and the Award is made only of Dale 't is well enough 2. Except Viz. The Vmpirage is that the Plaintiff should hold the Seats abinde which is for ever and the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff enjoyed them till the thirtieth day of October 3. Except Viz. The Seats were to be delivered to the Plaintiff on the first day of November and the Defendant pleads that they were pulled down before that day without his privity which is not a good Plea by way of excuse for being bound to deliver the Seats he is to prevent what may hinder the performance of the Condition 'T is agreed that if a thing be possible and afterwards by the Act of * Jones 179. Win's Case God becomes impossible to be done that will be a good excuse as if I promise to deliver a Horse at such a day and he dies before the day I am excused 21 E. 4. 70. b. So if a Scire Fac̄ be brought against the Bail and they plead that before the Writ brought the Principal was dead this was held not good upon Demurrer unless he is alledged to be dead before the Capias awarded against him Cro. Jac. 97. But if the Action of a Stranger interpose which makes the thing impossible that is no excuse 22 E. 4. 27. And therefore 't is no Plea for the Bail to say that the Principal was arrested at another Mans Suit and had to Prison for which reason he could not render him Cro. Eliz. 815. So if I deliver Goods to the Defendant and in Action of Detinue brought he pleads they were stole 't is no good Plea because the delivery charges him at his peril unless he undertake to keep them as his own 4 Co. * Cro. El. 815. Southcot's Case So if an Escape be brought against a Goaler he is not excused by alledging that Traitors broke the Prison Roll. Abr. 1. part 808. Et sic de similibus Ex parte Def. Seys Serjeant contra As to the first Exception nullum fecerunt Arbitrium de praemissis is well enough for that implies nec de aliqua inde parte especially if the contrary is not shewn in the Replication and therefore it shall never be intended that an Award was made of some part 2. 'T is said he enjoyed the Seats till the thirtieth of October and then they were taken down so not being in rerum natura they could not be enjoyed longer 3. And this is a good excuse for not delivering them to the Plaintiff on the first day of November and so a good performance of the Award Co. Lit. 206. b. If A. be bound to B. that C. shall marry Jane such a day and B. the Obligee doth marry her himself before that day the Obligor is excused because by his means the Condition could not be performed There is a difference taken where a Man is bound to deliver things which are in his Custody and other things which are not in his possession as in the first Case to deliver my Horse or Dog for such I may secure in my Stable from casualties But in this Case it is expresly said in the Award that the Property of the Seats was in the Plaintiff and that they were fixed in the Church so that he
of the next Avoidance was not good because it was made by those who were not Head of the Corporation and it must be void immediately or not at all and Iudgment was given accordingly Threadneedle versus Lynam THere being two Mannors usually let for 67 l. 1 s. 5 d. by the year Lease by a Bishop and more than the old Rent reserved good Mod. Rep. 203. a Bishop lets one of them for 21 years reserving the whole Rent and whether this was a good Lease within the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 19. was the Question which depended upon the construction of the Words therein viz. All Leases to be void upon which the old accustomed Rent is not reserved and here is more than the old Rent reserved and this being a private Act is to be taken literally North Chief Iustice agreed that private Acts which go to one particular thing are to be interpreted literally but this Statute extends to all Bishops and so may be taken according to Equity and therefore he and Wyndham and Atkins Iustices held the Lease to be good But this Case was argued when Vaughan was Chief Iustice and he and Iustice Ellis were of another Opinion DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Thorp versus Fowle No more Costs than Damages NOTA. In this Case the Court said that since the Statute which gives no more Costs than Damage 't is usual to turn Trespass into Case Cooper versus Hawkeswel Words IN an Action upon the Case for these Words I dealt not so unkindly with you when you stole a Stack of my Corn Per Curiam the Action lies Escourt versus Cole Words IN an Action on the Case for Words laid two ways the last Count was Cumque etiam which is but a recital and dubitatur whether good Sharp versus Hubbard Six Months for proving of a Suggestion THE six Months in which the Suggestion is to be proved must be reckoned according to the Calendar Months and 't is so computed in the Ecclesiastical Court Crowder versus Goodwin Justification by Process out of inferiour Court IN Assault and Battery and false Imprisonment as to the Assault c. the Defendant pleads Not-Guilty and as to the Imprisonment he justifies by a Process out an inferiour Court and upon Demurrer these Exceptions were taken to his Plea 1. The Defendant hath set forth a Precept directed Servienti ad Claven and 't is not said Ministro Curiae 2. 1 Rol. 484. Cro. Car. 254. Dyer 262. b. It was to take the Plaintiff and have him ad proximam Curiam which is not good for it should have beén on a day certain like Adams and Flythe's Case * Cro. Jac. 571. Mod. Rep. 81. where a Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment in Debt by Nil dicit in an inferiour Court and the Error assigned was That after Imparlance a day was given to the Parties till the next Court and this was held to be a Discontinuance not being a day certain 3. 'T is not said ad respondend ' alicui 4. Nor that the Action arose infra Burgum 5. The Precept is not alledged to be returned by the Officer To all which it was answered That a Pleint is but a Remembrance and must be short Rast 321. and when 't is entred the Officer is excused for he cannot tell whether 't is infra * Squibb versus Hole antea 29. Jurisdictionem or not And as to the first Exception a Precept may be directed to a private person and therefore Servienti ad Clavem is well enough Then as to the next Exception 't is likewise well set forth to have the Plaintiff ad proximam Curiam for how can it be on a day certain when the Iudge may adjourn the Court de die in diem Then ad respondendum though 't is not said alicui 'tis good though not so formal and 't is no Tort in the Officer but t is to be intended that he is to answer the Plaintiff in the Plaint As to the fourth Exception the Defendant sets forth that he did enter his Plaint secundum consuetudinem Curiae Burgi and when the Plaintiff declared there he shewed that the Cause did arise infra Jurisdictionem And as to the last The Officer is not punishable though he do not return the Writ The end of the Law is that the Defendant should be present at the day and if the Cause should be agreed or the Plaintiff give a Release when the Defendant is in custody no Action lies against the Officer if he be detained afterwards But the Chief Iustice doubted that for the second Exception the Plea was ill for it ought to be on a day certain and likewise it ought to be alledged infra Jurisdictionem But the other threé Iustices held the Plea to be good in omnibus and said that the inferior Court had a Iurisdiction to issue out a Writ and the Officer is excusable though the cause of Action did not arise within the Iurisdiction which ought to be shewn on the other side And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Snow and others versus Wiseman Traverse necessary where omitted is substance TRespass for taking of his Horse The Defendant pleads that he was seised of such Lands and intitles himself to an Herriot The Plaintiff replies that another person was jointly seised with the Defendant Et hoc paratus est verificare The Defendant demurs generally because the Plaintiff should have traversed the sole Seisin But it was said for him that the sole Seisin néed not be traversed Sid. 300. because the matter alledged by him avoids the Barr without a Traverse In a Suggestion upon a Prohibition for Tythes the Plaintiff entituled himself by Prescription under an Abbot and shews the Vnity of Possession by the Statute of 31 H. 8. by which the Lands were discharged of Tythes Yelv. 231. Pl. Com. 230. 231. The Defendant pleads that the Abbey was founded within time of Memory and confesseth the Vnity afterwards and the Plea was held good for he néed not traverse the Prescription because he had set forth the Foundation of the Abbey to be within time of Memory which was a sufficient avoiding the Plaintiffs Title Yelv. 31. The Plaintiff therefore having said enough in this Case to avoid the Barr if he had traversed it also it would have made his Replication naught Cro. Jac. 221. like the Case of * Bedel and Lull where in an Ejectment upon a Lease made by Elizabeth the Defendant pleads that before Elizabeth had any thing in the Lands James was seised thereof in Fee and that it descended to his Son and so derives a Title under him and that Elizabeth was seised by Abatement The Plaintiff confesses the Seisin of James but that he devised it to Elizabeth in Fee and makes a Title under her absque hoc that she was seised by Abatement and upon a Demurrer the
Replication was held ill because the Plaintiff had made a good Title before the Devise to James and so neéd not traverse the Abatement The Chief Iustice held that the omitting of a Traverse where necessary is matter of substance and the concluding with hoc paratus est verificare when it should be Et hoc petÌ„ quod inquiratur ê‘ patriam or de hoc ponit super patriam or vice versa is matter of substance and the wanting a Traverse is of the same nature and here the Traverse of the sole Seisin is necessary because it is issuable And of the same Opinion were the other Iudges absente Ellis and therefore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Wilson versus Ducket TRespass for taking of his Corn Distress not good of Corn in Shocks the Defendant pleads Not-Guilty to all but 360 Sheaves made into Stacks which the Defendant distrained for Rent and Services in arrear and due to him The Plaintiff demurrs for that they could not be distreined in Sheaves A Distress of them is lawful damage feasant or in a Cart for Rent but not here Per Jones Serjeant it is naught Ex parte Quer. because nothing is to be distrained but what may be known and returned in the same condition as when taken and therefore a Replevin will not lye of Mony out of a Bag or Chest and in this Case the * Altered by Statute 2 Will. Mar. Corn cannot be returned in the same condition because a great deal may be lost in the carrying of it home 18 H. 3. 4. 2 H. 4. 15. 22 E. 4. 50. 11 H. 5. 14. 1 Inst 47. Roll. 667. pl. 17. And of that Opinion was all the Court. Curtis versus Bourn IN Wast Tenant in Common need not joyn in an Action of Waste one Tenant in Common brings an Action of Waste alone and the Question upon the Pleadings was whether he should not have joyned with his Companion and for an authority that they should joyn in this Action Scroggs Serjeant cited Rolls Abr. 2 part 825. pl. 11. where it is said that if a Reversion be granted to two and the Heirs of one of them yet they must joyn in an Action of Waste But it was answered by Pemberton Serjeant That Rolls cited that Case in his Abridgment out of the 1 Inst 53. which seémed to be the Opinion of my Lord Coke grounded upon the Authorities there cited in the Margin which he said did not warrant any such Opinion The difference upon the Books is where Tenant in Common demands an intirety the Writ shall abate and therefore in the Case of Hill and Hart Cro. Eliz. 357. where the Plaintiff had only a third part of a Reversion in Common it was held he should not have an Action of Waste alone Co. Lit. 197. b. Moor 374. because it would be very inconvenient that the third part should be delivered in Execution Co. Lit. 198. Yelv. 161. 'T is true they shall joyn in the personalty where Damages are to be recovered but they shall always sever in the realty and therefore in this Case Waste being a mixt Action and savouring of the realty that being the more worthy draws over the personalty with it and therefore the Action by one alone is good but if they had made a Lease for years then they should have joyned in an Action of Waste And of that Opinion was the whole Court Anonymus Tout temps prist no good Plea after Imparlance THE Question was whether tout temps prist was a good Plea after a general Imparlance And it was insisted for the Plaintiff That this Plea was repugnant because the imparlance proves the contrary 'T is true in an Action of Debt upon a Bond such Plea is good after an Imparlance because 't is to save the Penalty and 't is held in Dyer f. 300. Cro. Jac. 627. contra b. That uncore prist alone without saying tout temps in such case is good though Leonard the Custos Brevium and who was a Learned Man was there of another Opinion But when a single Duty is demanded and the party is intituled to damages for non-payment in such case the Plea of tout temps prist is not good And though it was objected that the difference is that the Defendant after Imparlance should not plead any thing contrary to the matter in the Declaration to which he had imparled as Bastardy to an Action brought by an Heir c. Yet the Court were all of Opinion That the Plea was not good because 't is inconsistent with the Imparlance for petit licentiam interloquendi is no more in English than for the Defendant to say I will take time and resolve what to do which is contrary to be always ready DE Termino Sancti Hill Anno 27 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Stubbins versus Bird alios IN an Action of Trover and Conversion The Defendant concludes in Abatement it shall be in his election to have it taken in Barr. Mod. Rep. 117. the Plaintiff declared for taking 600 Load of Oar. The Defendant pleads That the Plaintiff never had any thing in the said 600 Load of Oar nisi conjunctim pro in diviso with two others and so concludes in Abatement The Plaintiff replies That J. S. was seised in Fee of a Close in which this Oar was digged and being so seised he dyed after whose death the said Close descended to A. and B. his two Daughters and Co-heirs and that the Plaintiff married one of them and the other was also married and so the Plaintiff and the other Husband and their Wives were seised in Right of their said Wives of this Close The afterwards and before the Action brought 2000 Load of Lead Oar digged out of the said Close and laid there in heaps and then a Partition was made by Deed of the said Close and the Oar and 1000 Load was allotted to one Sister and her Husband and the other 1000 Load was allotted to the Plaintiff per quod he became solus possessionatÌ„ of the said 1000 Load in severalty and being so possessed the Defendant found 600 Load parcel of the said 1000 Load and converted it Absque hoc that the Plaintiff had any thing after the Partition conjunction with any other person The Defendant rejoyns that at the time of the conversion the Plaintiff had nothing but conjunction with the other as before 1. And the Plaintiff demurred Ex parte Quer. for that the Defendant ought to have traversed the Partition for though the Possession was joynt the Partition had made it several by which the joynt Possession was confessed and avoided and therefore the Traverse good like the Rule laid down in my Lord Hobert 104. in Digby and Fitzherberts Case Trespass tali die the Defendant confesses it but pleads a Release of all Actions and traverseth all Trespasses after so here the Plaintiff hath traversed the joynt possession
but if he will justifie by vertue of any particular Estate he must shew the Commencement of that Estate and then such pleading as here will not be good But when the Matter is * Yelv. 75. Cro. Car. 138. collateral to the Title of the Land and for any thing which appears in the Declaration the Title may not come in question such a Iustification as this will be good In this Case no Man can tell what the Plaintiff will reply 't is like the Cases of Inducements to Actions which do not require such certainty as is necessary in other Cases So where an Action is brought for a Nusance and he intitles himself generally by saying he is possessionat ' pro termino annorum 't is well enough and he need not to set forth particularly the Commencement because he doth not make the Title his Case for which reason Iudgment was given for the Defendant Crosier versus Tomlinson Executor IN an Action on the Case Statute of Limitations of personal Actions extends to Indebitatus Assumpsit The Plaintiff declared that the Defendants Testator being in his Life time viz. such a day indebted to the Plaintiff in the Sum of 20 l. for so much Mony before that time to his use had and received did assume and promise to pay the same when he should be thereunto required and that the Testator did not in his Life time nor the Defendant since his death pay the Mony though he was thereunto required The Defendant pleads that the Testator did not at any time within six years make such promise The Plaintiff replies that he was an Infant at the time of the promise made and that he came not to full Age till the year 1672. and that within six years after he attained the Age of one and twenty years he brought this Action and so takes advantage of the promise in the Statute of * 21 Jac. c. 16. Limitations that the Plaintiff shall have six years after the disability by Infancy Coverture c. is removed And the Defendant demurred by Serjeant Rigby Ex parte Def. and the reason of his Demurrer was because in the said Proviso Actions on the Case on Assumpsit are omitted This Act was made for quieting of Estates and avoiding of Suits as appears by the Preamble and therefore shall be taken strictly there is an enumeration of several Actions in the Proviso and this is Casus omissus and so no benefit can be taken of the Proviso In a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment brought 4 Car. 1. in the Court of Windsor the Iudges held that an Action on the Case for * Cro. Car. 163 513 535. Debt upon Escape is out of the Statute 1 Sand 37. But an Action for Escape is not Sid. 305. So is Debt for not setting out of Tithes for these are not grounded upon any Contract Cro. Car. 513. Hut 109. slandering of a Mans Title is out of this Act because such an Action was rare and not brought without special damages But Hide Chief Iustice doubted 1 Cro. 141. The Law-makers could not omit this Case unadvisedly because 't is within those sorts of Actions enumerated by this Act. This Promise was made to the Plaintiff when he was but a day old and it would be very hard now after so many years to charge the Executor Ex parte Quer. But Turner Serjeant argued that though an Indebitat̄ assumpsit is not within the express words of the Proviso yet 't is within the intent and meaning thereof and so the Rule is taken in 10 Co. 101. in Bewfages Case quando verba statuti sunt specialia ratio autem generalis statutum intelligendum est generaliter And this is a Statute which gives a general remedy and the mischief to the Infant is as great in such Actions of Indebitatus assumpsit as other Actions and therefore 't is but reasonable to intend that the Parliament which hath saved their Rights in Debts Trovers c. intended likewise that they should not be barred in an Indebitatus Assumpsit In 2 Anders 55. Smith versus Colshil Debt was brought upon a Bond the Defendant there pleaded the Statute of the 5 E. 6. of selling of Offices the words of which are viz. That every Bond to be given for money or profit for any Office or Deputation of any Office mentioned in the Statute shall be void against the Maker In that case the Bond was given to procure a Grant of the Office and also to exercise the same now though this was not within the express words of the Statute yet the Bond was held void and if it should be otherwise the mischiefs which the Statute intended to remedy would still continue and therefore the intent of the Law-makers in such cases is to be regarded for which reason if Actions of Indebitatus Assumpsit are within the same mischief with other Actions therein mentioned 2 Anders 123 150. Cor. Car. 533. 19 H. 8. 11. such also ought to be construed to be within the same remedy But he took the Case of * Cro Car. 245. Swain versus Stephens to rule this Case at Bar in which Case this very Statute was pleaded to an Action of Trover and the Plaintiff replied that he was beyond Sea and upon a Demurrer to the Replication the Court held Trover to be within the Statute it being named in the Paragraph of Limitation of personal Actions which directs it to be brought within the time therein limited that is to say all Actions on the Case within six years and then enumerates several other Actions amongst which Trover is omitted yet the Court were then of Opinion that Trover is implied in those general words Curia And of that Opinion was the Chief Iustice and Wyndham and Atkyns Iustices That upon the whole frame of the Act it was strong against the Defendant for it would be very strange that the Plaintiff in this Case might bring an Action of Debt and not an Indebitatus Assumpsit When the Scope of an Act appears to be in a general sense the Law looks to the meaning and is to be extended to particular Cases within the same reason and therefore they were of Opinion That Actions of Trespass mentioned in the Statute are comprehensive of this Action because 't is a Trespass upon the Case and the words of the Proviso save the Infants Right in Actions of Trespass And therefore though there are not particular words in the enacting Clause which relate to this Action yet this Proviso restrains the severity of that Clause and restores the Common Law and so is to be taken favourably and this Action being within the same reason with other Actions therein mentioned ought also to be within the same remedy But Iustice Ellis doubted whether Actions of Trespass could comprehend Actions on the Case and that when the Parliament had enumerated Actions of Trespass Trover Case for Words c. If they had intended
this Action they would have named it he said he was for restoring the Common Law as much as he could but doubted much whether this Proviso did help the Plaintiff But Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Doctor Samways versus Eldsly COvenant The Plaintiff declares Where Covenants are mutual and where not That by Indenture made between him and the Defendant reciting that there were divers Controversies between them as well concerning the right title and occupation of Tythes arising and renewing upon the Fréehold of the Defendant in T. and upon other Lands held by the Defendant by a Lease for years from the Plaintiff under the annual Rent of c. and concerning the arrearages of Rent due upon that demise as concerning other matters for the determination thereof the said Parties did by the said Indenture bind themselves in consideration of 12 d. given to each other to observe the Arbitration of an Arbitrator indifferently to be chosen between them to arbitrate order and judge between them de super praemissis and the Plaintiff and Defendant mutually covenanted to do several other matters That the Arbitrator did thereupon afterwards Award and the Defendant did Covenant with the Plaintiff that in consideration of the Plaintiffs sealing and delivering at the Defendants request one part of a Lease for years to the Award annexed for the Rent therein reserved that the Defendant should pay so much Mony for the Tythes That it was also Awarded by the said Arbitrator and the Defendant did covenant that he would be accomptable to the Plaintiff for all such arrearages of Rent Tythes and Composition-Mony for Tythes as should be arising and renewing upon the said Land c. according to such a value per Annum whereof the Defendant could not lawfully discharge himself And the Plaintiff avers That he hath observed all the Covenants on his part and that the Defendant hath not observed all the Covenants on his part and assigns for breach that he hath not accounted with him for all arrears of Tythes and Composition-Mony for Tythes arising upon the Lands in c. and that he hath requested him to accompt which he hath refused The Defendant pleads Actio non For he says that 't is true there was such an Indenture as in the Declaration is set forth and such a Covenant to be accountable as the Plaintiff hath declared But saith in eadem Indentura agreatum fuit ulterius provisum that the Plaintiff should allow and discount upon the Account all Sums of Mony for Parsons Dinners at the request of the Plaintiff and for his concerns laid out and disbursed by the Defendant and such other Sums which he had direction to lay out and that such a day paratus fuit obtulit se adhuc paratus est to account for all arrears of Rent c. if the Plaintiff would discount c. That such a day the Plaintiff would not and often after refused and yet doth refuse to allow upon such accompt all such Sums of Mony as the Defendant at the request and for the concerns of the Plaintiff had laid out and this he is ready to aver and then he avers that after c. on such a day he did expend several Sums of Money for the Plaintiff which were just and reasonable to be allowed by the Plaintiff upon accompt made by him To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer which was argued by Turner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Seys for the Defendant This was a bad Plea for 't is a Rule in all Law Books that every Plea ought to answer the matter which is charged upon the Defendant Ex parte Quer. in the Declaration which is not done here because the Defendant doth neither aver that he did accompt or confess or avoid or traverse it which he ought to do after the Plaintiff had alledged a request to accompt and a refusal 'T is an absolute Covenant which charges him to be accomptable and not if the Plaintiff would allow Parsons Dinners c. for 't is impossible that the Plainntiff can make any such allowance till the Defendant hath accompted for how can there be a discounting without an Accompt If the Plaintiff had told him before the Accompt that he would not allow any thing upon the Accompt this would not have been prejudicial to bart him of his Action so as it had been before the request For if a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition that if the Feoffor pay 100 l. at Michaelmas the Feoffment shall be void and before Michaelmas the Feoffee tells him that he will not receive the Money at that time this shall not prejudice him because t is no refusal in Law The Defendant in this Case is to do the first act viz. to Accompt and when that is neglected by him it shall never prejudice him who is to do a subsequent act 5 Co. 19 20. Higginbottoms Case 22 23 Hallin and Lambs Case One Covenants to make an Estate in fee at the Costs of the Covenantee the Covenantor is to do the first act viz. to let him know what Conveyance he will make The like Case was in this Court between Twiford and Buckly upon an Indenture of Covenants wherein one of the parties did Covenant to make a Lease for the Life of the Covenantee and for two other Lives as he should name and the Covenantor was to give possession The breach assigned was that the Defendant had not made Livery and Seisin and upon performance pleaded the Plaintiff did demux and upon great debate it was resolved that the Covenant was not broken because the Plaintiff had not performed that which was first to be done on his part viz. to name the Lives It may be objected that these Covenants have a relation one to the other and so non-performance of the one may be pleaded in bar to the other But to that he answered they are distinct and mutual Covenants and there may be several Actions brought against each other The Case of * Stiles 186. 187. Ware and Chappel comes up to this point Ware was to raise 500 Soldiers and bring them to such a Port and Chappel was to find Shipping for which he sued upon the Covenant though the other had not raised the Soldiers for that can be only alledged in mitigation of Damages and is no excuse for the Defendant and it was adjudged that this was not a condition precedent but distinct and mutual Covenants upon which several Actions might be brought This cannot be a Condition precedent for the Defendant pleads ulterius agreat̄ provisum est that the Plaintiff shall discompt and reimburse the Defendant and here the word provisum est doth not make a Condition but a Covenant 27 H. 8. 14 15. Bro. Condition 7. There is another fault in the Plea for the Defendant averrs that the Plaintiff hath not reimbursed him several Sums of Mony which
thing and the other side another thing was it ever imagined that upon these words Whereas a Marriage is intended c. that an Action of Covenant might be brought to enforce the Marriage And yet there is as much reason for the one as the other therefore since the Parties have neither made nor intended it for a Covenant 't is not necessary that it should be so construed If this is a Covenant the Parties at Common Law could only bring an Action of Covenant and recover damages for not levying of the Fine and that the Plaintiff may do now upon the express Covenant for non-payment of the Money but then the breach must be assigned according to the words viz. That the Defendant did not levy a Fine as intended who may plead that a Fine was never intended to be levied and by what Iury shall this be tryed It may be objected that every Article stands upon its own bottom and the Title of them being Articles of Agreement extends to every Paragraph But as to that each of these Articles is to be considered by it self and every Paragraph begins viz it is Covenanted c. which shews it was never intended to make it a Covenant by the Title of the Articles and the rather because 't is unreasonable to make such a construction for it is not to be supposed that a Man will covenant that a Fine shall be levied as in this Case by A. and B. and himself when 't is not in his power to compel another 2. Admitting it to be a Covenant yet it would be very hard to decree the execution of a Fine in Specie for the Father of the Defendant was alive when he executed the Deed and the Father being Tenant in Tayl who never sealed the Son could have no present Right who did Seal and if matters had stood now as then how could a Court of Equity Decree a Fine by which a Right might be extinguished but could never be transferred and by which no use could be declared For though such a Fine be good by Estoppel before the Tayl descends to the Issue yet no use can be declared thereupon nor upon any Fine by Estoppel and there is no reason why length of time should put the Plaintiff into a better condition than he was when the Articles were executed 3. And lastly since here is a particular relief prayed in no wise concerning the levying of this Fine but only a Relief in the Execution of the Trust this Court cannot Decree the Defendant to levy one it being against the constant course and rules thereof But on the other side it was said by the Plaintiffs Council that the words do declare the intent of the Parties Ex parte Quer. that a Fine shall be levied and 't is the Intent which makes the Agreement and where there is an Agreement an Action of Covenant will lye If a Man Covenant to do such a thing in consideration of a Marriage and then there is this Clause viz. Whereas it is intended that he shall Marry before Michaelmas that then c. certainly upon the whole Deed here is a good Covenant to marry before Michaelmas In this Case 't is Covenanted that 6000 l. shall be paid and that it shall be secured as herein is after mentioned then 't is declared that a Fine is intended to be levied for that purpose this is a good Covenant to make a Security by a Fine But if the particular manner how the the Security was to be made had been omitted yet upon the words Covenant to secure it the Court hath a good ground to make a Decree to levy a Fine that being the only way to secure it 2. As to the Objection that the Defendant had but a possibility of having the Estate when he entred into this Couenant admitting it to be so yet why should that be a reason to hinder him from making good the Security when he hath it if Father and Son Covenant to make an Assurance the Father who had the Estate in possession dies the Decree must then operate upon that Estate in the hands of the Son 3. Here is a general prayer for a proper relief in which the Plaintiffs Case is included and therefore prayed Iudgment for him The Lord Chancellor Curia presently after the Arguments on each side delivered his Opinion That upon the whole frame of the Articles there was a Covenant to levy a Fine for wherever there is an Agreement under Hand and Seal Covenant lies that in this Case there was a plain Covenant if the first Article of giving farther security be coupled to that Paragraph of intending to levy a Fine for that is the farther security intended so that the meaning of the Parties runs thus I do intend to levy a Fine which is for the Securing of 6000 l. and this appears to be their Agreement Now there are many Cases where words will make a Covenant because of the Agreement when the general words of Covenant Grant c. are wanting as * Hays versus Bickerstaff Antea Postea Cook versus Herl Yielding and Paying will make a Covenant for the reasons aforesaid And therefore the Party having provided himself of real as well as personal Security by these Articles he said he would not deprive him of it especially when it might be more trouble to bring an Action of Covenant for the not levying of the Fine for upon that many Questions might arise as who should do the first act c. for which reasons he decreed the execution of the Fine in Specie DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Ingram versus Tothill REplevin The Case was Justification ill 1 Vent 314. Mod. Rep. 216 Postea A Man made a Lease for 99 years if A. B. and C. should so long live rendring an Herriot after the death of each of them successively as they are all three named in the Deed the last named died first and if an Herriot should be paid was the Question Stroud Serjeant urged that it should not because the reservation is the Lessors Creature and therefore to be taken strongly against him As if Rent be reserved to him and his * Per North a Devisee is not Assignee to take Assigns or to him and his Executors the Heir shall not have it So is the Authority in 33 Eliz. Owen 9. Reddend to the Lessor his Executors and Administrators durante termino 21 Annorum c. the Heir shall not have the Rent because 't is not reserved to him 5 Co. 35. Latch 274. In this Case the Herriot is reserved if the three dye successively and the Lessor is contented to trust to that Contingency Reddend ' annuatim duran ' termino praedict ' to the Lessor and his Assigns the Heir shall have it though not named Latch 99. 2 Sand. 367. As to this Point the Court gave no Opinion but Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff
any other thing which lies in Grant and the Deed is lost or cancelled the Office or the thing granted falls to the ground for the Deed is the foundation and a Case was cited in the Lord Dyer If there be two Iointenants and one cancels the Deed it hath destroyed the Right of the other Quaere of these things But it was agreed that if two Men who have one Office for their Lives and the survivor of them if one surrenders to the other and then a new Grant is made to this other and a Stranger he hath debarred himself of the Survivorship and he and the Stranger are jointly seised Crossman versus Sir John Churchil IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiffs Title was set forth in his Declaration which was also found in a Special Verdict Where an Agreement for a Presentation by turns is good that Sir George Rodney was seised of the Advowson in Fée and died seised leaving two Sisters who were his Coheirs that Sir John Rodney being also one of the same Family and pretending a Right to the Estate for preventing Suits that might happen they all enter into an Agréement by Indentures mutually executed by which it was agreed that Sir John Rodney shall hold some Lands in severalty and the Co-heirs shall hold other Lands in the like manner and as for this Advowson a temporary provision was made thereof that each of them should Present by turns and this was to continue till partition could be made then comes an Act of Parliament and confirms the Indenture and Enacts That every Agreement therein contained shall stand and that all the rest of the Lands not particularly named and otherwise disposed by the said Indenture should be held by these three in common one of the three who by Agréement was next to Present grants the next Avoidance the Church being then full to the Plaintiff and the Question was whether these threé persons were not Tenants in Common of the Advowson and if so then the Grant of the next Avoidance cannot be good by one alone because he hath not the whole Advowson but only a Right to the third part It was said that if Tenants in Common had made such an Agreément it would not have beén any division of their interest for there must be a partition to sever the Inheritance The Court were all of Opinion Curia that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for there was an Agréement that there shall be a Presentation by turns and therefore for one turn each hath a Right to the whole Advowson by reason of the Act of Parliament by which that Agreement is confirmed and thereby an Interest is setled in each of them till Partition made but this Agreement would have vested no Interest in either of them without an Act of Parliament to corroborate it therefore there had been no remedy upon it but by an Action of Covenant This Case was argued four times and not one Authority cited The Earl of Shaftsbury versus Lord Digby In Banco Regis For Words upon the Statute of 2 R. 2. c. 5. Jones 49. SCandalum Magnatum The Plaintiff declares upon the Statute of 2 R. 2. cap. 5. for these Words viz. You are not for the King but for Sedition and for a Common-wealth and by God we will have your Head the next Sessions of Parliament After Verdict for the Plaintiff and 1000 l. damages given it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment and several Exceptions taken 1. As to the Recital of the Statute the Words of which are That no Man shall devise any Lies c. and the Plaintiff for the Word devise had used the Latin Word contrafacio in his Declaration which was very improper that being to counterfeit and not to devise for it should have béen machino or fingo those are more expressive Words of Devise 2. 'T is alledged that the Defendant dixit mendacia of the Plaintiff viz. haec Anglicana verba sequen̄ and doth not alledge that he spoke the Words 3. The most material Objection was a mistake in the Recital of the Statute the Words of which are That none shall speak any scandalous Words of any Dukes Earls c. the Justices of either Bench nor of any other great Officer of the Kingdom but the Plaintiff in his Declaration recites it thus viz. None shall speak any scandalous Words of any Dukes Earls c. Justices of either Bench great Officers of the Kingdom and leaves out the Words neque al so that it must be construed thus None to speak of any Dukes Earls c. being great Officers of the Kingdom and then 't is not enough that the Plaintiff is Comes but he also ought to be a great Officer of the Kingdom which is not set out in this Case But upon great Debate and Deliberation these Exceptions were overruled and the whole Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff As to the first Exception they said contrafacio is a legal Word and apt enough in this sense and so are all the Presidents and thus it was pleaded in the Lord Cromwel's Case As to the second Exception it was said the Mendacia which were told were the English Words which were spoken and the viz. haec Anglicana verba sequen̄ being in the Accusative Case are governed by the same Verb which governs the Words precedent viz. horribilia mendacia Besides for the supporting of an Action the viz. may be transposed and then it will be well enough viz. the Defendant spoke haec Anglicana verba viz. Lies of the Plaintiff As to the third Exception it was answered that the Plaintiff neéd not recite the Statute it being a * Sid. 348. general Law and admitting there was no necessity yet if he will undertake to recite it and mistake in a material Point 't is incurable but if he recites so much as will serve to maintain his own Action truly and mistakes the rest this will not vitiate his Declaration and so he hath done here by reciting so much of the Statute which Enacts That no Man shall speak any scandalous Words of an Earl which is enough he being an Earl to entitle him to an Action and he concludes prout per eundem Actum plenius liquet and the Court grounded themselves principally upon a Iudgment given in this Court which was thus viz. There was a Robbery committed and the Party brought an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry in which he recited incendia domorum 13 E. 1. cap. 1. the said Statute beginning Forasmuch as from day to day Robberies Murders burning of Houses c. and the Presidents are all so But the Parliament Roll is Incendia generally without domorum and it was strongly urged that it was a misrecital which was fatal But the Court were all of Opinion that the Plaintiffs Case being only concerning a Robbery for which the Statute was well recited and not about burning which was mistaken it was for that reason good
enough and Iudgment was given accordingly When this Cause was tried at the Barr which was in Easter-Term last the Lord Mohun offered to give his Testimony for the Plaintiff but refused to be sworn offering to speak upon his Honour but Iustice Wyld told him in Causes between Party and Party he must be upon his Oath The Lord Mohun asked him whether he would answer it The Iudge replyed that he delivered it as his Opinion and because he knew not whether it might cause him to be questioned in another place he desired the rest of the Iudges to deliver their Opinions which they all did and said he ought to be sworn and so he was but with a salvo jure for he said there was an Order in the House of Peers That 't is against the Priviledge of the House for any Lord to be sworn Anonymus DEBT upon the Statute for not coming to Church and concludes Per quod Actio accrevit eidem Domino Regi quer̄ ad exigend ' habend ' The Exception after Iudgment was taken that it ought to have been only Actio accrevit eidem the Plaintiff qui tam c. and not exigend ' habend ' for the King and himself Sed non allocatur For upon search of Presidents the Court were all of Opinion that it was good either way Anonymus Factor where he cannot sell but for ready Mony IN Accompt Iudgment was given quod computet and the Defendant pleads before the Auditors that the Goods whereof he was to give a reasonable accompt were bona peritura and though he was carefull in the keeping of them yet they were much the worse that they remained in his hands for want of Buyers and were in danger of being worse and therefore he sold them upon Credit to a Man beyond Sea The Plaintiff demurred and after Argument by Barrel Serjeant for the Plaintiff and Baldwin Serjeant for the Defendant the whole Court were of Opinion that the Plea was not good Curia For if a Merchant deliver Goods to his Factor ad merchandizand ' he cannot sell them upon Credit but for ready Mony unless he hath a particular Commission from his Master so to do for if he can find no Buyers he is not answerable and if they are bona peritura and cannot be sold for Mony upon the delivery the Merchant must give him authority to sell upon Trust If they are burned or he is robbed without his own default he is not lyable and in this Case it was not pleaded that he could not sell the Goods for ready Mony and the Sale it self was made beyond Sea where the Buyer is not to be found like the Case of * 1 Bulst 103. Yelv. 202. Sadock and Burton where in Accompt against a Factor he pleads that he sold the Iewel to the King of Barbary for the Plaintiffs use and upon a Demurrer the Plea was held naught for when a Factor hath a bare Authorty to sell in such Case he hath no power to give a day of payment but must receive the Mony immediately upon the Sale Therefore in the Case at Barr if the Master is not bound by the Contract of the Servant without his Consent or at least the Goods coming to his use neither shall the Servant have Authority to sell without ready Mony unless he hath a particular Order for that purpose There was another thing moved in this Case for the Plaintiff that the Plea ought to be put in upon Oath for having pleaded that he could not sell without loss he ought to swear it Fitzh Accompt 47. But no Opinion was delivered herein only the Chief Iustice said that the Plaintiff ought to have required the Plea upon Oath for otherwise it was not necessary But for the substance of the Plea it was held ill and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Harris's Case SErjeant Hopkins moved for a Prohibition The Case was Husband dies his Wife Executrix she dies before Probate Administration must be to the next of kin of the Husband 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. A Man makes a Will and appoints his Wife to be Executrix and devises a Shilling to his Daughter for a Legacy and dies the Executrix before Probate of the Will dies also intestate and whether the Goods shall be distributed by the Act for settling Intestates Estates amongst the next of kin to the Executrix or to the next of kin to the Testator her Husband was the Question Since she dying before Probate her Husband in Iudgment of Law died also intestate This Case seems to be out of the Statute the Husband having made a Will and the Act intermeddles only where no Will is made The Court delivered no Iudgment in it but seemed to incline that the Statute did extend to this very Case and that Administration must be committed to the next of kin of the Husband but if there should be no distribution it must then be according to the Will of the Testator Reder versus Bradley IT was moved to reverse a Iudgment given in an Honour Court upon a Writ of false Iudgment brought here Judgment reversed in an inferior Court where the damage was laid to 30 l. The Plaintiff declared in the Action below that there was a Communication between him and the Defendant concerning the Service of his Son and it was agreéd between them that in consideration the Plaintiff would permit his Son to serve him the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff 30 s. The Plaintiff avers that he did permit his Son to serve him and that the Defendant hath not paid him the 30 s. There was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and the Exceptions now taken were 1. 'T is not said that the Iurors were electi ad triand ' c. 2. He lays his damage to 30 l. of which a Court Baron cannot hold Plea for the difference taken by my Lord Coke is where Damages are laid under 40 s. Costs may make it amount to more but where 't is laid above in such Case all is coram non Judice for which reason Iudgment was reversed but in this Court the Iudge doth not pronounce the Reversal as 't is done in the Kings Bench. Lane versus Robinson Inferior Court TRespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant justifies by vertue of an Execution in an Action of Trespass brought in a Hundred Court and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Pemberton took two Exceptions to the Plea 2 Cro. 443 526. Hob. 180. Sid. 348. 1. Because the inferior Court not being of Record cannot hold Plea of a Trespass quare vi armis contra pacem but it was not allowed for Trespasses are frequently brought there and the Plaintiff may declare either vi armis or contra pacem Postea 2. The Defendant reciting the Proceedings below saith taliter processum fuit whereas he ought particularly to set forth all that was done because not being in a Court
one Prescription is directly contrary to the other and for that reason one must be traversed but here the Defendant hath confessed that the Plaintiff hath a Right of Common but t is not an absolute but a qualified Right against which the Defendant may Enclose and here being two Prescriptions pleaded and one of them not being confessed it must from thence necessarily follow that the other is the Issue to be tryed which in this Case is whether the Defendant can enclose or not The Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion Curia that where there are several Free-holders who have Right of Common in a Common Field that such a Custom as this of enclosing is good because the remedy is reciprocal for as one may enclose so may another But Iustice Atkyns doubted much of the Case at Bar because the Defendant had pleaded this Custom to Enclose in barr to a Freeholder who had no Land in the Common Field where he claimed Right of Common but prescribed to have such Right there as appendant to two Acres of Land he had alibi for which reason he prayed to amend upon payment of Costs Attorny General versus Sir Edward Turner in Scaccario Exposition of the Kings Grant INformation The Case was Viz. The King by Letters Patents granted several Lands in Lincolnshire by express words and then this Clause is added upon which the Question did arise Nec non totum illud fundum solum terras suas contigue adjacen ' to the Premisses quae sunt aqua cooperta vel quae in posterum de aqua possunt recuperari and afterwards a great quantity of Land was gained from the Sea and whether the King or the Patentee was intituled to those Lands was the Question Devise of a possibility good by a common person 2 Cro. 509. pl. 21. 1 Bulst 194. Sawyer for the King argued that he had a good Title because the Grant was void he having only a bare possibility in the thing granted at the time But Levins on the other side insisted that the Grant of those Lands was good because the King may Grant what he hath not in possession but only a possibility to have it But admitting that he could not make such a Grant yet in this Case there is such a certainty as the thing it self is capable to have and in which the King hath an Interest and it is hard to say that he hath an Interest in a thing and yet cannot by any means dispose of it If it should be objected that nothing is to pass but what is contigue adjacen ' to the Premisses granted and therefore an Inch or some such small matter must pass and no more certainly that was not the intention of the King whose Grants are to be construed favourably and very bountifully for his Honour and not to be taken by Inches Postea Company of Ironmongers and Naylor If there are two Marshes adjoyning which are the Kings and he grants one of them by a particular name and description and then he grants the other contigue adjacen ' ex parte australi certainly the whole Marsh will pass and 't is very usual in pleading to say a Man is seised of a House or Close and of another House c. contigue adjacen ' that is to be intended of the whole House In this Case the King intended to pass something when he granted totum fundum c. but if such construction should be made as insisted on then those words would be of no signification 'T is true the word illud is a Relative and restrains the general words and implies that which may be shewn as it were with a Finger and therefore in Doddington's Case 2 Co. 32. a Grant of omnia illa Mesuagia scituate in Wells and the Houses were not in Wells but elsewhere the Grant in that Case was held void because it was restrained to a certain Village and the Pronoun illa hath reference to the Town but in this Case there could be no such certainty because the Land at the time of the Grant made was under Water But if the Patent is not good by the very words of the Grant the non obstante makes it good which in this Case is so particular that it seems to be designed on purpose to answer those Objections of any mistake or incertainty in the value quantity or quality of the thing granted which also supplies the defects for want of right instruction given the King in all cases where he may lawfully make a Grant at the Common Law 4 Co. 34. Moor pl. 571. Bozuns Case And there is another very general Clause in the Patent viz. Damus praemissa adeo plene as they are or could be in the Kings hands by his Prerogative or otherwise * Ante Adeo plene are operative words Whistlers Case 10 Co. And there is also this Clause omnes terras nostras infra fluxum refluxum maris 'T is true Sid. 149. these words praemissis praed ' spectan ' do follow from whence it may be objected that they neither did or could belong to the Premisses and admitting it to be so yet the Law will reject those words rather than avoid the Grant in that part In the Case of the Abbot of * 9 Co. 27. b. Strata Marcella the King granted a Mannor Et bona catalla felonum dicto Manerio spectan ' now though such things could not be appendant to a Mannor yet it was there adjudged that they did pass Such things as these the King hath by his Prerogative and some things the Subject may have by Custom or Prescription as Wrecks c. and in this very Case 't is said that there is a Custom in Lincolnshire that the Lords of Mannors shall have derelict Lands and 't is a reasonable Custom for if the Sea wash away the Lands of the Subject he can have no recompence unless he should be entituled to what he gains from the Sea and for this there are some Authorities as Sir Henry Constable's Case 2 Roll. 168. 5 Co. Land between High-Water and Low-Water Mark may belong to a Mannor But no Iudgment was given Morris versus Philpot in B. R. Release by an Executor before Probate THE Plaintiff as Executor to T. brings an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator to S. for a Debt due from the said intestate to the Plaintiffs Testator The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff released to him all Brewing Vessels c. and all other the Estate of S. lately deceased this Release was before probate of the Will to which Plea the Plaintiff demurred and whether this Release was a good Barr to the Plaintiffs Action was the Question Ex parte Quer. It was said for the Plaintiff that it was not for if a Conusee release to the Cognisor all his right and title to the Lands of the Cognisor and afterwards sues out
pleaded Debt for Escape lies against the Warden of the Fleet as superior the Grantee for life being insufficient Jones 60. 1 Vent 314. the Iury found a special Verdict upon which the Case was this Viz. That Sir Jeremy Whitchot was seised in Fee of the Office of Warden of the Fleet and of several Mesuages thereunto belonging and being so seised did make a Grant thereof to one Duckenfield for life and for the lives of three more Duckenfield by Rule of Court was admitted into the said Office being approved by the Court and esteemed a Man of an Estate He suffers a Prisoner afterwards to Escape and being not able to make the Plaintiff satisfaction this Action was brought against Sir Jeremy Whitchot the now Defendant and whether he was chargeable or not with this Action was the Question Wallop who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. That he would not take up any of their time to make a Narrative of Imprisonment for Debt or what remedy there was for Escapes at Common Law and what remedy by the Statute but supposing an Action of Debt will lye whether it be by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. for at the Common Law before the making of that Act Sid. 306 397. an Action of Debt would not lye against the Goaler for an Escape but a special Action on the Case grounded on a Trespass or whether this Action lay against the Defendant by the Statute of 1 R. 2. 2 Inst 382. cap. 12. which gives it against the Warden of the Fleet who in this case had not the actual Free-hold in possession but the inheritance and not the immediate Estate but the Reversion is in Question The Office of the Warden of the Fleet may be taken in two capacities either as an Estate or common Hereditament wherein a Man may have an Inheritance and which may be transferred from one to another or as a publick Office wherein the King and the People may have a special Interest As 't is an Inheritance transferrable 't is subject to the Rules of Law in point of Descent and is demisable for Life in Fee Tayl Possession or Reversion and in many things is common and runs parallel with other Estates of Inheritance 'T is true he cannot grant this Office for years not for any disability in the Grantor but in respect of the matter and nature of the thing granted it being an Office of Trust and Personal for otherwise it would go to the Executor which is inconvenient 9 Co. 96. Sir George Reynell's Case To enquire what superiority the reversioner hath over the particular Estate is not to the point in Question but there is such an intimacy and privity between them that in Iudgment of Law they are accounted as one Estate And therefore Littleton Sect. 452 453 saith that a Release made to a Reversioner shall aid and benefit him who hath the particular Estate and likewise a Release made to the Tenant of the Freehold shall enure to him in Reversion because they are privies in Estate so that these two Estates in the Case at Bar make but one Office This is a publick Office of great Trust and concerns the Administration of Iustice and therefore 't is but reasonable to admit the Rule of Respondeat Superior lest the Party should be without remedy and the rather because Execution is the life of the Law 39 H. 6. 33. He who is in the Office as Superiour whether it be by droit or tort is accountable to the King and his People and this brings him within the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. or 1 R. 2. If the Defendant had granted the Office in Fee to Duckenfeild before any Escape had been and the Grantee had been admitted the Defendant then had been discharged or if he dye before or after the Action brought and before Iudgment moritur actio cum persona for if he had not reserved something he could not be charged and if he had parted with the Inheritance the privity had been gon but by reserving that he hath made himself liable for now he is Superiour he may exact Homage and Fealty and the particular Tenant is said to be attendant upon the Reversion and these are marks of Superiority And this Rule of respondeat superior holds not only between the principal Officer and his Deputy and between the Master and his Servant but in many other Cases one is to be answerable for another as 1. Where a Man has power to elect an Officer he is chargeable so the County hath power to elect Coroners and if they fail in their Duty the County shall be charged for by reason of the power they had to elect they are esteemed Superiours 4 Inst 314. 2 Inst 175. 2. Where one Man recommends another to an Office concerning the Kings Revenue the person who recommends is liable if the other prove insufficient and for this there is a notable Case 30 E. 3. 6. 'T is Porter's Case cited in the Case of the Earl of Devonshire 11 Co. 92. b. Where Porter being Master of the Mint covenanted with the King to deliver him Mony within 8 days for all the Bullion delivered ad Cambium Regis to Coyn which he did not perform Et quia Walwyn Picard duxerunt praesentaverunt the said Porter ideo consideratum est quod onerentur versus Dominum Regem 4 Inst 466. And why not the Defendant in this Case who praesentavit the said Duckenfeild to the Court tanquam sufficientem the reason being the same and the King is as much concerned in the ordering this Court of Iustice as in the ordering of his Coffers for as the Treasure is Nervus Belli so the execution of the Law is Nervus Pacis 3. In the Case of a dependant Officer though he is a proper Officer and no Deputy the person who hath the Reversion shall answer as in 32 H. 6. 34. 2 Inst 382. 9 Rep. 98. Dyer 278. b. The Duke of Norfolk who had the Inheritance of the Marshalsea was charged for an Escape suffered by one Brandon who was Tenant for Life in possession of the said Office and there is great reason it should be so for when a principal Officer may make an inferiour Officer who afterwards commits a Forfeiture the superiour shall take advantage of this Forfeiture and 't is as reasonable he should he answerable for his Miscarriage Cro. Eliz. 384. Poph. 119 The Earl of Pembrook against Sir Henry Berkley And therefore admitting the Defendant is out of the Statute yet he is within the Maxim of Respondeat Superior which is not grounded upon any Act of Parliament as appears in the Case of the Coroner and the Statute of Westm 2. And all other Acts which inculcate this Rule are but in affirmance of the Common Law and this is not only a Rule of the Common but also of the Civil Law which is served with the Equity of this Maxim in
Toll c. which were first created by the King 9 Co. Abbot de Strata Marcella's Case So that this Toll is not become in gross by the dissolution whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Sir William Turner's Case Amendment not after issue joyned DEbt qui tam c. for 100 l. against Sir William Turner being a Iustice of Peace in London for denying his Warrant to suppress a seditious Conventicle of one Mr. Turner in New-street This Cause was to be tried by Nisi prius this Term before the Chief Iustice And now the Plaintiff moved to amend one Word in the Declaration wherein he was mistaken for he had laid the Meeting to be at Turner's Mansion House and upon Enquiry he understood the place of Meeting was not at his Mansion House but at a little distance from it and so prayed the word Mansion might be struck out But the Chief Iustice said that after Issue joyned Curia and the Cause set down to be tried and this being a penal Statute no President could be shewn of an Amendment in such case and therefore would not make this the first and so Leave was given to the Plaintiff to discontinue upon payment of Costs Brown versus Johnson IN Accompt The Plaintiff declares against the Defendant Time where 't is made parcel of the issue not good for that upon the first of March 22 Car. 2. abinde to the first of May 27 Car. 2. he was his Bayliff and Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead The Defendant pleads that from the said first day of March 22 Car. 2. to the first day of May 27 Car. 2. he was not the Plaintiffs Bayliff or Receiver of the said 80 Piggs of Lead hoc paratus est verificare To this the Plaintiff demurred and assigned specially for cause that the times from the first of March to the first of May are made parcel of the Issue which ought not to be because the Plaintiff in his Declaration must alledge a time for Form sake but the Defendant ought not to tye him up to such time alledged for he might have said he was not Bayliff modo forma And for this the Case of Lane and Alexander was cited where the Defendant by Ejectment makes a Title by Copy of Court Roll granted to him 44 Eliz. and the Plaintiff replies his Title by the like Grant 1 Junii 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintains his Barr and traverseth that the Queen 1 Junii 43 year of her Reign granted the said Land by Copy and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the traversing of the day is matter of substance which being made part of the Issue is naught But on the other side it was objected that time is material and that in Actions of Accompt 't is proper to make it parcel of the Issue for a Man may be Bayliff for two but not for three years and a Release may be pleaded from such a time to such a time Fitz. Accompt 30. Rast Entry f. 8. 19 pl. 1. f. 20. pl. 6. f. 22. pl. 2. 1. Then Exceptions were taken to the Plea first for that the Plaintiff having charged the Defendant as Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead the Defendant pleads and that he was not Receiver thereof but doth not say of any part thereof for which reason the Court held the Plea ill because he might retain 79 and yet not 80 Piggs but to plead generally ne unques Receptor is well enough though it was urged that if it had been found against him upon such an Issue that he had received any parcel of the Lead he should have accompted 24 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. 3. 14. 32 H. 6. 33. Fitz. Accompt 16. Cro. Eliz. 850. Fitz. Accompt 14. Rast Entry 18 19 20. 2. The Defendant concludes hoc paratus est verificare whereas it should be de hoc ponit se super patriam but the Court doubted of this because it was not specially assigned Postea 3. The Plaintiff charged the Defendant as his Bayliff upon the first of March and the Defendant pleads that he was not his Bayliff from the first of March so he excludes that day and this the Court held to be incurable and likewise that the time ought not to be made parcel of the Issue 2 Sand. 317 318. and so Iudgment was given quod computer Abraham versus Cunningham Administrator sells a Term afterwards an Executor appears and renounces yet the Sale was adjudged void Jones 72. 1 Vent 303. IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Case upon the Pleadings was Viz. Sir David Cunningham being possessed of a Term for years made his Will and therein appointed his Son Sir David Cunningham to be his Executor and dyed Sir David the Executor in the year 1663. made his Will also and therein appointed David Cunningham his Son and two others to be his Executors and dyed those two Executors dye and B. a Stranger takes out Administration cum Testamento annexo and continues this Administration from the year 1665. to the year 1671. in which time he made an Assignment of this Term to the Lessor of the Plaintiff for which he had received a thousand Pounds And in the year 1671. the surviving Executor of Sir David the Executor made Oath in the Archbishops Court that he never heard of his Testators Will 'till then nor ever saw it before and that he had not medled with the Estate nor renounced the Executorship 6 Co. Packmans Case Then a Citation goes to shew cause why the Administration should not be repealed and Sentence was given that it should be revoked upon which the Executor enters and the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon him This Case was argued by Saunders for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. and Levints for the Defendant And first it was said in behalf of the Plaintiff that the Authorities in the Books were strong on his side that the first Administration was well granted 'T is true if a Man make a Will and Administration is granted and that Will is afterwards proved such Administration is void as in Greysbrook and Foxes Case Pl. Com. But in this Case after the death of Sir David Cunningham the Executor his Testator is dead Intestate for to make an Executor there must be first the naming of him then there must be some concurring act of his own to declare his assent that he will take onus executionis upon him for no man can make another Executor against his will so that if after the death of the first Executor those other Executors appointed by him had made such a Declaration as this surviving Executor hath since done their Testator had dyed Intestate 7 E. 4. 12 13. The Executor is made by the Testator and the Ordinary is empowered by the Statute to make the Administrator where the person dies Intestate so that 't is plain there cannot be an Executor and Administrator both together If he who is
against the Common Prayer Book and the Defendant having forbid such Preaching the Lord told him that he did not like him upon which he spoke those Words so that the subject matter explained the sense for which reason it was adjudged that the Action would not lie 2. The scandal for which an Action may be brought within this Statute must be false for that word goes quite through the whole Act viz. false News false Lyes c. and the words here are so general that it cannot appear whether they are true or false for there can be no Iustification here as in case where a Man is charged with a particular Crime my Lord Townsend is not charged with any particular Act of Injustice as a Subject nor with any Misdemeanour as a Peer nor with any Offence in an Office If therefore in all Actions brought upon this Statute the Defendant may justifie and put the matter in Issue to try whether it be true or false and in this Case the Defendant can neither justifie nor traverse for this reason the Action will not lie That the Words are general and of a doubtful signification it cannot be denied for to say He is an unworthy Man imports no particular Crime Unworthy is a term of Relation as he is unworthy of my Friendship Acquaintance or Kindred and so may be applicable to any thing and a Lord may in many things be unworthy of a particular Mans Friendship as if he promises to pay a Sum of Mony at a day certain and faileth in the payment as 't is often seén such is an unworthy Man but that will not bear an Action He is an unworthy Man who invites another to Dinner to affront him but it will not bear an Action to say That a Lord invited me to a Dinner to abuse me neither will it be actionable to say He is an unworthy Man because such instances may be given of his Vnworthiness which will not bear an Action If my Lord had beén compared to any base and unworthy thing these Words might have béen actionable and that was the Case of the Lord Marquess of Dorchester it being said of him That there was no more value in him than in a Dog Then to say A Man acts against Law this is no Scandal because every Man who breaks a Penal Law and suffers the Penalty is not guilty of any Crime The Statute commands the burying in Woollen the Party buries one of his Family in Linnen in this he acts against the Law but if the Penalty is satisfied the Law is so likewise A Man who acts against Law acts against Reason because Lex est summa ratio but no instance is here given wherein he did thus act 'T is not said that he did act against Law wilfully or that he used to do any thing against Law and so cannot be like the Case of the Duke of Buckingham who brought an Action for these Words viz. You are used to do things against Law and put Cattle into a Castle where they cannot be replevied for there was not only an Vsage charged upon him but a particular instance of Oppression This Action lies for Words spoken of a Iudge of either Bench and of a Bishop as well as of a Peer Now if a Man should say A Judge acted against Law will an Action lie Because a Iudge may do a thing against Law and yet very justly and honestly unless all the Iudges were infallible and could not be subject to any mistakes which none will deny So if a Bishop return the Cause of his Refusal to admit a Clerk quia criminosus this is a Return against Law because 't is too general but if J. S. should say A Bishop acted against Law and shew that for Cause an Action would not lye If the the Lord Townsend had commanded his Bayliff to make a Distress without Cause that had been acting against Law and Reason He agreed the Words to be uncivil but not actionable for if such Construction should be made a Man must talk in Print or otherwise not speak any thing of a Peer for fear of an Action There are many Authorities where a Péer shall not have an Action for every trivial and slight Expression spoken of him As to say of a Péer He keeps none but Rogues and Rascals about him like himself by the Opinion of two Iustices Yelverton and Flemming the Action would not lie because they are Words of Scolding and this was the Case of the Earl of Lincoln Cro. Jac. 196. But the Court was divided the Defendant died and so the Writ abated Actions for Words have béen of late too much extended formerly there were not above two or three brought in many years and if this Statute should be much inlarged the Lords themselves will be prejudiced thereby by maintaining Actions one against another Vpon this Statute of 2 R. 2 c. 5 there was no Action brought till 13 H. 7. which was above an hundred years after the making of that Law and the occasion of making the Law was because the Duke of Lancaster who was then the first Prince of the Blood took notice that divers were so hardy as to speak of him several lying Words 1 R. 2. num 56. and therefore this Statute was made to punish those who devised false News and horrible and false Lies of any Peer c. whereby Discords might arise between the Lords and Commons and great Peril and Mischief to the Realm and quick Subversion thereof Now from the natural intent and construction of these Words in the Act can it be supposed that if one should say Such a Peer is an unworthy Man that the Kingdom would be presently in a flame and turned into a state of confusion and Civil War and to say That he acts against Law that the Government would thereby be in danger to be lost and quick Subversion would follow This cannot be the common and ordinary understanding of these Words If therefore the Plaintiff by speaking these Words was in no hazard nor any wise damnified if he was not touched in his Loyalty as a Péer nor in danger of his Life as a Subject if he was not thereby subjected to any Corporal or Pecuniary Punishment nor charged with any Breach of Oath nor with a particular Miscarriage in any Office if the Words are so general that they import no Scandal and are neither capable of any Iustification and lastly if they are not such horrible Lies as are intended to be punished by the Statute for these Reasons he concluded the Action would not lie and therefore prayed that the Iudgment might be arrested Serjeant Baldwin and Serjeant Barrel argued on the same side for the Defendant but nothing was mentioned by them which is not fully insisted on in the Argument of Serjeant Maynard for which Reason I have not reported their Arguments But Pemberton Serjeant who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. that it would conduce much to
the Plaintiff alledges that Sir George Horner was seised in Feé of the Mannor of Dowling Traverse shall not be upon a Traverse c. Mod. Rep. 230. to which the Advowson was appendant and that being so seised he presented one Harding and then granted the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff That the Church became void by the death of the said Harding and that now it belonged to him to present The Bishop pleads that he claimed nothing but as Ordinary and the Incumbent pleads that at the time of the bringing of this Writ the Church was full by the Collation of the Bishop upon a Lapse The Plaintiff replies that Sir George Horner being seised in Fee of the said Mannor of Dowling to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant did tali die anno apud c. present him as Clerk absque hoc that the Church was full by Collation The Defendant rejoyns protestando that the Church was full tali die and for Plea saith that it was full upon the Collation of the Bishop absque hoc that Sir George Horner did tali die anno c. present the Plaintiff as his Clerk and so traverseth the Inducement which the Plaintiff had made to his Traverse and to this the Plaintiff demurred And Serjeant George Strode took three Exceptions to this Rejoinder Ex parte Quer. 1. That when the Defendant pleads a Matter in Barr and the Plaintiff hath taken a Traverse upon that the Defendant should then take Issue upon that Travers and so have maintained his Barr Vaugh. 62. 1 Sand. 21 22. from which he had departed here by traversing another Matter In a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff declares that Sir Thomas Chichely granted an Advowson to one East and another in Feé to the Vse of the Wife of the Plaintiff for her Iointure and that she ought to present The Defendant pleads that he is Parson imparsonee ex praesentatione Regis for that Sir Thomas Chicheley died seised as aforesaid of the Mannor and Advowson held in Capite by Knights Service which descended to his Son an Infant and by Office found of the Tenure and descent the King was seised and presented him absque hoc that Sir Thomas granted to East The Plaintiff replies Non habetur tale Recordum de inquisitione and upon Demurrer it was held that this Traverse of the Inquisition was not good Hob. 104. 1 Inst 282. b. Vaugh. 62. for there shall not be a Traverse upon a Traverse but where the Traverse in the Barr is material to the Title of the Plaintiff and in such Case he is bound up to it Cro Car. 104 105. Antea Yelv. 122. 2. In his Traverse he hath made the Time parcel of the Issue viz. absque hoc that tali die anno praesentavit whereas it should have been modo forma only and so is the Case of Lane and Alexander 2 Cro. 202. where the Defendant intituled himself by Copy of Court of Roll 44 Eliz. The Plaintiff replies that a Copy was granted to him 1 Junii 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintained his Bar and traverseth the Grant 1 Junii modo forma and upon a Demurrer it was said that the Rejoynder was not good because the day and year of granting of the Copy was not material if it was granted before the Defendant had his Copy and so the Traverse ought to have been absque hoc that the Queen granted modo forma 1 Sand. 14. 2 Sand. 295. Cro Car. 501. But it was adjudged that the day ought not to be made parcel of the Issue and the traversing of it when it ought not so to be makes it Substance and not Form so as to be aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. 3. As the Defendant hath joyned they can never come to an Issue for he concludes his Traverse Et hoc paratus est verificare unde petit Judicium whereas he should have concluded to the Country Ex parte Def. Barton Serjeant admitting the Pleadings are not good yet if the Plaintiffs Count is so likewise he cannot have Iudgment and that it was so he said appears in that the Plaintiff had not set forth a sufficient Title for he hath alledged that Sir George Horner was seised in Fee and presented the Plaintiff who was instituted and inducted Old Nat. Br. 25. 1 Inst 249. but doth not say that the Presentation was tempore pacis and therefore it shall be presumed most strongly against himself to be tempore belli and a Presentation must be laid tempore pacis and so is the Writ of Assise of Darrein Presentment F. N. B. 31. The Court held that the Pleadings were not good and that the Count was good for 't is true if a Man count that he and his Ancestors were seised in Fee of an Advowson but declares of no Presentation made by him or them or if he declare of a Presentation without an Estate in both Cases it is naught and good Cause of Demurrer Vaugh. 57. Hob. 101. but here the Count is both of an Estate and a Presentation And this difference was taken if a Man gets a Fée by Presentation which is his Title he must alledge it to be tempore pacis but if it be in pursuance of a Right as if an Advowson be appendant to a Mannor and he who hath Right to the Mannor presents such Presentation is good in time of War and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Stevens versus Austin ADjudged that if a Man hath Common for a certain number of Cattle belonging to a Yard Land he need not say Levant upon the Yard Land sed aliter if it were for a Common sans number The Master Warden and Company of Ironmongers versus Naylor and others Defendants In B. R. IN Trespass The Iury found a special Verdict Jones 85. 1 Ventris 311. they find several Acts of Parliament viz. 14 Car. 2. cap. 10.15 Car. 2. cap. 13. and another Act for the better direction of the collecting of the Duty arising by Hearth-Mony by Officers to be appointed by the King and this was the Act of 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. which provides That if the Party refuses to pay the Duty by the space of an hour that then the Officers with the Constable may distrain They find that the Company was seised in Fée of five Messuages in which were 35 Fire Hearths in the Month of April 1673. And that the Company did never finish these Messuages and that from the time of the building they stood all void and unoccupied by any Tenant or Tenants whatsoever Then they find that the Collectors were lawfully authorised and that such a day they demanded the Duty for the Fire-Hearths in each of the said Messuages which they also demanded of the Company and which they refused to pay and thereupon they took the distress and kept it till the Company paid the said Duty and so make a general Conclusion
Rent why should he pay where he hath none to receive And that this was the meaning of the Parliament may further appear by a Clause in the Act of 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. made for collecting this Duty by Officers appointed by the King which doth not inlarge the former Statutes and by which 't is Enacted That if any Occupier shall leave his House before any of the half yearly Feasts whereon this Duty is appointed to be paid that the next Occupier shall be chargeable with the same for the said half year Which Clause had been altogether vain and of no use if empty Houses had been chargeable with this Duty for to what purpose was it to charge a succeeding Occupier when the House it self though untenanted was chargeable before In this Act also which supplies the defects of the former this Duty is made payable unto the Officer upon demand at the House where the same shall arise and grow due and that in case of refusal by the space of an hour the Officer may distrein which shews a Demand must be where there may be a Refusal and no Refusal can be where there is no Occupier There is also another Clause which mentions both Owner and Occupier in this Act and which saith That no Proprietor Owner or Occupier shall be molested or charged unless within two years after the Duty accrewed so that where-ever a charge is laid or an ease is given to the Subject the Word Occupier and sometimes both Occupier and Owner promiscuoslly are used but where a payment is to be made the Owner is never mentioned and if so nothing shall be intended within either of the Statutes to enlarge this Duty upon the Subject beyond the Words and plain meaning thereof 2. There is another Point in this Case which concerns the King and all the People of England that is whether the Defendant here can be charged with a Distress supposing this Duty is to be paid to the King before any account of these Hearths is transmitted into the Exchequer which first ought to be done or otherwise the consequence will be that the Officer may demand and take as much as he will at his pleasure and the King may be likewise prejudiced in his Revenue for as the Collector may have from the Subject more than he ought and more than he is empowered to take by the Law so he may pay the King less The Act directs That an Account shall be taken by the Officers and examined by the Constables then to be transmitted to the Sessions there to be enrolled and from thence sent into the Exchequer now what occasion was there of all this Solempnity if that the King was entituled to a Distress upon a bare refusal This being a Rent Charge upon a Mans Inheritance the King shall not be entituled to it but by matter of Record for he cannot take or part with any thing neither can he have any Estate or Profit rendered him out of another Mans Estate but by matter of Record so that it seems by the Act that this accompt is necessary to be transmitted into the Exchequer and that the King is not entituled to a Distress for this Duty until that be actually done which is not only matter of Information to the Crown but in some measure intitles him to it because there is a Penalty of five pounds laid upon the Officer who shall neglect to bring in such accompt which shews that the Subject ought not to be charged before for which reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Plaintiff Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was argued by Mr. Holt and the Attorny General that empty Houses should pay this Duty For the Attorny General said that the Words in the Act were so express that he was of Opinion that the very reading of them would clear the Point in question In their Arguments two things were considered upon the Statute of 14 Car. 2. 1. First the general Clause which gives the Duty in the Body of the Act. 2. The discharge in the Proviso And if this be in the Body of the Act and not excepted in the Proviso then the Duty is to be paid and as to that it was said that this Duty was given in general Words by which it appears that there was a design and intent to charge empty Houses for every dwelling House Edifice or House whatsoever is to pay this Duty and that if every House why not an empty House 'T is true a Dwelling House is not a House wherein there hath not been an Inhabitant but wherein some body doth actually live and if a Man furnishes a House very well if 't is not inhabited it is notwithstanding an empty House and such a House as to some purposes in the Law is not a dwelling House for 't is not a Mansion House so as to make it Burglary for the breaking of it open By the second Clause Every Owner or Occupier is to subscribe the Account to be sent into the Exchequer by which it appears that those Words Owner and Occupier are not there used in a different sense for if the Occupier were only lyable the Owner need not look after the signing the accompt of every Hearth The third Clause takes notice That if it should happen there be no Occupier then the Officer may go into the empty House to examine if the account given him be true now if an account is to be taken of such Houses as are charged by this Act and an account is directed to be taken of empty Houses then such empty Houses must be charged and this seemed to them to be the intent and meaning of the Parliament for there being a Return to be made of empty Houses if such had not been intended to be charged they would have directed a Return also to have been made of the non-inhabitancy And therefore they thought that something more than an Occupier was here meant for otherwise the Word Owner had not been put in the meaning of which must be that dwelling Houses come within the charge of Occupiers and empty Houses within the charge of the Owners Then as to the Proviso That the Duty hereby arising shall be charged only upon the Occupiers and Dwellers of such Houses their Executors and Administrators that can in no sort extend to discharge an empty House because 't is not the subject matter of the Proviso for the design and purpose of it was not to discharge the Duty but to transfer the charge upon the Tenant where the House was inhabited for if a contrary construction should be made then no Duty should be paid at all by the Owner himself if he should live in his own House In the Case of a Modus decimandi 't is payable by the Occupier and Possessor of the House and the Landlord is never charged but where there is no Occupier As to the Objection That 't is hard to pay a Duty where a Man has no
Profit it was answered That the Act took care that Men should not stop up their Chimnies when once made and that this Duty was paid for many Chimnies which were never used and what Profit can a Man have of a Chimny he never useth If there had been an Act that so much should be paid for every Window 't is all one whether it had been for profit or pleasure or whether the Window had been used or not and there is as much reason that a Man should pay for Houses never Inhabited as for such as have been Inhabited and are afterwards without Tenants This Act ought therefore to receive a favourable Construction the Preamble whereof mentions that it was for the encreasing of the Kings Revenue which is pro bono publico and which is for the Peace and Prosperity of the Nation and the protection of every single person therein and though a particular Inconvenience may follow the Party ought to submit When a Man builds a House he proposes a Profit and 't is not fit the Kings Duty should be contingent and depend till he has provided himself of a Tenant Object As to the other Objection that was much relied on viz. where the Act speaks of an Accompt to be given it mentions both Owner and Occupier but where it directs the Payment of the Duty the Occupier only is named by which it was inferred that he alone was chargeable Answ In 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. Owner Proprietor and Occupier are used promiscuously wherein it is provided that they shall not be charged unless within two years after the Duty accrued now if the Owner was not chargeable why is he mentioned there As to the second Point they conceived that the Duty being payeable to the King he had a remedy by distress before the Accompt was certified into the Exchequer for the Return was to inform the King what advantage he maketh of his Revenue and no Process issued upon it besides the Act vests the Duty in him from Lady-day 1662. And by reason of that he may distrain The King hath no benefit by returning of the Account that being only intended to prevent his being cheated so that 't is not to entitle but to inform him 't is only to return a just and true account not but that it may be levied and the King entitled before and 't is no inconvenience to the Subject if there be no such Account returned for if the Officer distrain for more Hearths than in truth there are the Subject has a proper remedy against him The King suffers when Returns are not made of such Duties as he ought to have for the support of his Dignity and because he is lyable to be defrauded in the managing of his Duty is it reasonable that he should lose all As to what was said of the Kings taking by matter of Record 't is true if he divest an Inheritance as in case of Attainder it must be by Record but here the very Duty is given to him by the Act it self which makes it a different Case If the King should be seised in Fee of a great Wast which happens to be improved by his Tenants and thereby Tythes become due it may be as well said that he shall have no Tythes without Record as to say he shall have no Hearth-Mony for Houses newly erected whereby his Revenue is increased For which Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant and upon the second Argument Iudgment was given accordingly for him Curia That empty Houses are subject and lyable to this Duty Astry versus Ballard IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for the taking of Coals upon Not-Guilty pleaded Grants must be taken according to common intendment Jones 71. the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was thus Viz. That one J. R. was seised in Fee of the Manor of Westerly and being so seised did demise all the Mesuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments that he had in the said Manor for a Term of years to N. R. in which demise there was a recital of a Grant of the said Mannor Mesuages Lands Tenements Commons and Mines but in the Lease it self to R. the Word Mines was left out Afterwards the Reversion was sold to the Plaintiff Astry and his Heirs by Deed enrolled and at the time of this demise there were certain Mines of Coals open and others which were not then open and the Coals for which this Action of Trover was brought were digged by the Lessee in those Mines which were not open at the time of the Lease and whether he had power so to do was the Question It was said That when a Man is seised of Lands wherein there are Mines open and others not open and a Lease is made of these Lands in which the Mines are mentioned Antea 'T is no new Doctrine to say that the close Mines shall not pass Mens Grants must be taken according to usual and common intendment and when Words may be satisfied they shall not be strained farther than they are generally used for no violent Construction shall be made to prejudice a Mans Inheritance contrary to the plain meaning of the Words A Mine is not properly so called 'till it is opened 't is but a Vein of Coals before and this was the Opinion of my Lord Coke in point in his first Inst 54. b. Where he tells us 5 Co. 12. Sanders Case Roll. Abr. 2 part 816. that if a Man demises Lands and Mines some being opened and others not the Lessee may use the Mines opened but hath no power to dig the unopened Mines and of this Opinion was the whole Court and Iustice Twisden said That he knew no reason why my Lord Coke's single Opinion should not be as good an Authority as Fitzherbert in his Nat. Br. or the Doctor and Student Ipsley versus Turk IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment in an Inferiour Court What is admitted in pleading shall not be assigned for Error Jones 81. the Error assigned was That the Mayor who was Iudge of the Court did not receive the Sacrament at any Parish Church nor file any Certificate so that he was not Mayor and Iudgment being given against the Defendant before him it was therefore Coram non Judice like the Case of Hatch and Nichols Roll. Abr. 1 part tit Error 761. Where upon a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment in an Inferiour Court the Error assigned was that the Stile of the Court was Curia tent̄ coram J. S. Seneschallo who was not Steward and that was held to be an Error in fact But on the other side it was insisted that this was not Error because the Acts of the Mayor should not be void as to Strangers The Statute of 25 Car. 2. cap. 2. for preventing of dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants disables the Party who is not qualified according to the Act to hold an Office and if he execute the same afterwards
By the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. the Ordinary is to grant Administration to the Widow of the Intestate or to the next of his Kin or to both as by his discretion he shall think good and in Case where divers persons claim the Administration as next of Kin which be in equal degree the Ordinary may commit Administration to which he pleaseth and his power was not abridged but rather revived by this late Act by which 't is Enacted 22 23 Car. 2. That just and equal distribution shall be made amongst Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degree or legally representing their Stocks pro suo cuique jure and the Children of the half Blood do in the Civil Law legally represent the Father and to some purposes are esteemed before the Vncles of the whole Blood 'T is no Objection to say that because the Law rejects the half Blood as to Inheritances therefore it will do the same as to personal Estates because such Estates are not to be determined by the Common but by the Canon or Civil Law and if so the half Blood shall come in for distribution for this Act of Parliament confirms that Law Winnington Sollicitor General contra He agreed that before this Act the half Blood was to have equal share of the Intestates Estate but that now the Ordinary was compelled to make such distribution and to such persons as by the Act is directed for he had not an original power to grant Administration in any case that did belong to the Temporal Courts Sid. 370 371. but it was given to him by the Indulgence of Princes not quatenus a Spiritual Person Hensloes Case 9 Co. Bendl. 133. And if he had not power in any Case he could not grant to whom he pleased But admitting he could his power is now abridged by this Statute and he cannot grant but to the Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degrée or legally representing their Stocks Now such legal representation must be according to the Rules of the Common and not of the Civil Law for if there be two lawful Brothers and a Bastard eigne and a Question should arise concerning the distribution of an Intestates Estate the subsequent Marriage according to the Law in the Spiritual Court would make the latter legitimate and if so a legal Representative amongst them but this Court will never allow him so to be But the Court were all of Opinion that in respect of the Father the half Blood is as near as those of the whole and therefore they are all alike and shall have an equal distribution and that such Construction should be made of the Statute as would be most agreeable to the Will of the dead person if he had devised his Estate by Will and it was not to be imagined if such Will had been made but something would have been given to the Children of the half Blood And thereupon a Consultaion was granted Anonymus In C. B. FAux Judgment viz. Serjeant Turner took this Exception that the Plaintiff in the Court below had declared ad damnum 20 l. whereas it not being a Court of Record and being sine Brevi the Court could not hold Plea of any Sum above 40 s. and for this Cause the Iudgment was reversed DE Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Southcot versus Stowel Intrat ' Hill 25 26 Car. 2. Regis Rot. 1303. IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was Covenant to stand seised how it differs from a Conveyance at the Common Law Mod. Rep. 226. Thomas Southcot having Issue two Sons Sir Popham and William and being seised in Fée of a Farm called Indyo the Lands now in question did upon the Marriage of his eldest Son Sir Popham covenant to stand seised of the said Farm to the use of the said Sir Popham Southcot and the Heirs Males of his Body on Margaret his Wife to be begotten and for want of such Issue to the Heirs Males of the Covenantor and for want of such Issue to his own right Heirs for ever Sir Popham had Issue begotten on his Wife Margaret Edward his Son and five Daughters and dies Thomas the Covenantor dies Edward dies without Issue And whether the five Daughters as Heirs general of Thomas or William their Vncle as special Heir Male of Thomas per formam doni shall inherit this Land was the Question Two Objections were made against the Title of William the Vncle. 1. Vaugh. 49. Because here is no express Estate to Thomas the Covenantor for 't is limited to his Heirs Males the Remainder to his own right Heirs so that he having no Estate for Life the Estate Tail could not be executed in him and for that reason William cannot take by descent 2. He cannot take by Purchase for he is to be Heir of Thomas and Heir Male the Limitation is so but he cannot be Heir for his five Nieces are Heirs In answer to which these Assertions were laid down 1. That in this Case Thomas the Covenantor hath an Estate for Life by implication and so the Estate Tail being executed in him comes to William by descent and not by purchase for though the Covenantor had departed with his whole Estate and limited no Vse to himself yet he hath a Reversion because he can have no right Heir while he is living and therefore the Statute of 27 H. 8. Hob. 30. creates an Vse in him till the future use cometh in esse and by consequence the right Heirs cannot take by purchase for wherever the Heir takes by purchase the Ancestor must depart with his whole Fee for which reason a Fee cannot be raised by way of purchase to a Mans right Heirs by the name of Heirs either by Conveyance of Land or by Vse or Devise but it works by descent 1 Inst 22. b. And that Vses may arise by Implication by Covenants to stand seized the Authorities are very plentiful Moor 284. 1 Co. 154. Lord Paget's Case cited in the Rector of Cheddington's Case Cro. Eliz. 321. 1 Roll. Rep. 239 240 317 438. Lane vers Pannel Cor. Car. And in the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood in a Devise there was the same limitation as this the Case was Thomas being seised in Fee had Issue Francis and William by several Venters and devised Land to Francis his eldest Son for Life then to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of William and the Heirs Males of their Bodies for ever and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Devisor then he made a Lease to William for 30 years to commence after his death and dies William Enters and Surenders this Lease to Francis who Enters and makes a Lease to the Defendant and dyes without Issue and William Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff it was adjudged for William because he being
many Settlements would be shaken in which nothing was more usual now than to Covenant to stand seised to the Vse of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body c. They all agreed also That the Estate being well limited William should take per formam Doni as special Heir for Voluntas Donatoris in charta manifeste expressa observetur and 't is apparent Thomas intended that William should have it or else the Limitation to his Heirs Males had been needless So that taking it for granted that the Estate Tail once vested is not spent by his dying without Issue but it comes to William by descent and not as a Purchasor for so he could not take it because he is not Heir and till Thomas be dead without Issue the Tail cannot be spent so there was no difficulty in that Point And they held the Opinions of Dyer and Saunders in Creswold's Case to be good Law who were divided from the other Iustices but they doubted of Pybus and Mitford 's Case whether it was Law or not they doubted also whether by any Construction Thomas could be said to have an Estate for Life by implication they doubted also of the springing Vse but they held that this Limitation was good in its creation and Iudgment was given accordingly Cockram Executor versus Welby Statute of Limitations not pleadable by a Sheriff who levied mony by fi fa. and nine years pass Mod. Rep. 245. IN Debt the Plaintiff declared that his Testator recovered a Iudgment in this Court upon which he sued out a Fieri facias which he delivered to the Defendant being Sheriff of Lincoln and thereupon the said Sheriff returned Fieri feci but that he hath not paid the Mony to the Plaintiff per quod actio accrevit c. The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations to which the Plaintiff demurred And the question was whether this Action was barely grounded on the Contract or whether it had a Foundation upon matter of Record If on the Contract only then the Statute of 21 Jacobi cap. 16. is a good Plea to barr the Plaintiff of his Action which Enacts That all Actions of Debt grounded upon any Lending or Contract without Specialty shall be brought within six years next after the Cause of Action doth accrew and in this Case nine years had passed But if it be grounded upon matter of Record that is a Specialty and then the Statute is no barr Serjeant Barrel held this to be a Debt upon a Contract without specialty for when the Sheriff had levied the Mony the Action ceases against the Party and then the Law creates a Contract and makes him Debtor as it is in the Case of a Tally delivered to a Customer It lies against an Executor where the Action arises quasi ex contractu which it would not do if it did not arise ex maleficio as in the Case of a Devastavit 'T is true The Iudgment recovered by the Testator is now set forth by the Plaintiff Executor but that is not the ground but only an inducement to the Action for the Plaintiff could not have pleaded nul tiel Record so that 't is the meer receiving the Mony which charges the Defendant and not virtute Officii upon a false return for upon the receipt of the Mony he is become Debtor whether the Writ be returned or not and the Law immediately creates a Contract and Contracts in Law are as much within the Statute as Actual Contracts made between the Parties All which was admitted on the other side but it was said that this Contract in Law was chiefly grounded upon the Record and compared it to the Case of Attornies Fees which hath been adjudged not to be within the Statute though it be quasi ex contractu because it depends upon Matter of Record Rolls Abridg. tit Debt 598. pl. 17. And afterwards in Michaelmas-Term following by the Opinions of the Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices it was held that this Case was not within the Statute because the Action was brought against the Defendant as an Officer who acted by vertue of an Execution in which Case the Law did create no Contract and that here was a Wrong done for which the Plaintiff had taken a proper remedy and therefore should not be barred by this Statute Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion for he said if another received Mony to his use due upon Bond the Receipt makes the Party subject to the Action and so is within the Statute But by the Opinions of the other Iustices Iugdment was given for the Plaintiff Major versus Grigg In Banco Regis THE Plaintiff brought an Action Covenant to save harmless and the Plaintiff sets forth no Title in the disturber good after Verdict Cro. Eliz. 914. Cro. Jac. 315 425. Vaugh. 120 121. 2 Sand. 178. Mod. Rep. 66. for that the Defendant Non indempnem conservavit ipsum de concernente occupation̄ quorundam clausorum c. secundum formam agreamenti and sets forth a disturbance by one who commenced a Suit against him in such a Term concernente occupation̄ clausorum praed ' but doth not set forth that the person suing had any Title which it was said ought to have been shewn as if a Man makes a Lease for years and covenants for quiet enjoyment in an Action brought by the Lessee upon that Covenant it must be shewn that there was a lawful Title in the person who disturbed or else the Action will not lie But this being after a Verdict and the Plaintiff setting forth in his Declaration that the disturber recovered per Judicium Curiae the Court now were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff Taylor versus Baker In Banco Regis Payment to the Marshal no discharge to the Plaintiff at whose Suit the Defendant was in Execution Jones 97. THE Case was viz. a Man being in Execution doth actually pay the Mony to the Marshal for which he was imprisoned and thereupon was discharged and whether he should pay it again to the Plaintiff upon a second Execution was the Question Sanders argued that he should not pay it again he said this Case was never adjudged and therefore could produce no Authority in Point to warrant his Opinion but parallel Cases there were many As if the Sheriff take Goods in Execution by vertue of a Fieri Facias whether he sells them or not yet being taken from the party against whom the Execution was sued he shall plead that taking in discharge of himself and shall not be liable to a second Execution though the Sheriff hath not returned the Writ and the reason is because the Defendant cannot avoid the Execution and he would therefore be in a very bad condition if he was to be charged the second time And if the Sheriff should die after the Goods are taken in Execution his Executors are liable to the Plaintiff to satisfie the debt for they have paid pro
quo and 't is in nature of a Contract raised by Law By the Words of the Capias ad satisfaciend ' it doth appear that the design of the Writ is to enforce the Payment of the the debt by the Imprisonment of the Defendant The Sheriff thereupon returns that he hath taken the Body and that the Defendant hath paid the Mony to him for which reason he discharged him and for this Return he was amerced not because he discharged the Party but because he had not brought the Mony into the Court for the Law never intended that a Man should be kept in Prison after he had paid the debt In this Case the Defendant can have no remedy to recover it again of the Marshal because it was not a bare Payment to him but to pay it over again to the Plaintiff and likewise in consideration that he should be discharged from his Imprisonment If it should be objected by the Marshal that the Plaintiff hath an Action of Escape against him and likewise by the Plaintiff that he did not make the Gaoler his Steward or Bayliff to receive his Mony Answ The Gaoler is made his Bayliff to keep the Party in Execution and it would be very hard that when the Prisoner will lay down his Mony in discharge of the Debt that the Gaoler should not have full power to discharge him If he had come in Michaelmas-Term after the long Vacation and informed the Court that he had offered to pay the Execution Mony to the Marshal and that he would not take it and that the Plaintiff could not be found the Court would have made a Rule to help him Mr. Holt contra If the Payment had béen good to the Sheriff or Marshal yet 't is not pleadable to the second Execution because 't is matter in fact That which hath been objected that the Party shall plead to a second Execution that his Goods were taken by a former Fieri Facias cannot be for no such Plea can be good because by that Writ the Sheriff hath express Authority to levy the Mony and the Plea is not Payment to the Sheriff but that the Mony was levyed by him by virtue of the Writ which ought to be brought into the Court and an Audita Querela lies against the Plaintiff and then the Defendant is to be bailed 1 Leon. 141. Askew versus the Earl of Lincoln Jones and Rainsford were of Opinion that the Defendant might have remedy against the Marshal to recover his Mony again and that the Payment to him was no discharge to the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was in Execution But Iustice Wyld was of another Opinion Quaere The Lord Marquess of Dorchester's Case In Communi Banco IN a Scandalum Magnatum Visne not changed in a Scandalum Magnatum Serjeant Pemberton moved to have good Bail which the Court denied and said that in such Case Bail was not requirable but notwithstanding the Defendant consented to put in 50 l. Bail And then upon the usual Affidavit moved to change the Visne the Action being laid in London which was opposed by the Serjeant who desired that it might be tried where it was laid but he said in this Case that the Visne could not be changed 1. Because the King is a Party to the Suit for 't is tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso 2. The Plaintiff is a Lord of Parliament which is adjourned and will meet and therefore it would be inconvenient to try the Cause in the Country since the Service of the King and Kingdom both require his Attendance here and he said that upon the like Motion in B. R. between the Lord Stamford and Needham the Court would not change the Visne North Chief Iustice said that he always took it as a current Opinion that in a Scandalum Magnatum the Visne could not be changed for since it was in the nature of an Information it being tam quam 't was advisable whether it was not within the Statute of 21 Jac. which doth appoint Informations to be tried in their proper Counties But Iustice Atkins inclined that the Visne might be changed for though by the Wisdom of the Law a Iury of the Neighbourhood are to try the Cause yet in point of Iustice the Court may change the Visne to which it was objected that then there would be no difference between local and transitory Actions Actions of Debt and Accompt shall be brought in their proper Counties 6 R. 2. and it was agreed that an Attorney is sworn to bring Actions no where else But the Court not agréeing at last the Defendant was willing that the Cause should be tried in London if the Plaintiff would consent not to try it before the first Setting in the next Term. And as to that reason offered why the Visne should not be changed because the Plaintiff was a Lord of Parliament Iustice Atkins said that did not satisfie him it might be a good ground to move for a Trial at the Barr to which it was answered that in the Case of the Earl of Shaftsbury the Court would not grant a Tryal at the Barr without the Consent of the Defendant The Visne was not changed Beaver versus Lane COvenant made to Baron and Feme Covenant to Baron and Feme the Baron alone may bring the Action the Husband alone brings the Action quod teneat ei conventionem secundum formam effectum cujusdam Indenturae inter Querentem ex una parte Defendentem ex altera parte confect ' and this was for not repairing his House After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because of this variance But the Court Ordered that the Plaintiff should have his Iudgment for the Indenture being by Baron and Feme it was therefore true that it was by the Baron and the Action being brought upon a Covenant concerning his Houses and going with them though it be made to him and his Wife yet he may refuse quoad her and bring the Action alone And the Chief Iustice said that he remembred an Authority in an old Book that if a Bond be given to Baron and Feme the Husband shall bring the Action alone which shall be looked upon to be his refusal as to her Calthrop versus Phillips THE Question was Supersedeas must be delivered by the old Sheriff to the new one Mod. Rep. 222. in regard a Supersedeas is not returnable in the Court whether the old Sheriff is bound to deliver it over to the new one or no and it was urged that it ought not because the old Sheriff is to keép it for his indempnity and he may have occasion to plead it But on the other side it was insisted by Serjeant George Strode that it ought to be delivered to the new Sheriff and that there was a Writ in the Register which proved it fol. 295. and if it should be otherwise these inconveniences would follow 1. It would be
Tenant to the Praecipe the Statute shall be so construed that the intent of the Parties shall stand 5. The Lands in the Parishes pass 1 Anders 83. because the Deed and Common Recovery make but one Conveyance and Assurance in the Law and therefore as a Construction is not to be made upon part but upon the whole Deed so not upon the Deed or Recovery alone but upon both together 2 Co. 75. Lord Cromwel's Case 6. Antea 'T is the Agreement of the Parties which governs Fines and Recoveries and Lands shall pass by such Names as are agreed between them though such Names are not proper and therefore a Fine of a lieu conus is good though neither Vill or Parish is named therein Poph. 22. 1 Cro. 270 276 693. 2 Cro. 574. So if a Fine be levied of a Common of Pasture in Dale Cro. Car. 308. Winch 122. Sid. 190 191. Antea 't is good though Dale be neither Vill or Hamlet or lieu conus out of a Vill 2 Roll. Abr. f. 19. So in Sir George Symonds his Case Lands as parcel of a Mannor were adjudged to pass though in truth they were used with the Manor but two years and the reason of all these Cases is because it was the Agreement of the Parties that they should pass Object If it be objected That all these Authorities are in Cases of Fines but the Case at Bar is in a Common Recovery which makes a great difference Answ The proceedings in both are amicable and not adversary and therefore as to this purpose there is no difference between them and for an Authority in the point the Case of Lever and Hosier was cited which was adjudged in this Court Trin. 27 Car. 2 Where the Question was Antea whether upon a Common Recovery suffered of Lands in the Town of Sale or the Liberty thereof Lands lying in Dale being a distinct Vill in the Parish of Sale should pass or not and after divers Arguments it was allowed to be well enough being in the Case of a Common Recovery And so was the Case Pasch 16 Car. 2. in B. R. In a special Verdict the Case was That Sir Thomas Thinn being seised of the Mannor of Buckland in Tail and of twenty Acres of Land called and known by a particular name which twenty Acres of Land were in Ed. the 6th's time reputed parcel of the said Mannor and always used with it Sid. 190. sold the said Mannor and all the Lands reputed parcel thereof with the Appurtenances of which he did suffer a Common Recovery and it was adjudged upon great consideration that though the Recovery did not mention the twenty Acres particularly yet it did dock the Entail thereof because the Indenture which leads the Vses of the Recovery was of the Lands reputed parcel thereof or enjoyed with it and that the shortness in the Recovery was well supplied by the Deed in which Case the Court were guided by the resolution in Sir George Symond's Case Vide 6 Co. Sir Moyle Finch's Case The Authorities against this Opinion are two Antea Lever and Hosieâ— 1. That of Stock versus Fox Cro. Jac. 120. There were two Vills Walton and Street in the Parish of Street and a Fine was levied of Lands in Street it was adjudged that the Lands in Walton did not pass by this Fine But there is another Report of this very Case by my Lord Chief Iustice Roll in his Abr. tit Grants 54. where 't is said if there be in the County of Somerset the Vill of Street and the Vill of Waltham within the Parish of Street and a Man being seised of Lands in the Vill of Street and of other Lands in the Vill of Waltham all within the Parish of Street and he Bargains and Sells all his Lands in Street and having Covenanted to levie a Fine doth accordingly levie it of Lands in Street and doth not mention either in the Indenture or in the Fine any Lands in Waltham the Lands lying there shall not pass from which Report there may be a fair Inference made That it was the Lord Rolls his Opinion that if Waltham had been named in the Indenture though not in the Fine the Lands would have passed and in this Case the Parishes are named in the Indenture of Bargain and Sale but besides in that Case the Party had Lands both in Street and Waltham and so the Conveyances were not in vain as they must be here if the Lands in the Parishes do not pass Antea 2. The other Case is that of Baker and Johnson in Hutton 106. But this Case is quite different from that because there was neither Vill or Parish named in the Indenture but here the Indenture was right for the Lands are mentioned therein to lie in the Parishes c. And for these Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant This Case was afterwards argued in Michaelmas-Term following by Serjeant Pemberton and Maynard for the Plaintiff who said Ex parte Quer. That the Government of this Nation was Ecclesiastical and Civil the Ecclesiastical runs by Parishes and the Civil by Vills That a Parish is constituted by the Ecclesiastical Power and may be altered by the King and Ordinary of the place that the Parson was superintendent of the Parish and the Constable of the Vill which was also constituted by the Civil Magistrate and from hence it is that in real Actions which are adversary Lands ought not to be demanded as lying in a Parish but within a Vill that being the place known to the Civil Iurisdiction and if a Trespass which is local be laid at Dale generally there being both the Parish and Vill of Dale the proof of the Trespass done in the Parish is not good for it must be at the Vil. They agreed that in conveying of Lands a Fine or Common Recovery of Lands in a Parish or Lieu conus was good 2 Cro. 574. But if there be both a Vill and a Parish of the same Name and severally bounded if the Vill be only named without the Parish nothing doth pass but what is in the Vill because where a place is alledged in Pleading it must be of a Vill Moor 710. 1 Inst 125. b. 2 Cro. 121. And this was the ancient way of demanding Lands in a Praecipe quod reddat because of the Notoriety of Vills from whence Visnes do arise and because the Vill is more particular and of more certainty than a Parish and therefore 't is requisite that the Demandant should be very particular in his Demand that the Tenant may know how to make his defence and the Sheriff of what to deliver possession Besides a Vill is more ancient than a Parish and Lands have been demanded within them time out of mind so that the Demand when 't is doubtful of what 't is made shall be supposed of that which is most ancient and such Construction is most conformable to the like Cases
for Additio probat Minoritatem and therefore if Father and Son are both of one Name and mention is made of one without an addition of Junior the Law intends the Father so the Vill being more ancient than the Parish that shall be intended if the Parish is not named In 2 Anderson 124. Hartwel Rode and Ashen were several Vills in the Parish of Rode the King granted all his Tythes in Rode and Ashen in tenura Richardi Wake and at the time of the Grant the Tythes of Hartwel were in the Tenure of Wake it was adjudged in the King's Bench that the Tythes in Hartwel did pass but that Iudgment was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber because Rode could not be * In a Praecipe it must be intended a Vill if a Parish be not named because Vills are known at the Common Law but not Parishes those were constituted by the Council of Lyons but 't is otherwise in Grants Owen 61. intended a Parish and so to comprehend Hartwel but must be intended a Vill distinct from a Parish and so the Tythes of Hartwel being also a Vill could not pass by the Grant of them in Rode this also was the Opinion of Popham Owen 60. But Gawdy and Fenner were of another Opinion As to the finding of the Iury that doth not help if the Recovery be not full for they may expound but they cannot enlarge each other In a Formedon nient comprise in the Record and not what is comprised in the Deed is the Plea Things upon a Record are open to the View of all People but a Deed is a Pocket Record and the persons whom it concerneth cannot come at the sight of it so Fines are open and to be seen by all and are to be proclaimed but according to this Interpretation Déeds should be also proclaimed And there is a manifest difference between things conteined in a Fine and in a Déed for a Fine of a Tenement is not good but a Deed of a Tenement is well enough but will not help the Fine and therefore Men should not go out of the Rules of the Law to help a Mistake For which Reasons they prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff But the whole Court were of Opinion that the Lands in the Parishes did well pass for as Fines and Recoveries did grow in use and are now become Common Assurances they are to be favoured in the Law And it hath been a Rule that even in doubtful things Constructions shall be made to support a Deed if possible Ut res magis valeat quam pereat Co. Lit. 183. By Rippon generally the Vill shall be intended but stabitur praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium and that is proved by the Deed which shews where the Lands lye Indenture by an Infant to declare Uses of a Fine or Recovery make but one Conveyance otherwise he might avoid it as he may a Deed by Infancy Hob. f. 6. 2 Cro. 676 Both the Indenture and Recovery being one Conveyance must be expounded so that every part may stand besides 't is apparent by the intent of the Parties which the Iury have also found that the Lands in the Parishes should pass In the Case of Brock and Spencer a Trespass was laid in Hursly and it was not said whether Vill or Parish the Defendant pleaded that the Lands were held of the Mannor of Marden in the Parish of Hursley c. and the Venire Facias was de Vicineto only and not de Vicineto Parochiae Hursley and it was adjudged good for the Vill and the Parish shall be understood to be the same And as to this purpose they were all of Opinion that there was no difference between a Fine and Recovery 't is true the Law originally took notice of a Vill only because the division of a County into Parishes was of Ecclesiastical distribution but now by process of time that distinction is taken notice of in in Civil Affairs and the Law hath great regard to the Vsage and Practice of the People the Law it self being nothing else but common Vsage with which it complies and alters with the exigency of Affairs it was but lately that the Cursitors would put the Word Parish into a Writ for if a Note was delivered to them of Lands in the Parish of Dale they used always to make it of Lands in Dale till the Court ordered them to do otherwise so that though the Common Vsage was so formerly 't is now otherwise and the Reason of things changing the things themselves also change And if this Recovery should not be construed to pass the Lands the intention of the Parties would faile 't is true there is no Authority express in the point to guide this Iudgment nor is there any against it but if such should be the Opinion of the Court is not to be bound against apparent Right and 't is for the honour of the Law that Men should enjoy their Bargains according as they intended for which Reasons Iudgment was given for the Defendant Goffe versus Elkin THE Condition of a Bond was Affirmative Plea where it ought to be particular where not That if the Plaintiff shall seal to the Defendant a good and sufficient Conveyance in the Law of his Lands in Jamaica with usual Covenants in such manner as by the Defendants Council shall be advised then if the Defendant should thereupon pay unto the Plaintiff such a Sum of Mony c. the Condition should be void In Debt brought upon this Bond the Defendant after Dyer of the Condition pleads that Mr. Wade a Councellor at Law did advise a Deed of Bargain and Sale from the Plaintiff to the Defendant with the usual Covenants of all his Lands in Jamaica and tendred the Conveyance to the Plaintiff who refused to seal the same and so would discharge himself of the Condition the Mony being not to be paid unless the Assurance made To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred by Serjeant George Strode 1. Because the Defendant hath not shewed the Conveyance and an affirmative Plea ought to be particular and not so general as this for to plead generally quod exoneravit is not good but it must be shewed how and so it was adjudged in the Case of * 2 Cro. 165 359 363 503 634. Sid. 106. 2 Co. 4. a. Cro. Car. 383 384. 2 Leon. 214. Horseman and Obbius where the Condition was to indempnifie Lands from the yearly Rent of 20 l. during the Demise the Defendant pleaded quod à tempore confectionis scripti obligatorii hucusque exoneravit c. And upon Demurrer as here it was held no good Plea 2. The Matter of the Condition consists both of Law and Fact and both ought to be set out the preparing of the Deed is Matter of Fact and the Reasonableness and Validity thereof is Matter of Law and therefore they ought to be set forth that the Court may judge thereof * Hob. 107. In 22 E. 4.40 The Condition
of the Officers drive the Sheep to Marwood's Grounds where they left them The Plaintiff demands the Sheep of Solebay and upon his refusal to deliver them brings this Action against the Servant and whether it would lye or not was the Question It was urged at the Barr that the Action would not lie against the Defendant because he had not the possession of the Goods at the time of the Action brought for he presently put them into his Masters Ground And it was said if A. find Goods and S. takes them away before the Action brought Trover will not lie against A. but 't is otherwise if he sell them In this Case it would have been a Breach of Trust in the Servant to have delivered the Goods belonging to his Master to another 'T is true if there be a Conversion though the possession be removed before the Action brought yet the Action will lie but that is because of the Conversion Many Cases were put where the Servant is not lyable to an Action for a thing done by the Command of his Master and where a Bayliff who is but a Servant to the Sheriff shall not be charged in a false Return made by his Master Cro. Eliz. 181. 1 Roll. Abr. 94 95. So if a Smiths Man prick an Horse the Action lies against the Master and not against the Servant The Court before they delivered any Iudgment in this Case premised these two things viz. 1. That 't is necessary in Trover to prove a Property in the Plaintiff and a Trover and Conversion in the Defendant And it was said by Iustice Atkins but denied by the Chief Iustice that though Goods are sold in a Market yet the property is not changed till the delivery for which he cited Keilway 59 77. But the Court held clearly in this Case that the first Sale to Alston was defeated by the Agreement of the Parties afterwards for when a Bargain is made and all the Parties consent to dissolve it and other Conditions are proposed the new Agreement destroys the former Bargain And the Chief Iustice said that if an Horse was bought in a Market for which the Vendeé is to pay 10 l. if the ready Mony be not paid the property is not altered but the Party may sell him to another 2. This new Agréement to have the Sheep if Alston would pay such a Sum of Mony at a future day will not amount to a Sale and the new property is changed and consequently the Sale by H. to the Plaintiff before the day is good and so the property of the Sheep is in him But by the Opinion of the whole Court the Action would not lie against the Defendant 1. The Defendant could be guilty of no Conversion unless the driving the Cattle by vertue of the Replevin would make him guilty but at that time the Sheep were in custodia Legis and the Law did then preserve them so that no property can be changed and if so then there could be no Conversion 2. The Action will not lie against the Servant for it being in Obedience to his Master's Command though he had no Title yet he shall be excused And this Rule Iustice Scroggs said would extend to all Cases where the Master's Command was not to do an apparent Wrong for if the Master's Case depended upon a Title be it true or not 't is enough to excuse the Servant for otherwise it would be a mischievous thing if the Servant upon all occasions must be satisfied with his Master's Title and Right before he obey his Commands and 't is very requisite that he should be satisfied if an Action should lie against him for what he doth in Obedience to his Master But it was said the * Wyne and Rider antea Servant cannot plead the Command of his Master in Barr of a Trespass and it was likewise said that in this Case the driving of the Cattle by the Servant to the Grounds of his Master or a Strangers helping to drive them without being requested is justifiable 3. Because what was done by the Defendant was done in Execution of the Process of the Law and he might as well justifie as the Officer for if he forbid the Defendant to have assisted him yet his assisting him afterwards would not have made him guilty because done in Execution of the Law 4. Because 't is not found that the Servant did convert the Sheep to his own use for the special Verdict only finds the Demand and the Refusal which is no Conversion and though 't is an Evidence of it to a Iury yet 't is not Matter upon which the Court can give Iudgment of a Conversion 10 Co. 57. And therefore the Iury should have found the Conversion as well as the Demand and Refusal 2 Bulstr 313. 1 Roll. Abr. 5. like the Case in 2 Roll. Abr. 693. In an Assise of Rent seek upon Nul tort pleaded the Iury found a Demand and Refusal sic disseisivit it was held to be no good Verdict for the Demand ought to have been found on the Land and shall not be so intended unless found The Plaintiff here hath set forth in his Declaration a Request to deliver then a Refusal and Conversion too which shews that they ought to be found because distinct things and the finding of the Demand and Refusal was only a presumptive not a conclusive proof of the conversion and if the Iury themselves know that there was no conversion yet the Plaintiff hath failed in his Action as if a Trover be brought for cutting Trees and carrying of them away and the Iury know that though the Defendant cut them down yet they still lay in the Plaintiffs Close this is no conversion And though it hath been strongly insisted at the Bar that the Court shall intend a conversion unless the contrary appeared and are to direct a Iury to find the demand and refusal to be a conversion and the Opinion of Dodridge and Croke in 1 Roll. Rep. 60. was much relied on where Adams recovered against Lewis 40 l. in the Court of Exon and three Butts of Sack were taken in Execution and the Plaintiff deposited 22 l in the Hands of the Defendent to prevent the Sale of the Sack which was to be a pledge to return it upon request if the Defendant was not paid before the next Court day the Iury found the Debt was not paid and that no request was made to return the Sack but that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the Mony Yet it was held by those two Iustices That the Law would supply the proof of a * Bulstr 308. Cro. Eliz. 495. Golds 152. Moor 460. Stiles 361. conversion though it was not found for it shall be presumed that the Mony was denied to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant might use it himself and because no other proof could be made that very denial shall be a conversion in Law so a denial of a Rent
without any actual Entry 2 Cro. 604. and the Bargaineé thereby is capable of a Release though he cannot bring an Action of Trespass without Entry for when Mony is the Consideration of making the Bargain and Sale 't is executed by the Statute of Vses and so the Release upon it is good but if the Deed be not executed 't is otherwise But this being to support a Common Recovery Antea Addison and Otway was to be favoured and therefore the Court took time to consider till the next Term and then The Chief Iustice said That if a real Action be brought against A. who is not Tenant to the Praecipe and a Recovery be had against him the Sheriff can turn him out who is in possession but if he who is not in possession comes in by Voucher he is estopped to say afterwards that he was not party to the Writ so that he who is bound must be Tenant or Vouchee or claim under them Conveyances have been altered not so much by the Knowledge of the Learned as by the Ignorance of Vnskilful Men in their Profession The usual Conveyance at Common Law was by Feoffment to which Livery and Seisin were necessary the Possession being given thereby to the Feoffee Antea Lord Salisburies Case but if there was a Tenant in Possession and so Livery could not be made then the Reversion was granted and the particular Tenant always attorned and upon the same reason it was that afterwards a Lease and Release was held a good Conveyance to pass an Estate but at that time it was made no question but that the Lessee was to be in actual Possession before the Release Afterwards Vses came to be frequent and Settlements to Vses were very common by reason whereof many inconveniencies were introduced to prevent which the Statute of the 27th of H. 8. was made by which the Vse was united to the Possession for before that Statute Vses were to be executed according to the Rules of Equity but now they are reduced to the Common Law and are of more certainty and therefore are to be construed according to the Rules of Law At the Common Law when an Estate did not pass by Feffoment the Lessor or Vendor made a Lease for years and the Lessee actually entred and then the Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee attorned and this was good Afterwards when an Inheritance was to be granted then also was a Lease for years usually made and the Lessee entred as before and then the Lessor released to him and this was good But after the Statute of Vses it became an Opinion That if a Lease for years was made upon a valuable Consideration a Release might operate upon that without an actual Entry of the Lessee because the Statute did execute the Lease and raised an Vse presently to the Lessee Sir Francis Moor Serjeant at Law was the first who practised this way Nota. But because there were some Opinions that where Conveyances may enure two ways the Common Law shall be preferred unless it appear that the party intended it should pass by the Statute thereupon the usual course was to put the Words Bargain and Sale into the Lease for a Year to bring it within the Statute and to alledge that the Lease was made to the intent and purpose that by the Statute of Vses the Lessee might be capable of a Release but notwithstanding this Mr. Noy was of the Opinion That this Conveyance by Lease and Release could never be maintained without the actual Entry of the Lessee This Case goes farther than any that ever yet came into Iudgment for Mony is not mentioned here to be the Consideration or any thing which may amount to it unless the Pepper Corn which he held to be a good Consideration The Lease and Release are but in nature of one Deed and then the intent of the Parties is apparent that it should pass by the Satute and eo instanti that the Lease is executed the Reservation is in force The Case put by Littleton in Sect. 459. is put at the Common Law and not upon the Statute where he saith That if a Lease be made for years and the Lessor releaseth all his Right to the Lessee before Entry such Release is void because the Lessee had only a Right and not the Possession which my Lord Coke in his Comment upon it calls an interesse termini and that such Release shall not enure to enlarge the Estate without the Possession which is very true at the Common Law but not upon the Statute of Vses And therefore Iudgment was given by the whole Court Judgment that the Word Grant in the Lease will make the Land pass by way of Use that the Reservation of a Pepper Corn was a good consideration to raise an Vse to support a Common Recovery that this Lease being within the Statute of Vses there was no need of an actual Entry to make the Lessee capable of the Release for by vertue of the Statute he shall be adjudged to be in actual possession and so a good Tenant to the Praecipe and Iudgment was given accordingly in Michaelmas Term following Kendrick versus Bartland THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case for stopping the Water going to his Mill with a Continuando c. Continuando laid after a Nusance abated yet Damages shall be recovered for what was done before The Defendant pleads that the stopping was contra voluntatem and that tali die which was betwéen the first and the last day laid in the Continuando the Plaintiff himself had abated the Nusance and so he had no cause of Action To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Serjeant Baldwyn who argued to maintain the Plea did not relye upon that part of it where the Defendant saith that the stopping of the Water was involuntary because he doing the thing it could not be contra voluntatem but the Question would be whether the Plaintiff had any cause of Action to recover damages after the Abatement of the Nusance and he said that he had abated it before the Action brought and counted for damages after the Abatement for which he had no Cause of Action and this he had confessed by his Demurrer But the Court were of Opinion that it was not a good Plea and took this difference between a Quod permittat or an Assize for a Nusance and an Action on the Case for the same for the end of a Quod permittat or an Assise was to abate the Nusance 2 Cro. 207 618 but the end of an Action on the Case was to recover damages therefore though the Nusance was removed the Plaintiff is intituled to his damages that accrued before and 't is usual in Actions of this nature to lay the Sid. 319. Continuando for longer time than the Plaintiff can prove but he shall have damages for what he can prove and so here he shall recover the
damages which he sustained before the Abatement And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Walwyn versus Awberry and others Tythes of a Rectory shall not be sequestred for Repairs of the Chancel Mod. Rep. 258. TRespass for the taking and carrying away of four Loads of Wheat and four Loads of Rye c. The Defendants justifie for that the Plaintiff is Rector of the Rectory impropriate of B. and that the Chancel was out of Repair and that the Bishop of Hereford after Monition first given to the Plaintiff had granted a Sequestration of the Tythes of the Rectory for the repairing the Chancel and that the Defendants were Churchwardens of the Parish and that the particulars mentioned in the Declaration were Tythes belonging to the Plaintiff as Rector aforesaid and that by vertue of the said Commission they took the same for repairing of the said Chancel and that for these Tythes so taken they had accounted to the Bishop To this the Plaintiff demurred The Question was whether an Impropriate Rectory be chargeable for the Repairs of the Chancel by the Sequestration of the Tythes by the Bishop and those who argued in the negative for the Plaintiff could not deny but that Church Reparations did belong to the Ecclesiastical Courts and that as often as Prohibitions have been prayed to that Iurisdiction Consultations have been as often granted notwithstanding in many Cases the Rates for such Reparations have been very unequally imposed and the reason is because those Courts have original Iurisdiction of the Matter It was admitted also that Parishioners are bound to repair the Church and the Rector the Chappel and in this respect of their Lands and therefore if a Man hath Lands in one Town and dwell in another he shall be contributory to the Reparation of that Church where his Lands are and not where he inhabits And that all this was by the common Custom of England long before the making of the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Parsonages were made Lay Fees but then it must be understood that this was no real Duty incumbent upon them but was a personal burden for which every Parishioner was chargeable proportionably to the quantity of Land which he held in the Parish in which Case if he refused to be contributory the Ordinary did never intermeddle with the possessions but always proceeded by Ecclesiastical Censures as Excommunication of the Party refusing which is the proper remedy But in case of an Appropriation in the Hands of an Ecclesiastical Corporation as Dean and Chapter c. there if a Refusal be to contribute to the Repairs the Ordinary may sequester and the reason is because a Corporation cannot be excommunicated The Ordinary may also sequester in things of Ecclesiastical Cognizance as if the King do not present so he may take the Profits within the six Months that the Patron hath to present and apply them to the Pastor of the Church by him recommended because the Ordinary hath a provisional Superintendency of the Church and there is a necessity that the Cure should be supplyed until the Patron doth present and this is a kind of Sequestration But in some Cases the Ordinary could not sequester the Profits belonging to Spiritual Persons though he was lawfully entituled to them for a particular time and purpose For by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. 't is Enacted That if a Parson make a Lease of his Living for a longer time than he is resident upon it that such Lease shall be void and he shall for the same lose one years Profits of his Benefice to be distributed by the Ordinary amongst the Poor of the Parish Now he had no Remedy to recover the Years Profits but in the Ecclesiastical Court he could not sequester and to give him Authority so to do a supplemental Statute was made five years afterwards in the 18th year of the Queens Reign cap. 11. by which Power is given him to grant a Sequestration so that if he could not sequester in a Case of which he had a Iurisdiction by a precedent Statute à fortiori he cannot in a Case exempted as this is from his Iurisdiction But admitting a Sequestration might go then this inconveniency would follow that if other Lands should be sequestred for the same purpose the former Sequestration could not be pleaded to discharge them because the interest is not bound thereby no more than a Sequestration out of Chancery is pleadable to an Action of Trespass at the Common Law This Case cannot be distinguished from that of Jefferies in 5 Co. and from what the Civilians testified to the Court there viz. That the Churchwardens and greater part of the Parishioners upon a general warning given may make a Taxation by Law but the same shall not charge the Land but the person in respect of his Land so that 't is he that is chargeable and may be excommunicated in case of refusal to contribute but his Lands cannot be sequestred because 't is not the business of the Ordinary to meddle with the temporal possessions of Lay-men but to proceed against them by Ecclesiastical Censures and the Parishioners Lands may be as well sequestred for the Repairs of the Church as the Lands of the Impropriator for the Repairs of the Chappel for which Reasons it was held that a Sequestration would not lie Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that before the making of the Statute the Rector was to repair the Chancel under pain of Sequestration which the Ordinary had power to grant in case of refusal and that his Authority in many Cases was not abridged by the Statute The Case of * 2 Cro. 518. Parry and Banks was cited where in the 24th Year of H. 8. a Parsonage was appropriated to the Deanary of St. Asaph and a Vicaridge endowed which the Bishop dissolved in the 24th Year of Queen Elizabeth and Parry pretending that notwithstanding this Dissolution it was in the Kings Hands by lapse obtained a Presentation and it was resolved that after the Statute of Dissolutions which made Parsonages Lay Fees the Ordinary could not dissolve the Vicaridge where the Parsonage was in a Temporal Hand but being in that Case in the Hands of the Dean he might The Rector is to repair the Chancel because of the Profits of the Glebe which is therefore Onus reale impositum rebus personis and of that Opinion was Johannes de Atkin who wrote 100 years before Lynwood where in fol. 56. he saith That if the Chancel was out of repair it affected the Glebe And that the Constitution of the Canon Law is such will not be denied Vaugh. 327. and if so Canons being allowed are by use become parcel of the Common Law and are as much the Law of the Kingdom as an Act of Parliament for what is Law doth not suscipere magis aut minus Several Cases were put where the Bishop doth intermeddle with the
Case of * Cro. Car. 383 Sid. 293. Langden and Stokes was an Authority that such a discharge had been good before the breach viz. The Defendant promised to go a Voiage the breach was alledged in Non-performance and the Defendant pleaded that before any breach the Plaintiff exoneravit eum and upon Demurrer it was held good before the breach But here was no time agreed for the payment of this 5 l. and therefore it was due immediately upon Request and not being paid the Promise is broken and the parol discharge cannot be pleaded and of that Opinion was all the Court and Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Quaere If had pleaded such a discharge before any request of payment wheher it had been good Arris Arris versus Stukely In Scaccario Indebitatus Assumpsit will lie for the receipt of the Profits of an Office tho' no contract INdebitatus assumpsit for 200 l. in Mony had and received to the use of the Plaintiffs Vpon Non assumpsit pleaded the Iury find a Special Verdict to this effect viz. They find that King Charles the Second did on the 17th day of August in the 12th year of his Reign by his Letters Patents under the great Seal grant unto the Defendant and another the Office of Comptroler of the Customs at the Port of Excester durante bene placito that the other person died and that the King afterwards by other Letters Patents bearing date primo Maii in the 21st year of his Reign did grant the said Office to the Plaintiffs which was two years before this Action brought and that the Defendant still and for seven years past had exercised the same upon pretence of a Right by Survivorship and received the Profits thereof but whether upon the whole Matter the Defendant made any such Promise as in the Declaration they did not know Et petunt advisamentum Curiae in praemissis and if upon the Matter so found the Court shall be of Opinion that the Defendant made such Promise then they say that he did make such Promise and assess damages occasione praemissorum in narratione mentionat ' ad 100 l. and Costs to 53 s. and 4 d. c. Winnington Sollicitor argued that the first Patent was determined by the death of one of the Patentées and then the second Patent takes effect and so the Plaintiffs have a good Title for there shall be no Survivorship of an Office of Trust no not if the Office had been granted to two for their Lives if it be not said to the Survivor of them 11 Co. 34. Auditor Curles Case and of that Opinion was the Court clearly But Pollexfen for the Defendant said that he agreed that Point but that the Plaintiffs Patent was not good for though there be a general Non obstante of all the Statutes in it yet there ought to have been one in particular against the Statute of 14 R. 2. cap. 10. which Enacts That no Customer or Comptroler shall have any Office in the Customs for his Life 31 H. 6. c. 5. but only during the pleasure of the King which being made for the publique Good the King cannot by any Non obstante dispense with it In many Cases the dispensation of the King by a Non obstante is good as where a Statute prescribes the form of the King's Grant where it doth not directly prohibit a thing but only under pain of a Forfeiture but if it be direct and pro bono publico there a Non obstante is not good and so is this Statute He cannot dispense with the Statute of 31 Eliz. against Symony for the Party being disabled by an * Hob. 57. 1 Inst 120. Act of Parliament cannot be enabled by a Non obstante he cannot dispence with the Statute of Leases of * 5 Co. 15. Ecclesiastical Persons nor with the Iurisdiction of the * 13 R. 2. c. 3. 15 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4 11. 4 Inst 153. Admiralty encroaching upon the Common Law for the foundation of a Non obstante is in the Kings Prerogative and is current in his Grants but in those Statutes the Subject hath an interest The Laws concerning Non obstantes are none of the * Davis Rep 69 70 71. Vaugh. 332. Thomas versus Sorrel Hob. 146. Colt and Glover Long 5 E. 4. 33 34. ancient Laws of this Land but brought in by the Pope The Book of 2 H. 7. f. 6. b. and 7. did first give rise to this exorbitant power yet it is not the Opinion of all or indeed of any of the Iudges then as 't is affirmed to be for Broke Pat. 45 109. who abridged that Case took no notice of any Opinion of the Iudges yet some grounding themselves on that Book affirm that the King may dispense with the Statute of the 23 H. 6. cap. 8. which Enacts That no Man shall be Sheriff for above one Year and that therefore a Patent granted by Ed. the 4th to the Earl of Northumberland to be Sheriff of the same County for Life was held good which is a plain mistake for there never was any such Resolution neither did the Iudges make any determination upon that Statute it was only a discourse obiter by Radcliff who was then one of the Barons of the Exchequer concerning the Statutes of the 14 E. 3. cap. 7. and of the 42 E. 3. cap. 9. which are only prohibitory That no Sheriff shall continue in his Office above one year but have not any such Clause in them as the Statute of 23 H. 6. hath which saith That all Patents made to any to be Sheriff for above a year shall be void any Clause or word of Non obstante in any wise put in such Patent notwithstanding this was the mistake of Baron Radcliff Postea who upon a sudden Discourse thought there might be such Clauses in those former Statutes of Ed. 3. and that notwithstanding which there being a Non obstante in that Patent to those Statutes he held that to be a good dispensation of them but 't is plain there are no such Clauses in those Statutes and therefore a Non obstante to them is good and which was the true reason why that Patent in H. the 7th's time was held good 2. Another reason might be because the Office of Sheriff was grantable for Life and so not within the reach of the Prohibition by those Statutes 3. But it if was yet the Proviso in the Aa of Resumption of 1 H. 7. protected that Patent by which the King resumed all Grants made by E. 4. but provides for the Earl's Grant But admitting the Statute of R. 2. and of H. 6. may be dispensed withal in this Case Dyer 352. a. 2 Roll. Abr. 193. Cro. Eliz. 513. yet it should be more particular than in this Patent to the Plaintiff for Non obstante aliquo Statuto generally will not serve 2. Point A general indebitatus assumpsit will not lie
Defendant demands Dyer of the Indenture wherein was a variance between the Covenant which was for notice to be given to the Testator and this Declaration by which notice is averred to be given to the Executor and for this reason he demurred And Serjeant Dolben Recorder of London argued for him that this was in the Nature of a Condition precedent and therefore they ought to have given the Testator notice which according to the Agreement ought also to have been personal which not being done but only notice given to his Executor did make a material and fatal difference between the Covenant and this Declaration 14 H. 6. 1. 1 H. 6. 9. And that in this Case there was no Covenant by the Testator at all for all agree to pay their proportions and the Testator should pay his part which is not a Covenant Barrel Serjeant on the other side said that the Executor doth represent the person of the Testator and that though this Covenant was to give notice to the Testator yet if the Declaration had been of a Covenant to give notice to him his Executors and Administrators c. it had been no material variance so as to prejudice the Action of the Plaintiff because 't is no more than what the Law implies Pl. Com. 192. And upon the first opening this Matter this Term the Chief Iustice and Iustice Atkins enclined that the notice ought to be personal and that the variance was material But afterwards in Hillary Term following mutata opinione the whole Court agreed it to be otherwise because the Covenant runs in Interest and Charge and so the Executor is bound to pay and therefore 't is necessary that he should have notice and that there was no material difference between the Declaration and the Covenant And lastly Antea that the Testator being a Party to the Deed his Agreement to pay amounts to a Covenant though the formal Words of Covenant Grant c. were wanting But then Serjeant Dolben perceiving the Opinion of the Court insisted that the Declaration was naught for another reason viz. they had not declared that this notice was given in writing which is expresly agreed in the Covenant to which it was answered that the Defendant having pleaded that he gave notice secundum formam effectum Conditionis it was well enough But he said that would not help the want of Substance Dyer 243. b. and cited a Case where an Action of Debt was brought for the performance of an Award so as the same was delivered in Writing c. The Defendant pleaded Non deliberavit in scriptis The Plaintiff replyed and set forth the Award in Writing but did not directly answer the Plea of delivering it in Writing only by way of Argument and upon Demurrer there omnes Justiciarii contra Querentem and so they were in this Case that the notice must be pleaded in Writing and that secundum formam Conditionis was not good And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Frosdick versus Sterling THE Plaintiff alone brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant and sets forth Baron and Feme where the Action if it s not discharged shall survive to her they must both join that he and his Wife in her Right were seised of a Messuage Bake-House and Cole-Yard c. and that the Defendant had erected two Houses of Office so near the said Bake-House that the Walls thereof became foundrous and the Air so unwholesome that he lost his Custom and that the Defendant had digged a Pit so near the said Cole-Yard that the Walls thereof were in danger of falling and that he had built another Wall so near the said Messuage that he had stopped an old Light therein Vpon Not-guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff And now Serjeant George Strode moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Wife should have been joyned in this Action for where she may maintain an Action for a tort done in the Life-time of her Husband if she survive and where she may also recover Damages in such Cases she must joyn and it hath been adjudged that she ought to joyn with her Husband for stopping a way upon her Land Cro. Car. 418. 1 Roll. Abr. 348. pl. 1. 20 H. 6. 1. â— Ed. 4. 15. Cro. El. 461. So also for cutting down Trees on the Ioynture of the Wife made to her by a former Husband by reason whereof the present Husband lost the Loppings they both joyned for though the wrong was done to his Possession and he might have Released yet because there was also a wrong done to the Inheritance they ought both to joyn Cro. Car. 438. 3 Inst 650. So it hath been adjudged that the Husband and Wife in Right of the Wife jojned in an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. for not setting out of Tythes and held good and where the Wife cured a wound 2 Cro. 205 399. 9 E. 4. 55. both joyned in the Action 11 H. 4. 16. 46. E. 3. 3. The Court held That where the Action if not discharged shall survive to the Wife they ought both to joyn which if they had done here it would have been hard to have maintained this Action because entire Damages are given and for losing the Custom to his Bake-house the Husband alone ought to have brought the Action He may bring an Ejectment of the Lands of his Wife but Iudgment was stayed till moved on the other side Barker versus Warren Justification where 't is not local a Traverse of the place makes the Plea naught AN Action was brought against a Carrier and laid in London for losing of Goods there which were delivered to him at Beverly in Yorkshire to re-deliver at London The Defendant pleads That he was robbed of the said Goods at Lincoln absqe hoc that he lost them in London And the Plaintiff demurred 1. For that Robbery is no excuse for a Common Carrier so that the Plea is not good in substance 2. This was no local Iustification so that the Traverse was ill But on the other side it was said by Serjeant Hopkins that the Plea was good and that the Defendant might Traverse the place For in Trespass for the taking of Goods in Coventry the Defendand pleaded that the Plaintiff did deliver the Goods to him at London to deliver at Dale by force whereof he took them at London and delivered them at Dale accordingly absque hoc that he took them at Coventry and held good for by his Plea he hath confessed the delivery and the taking both at one time and place and he could not have pleaded the delivery at London and justifie the taking at Coventry because the Possession is confessed by the first delivery at London and therefore the justification of the taking at Coventry had been inconsistent 24 H. 6. 5. But it had been otherwise if the Defendant had justified because the Plaintiff
reason alone the Plaintiff had no cause of Demurrer for the Defendant may well disclose the matter of Law in Pleading which is a much cheaper way than to have a Special Verdict and that this is on the same reason of giving of colour but if the matter by which the Defendant justifies be all matter of Fact and proper for the Tryal of a Iury then the Dfendant ought to plead the General Issue And as to the Matter of the Plea the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustice held it to be good for the Common which was pleaded was a Common by Grant and not argumentatively pleaded for if the Defendant had pleaded an express Grant of Common in those two places and the Plaintiff had demanded Oyer of the Deed it would have appeared that there was no such Deed and this had been a good cause of Demurrer If this Plea should not be good it would be very mischievous to the Defendant for there being a perpetual Vnity as to the Freehold there can be no Prescription to the Common but there being a constant enjoyment thereof by the Tenants and so a perpetual Vsage and a Grant made referring to that Vsage 't is well enough And since whilst the Lands were in possession of the Lord the Commoners could not complain of a Surcharge why should they if he grant the Premisses the Granteé being in loco c. In the Case of the King a Grant of tot talia Libertates Privilegia quot qualia the Abbot lately had 9 Co. 23. Abbot de Strata Marcella was held good by such general Words Here the Lord Paget granted to the Defendant that which the Lessées had before viz. that Common which the Tenants had time out of mind and it cannot be conceived but that the Tenants had a Right for as a Tort cannot be presumed to be from time immemorial so neither shall it be intended that the Lord gave only a Licence and permitted his Tenants to enjoy this Common But Iustice Atkins was of Opinion that the Plea was not good he said he knew not by what Name to call this Common for it was no more than a Permission from the Lord that the Tenants might put their Cattle into his Freehold or a Connivance at them for so doing and if it be taken as a new Grant then nothing can pass but the Surplus for the Lord cannot derogate from his former Grant and the new Grantee shall not put in an equal proportion with him who hath the Prescription for if he may then such Prescription would be quite destroyed by such puisne Grant for as the Lord might grant to one so he might to twenty and then there would not be sufficient Common left for him who prescribes to the Right So that he conceived that the Defendant had no Right of Common or if he had any it would not be till after the Right of the Plaintiff was served and he said that Vsage shall not intend a Right but it may be an Evidence of it upon a Tryal But if there had been an Vsage 't is now lost by the Vnity of the Possession and shall not be revived by the new Grant like the Case of Massam and Hunter Yelv. 189. there was a Copyholder of a Messuage and two Acres in Feé which the Lord afterwards granted and confirmed to him in Fee cum pertinentiis it was adjudged that though the Tenant by Vsage had a Right to have Common in the Lord's Wast yet by this new Grant and Confirmation that Right was gone the Copyhold being thereby extinguished for the Common being by Vsage and now lost these Words cum pertinentiis in the new Grant will not revive it But notwithstanding Iudgment by the Opinion of the other three Iustices was given for the Defendant Week's Case A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court at Bristol the Suggestion was that he was excommunicated for refusing to answer upon Oath to a Matter by which he might accuse himself viz. to be a Witness against another that he himself was present such a day and saw the other at a Conventicle which if he confessed they would have recorded his Confession of being present at a Meeting and so have proceeded against him The Court granted a Prohibition but ordered him to appear in the Ecclesiastical Court to be examined as to the other persons being there Anonymus A Man wins 100 l. of another at play Gaming not within the Statute where the Security is given to a third person the Winner owed Sharp 100 l. who demanded his Debt the Winner brought him to the other of whom he won the Mony at Play who aknowledged the Debt and gave Sharp a Bond for the payment of the 100 l. who not being privy to the Matter or knowing that it was won at Play accepted the said Bond and for default of payment puts it in Suit the Obligor pleads the Statute of Gaming The Plaintiff in his Replication discloseth the Matter aforesaid and saith that he had a just Debt due and owing to him form the Winner and that he was not privy to the Monies being won at Play c. and that he accepted of the said Bond as a Security for his Debt and the Defendant demurred And the Court were all of Opinion Hill and Phesant Antea that this Case was not within the Statute the Plaintiff not knowing of the Play and though it be pleaded that the Bond was taken pro Securitate and not for satisfaction of a just Debt it was held well enough like the Case of Warns and Ellis Yelv. 47. Warns owed Alder 100 l. upon an usurious Contract and Alder owed the Plaintiff Ellis 100 l. for which they were both bound and in an Action of Debt brought upon this Bond Warns pleads the Statute of Vsury between him and Alder and Ellis replyed as the Plaintiff here and upon a Demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff by thrée Iudges because the Plaintiff had a real Debt owing him and was not privy to the Vsury And upon this Case the Court relyed and said the Reason of it governed this Case at the Barr whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Tissard versus Warcup INdebitatus Assumpsit for 750 l. laid out by the Plaintiff for the use of the Defendant Vpon Non assumpsit pleaded there was a Tryal at the Barr and the Evidence was that the Defendant and another now deceased farmed the Excise that the Mony was laid out by the Plaintiff on the behalf of the Defendant and his Partner and that the Defendant promised to repay the Mony out of the first Profits he received Curia And by the Opinion of the whole Court this Action would not lie 1. Two Partners being concerned the Action cannot be brought against one alone he ought in this Case to have set out the death of the other But if Iudgment be had against one the Goods in Partnership may be
Issue joyned 144 Arrest In the Palace Yard sitting the Court the Officer was committed and the Party discharged upon Common Bail 181 Assignee Of a Devisee is not an Assignee to take where Rent is reserved to a Man and his Assigns 93 Audita Querela Upon the Act of Indempnity and Judgment for the Plaintiff 37 Where it lyeth 49 Assumpsit Where there are mutual Promises and where not 33 34 Where one Promise may be pleaded in discharge of another 44 Promise before a Breach may be discharged by Parol ibid. Assurance Condition to pay Mony upon making such assurance Payment is pleaded but doth not say when assurance made not good 33 Avowry For taking of a Herriot tempore quo being left out and yet good 4 5 Averment Vide Consideration Where it need not be of a sufficiency of a Common in the Plea 276 Avoidance Grant thereof by a Chapter doth not bind the Successor 56 Where there is an Agreement between three for a Presentation by turns a Grant of the next Avoidance by one though the Church be full is good 97 Authority Where to be pursued 79 How it differs from an Interest ibid. Where 't is coupled with an Interest 't is assignable 318 Acts done by one in reputed Authority are favoured by Law 194 Award Pleaded under Hand and not under Seal not good 77 78 An Umpire was chosen after the day in the Submission who made an Award and good 169 170 That all Suits shall cease it amounts to a Release 227 228 One may submit for another and good 228 Of a lesser Sum in satisfaction of a greater good 303 304 A thing awarded not in the Submismission 't is void and the Award good 309 Submission of a particular difference and a general Release awarded if no other Controversie 't is good 309 Of all differences till such a day and a Release awarded to be given of all ten days after if no more Controversies do appear within that time 't is good ibid. B. Bail Vide fol. 28. ARE liable though the Principal is in Execution 312 Action on the Case lieth against the Sheriff for refusing of Bail 31 32 It is not to be allowed in a Scandalum Magnatum 215 Barr. Where the Plaintiff misconceived his Action it shall be no barr to a new one 294 319 Baron and Feme Where they shall joyn in an Action of Assault 66 How she may make a Will with her Husbands assent 170 Where the Agreement of her Husband is good before Marriage 172 How he must shew his disassent after her death ibid. If he once assent he cannot afterwards disagree ibid. What Acts amount to testifie his Consent and what his Disagreement 172 173 Where he shall bring the Action alone upon a Covenant made to both 217 When the Action if not discharged shall survive to her they must both join 269 270 Whether he shall make distribution of the Estate of his Wife dying intestate 20 21 22 He makes a Will and his Wife Executrix she dies before Probate Administration shall be to the next of the Kin of the Husband 101 Bond. Where one may be given in discharge of another 136 137 With an insensible Condition the Bond is good and the Condition void 285 To render himself a Prisoner or pay the Mony in behalf of a third person good 304 305 Breach Where 't is assigned according to the words of the Covenant and good 139 Cannot be assigned upon a Proviso but upon an express Covenant 37 C. Carrier JUstification for that he was robbed the Plea is ill in Substance 270 271 Church Prescription to have an Isle therein no good Cause for a Prohibition 283 Bishop cannot appoint Commissioners to rate a Parish for repair of a Church 8 How a Rate shall be made for the the building thereof 222 Common and Commoner Where a Licence from the Lord is pleaded to a Surcharge you must alledge that there is sufficient Common besides 6 7 May abate Hedges made upon his Commom 65 66 Where it must be for Cattle Levant and Couchant 185 Where he justified by a Plea amounting to the general Issue and held good 274 275 Tenants in Common Need not join in an Action of Waste 61 Must join in the personalty 62 Common Pleas Court Cannot grant a Habeas Corpus in criminal Causes 198 Cannot take Sureties for the good Behaviour ibid. Condition Precedent what words will amount to it 33 34 Paying and performing make not a Condition 34 35 Where the Acceptance of a collateral thing by the Obligee shall be a good performance of the Condition 137 Disjunctive Condition the power of election is in the Obligee 200 303 Where 't is with a Penalty the power of election is in the Obligor 200 All Conditions with a Penalty are made in favour of the Obligor ibid. Where 't is dispensed withal by the Act of God and of the Party 201 Where the Obligee had dispensed with one part of the Condition the other is discharged 202 To make such a Conveyance as the Council of the Obligee shall direct if he refuse the Obligor may procure the Conveyance to be made 203 204 Of a Bond where 't is not performed by the return of a Ship 267 To do a thing to a Stranger where it ought to be performed 309 What words make a Condition and not a Covenant and e contra 35 75 76 Continuando A Trespass longer than he can prove Damages shall be recovered for what he can prove before 253 Consideration In a Grant not repugnant to a former may be averred 250 Conveyance At Common Law there must be an actual Entry to make it good otherwise upon the Statute of Uses 251 Where several things make but one Conveyance 233 Construction Shall not be made to work a wrong 116 Copyhold A Covenant that he shall enjoy it for one year sic de anno in annum amounts to a Lease to make a Forfeiture 81 If he refuse to pay the Fine having probable cause so to do the Lord cannot bring his Ejectment for a Forfeiture 229 Costs Allowed for disturbing the Plaintiff in his Common though it be in the nature of a Trespass 141 142 Covenant Where it lies in the personalty tho' the Grant be executed by the Statute of Uses which makes a distress the proper Remedy 138 139 The words paying and performing make a Covenant and not a Condition 35 91 92 Where a Breach shall be assigned upon it but not on a Proviso 36 37 Where they are mutual and where not 74 75 76 The words povisum agreatum est make a Covenant 77 Where the word Covenant shall amount to an Agreement and where to a Lease 80 It is intended to levy a Fine whether this is a Covenant or not 89 90 What Agreement under Hand and Seal will amount to a Covenant 89 Assignee Covenant lies against him after assignment 139 Covenant to stand seised how it differs from a Feoffment to Uses 208 209
Habens legale jus titulum need not shew what Title the disturber had after Verdict 213 In a Bond to pay 40 l. when an Accompt is stated by two Attornies to be chosen between the Parties 't is a Covenant and not a solvendum 266 Breach is assigned relating to three Covenants and concludes sic Conventionem fregit 't is good 311 Where an Agreement to pay will amount to a Covenant 269 Covenants reciprocal cannot be pleaded in bar to each other 34 75 76 309 Breach where assigned and not necessary to aver performance on the part of the Plaintiff 309 Court Inferiour the cause of Action must arise within the Jurisdiction 30 Judgment therein arrested because the Damages were laid to 30 l. 101 102 For not saying that the Jurors were electi ad triand ' 102 Taliter processum fuit and the proceedings not set forth at large well enough in a Plea but not in a Writ of Error 102 195 Vi armis contra pacem whether good or not 102 Cannot hold Plea for work done without the Jurisdiction though the Promise be made within 141 Cause of Action must appear to be within the Jurisdiction to oust the Courts above 197 Where it doth not appear that the Court was held either by Grant or Prescription good 197 198 If the cause of Action doth not appear to be within the Jurisdiction though there is a Judgment recovered below yet an Action of Trespass will lye and false Imprisonment upon the taking out of that Judgment 197 If upon Evidence it appear that the cause of Action did arise extra Jurisdictionem the Plaintiff must be non-suit 273 If Jurisdiction be admitted in pleading and Verdict and Judgment thereon t is too late for a Prohibition Ibid. Court Ecclesiastical In what Case a Bishop shall administer an Oath in Temporal Matters 118 Custom One cannot be pleaded in bar to another 105 In pleading it must be strictly alledged 41 Where 't is a reasonable Custom for the Lord to have derelict Lands 107 D. Day Vide Plea WHere 't is excluded being alledged in the Declaration it makes the Plea ill 146 'T is but punctum temporis and of no consideration in the Law 281 Release of all demands usque 26 April a Bond dated that day is not released 281 Debt Upon the Sheriffs Bond will be good though the Statute be not pleaded 36 Will lye upon the Contract where the whole Term is assigned 174 175 176 Whether it will lye for a Fine set by a Steward for 't is ex quasi contractu 230 It must be upon the Contract or ex quasi contractu 262 Deed. Where 't is lost the Party must make Oath of it to entitle himself to a Bill in Equity to have it performed in Specie 173 Demand Must be made where an Interest is to be determined 264 Devise To a Man and his Heirs if the Devisee die in the Life time of the Devisor his Heir takes nothing 313 Republication makes it a new Will ibid. To the Heir at Law makes a Limitation and not a Condition 7 To an Infant in ventre sa mere if there is a sufficient description of him 't is good 9 Where the word paying makes a Fee where not 26 To him till he be of Age then to him in Fee he dyed within Age yet a Free-hold vested in him presently 289 To him in Fee when of Age if he dye before then to the Heirs of the Body of R. and their Heirs he died living R. within Age his Sister and Heir shall take by way of Executory devise 289 Executory devise how it differs from a contingent Remainder at Common Law ibid. Construction of words therein 290 Departure From his Plea 31 Disability By a Statute where it ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office 299 Discharge By Parol good before the breach of promise but not afterwards 259 Discontinuance Where amendable 316 In pleading the Plaintiff declared of taking several things the Defenant justifies as to part and saith nothing of the residue 259 In the Adjournment of a Court where a day certain is not given 59 Distress Cannot be of Sheaves of Corn in Shocks for Rent 61 Distribution Shall be equally made amongst the Children of the whole and half Blood 204 205 206 Disturbance Coactus fuit to pay is a sufficient Disturbance 55 E. Escape THE Plaintiff declared upon Process in an Inferiour Court and the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem the Action would not lye 29 30 Debt thereon lies against the Warden of the Fleet as Superior where the Grantee for Life is insufficient 119 After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Capias ad satisfaciendum or Scire facias at his Election 136 Whether it will lye against the Sheriff for taking insufficient Bail 181 Election In disjunctive Conditions where the Election is in the Obligor 201 304 'T is at the Plaintiffs Election to have a Ca. Sa. or Scire facias after an Escape 136 Enclosure Where a Custom is good to Enclose in a Common Field 105 Entry Not necessary to avoid an Estate in case of a Limitation 7 Error Where a Writ of Error will lye upon a Fine in the Old Bayly 219 Error in Fact cannot be assigned in the Exchequer-Chamber 194 If one be dead after the Judgment he must be named in a Writ of Error 285 Where a Judgment shall be avoided by a Plea without a Writ of Error 276 Estate Where the word Body makes an Estate for Life and no Tail 16 Estoppel Good by a Fine levied by a Remainder man in Tail 90 No Uses can be declared of a Fine by Estoppel 90 One who has no Estate levies a Fine 't is good by Estoppel 115 Evidence A Decree in Chancery or Sentence in in the Ecclesiastical Court read as Evidence of the fact 231 232 Excuse If one Man doth not perform his Covenant 't is no Excuse for the breach on the other side 75 76 What is a good Plea by way of Excuse and what not 27 28 29 Executor De son tort cannot retain 51 Where the Judgment shall be de bonis Testatoris 108 What is requisite to make an Executor 147 What must be done when he refuseth Ibid. De son tort where he may be of a Term but not of a Term in futuro because he cannot enter 175 Cannot plead non detinet where the Testator could not plead nil debet 266 Executor of an Executor de son tort where not liable at Law 293 294 Where he pleads a Judgment kept on Foot by fraud 36 Explain A Man grants Tenementa praedicta then follows totum quicquid habet whether these subsequent words shall explain or enlarge the Grant 112 113 c. Execution Payment of the Mony to the Marshal the Defendant may be taken again in Execution at the Suit of the Plaintiff 212 213 Executory Decree Is of no force in Equity 232 Existen
Party to Bail but 't is sub modo it must be upon good Bail and if the Sheriff be Iudge of the Security 't is an Argument that he is lyable for if he was not in danger he need not take Security But afterwards upon the second Argument the Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant North Chief Iustice The Common Law was very rigorous as to the execution of Process the Capias was ita quod habeas the Body at the day of the Return and if the Sheriff had arrested one it had been an Escape to let him go Before the making of this Statute the Sheriff usually took Sureties for the appearance of the Prisoner and by this means used great Extortion and took great Sums of Mony to prevent which Mischiefs this Statute was made and so designed 1. For the ease of the Prisoner the Sheriff being now compellable to take Security which he was not obliged to do before 2. To prevent Extortion and therefore directs that a Bond shall be taken in such manner and with such conditions as is therein mentioned But the Plaintiff since the Statute is much in the same condition as before for he is to make the same Return of Cepi Corpus 'T is true he may now let him go upon Bail but as to the Creditor he is to have him in Court to answer his Suit as before and shall be amerced if he doth not appear at the Return of the Writ so that tho' this Statute be an ease to the Defendant yet 't is a burthen to the Sheriff who runs a greater hazard since the making of this Act than before because then he might keep him in prison till the Debt was satisfied but now he is obliged to let him at large upon Bail from whom he is directed to take a Bond which he may keep in his own hands to indempnifie himself The Court can only amerce him if the Defendant do not appear at the Return of the Process and 't is not material to the party whether the Sheriff take one or more Security that being in his discretion some he must take for otherwise 't is directly in opposition to the Statute neither is it material to the party whether they are such as are sufficient for if they are not and the Defendant is thereupon discharged this will not amount to an Escape because nothing is done but what is pursuant to the Statute and therefore he is no otherwise chargeable than by Amerciaments The Statute was made and intended for the benefit of the Debtor not of the Creditor and there might be some colour for the Action if the Sheriff might Return that he let him to Bail for then it might have been necessary to have alledged the sufficiency of them which might have been traversed but now he must pursue the substance of the Statute so far as to take Bail he is the proper Iudge of the sufficiency and when the Bail is taken he must return a Cepi Corpus so that he is only to be amerced till he bring in the Body but an Escape will not lie against him Long 's Case ONE Long was arrested in the Pallace-Yard Priviledge of an Attorny not far distant from the Hall Gate the Court being then sitting and being an Attorny of this Court he together with the Officer was brought into Court and the Officer was committed to the Fleet that he might learn to know his distance and because the Plaintiff was an Attorny of the Court of Kings-Bench who informed this Court that his cause of Action was for 200 l. therefore the Court ordered that another of the Sheriffs Bayliffs should take charge of the Prisoner and that Mr. Robinson the Chief Prothonotary should go along with him to the Court of Kings-Bench which was done and that Court being informed how the Case was discharged the Defendant upon filing of common Bail The Writ upon which this Long was arrested was an Attachment of Priviledge which the Court supposed to be made on purpose to oust him of his Priviledge for there was another Writ against him at the Sheriffs Office at the Suit of another person The Countess of Northumberland's Case Knights must be of the Jury where a Peer is concerned ADjudged that where a Péer is Party either Plaintiff or Defendant two or more Knights must be returned of the Iury and it was said that in Cumberland there was but one Free-holder who was a Knight besides Sir Richard Stote a Serjeant at Law and the Court were of Opinion that rather than there should be a failure of Iustice a Serjeant of Law ought to be returned a Iury-man for his Priviledge would not extend to a Case of necessity Bell versus Knight In Banco Regis Smiths Forges are chargeable with the Duty of Fire-hearth IN an Action of Trover Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict in which the Point was upon the Construction of the Statute of 14 Car. 2. c. 10. for the establishing of an additional Revenue upon the King his Heirs and Successors for the better support of his and their Crown and Dignity by which it is Enacted That for every Fire-Hearth and Stove in every House the yearly Sum of 2 s. shall be paid to the King other than such as in the said Act are exempted Then comes a Proviso which saith That this Act shall not extend to charge any Blowing House Stamp Furnace or Kilne c. And the Question now was whether a Smiths Forge shall be charged with this Duty Winnington Sollicitor General conceived that all Fire-Hearths are liable within the Body of the Act and there is nothing to exempt them but what is in the Exception and that a Smiths Forge cannot be called a Blowing House within the intent of the Act notwithstanding the Iury have found that Smiths use Bellows to blow their Forges For by Blowing Houses such Houses are meant as are in Staffordshire and Suffolk for the making of Iron these were the Blowing-Houses intended by the Parliament to be excepted and no other for if Smiths Forges had béen meant thereby those would have been inserted in the Proviso as well as the other things therein mentioned Words are to be taken in a common Vnderstanding for if a Traveller should enquire for a Blowing House no Body would send him to a Smiths Forge By the Opinion of the whole Court Curia it was adjudged upon the first Argument that Smiths Forges are liable to this Duty and so the Sollicitor said it had been lately adjudged in this Court by the Opinion of Twisden Wyld and Rainsford and that my Lord Chief Iustice Hale was of the same Opinion but Twisden said that neither the Chief Iustice or himself gave any Iudgment upon the Merits but upon a Point in Pleading Stroud versus the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Sir George Horner In Communi Banco IN a Quare Impedit