REPORTS OF Diverse Choice CASES in LAW TAKEN By those late and most judicious Prothonotaries of the Common Pleas RICHARD BROWNLOW JOHN GOLDESBOROUGH Esq rs WITH DIRECTIONS HOW TO proceed in many Intricate Actions both Reall and Personall shewing the Nature of those Actions and the Practice in them excellently usefull for the avoyding of many Errours heretofore committed in the like Proceedings fit for all Lawyers Attorneys and Practisers of the Law Also a most Perfect and exact Table shewing Appositely the Contents of the whole Book Solon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed by Tho Roycroft for Matthew Walbancke at Grays-Inne Gate and Henry Twyford in Vine Court in the Middle Temple 1651. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER THese Reports coming unto my hands under the Commendations of men of so much sufficiency in the knowledge of the Lawes I could doe no lesse then fear that it would prove too obvious a neglect of Common good to keepe them in the darke therefore here I present them to the World to the end that all men may take that benefit by them now being in Print which some few only have hitherto injoyed by private Copies And indeed I thinke I shall put it beyond dispute when I name the two worthy and late famous Prothonotaries M r. Brownlow M r. Goldesborough whose Observations they were that they will both profit and delight the Reader since there are contained under these heads viz. Actions upon the Case Covenant Account Assise Audita querela Debt upon almost all occasions Dower Ejectment Formedon Partition Quare Impedit Replevin Trespas Wast Many excellent conclusions as well of Law as of the manner of pleadings Demurrers Exceptions Essoins Errors and the qualities of many VVrits with other various and profitable Learning in which may be found the number of the Roll for so many as have had the luck of a full debate and definitive sentence And for the rest though there is no Judgment in them so as to determine what the Law is yet at least they will afford a very considerable compensation for the Readers pains by opening unto him such matters as are apt for Argumentation and may acquaint his Genius with the manner of Forensall Disputations from which benefit to detain you any longer will deserve a Censure therefore I remit you to the matter it self which I am confident the Printers faults excused will easily effect its owne praise beyond my Ability SPECIALL OBSERVATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE JUDGES OF THE COMMON PLEAS Vpon severall Actions upon the Case there depending and adjudged PEdley versus Langley Hill 14. Ja. rotulo the Plaintiff brought his Action for these words You are a Bastard for your Father and Mother were never married The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was a Bastard and justifies the words laid and it was held by the Court that this Issue should be tried by the Countrey and not by the Bishop as in other Cases SMayles one of the Attourneys c. versus Smith for these words he meaning the Plaintiff took corruptly five Marks of Brian Turnor being against his own Client for putting off and delaying an Assize against him and after a Verdict exception was taken against the Declaration for that the Plaintiff did not expresly alledge that at the time of speaking the words He was an Attourney but layd it that he had been an Attourney The Court held the words would bear Action MAle versus Ket Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 1506. for these words William Male did steal my Corn out of my Barn Judgement for the Plaintiff The Court held that an Action would lie for these words You are a Thief and have stollen a Cock which was but Petty Larceny COwte versus Gilbert Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 3176. Thou art a Thief and hast stollen a Tree Judgement that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ The like Thou art a Thief and hast stollen my Maiden-head no Action HArding versus Bulman Hill 15. Jac. The Plaintiff declares that in such a Term he had brought an Action of Case against B. for scandalous words to which he pleaded not guilty and at that Triall gave in Evidence to the Jury to take away the Plaintiffe Credit and Reputation that the Plaintiff was a common Lyar and recorded in the Star-chamber for a common Lyar by reason whereof the Jury gave the Plaintiff but very small Damage to the Plaintiffs Damage of c. The Defendant pleads not guilty And it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie And of that opinion the Court seemed to be BRidges one of the Attourneys versus Playdell for words You meaning the Plaintiff have caused this Boy meaning A. W. then present to perjure himself Judgement for the Plaintiff STone versus Roberts Mich. 15. Jac. rotulo 635. for these words Thou art a Witch and an Inchanter for thou hast bewitched Stronges Children no Action lies but if thou say Thou art a Witch and hast bewitched Children and that they are wasted and destroyed they are actionable SCarlet versus Stile Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 541. for these words Thou didst steal a Sack and Curricomb and I will make thee produce it and thou didst steal my Fathers Wood and didst give it to a Whore The Defendant justifies that such a day the Goods were stollen and there was a common fame and report that the Defendant had stollen them and upon that report the Plaintiff did vehemently suspect that the Defendant had stollen them and thereof did inform a Justice of the Peace and complaining of the Defendant to the Justice and informing him of the Premises did speak the words before mentioned If a Felony be committed it is good cause to arrest one for Felony but not to speak words to defame one If there be two Issues in severall Counties in Trover and one is tried and Judgement and Execution of the Costs and Damages and afterwards the other Issue is tried and Costs thereupon the last is erronious as to the Costs Broccas Case Note Trover was brought against Husband and Wife for Goods which came to the hands of Husband and Wife the Conversion was alleadged to be by the Husband alone for the Wife could not convert And the Court held that the Action would not lie against the Wife MOse versus Canham Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 508. The Plaintiff declares that one Levet was indebted in such a summ and for the payment thereof had delivered to the Plaintiff divers Goods of the said Levets the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver to the Defendant the said Goods promises to pay the Plaintiff the money due from Levet and exception was taken to the Declaration for that the certainty of the Goods were not expressed and for that the consideration was but collateral Another Exception for that the Plaintiff might grant the Goods over but the Court held the contrary And Judgement for the
Acres to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant made and erected one Ditch and Hedge by reason whereof the Plaintiff lost the benefit of his way and after Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because it did not appear in the Declaration to what Village the common way led to And it was held a good Exception and Judgement arrested but if it had been unto a common way there or in such a Village it had been good KEnt versus Prat Hill 7. Jac. rotulo 131. Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares that Prat was Rector of the Church of S. And that Kent was lawfully possessed of the Parsonage-house and that there were divers strifes between the Plaintiff and Defendant for the said Rectory and that the said Prat in consideration that the said Kent would surrender the Parsonage-house and the Gleab-land which were then sowed by Kent he promised c. And after Triall it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Surrender was not a valuable consideration because it did not appear to the Court that Kent had any Estate but at will which is determinable at the will of the Lessor and so he surrendred nothing but if these words had been in the count viz. of the Demise of the said Prat For a term of divers years it had been good though the certainty of the years had not been expressed SMailes versus Belt uxorem Hill 1. Jac. rotulo 1372. Action upon the Case for words spoken by the Woman Videlicet Thou art a Theif and a mainsworn Theif and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but Judgement was arrested because the Issue was Quod ipsi non sunt cul and it ought to have been that the Woman was not guilty YArdley Attourney versus Ellyll Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1252. Action upon the Case brought for these words Your Attourney meaning the Plaintiff is a bribing Knave and hath taken twenty pounds of you to cozen me the Plaintiff laid a Communication such a day and place by the Defendant with one B. which B. had before that time retained the Plaintiff to be his Attourney concerning the Plaintiff Hubbart and Nichols held the words actionable videlicet for the first word Bribing Knave and that the last words did not extenuate or weaken the former if the words touch him in his Profession the Action will lie for it is against the Oath of an Attourney Birtridge is an old perjured Knave and that is to be proved by a stake parting the Land between M. and C. One Judge for the Plaintiff and two for the Defendant COrnhill versus Cowler Trespass upon the Case brought against Baron Feme for words spoken by the Woman the Baron Feme plead Quod ipsi in nullo sunt cul de praemissis and the Jury finde that the Woman was guilty and Exception taken after Triall to the Issue and Verdict and they were both aided by the Statute of Ieofayles But another Exception was that the Action was laid in Suff. And the Addition in the Writ was A. C. de C. in Com. Essex and in the Declaration the Plaintiff alleadges that the words were spoken at C. in the County aforesaid which was in the County of Essex and so a Mistryall CHimery versus God Action upon the Case upon a promise to discharge and save harmless the Plaintiff against all manner of persons and shews a Suit for Tithes in Norwich Court and the Defendant replies that the Plaintiff was not damnified and the Plaintiff rejoyns that he was damnified to wit at S. aforesaid which was in the County of Suffolk where the Action was brought and the Court held the Cause was mis-tried because the Suit was in Norwich and ought to be tried in Norwich and not in Suffolk and these words Apud S. praedictam were idle TIllet versus Bruen for words Trin. 12. Iac. The Plaintiff shews a Suit in Colchester Court and a Triall there before the Bayliff and that the Plaintiff gave in Evidence his knowledge and the Defendant willing to defame the Plaintiff as if he had given false Evidence said of the Plaintiff Thou art as much forsworn meaning in the Evidence aforesaid by the Plaintiff upon his Oath in Form aforesaid given as God is true and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Inuendo would not maintain the Action and so adjudged LAmpleigh versus Braithwaie Mich. 13. Iac. rotulo 712. Action upon the Case in which the Plaintiff sets forth that whereas the Defendant had feloniously killed a Man and after the Felony committed did earnestly request and solicit the Plaintiff that he would labor and indeavour to obtain from the King for the Defendant a Pardon for the Felony upon which the Plaintiff at the instance and request of the Defendant by all lawfull ways and means possible did often and by many days labor and indeavor to obtain c. Videlicet by riding and journeying at his own cost and charges from L. unto the Village of R. where the King then was and from thence back again to L. to obtain c. The Defendant afterwards at H. in confideration of the Premisses did assume and promise to give the Plaintiff an hundred pounds of lawfull money when he should be required and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement for that it did not appear that the Plaintiff had spoken to the King for a Pardon nor done any thing or obtained a Pardon and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff Wynch said the Promise was subsequent to the Request and good for although the Defendant had no good by it yet because the Plaintiff was at costs and labor and it was at the Defendants request sufficient to maintain the Action If I request one to do a thing for me and make no promise and after you let me know that you did such a thing for me and then I promise to discharge or pay you this is a good consideration although the Promise go not with the Request otherwise it is where a man doth me a curtesie without any request And Hobart took this difference between a consideration executed and executory for where Non assumpsit is pleaded to a consideration executed the Plaintiff needs onely to prove the Promise for where the consideration is executory the Defendant may take Issue as well for not performing the consideration executory as upon the Promise GLover versus Taylor Hill 13. Iac. rotulo 852. Action upon the Case for ill using a Horse so that the Horse died and the Defendant promised to re-deliver the Horse The Defendant pleads Non cul And after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because he did not plead Non assumpsit And it was held a good Issue MArshall versus Steward Mich. 13. Iac. rotulo 1134. Action upon the Case reciting the Statute of 1.
Iac. against Invocation c. for these words The Devil appeareth to thee every night in the likeness of a black Man riding on a black Horse and thou conferrest with him and whatsoever thou dost ask he doth give it thee and that is the reason thou hast so much money and this I will justifie Judgement for the Plaintiff In Trover Judgement by Nihil dic and Exception taken to the Declaration to stay the filing the Writ of Inquiry because no day of the conversion was in the Declaration and by two Judges held naught Mich. 14. Iac. PArker versus Parker Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 426. In Trover after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the imparlance Roll was entred with Spaces for the possession and conversion but both those Spaces in the Issue were filled up and held good The Imparlance was entred Mich. 12. Iac. rotulo 547. WHitepain versus Cook Pasch 12. Iac. For words Thou art a Rogue and I will prove thee a Rogue no Judgement STone versus Bates A man may well incourage one that was robbed to cause the Felon to be indicted and accompany him to the Assizes and this shall be lawfull for to do without incurring the danger of an Action upon the case upon conspiracy but if he knew that he was not robbed then he is in danger of the Action upon the case COpe and his Wife administratrix Plaintiffs versus Lewyn Trin. 12. Iac. rotulo 1714. An Action upon the case brought upon a promise made to the Intestate and in the Court omits to shew the Administration and after Triall that Fault moved in Arrest of Judgement and the whole Court was of opinion that he should not have his Judgement for it did not appear that he was Administrator for at the Common Law no Administration lay but the Ordinary ought to have the Goods HArvey Attourney versus Bucking Mich. 12. Iac. rotulo 842. Action of the case for slanderous words He meaning the Plaintiff shewed me first a Bill of fourty pounds without a Seal meaning the said Bill by the said E. as aforesaid sealed and delivered and afterwards he shewed me the same Bill with a Seal and he meaning the Plaintiff hath forged the Seal of the same Writing meaning the Seal of the said Bill by the said E. as aforesaid sealed and delivered The Defendant traverses the words and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Declaration was naught for that it did not directly appear that there was any communication between the Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the Bill but onely in the inuendo which will not maintain the Action and Judgement arrested MOrton versus Leedall Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 1783. Action upon the case for these words He is a lying and dissembling Fellow and a mainsworn Fellow And a Verdict for the Plaintiff And afterwards it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but at length Judgement was given for the Plaintiff And Serjeant Hutton cited the like case adjudged in t Barnes He is a mainsworn Villain 〈◊〉 Skipwash SKipwash versus Skipwash Hill 14. Iac. rotulo 3472. Action upon the case that whereas the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would marry one A. B. did assume to pay the Plaintiff twenty pounds when he should after the Marriage be thereunto requested The Plaintiff alleadges no special Demand and that Fault was moved in Arrest of Judgement Hobart and Wynch were for the Plaintiff Warburton for the Defendant JOtham versus Ball Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1920. Action upon the case for slanderous words Videlicet Your Master Euseby meaning the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Rascall and Forger of Bonds the Plaintiff laid a Colloquium between the Defendant and one R. G. And after Verdict moved in Arrest of Judgement for that it did not expresly appear that the said R. G. at the time of speaking the words was Servant to the Plaintiff and Judgement was stayed by the Court. COddington versus Wilkin for words Trin. 12. Iac. He is a Theif and why will you take a Theifs part spoken 1. Martii 10. Iac. The Defendant justifies the words because the Plaintiff stole Sheep The Plaintiff by way of replication sets forth a general Pardon granted such a time and further saith that if any Felony were committed it was before the general Pardon made and shews himself to be a Subject and no person excepted in the Pardon The Defendant demurs The Court were of opinion that by the Pardon both the Punishment and Fault were taken away and that the wrong was done to the King by the Common Law and the King being the supreme Head if he pardons the party is cleared of the wrong As if a Villain be infranchised he from thenceforth is no Villain Note if a man upon good consideration promise to become bound to another by his Obligation to do an Act and if he do not become bound Action upon the case will lie against him and the Plaintiff is not bound to tender him an Obligation but the Defendant hath took it upon himself to do it RIchards versus Carvamell Action of the case brought and counts for non-payment of money at the Plaintiffs next coming into the County of Somerset and avers that such a day he came into the County of Somerset Videlicet apud T. in Com. Somerset and that the Defendant though often requested hath not paid And Exception taken because the Plaintiff did not alleadge in his count that he gave notice to the Defendant when he came into the County of Somerset but not allowed and Judgement given for the Plaintiff And note when a man assumes to pay money or do any thing upon condition the Defendant may take Issue upon the condition and needs not plead Non assumpsit but if he pleads Non assumpsit then he confesses the performance of the condition which mark AVstin versus Jarvis Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 2180. The Plaintiff declares that such a Day and Year he bought of the Defendant a Horse for a peice of Gold of the value of 22. s. by him to the Defendant then in hand paid and for a 11. l. to be paid to the Defendant at the Day of Death or Marriage of the Plaintiff which should first happen for payment of which 11. l. the Plaintiff should bring to the Defendant one sufficient man to be bound together with the Plaintiff to the Defendant the Defendant in consideration thereof assumes to deliver the said Horse to the Plaintiff when he should be thereunto requested and the Plaintiff avers that such a Day he brought the Defendant one sufficient man Videlicet I. A. de B. Yeoman to be bound together with the Plaintiff to the said Defendant for the payment of the said 11. l. and shews that he requested the Defendant to deliver the said Horse yet the Defendant hath not delivered
him according to his promise The Defendant pleads Non assumpsit And a Verdict for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintiff at the time of the Contract was an Infant and that he could not perform his promise by reason of his Infancy and therefore the promise void and another Exception for that it was not alleadged in what sum the Plaintiff and his Surety offered to be bound and Judgement was that the Plaintiff Nihil capiat per breve JAcob versus Songate Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 2776. An Action upon the case brought for this word Perjured The Defendant justifies that it was found by Verdict that the Plaintiff was perjured but no Judgement entred upon that Verdict And whether the Plea were good being there was no Judgement was the Question and it was adjudged no Bar because no Judgement was given in the first-Action and so Judgement entred for the Plaintiff CRuttall versus Hosener Pasch 16. Iac rotulo Action of the case for these words He meaning the Plaintiff hath caught the French Pox and brought them home to his Wife And Judgement for the Plaintiff THornton versus Iepson The Plaintiff being a Currier brought an Action upon the case for these words He is a common Barretor but the words would not lie for a man of that Profession but would lie for a Justice of Peace or Lawyer IReland versus Smith Hill 9. Iac. rotulo Action upon the case brought for these words You Norgate take part against me with Ireland who is a Papist and hath gotten a Pardon from the Pope and can help thee to one if thou wilt The Plaintiff laid a communication between the Defendant and Norgate and alleadges himself of the age of 40. years and not above because it might appear to the Court that he was born within Queen Elizabeths Reign The Court held the Action would not lie as it was adjudged in Halls case and for this word Papist no Action will lie If I deliver my Goods to you to keep and I request them and you deny the Delivery of them now an Action of Trover will lie otherwise it is without a Deniall if I distrain Cattle I must not use them WArter versus Freeman Mich. 15. Iac. rotulo 1941. Action upon the case brought for that the Defendant sued out a Fieri facias upon a Judgement which he had against the Plaintiff upon which Judgement the Defendant had before sued out a Fieri facias and the Sheriff of Oxford had upon the first Fieri facias returned that he had levied the Debt and Damages and that they remained in his hands for want of Buyers and the Defendant knowing that the Sheriff had levied the Debt and Damages and intending to charge him again prosecuted another Fieri facias and that the Sheriff had again levied the said Debt and Damages and hath paid the Debt and Damages to the Plaintiff to wit at Westminster in Com. Middlesex where the Action was brought and Judgement after Debate was given for the Plaintiff though the Defendant alleadged that the Fieri facias was an Act in Law and so no cause of Action against him PArkhurst versus Powell vic Denbigh Mich. 15. Iac. rotulo An Action of the case for a false Return of a Capias utlagat and declares that he prosecuted a Capias utlagat directed to the Sheriff of Denbigh where the Defendant inhabited and delivered the said Writ to the Sheriff to be executed and the Defendant being then in the company of the Sheriff and might safely have arrested him did not but suffered him to escape and returned that he was not to be found and upon Not guilty pleaded it was tried in the County of Middlesex where the Action was brought and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Triall ought to be in Denbigh because the not arresting was the principal matter but because the Action was grounded upon double matter the Plaintiff had his Election to bring his Action either in the County of Denbigh or Middlesex by the whole Court BLand versus Edmonds Pasch 16. Jac. rotulo 444. Action upon the Case brought for these Words Videlicet George Bland is a troublesome Fellow and he did combine with thee to trouble the Countrey and I hope to see thee at the next Sessions indicted for Barratry or for sheep-stealing as George Bland was at the last Sessions for Bland was indicted the last Sessions for sheep-stealing And it was held by the whole Court that those Words would not bear an Action the Plaintiff layed the Words to be spoken to one Jo. Eagle and the Declaration was held naught and insufficient because it was not averred that the Plaintiff was not indicted at the Sessions BRadshaw versus Walker Hill 16. Jac. rotulo Action upon the case brought for these words Videlicet Thou art a filching Fellow and didst filch from A. B. 4. l. And Judgement that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ for it shall not be intended that he stole the money ADams versus Fleming Hill 16. Jac. rotulo 890. Action of the case brought for these words Videlicet He hath forsworn himself before the Councel of the Marches meaning the Councel of the Marches of Wales in the Suit I had against him there and I will sue him for Perjury there And after Verdict for the Plaintiff moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable for their uncertainty because the Court could not take notice that they had authority to hold plea in matters of record Judgement for the Plaintiff for these words Thou art a false forsworn Knave for thou didst take a false Oath before a Judge of Assise to hang a man GOre versus Colthorpe Trin. 5. Jac. rotulo The Declaration was in consideration that the Plaintiff would give credit to E. C. then servant to the Defendant for any thing the said E. should deal for to the use of the Defendant with the Plaintiff promised that he would see the Plaintiff contented that which the said E. should deal for with the Plaintiff for the use of the Defendant any way when the said Defendant thereof after it should become due should be requested and a special Verdict by which it was found that the Defendant promised to see the Plaintiff contented that which the above named E. C. should deal with the Plaintiff for the use of the said Defendant any way The Judgement of the Court was that the Verdict did not maintain the Declaration because for collaterall matters which are not Duties a Request is material and are not like a Duty as for Debt which is due and no Day of payment expressed that shall be alleadged to be when he shall be thereunto requested generally For if I sell my Horse for ten pounds and no Day of payment that shall be alleadged in the Count Cum inde requisitus esset And one case of Peters was cited which was
grounded upon a promise made in this manner Marry my Neice and when I come from London I will give you 100. l. and the Action was brought in this manner Videlicet in consideration that he would marry A. promised to pay the Plaintiff 100. l. after he returned from London when he was thereunto requested and for these words when he was thereunto requested the Action was maintainable HInch versus Heald Trin. 17. Jac. rotulo Action upon the case for these words Videlicet He is a Witch and hath bewitched me and the Court held the Action would not lie for he might bewitch him by fair words or fair looks GReen versus Harrington Trin. 17. Jac. routlo 953. The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant such a Day was indebted to the Plaintiff in 10. l. for Rent due to the Plaintiff for one year ended at Michaelmas then last past for divers Lands in H. demised to the Defendant by the Plaintiff the Defendant in consideration thereof promised to pay the Plaintiff the said 10. l. when he should be thereunto requested The Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and after Verdict given for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that there was no consideration to maintain the Action because an Action of Debt lay upon the first Contract being in the realty for upon an implied promise no Action will lie where it is in the realty except there be a special promise made upon a collateral cause Videlicet If the Plaintiff had threatned suit for the said 10. l. and the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear to sue promises to pay c. and the like for if a man be bound in a Bond to pay money and the Day past now an Action of the case will not lie for that money except there be a collateral promise and so in the like cases and Judgement was given against the Plaintiff Michaelmas 17. Jac. It was adjudged in the Kings Bench in an Action upon the case Videlicet whereas the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in 10. l. without expressing the cause for which the Debt grew due the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the Defendant then and there had given Day to the Defendant untill a time to come to pay the money the Defendant promised to pay the money that the Action was maintainable without expressing the cause for which the Debt was Hill 17. Jac. rotulo 2722. Action of the case brought for these words Thou art a perjured Knave and I will make thee wear Papers for it the Defendant justifies the words and shews that the Plaintff was a Church-warden and took his Oath to exercise that Office and whereas one Article made was that he should present whether the Church-yard was repaired or no and he knowing it did not present it Action of the case brought for these words Thou art a scurvy perjured Knave the Action will lie WIlson versus Sheriffs of London Hill 17. Jac. rotulo 3069. The Plaintiffs declare upon an escape made upon a Capias ad respondendum after the Defendant was arrested the Defendant pleads a Custome in London that the Maior and Sheriffs of London have used to inlarge Prisoners that were arrested in coming and returning from their Courts having Causes there depending and set forth a Plaint in London against the Defendant and that he was arrested and appeared and pleaded to Issue and as he was coming to the Court to defend that Action he was arrested as is supposed in the Action upon the case brought against the Sheriffs and shew that he was brought to the Court and inlarged by the Court and the Court held that if a man were arrested in the face of the Court the Court might discharge him otherwise not PAin versus Newlin Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 3042. Action upon the case brought upon a promise and Judgement by Nihil dicit and at the return of the Writ to inquire the Defendant moved in Arrest of Judgement and shewed that the Day of the promise was supposed in the inquiry to be Anno Domini 1614. And in the Declaration it was made 1617. and for that variance Judgement was stayed BElcher versus Hudson Hill 6. Iac. rotulo 132. The Plaintiff declares that in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry one T. M. his familiar Freind the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff yearly after the Decease of the said T. M. 40. s. for her maintenance and the Plaintiff averrs the Marriage and that she survived The Defendant pleads that the said T. M. in his life time after the Marriage c. did release to the Defendant all Actions as well real as personal and all Demands and Challenges whatsoever from the beginning of the World unto the Date thereof to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and adjudged a naughty Plea BOx an Attourney against Barnaby Action upon the case for these words George Box is a common maintainer of suits and a Champertor and a Plague of God consume him and I hope to see his Body rot upon the Earth like the Carkase of a Dog and I will have him thrown over the Bar next Term and I will give a Beech to make a Gallows to hang him and Judgement given for the Plaintiff for this word Champertor and no other Trin. 14. Iac. Action upon the case for these words She is an arrant Whore and had two Bastards in Ireland and Judgement by the whole Court that the words would not bear an Action YOrk versus Cecill Mich. 14. Iac. Action upon the case brought by A. Tanner for these words Thou art a bankrupt Knave and the Court held that the Action would not lie but Quaere Skaif versus Nelson Mich. 12. Iac. rotulo 1106. Action upon the case brought for words against Husband and Wife spoken by the Wife and Judgement was entered for the Plaintiff and in entering of the Judgement it was made Et praedicta E. being the Woman in misericordia which was naught for it should have been both the Husband and Wife in misericordia and after the Record was certified by Writ of Error Serjeant Richardson moved that it might be amended because the Judgement Papers were right and so it was ordered to be amended according SMails an Attourney versus Moor Hill Iac. rotulo 753. Action upon the case for the words He is a forging Knave and the Court held that the words were actionable for he alleadged in his Declaration that he was an Attourney of the Common Pleas and so being touched in his Profession the words would bear an Action and if a man said of a Bishop that he was a Papist the Action would lie because Religion is his Profession and so he is defamed STeward versus Bishop Trin. 14. Iac. rotulo 769. Action upon the case for these words James Steward meaning the Plaintiff is in
Berwick Gaol for stealing of a Mare and other Beasts and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable and so it was adjudged for that he did not directly say the Plaintiff was a Thief but onely implied Hill 15. Iac. rotulo An Exception taken to a Declaration in Trover brought by an Administrator because he declares that whereas he was possessed of divers Goods and Chattels as of his own proper Goods and should have said as was pretended as of the Goods and Chattels of the intestate at the time of his Death but the Exception was over-ruled by the Court. Exception to an Action of the case brought and the Plaintiff declares that whereas the Plaintiff had delivered the Defendant unum statum salis Anglicae a Bushel of Salt pretending that statum had another proper signification but because it was shewed to the Court that statum by one Dictionary was Latine for a Bushel Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In Trover it is usual to prove no more but that you requested the Goods and the Defendant refused to deliver them this is a Conversion When a Justification arises upon a Sale then I need traverse no more but the place alleadged and not go to the whole County but where it is a transitory Trespass as for Battery taking of Goods and the like then the whole County must be traversed CAtford versus Osmond Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 1063. Action of Trover brought for two Steers the Defendant being an Attourney of the Common-pleas justifies the taking as Under-sheriff by reason of Process from the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands of divers persons in a Schedule in the said Writ named the Debts therein specified and doth not recite the Schedule and he being Under-sheriff took the Steers in the Land of the Plaintiff which was lately one Stones who was Debtor to the King in 59. s. being behinde upon the Land and Exception was taken for that it was not directly alledged that the Land such a Day was the Land of the said S. The Writ commanded to levy the summs in the said Schedule mentioned and if they could not to take their Bodies and it was adjudged a good Warrant to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands that were the said S. 59. s. COles versus Flaxman Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. Action of the case brought for disturbing the Plaintiffs Common The Defendant pretends Title to the Common by reason of Common appurtenant to certain customary Land of part of which he conveys a Title to himself but not of the whole and the Question was whether it were Common appurtenant or appendant and if appurtenant it could not be divided KEymes versus Moxham Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 559. Action of the case brought for a promise made at C. for the Delivery of a Mare which the Plaintiff delivered the Defendant to plow his ground in P. And shews the Defendant did so excessively and immoderately labor and work the said Mare that the Mare died The Defendant confesses the promise and that the Mare at the time of the Delivery was infirm and that he worked her moderately and traverses the excessive labouring of the Mare and after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that it was mis-tried because the Venn was of C. which was naught and there was no place alleadged where the excessive labouring was for the Venn ought to come from that place where the laboring was HArbin and his Wife versus Green Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 2263. Action upon the case brought for not grinding his Corn at the Plaintiffs Mill and shews that the Bishop of Salisbury was seised of four customary Mils called A. in his Demesne as of Fee in right of his Bishoprick and prescribes that all Inhabitants and Residents within the City of Salisbury holding any ancient Mesuages of the said Bishop in right of his Bishoprick were time out of minde used and ought to grinde all their Corn whatsoever spent in their houses or exposed to sale in the said City at the said Mils of the said Bishop and no where else without the licence of the said Bishop and to pay Toll therefore to the said Bishop his Successors Bishops or their Farmors for the time being and in consideration thereof the Bishop his Successors or Farmors for the time being of the said Mils time out of minde have been used and accustomed at their own charges from time to time to keep and maintain a Servant expert in grinding as well by night as day there attending to grinde their Corn as soon as conveniently might be and the Plaintiff shews that such a Day the Defendant was and yet is an Inhabitant in one ancient Mesuage in the said City held of the Bishop and so possessed intending to deprive the Plaintiff of the profit of his Mill did such a day grinde divers sorts of Corn in other Mils without the Bishops leave to his damage of c. The Defendant pleads Non cul The Jury finde the Defendant guilty for a longer time then the Plaintiff had interest in the Mill and gave Damages intire and upon a Motion in arrest of Judgement adjudged naught GResley versus Lother and his Wife Executrix of R. B. and declares that communication was had between the Testator in his life and the Plaintiff concerning a Marriage to be had and solemnized between one T. B. son and heir apparent of the said R. B. and Jane Daughter of the Plaintiff and heir apparent of John F. deceased the said Testator such a Day and Year in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said R. B. then and there would agree that the said T. B. should marry the said J. promised to pay 20. l. and adjudged a good consideration GOwland versus Mason Hill 17. Jac. rotulo Action of the case for these words I charge him with Felony for taking of money out of the pocket of Henry Sparry and I will prove it and the Court was divided in opinion whether the words would maintain an Action or no. SMith and his Wife versus Stafford Executor of Stafford Hill 15 Jac. rotulo 906. Action of the case brought upon a promise made to the Woman when she was sole in consideration the Woman would marry the Testator he promises that if the Woman should over-live the Testator that then he would leave her worth 100. l. and they averr that she did marry him and after the Husband died and did not leave her worth 100. l. and the Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that by the Inter-marriage the Promise was drowned and released Three Judgeâ—…r the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant The like Observations in Actions of Covenant DRury versus Allen al. Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 926. Action of Covenant
certain Day specified in the Condition The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff at the Day of Payment accepts of another Bond for the Payment of the said Money in satisfaction of the said 52. l. 11. s. and upon a Demurrer held to be a naughty Plea for one Bond cannot overthrow another LEa versus Pain Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 953. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform an Award the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award The Plaintiff by way of Replication sets forth an Award that the Arbitrators did arbitrate of all matters untill the Date of the Award which was a Moneth longer then the Submission and so pretends they exceeded their Authority The words were for all causes before the Date of the Award Another Exception was because the Arbitrators awarded that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff such a Day of April and doth not say what year or next following and the Court held that good enough because the second Day of Payment was made to be such a Day and such a year and it was held good enough for if any new matters did arise between the Submission and Award or c. the Defendant ought to shew it Another Exception was that it was not said that the Award was made between the Parties but it shall be intended to be made between the Parties because the Award was made de super praemissis and therefore it shall be implied that it was made but of such things as they had power to deal in The Court was of opinion that the Award being de super praemissis the Court shall not say but that this was a cause submitted and except it had been discovered by pleading that there was a new cause since the Date of the Award which was made known to the Wardsmen the Court is not to take notice thereof SCot Executor versus Herbert The Plaintiff in his Declaration sayes the Testator in his life-time was possessed of Land for a terme of years and so possessed grants part of his terme to an Estranger reserving Rent and he grants his Estate to the Defendant And that the Testator died possessed of the Reversion of the terme and because the Rent was behinde the Executor brings his Action of Debt for the Rent and the Declaration was held naught for that it did not appear that he that made the first Demise was seised in Fee or in any other Estate by which he could make a Lease NOrris and Trussell Wardens of the Society of Weavers in the Town of Newbury in the County of Berks versus J. Scapes Pasch 14. Jac. rotulo 907. An Action of Debt brought and the Plaintiffs declare that Queen Elizabeth had incorporated them by such a name and given them Power to make by-laws for the better governing their Corporation c. and further shew that they made an Order which was confirmed by the Justices of Assise according to the Statute of 19 H. 7. and for the Breach of such Order brought their Action the Defendant pleaded that he owed them nothing and tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiffs and Hutton Serjeant moved in Arrest of Judgement and took three Exceptions the first because the Constitution was against Law to restrain one to exercise a lawfull Trade The second the Constitution was that the Offender should forfeit such a summ and it did not appear to whom this Forfeiture should go Thirdly the Plaintiff shews in his Count that the Queen by her Letters Patents had appointed A. B. C. to be Wardens for one year and shews not which those that brought the Action were elected which ought to be to intitle them to that Action It was against sense to barr all their own Apprentices it doth not appear how many Wardens should be and they do not intitle them to the Action by the Corporation the Law is altered and Judgement was given for the Defendant BRet versus Averder Mich. 29. 30. Eliz. Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Arbitrement the Defendant confesses the Arbitrement but pleads in Barr that the Plaintiff did not require him to make Payment and to that Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and it was adjudged no Plea for the Defendant at his perill ought to make Payment and the Plaiutiff ought not to make a Request HAles versus Bell Trin. 39. Eliz. rotulo 1974. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Dèbt upon an Obligation with a Condition for the Payment of 40. l. within fourteen Dayes next after the return of one Russell into England from the City of Venice and then the Obligation should be void the Defendant pleads in Barr that the said Russell was not at Venice upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and adjudged a naughty Plea for where part is to be done within the Realm and part out of the Realm the Plea ought to be triable within the Realm GArret versus Harrison Executor Trin. 40. Eliz. rotulo 1651. To an Action of Debt upon a Bond brought against him as Executor the Defendant pleads six Judgements in Barr the Plaintiff replies that they were by fraud and covin and the Jury found for the Plaintiff that two of the six were by covin and Williams moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Jury ought to have found all but Glanvile said that if any part of the Plea be insufficient defective or false the Issue shall be found against you for your Plea is one intire thing and he said that the Plaintiff should have taken Issue upon one onely as in an Obligation with diverse things in the Condition Walmsley held that by the Plea the Defendant had confessed implicatively that you have sufficient to satisfie those six Judgements and no more So that if any part be found against you this is Assets and Judgement was given accordingly for the Plaintiff GReen versus Wilcox Executor To an Action upon an Obligation brought against the Defendant as Executor he pleads that the Testator was obliged to A. in 20. l. which remained due to him at his Death and that the said A. recorded against him in the Common Pleas and averres that it was a true Debt and the persons and matters to be the same and that he had no Assetts beyond that and the Plaintiff replies that the said Recovery was had by fraud and covin between them to defraud him of his Debt to which Plea the Defendant demurrs specially because he had in his Plea averred it was a true and just Debt so that it could not be by covin Trin. 44. Eliz. It was adjudged for Law by the whole Court that if a Fieri facias be directed and delivered to the Sheriff he may not break the outer Door of the House and enter and do Execution but if the outer Door be open then he may enter by that and then he may and ought to break the Door of an Entry or Chamber which is locked and break
12. Jacobi rotulo 1609. or Hill in the same year rotulo 3027. The Plaintiff brought his Action upon a Bond the Condition whereof was performance of an Award for and concerning all matters Causes Suits and Demands whatsoever had moved or depending c. so as the said Award be made c. The Defendant pleads no such Award made the Plaintiff by Reply sets forth the Award it was made De praemissis to wit that the said I. should clearly depart with and avoid out of her House in which she then lived and that the said I. should carry away all the Hay c. The Defendant re-joynes and sayes no such Award and a Verdict for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Award was made but of one part and so void but Judgement was given for the Plaintiff for though the Award be made but of one part yet if the Defendant may plead it in Barr of the other Action brought against him for the same cause in all such cases the Award is good But my Lord Hubbart and Nichols took this Difference upon these words so that for then the Arbitrators must make their Award of all such things which are in Controversie and in such manner as the Condition prescribes but if the Parties put themselves by Parroll if the Arbitrement be made of one part it is good And Hubbart said that in all Arbitrements whether by Bond or Parroll they ought to be reciprocal and to be made in such manner that it may make an end of all Controversies between the Parties For if a man be bound in a single Bill and put it to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators order that the Obligor pay to the Obligee a summ and do not award that the Obligee shall seal a Release or that the Money paid shall be in Discharge of the said Bill the Award is void But in Barpools case the Submission was by Parroll for Money due before the Submission and the Award was that he should pay such a summ for the same Debt and good for the Award shall inure to a Dischage See Paschals case 8. Rep. STutfield Plaintiff Grony Defendant in Trinity Terme 13 Jacobi rotulo 859. The Defendant pleads to a Bond taken by the Sheriff for his Appearance in the Kings Bench Die Sabbati proximum post Oct. Martini that he appeared at the Day and the Court of Common Pleas gave him a Day to bring in the Record of his Appearance by Mittimus issuing out of the Chancery the Record was certified Videlicet that he appeared Lunae post xv am Martini which was after the Day yet it was adjudged good for if the Appearance was the same Terme it is good though it be not the same Day SErle against Harris Trinity Terme 9. Jacobi rotulo 1321. Judgement is there entred by Non sum inform against Harris Harris brings a Writ of Error upon that Judgement and assignes for Error that the Record was Fr. Harris de Brownton and the Original filed to warrant that Judgement was Fr. Harris de Browton and there reversed for that Variance HAmond versus Jethrell Mich. 8. Iacobi rotulo 2354. Hamond brought his Action of Debt upon a Bill obligatory for the Payment of Money and no Day limited in the Bill for the Payment thereof but after the words In witness whereof c. these words were written Nevertheless it is agreed that the said Jethrell shall not be hereby compelled or required to pay the said 30. l. untill the said Jethrell have recovered against B. Hudson the summ of 30. l. or more upon a Bond of 40. l. wherein the said Hamond c. The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bill and hath it Memorandum that J. W. J. c. and demurrs in Law and shews that the Plaintiff had not alleadged any Day of Payment nor when it was requested and the Declaration adjudged good notwithstanding and my Lord Cook held that whatsoever comes after these words In witness c. is no part of the Bill but words after In witness c. may be a Condition and must be pleaded and not demurred upon and 21 Henry the sixth direct in this point and so the third Report An Action of Covenant brought upon words of Covenant in Indenture after In witness c. and above the Seal and held good and maintainable SAaint-John versus Cracknell Mich. 12. Jacobi rotulo 1153. An Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of the 24. of Henry the sixth for 40. l. for Election of Burgesses in Parliament and it was tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiff And Serjeant Moor moved the matter insuing in Arrest of Judgement First the Statute directs the Sheriff to issue out his Warrant to the Mayor if there be one and if no Mayor then to the Bailiff and it appeared by the Court that the Sheriff made his Warrant to the Bailiff and do not shew that there was no Mayor there and the Exception disallowed for if there was a Mayor the Defendant ought to shew it by Plea Secondly that the Plaintiff doth not alleadge that the Warrant made to the Bailiff was under the Sheriffs Seal as the Statute directs and the Court held the Count good notwithstanding because the Declaration was that the Sheriff by vertue of a Writ to him directed made his Warrant to the Bailiff and if it was by vertue of the Writ it shall be intended to be under his Seal HOpe versus Holman Mich. 10. Jacobi rotulo 3612. Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleads a forreign Attachment in London and the Plaintiff demurrs and the Exceptions were first that the Defendant had attached the Moneys in his own hands by way of Retainer and so the Custome unwarrantable Secondly it appeared that Judgement was given in the Mayors Court by the Default of him in whose hands the Money was attached and it appeared that the Defendant which brought the Action in London and he in whose hands the Attachment was made and that made Default was the same person and it is a contrariety that the same person should appear and not appear and a Prescription for that is naught and the Custome is in London that the Recoveror in London ought to finde Sureties that if the Debt be discharged within a Year and a Day then to pay the Money and did not appear by the Record that he found Sureties which was an incurable Fault and so adjudged by the Court. POtter versus Tompson Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 3449. To one Obligation with Condition to make Assurance of Lands to such Uses therein expressed the Defendant pleads that he made a Feofment of the same Lands to other Uses which the Plaintiff accepted the Plaintiff demurrs and it was adjudged a naughty Plea for he ought not to vary from the Condition HIggenbotham versus Armot Hill 8. Jac. rotulo 906. Action of Debt brought upon a Retainer in the Office of an Husbandman for one year and so from
year to year the Defendant wages his Law and at the Day to wage his Law the Court refused to accept it for that he ought not to wage his Law for Wages yet if the Retainer were not for a year at least the Court seemed to be of opinion that he might wage his Law VErnon versus Onslow Pasch 12. Jac. rotulo 1047. Upon an Action brought upon a Bill for 80. l. the Defendant demands Oyer of the Bill was Pro octogesimis libris and to that the Defendant demurrs and Judgement for the Plaintiff Hutton cited the Case in Cooks 10. Rep. Rowlands Case And another in Mich. 44. 45. Eliz. rotulo 131. Proseptingentis libris and the Bond was Proseptungentis libris And another Mich. 11. Jac. upon a Bill for seventeen pounds and adjudged a good Bill YOung versus Melton Trin. 10. Jacobi rotulo 3434. An Action brought upon a Bond for performance of Covenants the Defendant pleads Conditions performed The Assignes the Breach for non-payment of Rent and pleads in this manner that in December he demised to the Defendant one Wine-Cellar c. for one year and if the Defendant would hold the Wine-Cellar for three years paying 40. l. yearly during the said terme and alleadges non-payment of the Rent of on Quarter in the first Year and the Defendant demurrs and the Court were of opinion that the reservation had reference as well to the first year as to the two years following and in that case Cook said that if a man demise c. reserving Rent to himself the Heir shall not have the Rent but if the Rent be reserved generally the Heir shall have it WHickstead versus Bradshaw Pasch 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. There was Judgement entred against the said B. and after the Bail of Bradshaw brought a Habeas Corpus to the Marshalsey Bradshaw being a Prisoner there to have his Body before the Judges of the Common Pleas to be committed in Execution in Discharge of the Bail but before the Returne of the Habeas Corpus the said Bradshaw had brought a Writ of Error returnable the Day following and when he came to be committed the Court doubted that their hands were tied by a Writ of Error by reason he could not be committed upon the Judgement and yet they would have discharged the Bail if they knew which way therefore Quaere GErrard al. versus Dannet Hill 9. Jac. rotulo 2015. Judgement was had upon a Bond by Non sum inform and a Writ of Error brought for that the Christian name of the Defendant Attorney was left out in the Imparlance Roll but it was in the Roll whereupon the Judgement was entred and a Warrant of Attorney entred accordingly and the Court was moved that it might be put into the Imparlance Roll which was granted upon sight of the Judgement Roll and Warrant of Attorney entred If a man be bound by Award to pay one 20. s. And I at the Day offer it and he refuseth it or comes not to receive it I must plead that I was ready to pay and shall not plead an Vncore prist because it is upon a collateral matter An Obligation was made to pay 10. l. 8. s. and eight not saying Pence or any thing else An Action of Debt lieth for the 10. l. 8. s. WIlde versus Vinor Trin. 7. Jac. rotulo 1629 or 2629. Debt upon an Obligation to perform an Award The Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant by Writing did revoke and null the Authority of the Arbitrators Foster held the Bond was forfeited although he might revoke the Plea was that he did discharge the Arbitrators against the form of the Condition My Lord Cook held that the Power was countermandable if the Submission be by Writing the Countermand must be by Writing if by word I may countermand by word If two binde themselves one cannot countermand alone If Obligor or Obligee disable by their own Act to make the Condition void the Bond is single 14 H. 7. If I am bound to infeoff A. and I marry her before the Day the Bond is forfeited 18 E. 4. 18. 20. the great doubt was because no express notice but notice was implied And the Bond forfeited because he did not stand to it Judgement for the Plaintiff PArker versus Rennaday Trin. 6. Jac. Action brought upon a Bond for 60. l. the Bond was in Italian in these words In cessanta libris and held a good Bond for 60. l. O. K. ux ejus Admin versus Needham who was bound to the Intestate in a Bond and pleads that Administration of the Intestates Goods was committed to him by the Archbishop the Intestate having Bona not Abilia before it was committed to the Plaintiffs Wife The Plaintiff replies that the Administration committed to the Defendant was revoked and made void to which the Defendant demurrs pretending his Administration to be a Release in Law but it was otherwise adjudged But if the Debtor were made Executor then the Debt is released like unto an Administrator during the minority he may do all for the good of the Infants but nothing to their prejudice if an Executor marry the Debtor it is no Release in Law Judgement for the Plaintiff by the whole Court LAwrance and Althams case if I have no means to gain my Right but by Action if I release my Action I release the thing it selfe because I release my means to come to my Right If I release all Actions I may have Jus prosequendi A Release made by the Testator shall be no Barr to the Executor to bring a Writ of Detinue because it continues a wrong still to the Executor A Bond to pay Money at Michaelmas may be released because it is a Debt otherwise it is of a Rent reserved by Lease the like it is of a single Bill to pay Money at four Dayes if the first Day be broken no Action untill all the Dayes be past but in case of a Lease after the first Day Debt doth lie in the first it is a Debt but not in the other Quarrels Controversies and Debates are all one that is all Causes of Quarrels Controversies and Debates are more large then Actions and Suits are more then q. c. d. and by Release of Suits Executions are gone Release of Duties Executions are gone neither Fraud nor Might can take a Title without Right Demand is most large and by it Rents are gone Executions gone Incidents gone as Releif Warranties gone all Causes of Demand gone Actions and a mans Right gone When a condition is to arbitrate of all matters between c. there if the matters be not made known to the Arbitrators they are not bound to arbitrate more then they know for if it appear to the Court that all matters committed to the arbitrators be not arbitrated the Award is void but if the submission be of all matters between c. so that now all must be
16. Jac. rotulo 1200. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for performance of an Award which was void in part and good in part and the Breach alleadged for that part which was good and the Award was to pay Money but no time of Payment alleadged in the Award and afterwards it was demanded and such Demand was held good KIng versus Law Trin. 16. Jac. rotulo 507. An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of Perjury in which the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Defendant moved to have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. upon these words or upon any Statute for any Offence or Wrong personally immediatly supposed to be done to the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff after Appearance c. be non-suited c. but the whole Court held that he should not recover Costs upon that Statute because the Statute of 5 Eliz. was made long after the Statute of 23 H. 8. and upon the Statute of 7 Jacobi the Defendant shall not recover Costs for if the Plaintiff had recovered he should have recovered no Costs and so no Cost was given to the Defendant in that Action PAnnell versus Metcalfe Trin. 17. Eliz. rotulo 2722. Action of Debt brought against the Defendant as Administrator and he pleads a Recovery had against him in the City of Norwich and alleadges a special Custome that time out of minde that they had Cognisance of Pleas and in pleading the Custome he omitted this word Cur and held naught FEtherston versus Tapsall Mich. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3409. The Imparlance was entred and Hill 13. Jacobi rotulo 715. The Issue was entred An Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond and in the Imparlance the Bond was alleadged to be made at Newcastle and in the Issue Roll it was alleadged to be made at York and tried and afterwards a Writ of Error was brought and the Record was certified and upon a Scire facias that Error was assigned and the Court of Common Pleas was moved that the Imparlance Roll might be amended but the Court would not grant it GAtes versus Smith Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 945. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Award the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award the Plaintiff by way of Replication sets forth the Award and that the Arbitrators had awarded the Defendant to pay such a summ and that he should be bound with another in such a summ and shews that the Defendant did not become bound with the other and the Defendant demurred for because it was out of the Submission and it was not in the Defendants power to perform it JAckson versus Comin Trin. 16. Jac. rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Award so that the Award be signed sealed and delivered and in pleading of an Award upon the Defendants saying there was no Award made the Plaintiff omitted in his Plea to set forth that the Award was signed and it was tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and this was moved in Arrest of Judgement and stayed by the Court. CLempson versus Bate Trin. 17. Iacobi rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon a Recovery in a Court-Baron and declares that every Court was held before the Steward onely and not before the Suitors and a Declaration there for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years behinde and the Court held the Declaration void and that these words according to the Custome of the Mannour time out of minde would not help the Declaration and the Defendant was admitted to wage his Law presently if he would COventry versus Windall Hill 13. Iac. rotulo 2588. An Action of Debt brought upon a Writing thereby shewing that whereas one T. before the sealing of that Writing had become bound to the Defendant to stay with him and serve him as his Apprentice for the terme of eight years and Woodall covenants with the Plaintiff that he before such a Day would receive and take the said Apprentice for the residue of the said terme of eight years then to come and would teach keep and imploy the said Apprentice in his House and Service in the Art and Mystery of Surgery which the said Woodall then used and professed if the said I. should so long live and bindes himself in 20. l. the Plaintiff alleadges that the Defendant did receive the said Apprentice in his Service at London c. and further sayes that the Defendant within the time to wit such a Day and Year sent the said Apprentice in a certain Voyage in a Ship called the Dragon from the House of the Defendant unto the East Indies there to stay and that the Apprentice did there arrive and doth yet there remain for which he brings his Action The Defendant pleads that he for the better instruction of the Apprentice sent the Apprentice to the Indies to use and exercise his Art and to this the Plaintiff demurrs and Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Defendant could not send the Apprentice out of England except himself went with him although it be in his own House and own proper Service but clearly he might send the Apprentice to Chester or any other part of England GArrard al. versus Dennet Hill 9. Iacobi rotulo 516. The Defendant after a Judgement entred brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that the Christian name of the Attorney for the Defendant was left out in the Imparlance Roll but it was in the Judgment Roll and also in the Roll with the Clerk of the Warrants was perfect to wit Henry Snag and therefore the Imparlance was made perfect and Henry put into the Imparlance Roll after assignement of Error by the Court. COwchman versus Hawtry Hill 14. Iac. rotulo 2167. Action of Debt brought against a Bailiff of a Liberty upon a Recovery in a Court of Record The Defendant pleads no such Record The Plaintiff brings the Record into the Court and there were divers Variances between the Record upon which the Plaintiff declares and the Record certified Videlicet in the name of the Bailiff and Continuances for in the Record certified there were divers Continuances which were not in the Record in Court and divers other Differences but the Judgement and Recovery of the Debt and Damages agreed and the other Variances were not material and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding DOminus Rex Iacobus versus Castle An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation taken in the Kings name in the Court of Request with a Condition to appear before the Master c. and the Declaration is generall that the Defendant such a Day and Year by his Obligation did acknowledge himself to be bound to the King in the said 60. l. to be paid c. and it was adjudged naught for it did not appear to be taken in a Court of Record CHilde versus Peisley Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2184.
Habeas Corpora returned by the Sheriff and these words omitted Videlicet Quilibet Iur. per se seperatim Attach est per Pleg I. D. R. R. exitus eor cujuslibet x. s. R. W. M. L. Vic. and it was amended by the Court. ANdrews versus Delahay an Attorney of the Common Pleas Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 3057. A Bill filed against the Defendant as an Attorney upon two Bills obligatory for payment of Money and one of the Bills was not payable and due at the time of exhibiting the Bill and the Defendant pleads to Issue and the Cause received a Triall and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Defendant in Arrest of Judgement moved that one of the Bills were not payable at the time of exhibiting the Bill against him and thereupon the Plaintiff remitted his Damages and had Judgement for the Bill that was due HArris versus Cotton As long as the Vicar occupies his Gleab-land in his own hands he shall pay no Tithes but if he demise it to another the Lessee shall pay Tithes to the Parson that is impropriate If the Vicar sow the Land and die and his Executor takes away the Corn and doth not set forth his Tithe and the Parson brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. and the Court seemed to incline that it would lie DArrell versus Andrew Mich. 14. Iaeobi rotulo 2327. An Action of Debt was brought in London for Rent reserved upon a Demise of Lands in Cawson in the Parish of D. in the County of War and of one capital Messuage The Defendant pleads Extinguishment of Rent because the Plaintiff had entred into one House called the Wooll-house and into one Buttry at the upper end of the Hall of the said House and in one House called the C. parcell of the Premises before demised upon the Defendants motion and had expelled the Defendant out of the Possession thereof and the Venire facias was of Cawson within the Parish of Dale and Exception taken because it was Infra Parocham but my Lord Hubbard said that where Land is laid in Dale in the Parish of Dale that the Venire facias may be made of Dale or within the Parish or of the Parish and both good HAll versus Winkfield An Action of Debt brought in London for a 100. l. and the Plaintiff declared upon a Recognisance taken at Serjeants Inn in Fleetstreet London before the Cheif Justice of the Common Pleas and afterwards inrolled in the Common Pleas at Westminster in Middlesex And the Defendant demurred to the Declaration and the Question was whether the Action should be brought in London or Mid. And note the Recognisance as soon as it is acknowledged is a Record and shal relate to the time of the taking to binde Serjeant Hutton said that a Scire facias may issue upon a Recognisance taken out of Court into any County and none is bound to sue Scire facias where the Recognisance is taken but after it is inrolled in the Court an Action of Debt shall be brought in the County of Middlesex At the Common Law the Execution was by Levari facias and after the Year an Action of Debt it is not a Recognisance consummate untill it be inrolled in the Court yet it taketh its life by the first acknowledgement for if you have an Action of Debt or Trespass in a forrain Shire when you have recovered Debt or Trespass your Debt or Trespass is now altered and made new My Lord Hubbard held that if I bring Debt in Norfolk and I have Judgement and bring an Action of Debt upon that Judgement it must be brought in Middlesex and so in Trespass The Inrolment of the Recognisance is but a fortification of the Recognisance MOrtimer versus Freeman Hill 9. Iacobi rotulo 2001. An Action of Debt brought for not setting out of Tithes to which the Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and to prove that the Plaintiff was not Parson he shewed a Deprivation of the Plaintiff for Drunkenness by the high Commissioners and the Court held for such a common Fault after Admonition the high Commissioners might deprive a Minister but because this Crime of Drunkenness was committed before the general Pardon and that the Sentence was given after the Pardon the Sentence was void For Wooll or Lamb no Action lieth upon the Statute for they are not predial Tithes nor for small Tithes If an Action of Debt be brought upon two Contracts and both found for the Plaintiff in that Case the Jury may tax Damages intire but the safer and better way is to sever the Damages for it may come to pass that an Action will not lie for one of the two and if it will not lie then your labour and charge is lost An Action of Debt brought for 300. l. upon an Obligation The Defendant after a general Imparlance demands Oyer of the Bond and pleads specially that it was but for 30. l. and it was not allowed after a general Imparlance And the Defendant pleaded that it was not his Deed which was the proper Plea in that Case PReston versus Dawson Pasch 11. Jacobi rotulo 2310. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond for performance of Covenants in an Indenture in which Indenture was this Covenant following that the Vendor should make further Assurance at the cost and charges in the Law of the Purchasor and for Breach it was alleadged that a Note of a Fine was devised and ingrossed in Parchment and delivered to the Vendee to acknowledge the Fine at the Assises which he refused to do and the Plaintiffs Breach was demurred upon because he did not offer Costs to the Vendee and the Court held it to be idle GLyver versus Lease Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 734. An Action of Debt brought upon a single Bill The Defendant pleads that he did infeoff the Plaintiff of Lands in satisfaction of that Debt and the Plaintiff demurred upon it and upon reading the Record ruled to be a naughty Plea to a single Bill otherwise it had been upon a Bond with a Condition to pay Money WIlliamson versus Barnsley Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 1291. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform Articles that he before Easter Terme next following at the Request of the Plaintiff should surrender and yeild up to the Plaintiff his Letters Patents of the Stewardship of Bromsgrove to the intent that he might renew the said Letters Patents in his own name and it was objected at Barr that the Office of a Steward of a Court Leet or Court Baron was within the Statute of 5 E. 6. made against buying of Offices that were for Ministration and so Winch held the Stewardship of a Leet to be within the Statute and so was adjudged in Grays Case but the Question was whether the agreement to surrender be within the Statute or no the words
by Obligation and that he retained the Money in his hands to satisfie the Debt The Plaintiff replies that the Money was not due and payable to him at the time of the Intestates Death and that he took Administration after the Day of Payment and if the Administrator had pleased he might have took Administration before the Day of Payment and the Court held the Defendants Plea good but he shall not have the Forfeiture CArrell versus Paske Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1018. Debt brought upon an Obligation made at C. in the County of Surry The Defendant pleads the Priviledge of Cambridge granted to them by the Queen Eliz. for Scholars Bachelours Masters and their Servants upon Contract made within the University and shews the Bond was made in Cambridge and that he was a Servant of the Scholars to wit Bailiff of Kings Colledge in that University and inhabiting within the Town of Cambridge and Precincts of that University and therefore a priviledged Person of the same and upon reading the Record it seemed that the Defendant being a Bailiff of the Colledge is not capable of the said Priviledge PReist versus Cee Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2197. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill bearing Date 17 Novomber 1604. by which Bill the Defendant did acknowledge himself to owe the Plaintiff 10. l. to be paid to the Plaintiff at two Payments to wit 5. l. to be paid upon the 19. of November then next following and other 5. l. to be paid upon the 10. Day of December then next following The Defendant pleads it was not his Deed. The Jury finde it specially that the Defendant the 17. of November 1604. sealed and delivered to the Plaintiff one Bill obligatory shewed to the Jury bearing Date the Day and Year above and finde the Bill in haec verba Be it known c. to be paid at two Payments that is to say 5. l. to be paid the 19. of November which is the present of this Moneth and the other 5. l. on the 10. of December The Question was whether the Bill maintain the Count for the first Payment and adjudged it did RAwdon versus Turton Trin. 13. Jac. 1011. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond for Payment of Money such a Day The Defendant pleads that he the same Day made an Obligation for the Payment of the said Money another Day which the Plaintiff accepted for the Money and Issue taken thereupon and tried for the Defendant and after the Verdict the Plaintiff moved the Court to have Judgement though the Verdict passed against him because the Plea was insufficient and that he confessed the Debt but the Court would not grant it The like Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1061. And the like Hill 12. Jac. CArter versus Freeman Mich. 13. Jac. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition that the Defendant should appear before the King at a certain Day Videlicet Die Jovis post Octobras Martini and upon a Nul tiel Record pleaded the Defendant brought his Record of Appearance Lunae post xvam Martini and this was held by the whole Court an Appearance at the Day in the Condition by the whole Court GRubham versus Thornborough Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1773. An Action of Debt brought for Rent and for a Nomine penae the Rent due 14 November Anno 9. and no name alleadged for the Nomine penae therefore the Action would not lie for the Nomine penae but it would for Rent PAsch 44. Eliz. Elliot versus Golding An Action of Debt brought and Judgement given for the Plaintiff and a space was left in the Roll for the Costs of the Judgement and after the Year and a Day a Scire facias was brought to revive the Judgement and in the Scire facias the Costs are put in and so Judgement by Default and afterwards a Writ of Error brought and the Error was assigned because there were no Costs put into the principal Roll and afterwards the Record was removed the Count was moved that Costs might be put into the Roll but it was denied upon the first motion and afterwards Pasch 13. Jac. it was denied by the whole Court BOnd versus Green Administrator An Action of Debt brought against him as Administrator he pleads divers Judgements amounting to 670. l. and the Assignement of 100. l. Debt to the King by Deed inrolled and he pleaded that he retained his Debt in his hands and he might have given this in Evidence or pleaded it at the Liberty of the Defendant COoper versus Bacon Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for Tithes and the Plaintiff declares that one was seised of the Rectory of Elveley alias Kirkley in Kingston upon Hull in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised such a Day and such a Day at Elveley alias Kirkley did demise to the Plaintiff the said Rectory with the Appurtenances to have and to hold c. for years and that by vertue thereof he hath been and is thereof possessed and that the Defendant such a Day and before and alwayes afterwards hitherto had held and occupied 30. Acres of Land in Swandland in Kingston in a place called T. and that the Tithes did belong to him The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and after a Verdict it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Issue was mis-tried because the Venire facias was of Elveley alias Kirkley and it should have been of Swandland where the Tithes grew CHapman versus Pescod Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 2106. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to give and grant to him his Heirs and Assignes The Defendant pleads that he hath been ready to give and grant and adjudged naught for he must plead that he did it otherwise it had been if the words had been as Councel should devise MAncester versus Draper Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 2613. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition to pay Money if C. R. shall be then living and shall before the same 20. Day of O. by due form and course in Law perfect levy and knowledge a Fine and a Recovery before his Majesties Justices of his Highness Court of Common Pleas of and in certain Houses and Tenements with the Appurtenances which the said Draper lately had and purchased of the said C. R. the Defendant pleads that C. R. was living and did not levy c. and a Demurrer and the Question was whether Draper or Ro. should levy the Fine and held that Draper should levy the Fine BAker versus Pain Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 3139. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond to pay Rent and perform all the Covenants Grants Payments and Conditions contained in a pair of Indentures and the Defendant pleads the Indenture and performance thereof The Plaintiff assignes the Breach that the Defendant had not paid the Money The
in the upper Bench. BRownsworth versus Trench Trin. 10. Iacobi rotulo 3628. An Action of Debt brought upon an Escape against a Bailiff of a Liberty and after a Triall Exception was taken to the Declaration because it was not alleadged therein that the Sheriff made a Warrant to the Bailiff upon the Execution but it was onely alleadged that at A. aforesaid by vertue of the Warrant aforesaid he took the Prisoner and saith not within his Liberty aforesaid and the Exception was held void Trin. 10. Iacobi An Action of Debt brought by Executors and the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiffs were not Executors and tried and found for the Defendant and the Defendant upon the Statute for Costs desired Costs because the Jury found against the Plaintiff that he was not Executor and if a Verdict passe against one that is not an Executor he shall pay Costs but Costs were denied by the whole Court for the Jury might finde an untruth BAlder versus Blackborn Trin. 16. Iacobi rotulo 465. An Action of Debt brought for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Case this Land was devised to a Woman in this manner that she should have the profits of the Land untill the Daughter of the Devisor should be eighteen years old and the Woman made the Lease in question reserving Rent and afterwards married and then died and if the Husband after her Death should have the Land untill the Daughter of the Devisor came to eighteen years old was the question and adjudged he should hold the Land for the Devise of the profits is the Devise of the Land and is not like a Lease made by a Guardian in Socage which ends by the Deâ—… of the Guardian the Declaration was for one Mesuage demised the fourth of May 15. Jac. for one year and so from year to year as long as both parties should agree paying twenty four pounds by the year and Nil debet per patriam was pleaded and the Jury found it specially that one I. W. was seised of the Tenement and held it in Socage and made it his last Will in writing and by that did devise to A. his Daughter the said Tenement and her Heirs for ever at the full Age of eighteen years the words of the Will were Item I will that my Wife and Executrix shall have the Education of my Daughter with the portion of Money and profits of my Land to her own use without account untill my Daughters Age aforesaid provided she shall pay the out-rents and keep her Daughter at School and by that Will made his Wife Executrix and the said W. died and his Wife survived and took upon her the Executorship and married with one P. the Woman performed the Condition and afterwards died and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff that it was a terme and that the Husband should have it An Action of Debt was brought against an Executor and the Case was thus Administration was committed to one during the minority of the Executor who wasted the Goods of the Testator and after the Executor attained the Age of seventeen years an Action of Debt was brought against the Executor and the opinion of the Court was prayed whether he might plead generally ne unques Executor or excuse himself by pleading the special matter and the Court doubled but most safe to plead the special matter An Action of Debt was brought for Rent reserved by Indenture payable at two Feasts or within twenty daies then next following and the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for the Rent and because ten pound at the Feast of the Anunciation 10. Jacobi was behind and unpaid the Action was brought the Defendant pleads Non demisit and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and after a Triall exception was taken to the Declaration because it was not alleadged that the Rent was arrere at that Feast and twenty daies after but it was not allowed after a Verdict because he should have taken advantage thereof before RAtliff versus Executors Pasch 15. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform Covenants in an Indenture The Defendant pleads performance of the Covenants the Plaintiff alleadges a breach upon this Covenant that the Lessee should injoy the Land without any lawfull interruption or disturbance of the Lessor or his Executors and shewes that the Executors entred upon him in the Land and outed him and shews not any interruption for any just cause and adjudged good in the upper Bench. WHitton versus Bye Trin. 16. Jacobi It was adjudged in the upper Bench in an Action of Debt brought by a Lessor against a Lessee for years for Rent reserved during the Tearme being behind and unpaid that a Release pleaded to be made by the Lessor to the Lessee six years before the Rent was arrere of all Demands was a good Barr One cannot reserve a Rent to a stranger it must be reserved according to the privity WAinford Administrator Kirby versus Warner Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 1906. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond to which the Defendant pleads that the intestate was indebted to him in such a sum and that he retained c. in his hands to satisfie himself of the Debt due to him And that he had not assets over to satisfie the Plaintiff to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs because he did not plead generally fully administred but an Exception was taken because he shewed not that the Condition of the Bond was for payment of Money STone versus Goddard Trin. 14. Jacobi rotulo 2258. An Action of Debt brought upon divers Emissets of divers Wares Videlicet unum ahenum for five shillings unum scabum for six shillings and so divers other words which the Court could not understand what they signified in regard no Anglice was put to them and the Defendant pleaded Nil debet per patriam and the Jury gave a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Damages given for the whole Debt and moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement that the Plaintiff should have no Judgement for the insufficiency of his Declaration WEeks versus Wright unum Clericorum R. B. The Plaintiff exhibited a Bill against the Defendant for Money due upon an Obligation and Issue was joyned and the Cause tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and after Triall the Defendant moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Bill was not filed that it was not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles nor within that Statute for it is an Original but afterwards the Court granted that a new Bill should be filed so that the matter might be put to arbitrement and if the Arbitrators could not determine the matter the Court would And note the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the want of a Bill is not helped by the Statute WItchoct Linesey versus Nine Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 726. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform the Covenants contained in an
Court onely which may not step the â—udges mouthes but that they ought to judge according to Law and this was the opinion of Popham Yelverton Gaudy but Fennor doubted for he thought the awarding of the Capias oneâ—y erroneous and not void and Serjeant Tanfield and the Attorney General shewed a precise Judgement in the Case 21 Eliz. in the Exchequer Clâ—ment Pastons Case against whom an Action of Debt was brought for suffering one to escape who was taken by vertue of a Capias upon a Recognisance and the three Judges held strongly their opinion PVdsey versus Newsam Mich. 1. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for five hundred pounds with a Condition that if the Defendant before Mich. do make knowledge and suffer c. all and every such reasonable Act and things whatsoever they be for the good and lawfull assuring and sure making of the Mannour of D. to J. S. and his Heirs that then c. The Defendant pleads that before Mich. the Plaintiff had not reasonably required the Defendant to make any reasonable Act or Acts which should be for the good and lawfull assuring of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replies that such a Day before Mich. he requested the Defendant that he would convey and assure the Mannour of D. to J. S. according to the tenour of the Condition and upon this they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that no sufficient Breach was assigned for the Plaintiff ought to have required one Assurance in certain which he would have had made but the Exception was over-ruled and adjudged that the Issue was well joyned and the Condition broken for by the Condition the Defendant is to make all and every Act whatsoever for the Assurance of the Mannour of D. in so much that if the Plaintiff should request one Fine Feoffment or Recovery or Bargain and Sale the Defendant ought to make all but they held he was not bound to make an Obligation or Recognisance for the injoying the Mannour for that is but collateral Security is no Assurance And when the Plaintiff requires the Defendant to convey the Mannour generally the Defend at his peril ought to do it by any kinde of Assurance and if upon such Request the Defendant should make a Feoffment of the Mannour yet if the Plaintiff afterwards request one Fine the Defendant ought to acknowledge one Fine also and so upon severall Requests he ought to make severall Assurances and so in making the Request general he had well pursued the Condition and the Defendant ought at his perilâ—…ake every Assurance by the opinion of the whole Court ELlis versus Warnes Trin. 2. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond for a hundred and twenty pounds and the Case upon the pleading was that Warnes was indebted to one Ader a hundred pounds upon an usurious Contract and that Ader was indebted to Ellis in a hundred pounds for which Warnes and Ader were obliged to the Plaintiff and Debt being brought upon that Obligation Warnes pleads the Usury between him and Ader to avoid the Bond Ellis the Plaintiff replies that Ader before the making the Bond was indebted to him in a hundred pounds a just and true Debt for Payment whereof VVarnes and Ader were bound to him in the Bond in Suit and that he was not in any wise knowing of the Usury between Warner and Ader and Warnes demurrs to this Plea and adjudged by Gaudy Yelverton and W. for the Plaintiff for it is not Usury in the Plaintiff but onely between Warnes and Ader to which the Plaintiff being not privy shall not be prejudiced for although the Statute of Usury is to be taken most strongly for the suppressing of Usury yet it must be between such parties as use Corruption and not to punish the innocent as the Plaintiff but if no Debt had been due to the Plaintiff before then it had been clearly Usury for there had been no lawfull Cause to make the Bond to him but onely to countenance the Corruption between VVarnes and Ader and Yelverton said that if the Defendants Plea be good then every man may be defrauded of his just Debt for if the Barr shall be good by Corruption between the Debtor and Surety to which the Creditor is a meer stranger a man may loose his Debt which is mischievous but Popham and Fennor doubted of the Plaintiffs Replication that he ought to have took a Traverse upon the Defendants Barr which ought not to be for how should he traverse a thing which could be within his knowledge and to which he was no party HArgrave versus Rogers Mich. 2. Jacobi Action of Debt brought and Bail given that A. upon eight Dayes warning shall appear to an Action to be brought by B. for the same Debt and if A. shall be condemned in the Suit and not pay it then the Bail would answer B. the Condemnation and B. brought his Action against A. in which A. was condemned and did not pay by reason whereof B. brought an Action of Debt against the Bail upon the Recognisance and set forth the Suit against A. and the Condemnation and that he had not satisfied it but shewed not that it had eight Dayes warning to appear to the Action and Fennor and Yelverton held that he need not shew it for the Condition of the Recognisance depends upon two Clauses one the Appearance at 8. Dayes warning the other is the satisfaction by the Bail if P. should not pay the Condemnation comprehended in these words And and in this Case the Action was brought upon the second Clause to wit the Default of P. because he had not answered the Condemnation and therefore needlesse to meddle with that part of the Condition But if the Action had been brought if the first Clause then B. ought to have shewed in certain the Warning to have been given by 8. Dayes but Popham Gandy and W. were of a contrary opinion and that the Plaintiff of necessity ought to shew the Warning to have been given 8. Dayes because that part of the condition is not to be performed between parties but an Estranger for A. is an Estranger and the Bail is bound as well to answer such Condemnation in such Action as shall be brought upon the eight Dayes Warning given for that is the ground of all and it is no reason that A. by his voluntary Appearance without eight Dayes Warning should prejudice his Bail but otherwise it had been if the Condition had been between A. and B. for then if A. would appear without such Warning it is his folly and no injury is done to one that is willing and according to this opinion the Plaintiff discontinued his Suit and the Defendants were ordered to put in new Bail with mark SIr Rich. Campion vers Hill Pasch 3. Jac. An Action of Debt brought upon the Stat. of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes
the Plaintiff shews that the Rector of M. had 2. parts of the Tithes in 3. parts to be divided that the Vicar of the same place had the third part of the Tithes and layeth this by Prescription as to the manner of the taking the Tithes shews further how the Parson Vicar by several Leases had demised the Tithes to him so he being Proprietor of the Tithes the Defend sowed 10. Acres within the Parish to wit Wheat Rie c. carried it away without setting forth the Tithe to his Damage c. And upon a Nil debet per patriam pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff had in that Action comprised severall Actions upon the Statute and that it appeared by his own shewing for the Plaintiff claimed not the Tithes under one Title but under the severall Tithes of Parson and Vicar and Fennor Justice held they could not joyn and no more could the Plaintiff who claimed severally under them and it seemed to him that the Parson could not have this Action against severall Tenants for not setting forth their severall Tithes because he could not comprehend two Actions in one but the whole Court besides held the contrary for although the Parson and Vicar could not joyn in this Case because they claim their Tithes severally by divided Rights yet when both their Tithes are conjoyned in one person as it is in the Plaintiffe then the the Interest of their Title is conjoyned also in one and it suffices generally to shew the Plaintiffe is a Farmer or proprietor of the Tithes without saying of what Title for it is but a personall action grounded meerly upon a contempt against the Statute for not setting forth Tithes and also Tithes are not demanded by this Action although the Title may come in debate yet it was agreed by all the Judges that the Plaintiffe should recover his Tithes in dammages and shall not demand them again by any suit after a recovery in this Action which Mark. BErket versus Manning Pasch 3 Jacobi Action of Debt brought against the Defendant as Administrator of J. S. The Defendant pleads fully administred the Plaintiffe replies that himself had assets and it should have been that the Defendant had assets and this was moved in arrest of Judgement but amended by the Court being the Clerks misprision onely as where it is entred predict Defend similiter and it should have been predict quer similiter and this hath been often amended by the Court. PAler versus Hardman Pasch Jacobi Hardman and his wife Executrix J. H. brought an Action of Debt in the common Pleas against Paler and as that they should restore a tun of Iron to the value of twelve l. and declare upon a Bill for the delivery of the said tun of Iron within such a time and that the Defendant had not delivered it to the Plaintiffes dammage of c. and upon non est fact pleaded it was found for the Plaintiffe and Judgement was given that the Plaintiffe should recover the Tun of Iron or the value of the same and if he should render the tun then by the oath c. should inquire what the tun of Iron was worth and before any return of the writ to inquire of the dammages the Plaintiffe in the common Pleas takes out a Capias upon the Judgement and on Exigent upon that and the Defendant brings a writ of Error and it was adjudged erroneous for two causes first because the Judgement was in the disjunctive that the Plaintiffe should recover the tun of Iron and if not the value thereof so in detinue as it appears by the Judgement in this Case that the Plaintiffe may choose whether he will have the Iron or the value thereof which he cannot do for if the iron be to be delivered he shall recover that onely but if it be not to be delivered then the value and not as before Secondly for that the Judgement is not perfect untill the writ to inquire be returned with issues to the Sheriffe to distrain the Defendant to render the Iron and also to inquire of the value and before the return thereof nothing in certain appears One which to ground any writ of Execution for the Judgement comprehends no certainty but is to be made certain by the return of the writ to inquire with the whole Court granted CArpenter versus Collins Mich. 3 Jacobi An Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiffe for rent arere and declares upon a Lease made to the Defendant at Will to be held from Mich. as long as both parties should agree yeelding and paying three pounds yearly and shews that Collins entred and occupied from the Feast c. unto the Feast of Mich. and upon nil debet plenius the Jury foundthat J. Norrington had issue a Son and a daughter and Devises that his Son shall have his Land at the age of twenty four years and gives forty pounds to his Daughter to be paid her at the age of two and twenty years an further wills that the Plaintiffe should be his Executor and should repair to his houses and have the oversight and doing of all his Lands and moveable Goods untill the severall ages aforesaid and after dies and Carpenter the Executor makes the Lease before mentioned and the Jury further find that the Son died but find not at what age he was at his death but that the Daughter at the Sons death was nineteen and no more and find the Lease made by the Plaintiffe and that the Lessee by force thereof entred and continued possession from Michaelmas for one year and more and find that within that year the Daughter entred and that the Defendant atturned to the Daughter and refused to continue Tenant to the Plaintiffe and by Fennor Yelverton and W. Judgement was given against the Plaintiffe for the Plaintif took no interest in the Land by the Will for the oversight and doing of his Lands shall be intended but in Right of the Heire and to his use because the Testator though not his Son of discretion and government untill the age of twenty four years and in the mean time appointed his Executor to oversee and order the Land to the profits of the Heâ—â—e that wanted discretion 28 H. 8. D. 26. where it is declared that J. S. shall have as well the governing of c. as the disposing setting letting and ordering of his Lands and by the Court held that J. S. had them onely to husband for the profit of his children and no otherwise but he was of opinion that the Plaintif had an estate in the Land upon a limitation determinable at the Sons age of four and twenty years and it appears not at what age he died being not found by the verdict therefore it is incertain and the Entry of the Daughter lawfull for the limitation looks but to the age of the Sonne and
not to the age of the Daughter for the age of the Daughter shall be intended to be set down for the receit of her legacy of forty pounds and for no other purpose and the Defendant within the time in which the Rent demanded is supposed to be due had not determined his Will as appears by the Verdict but Fennor and W. said that by the Verdict that the Defendant entred by force of the lease and occupied the land at the time comprised in the Declaration and more and that the Tenant at will cannot determine his will within a little time before the year end for that would prove very mischeivous to the lessor that his Tenant at will should determine his will within the year and refuse to occupy the land twenty dayes before the year end and in 21 H. 7. Crooks Reports it appears that a Lessee at will cannot determine his will within the year to the prejudice of the Lessor but that he shall answer the whole Rent to the Lessor but note it appeared that the Lessee at will was expulsed by the Plaintif that was Lessor and no other thing although done by his agreement can determine the Lease against the Lessor for it is Covin if the Lessee be not privy and acquainted with it which was granted by the whole Court and all of them agreed in the Title against the Plaintif but as the Reporter affirmed Popham was absent and hearing the Case was of opinion that the Plaintif had an interest by the words of the will JEffry versus Guy Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with Condition that if Jeffry the Defendant perform all Covenants in such an Indenture that then c. and one Covenant was that he should permit Guy the Plaintiffe from time to time to come and see if the House Leased by Guy and K. his Wife were in repair the Case was thus J. Bill and K. his Wife were Tenants in Tail of a house and had Issue J. B. dies K. marries Guy the Plaintiffe and they two make a Lease by Indenture to Jeffry for twenty years yeelding and paying to them and their Heirs three pounds Rent by the year with the Covenant as aforesaid Jeffry pleads in Barr the former intail and the death of R. and that VV. the Issue in Tail such a day entred before which Entry the Condition was not broken Guy replies that William came with him upon the Land to see if reparations c. and traverses the Entry of William in manner and form prout c. and Issue joyned upon the traverse and found for the Plaintiffe and Judgement given in the common Pleas upon which Judgement Jeffry brought Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and Judgement affirmed there but it was assigned for Error the Jury had not assigned any breach of Covenant in Jeffry and so had showed no cause of action but the Court held he need not in this Case for by the speciall Issue tendred by Jeffry the Plaintiffe was inforced one speciall replication to that point tendred and the Plaintiffe could not proceed error and it is not like the Case of an arbitrement wherein Debt upon an Obligation to perform the award the Defendant pleads nullum fecer arbitrium then the Defenâ—… in his replication ought to set forth the award and assign his breach because the Defendants Plea is generall but if in such Case the Defendant should plead a release of all demands after the Arbi-Arbitrement by which he offers a special point in Issue there it suffices if the Plaintiff answers to the Release or other special matter alleadged by the Defendant without assigning any Breach so in this Case the special Plea of the Defendant had disabled the Plaintiff that he could not assign any Breach of Covenants but of necessity ought to answer to the special matter alleadged RAstell versus Draper Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought for nine and thirty pounds the Plaintiff declares that the first of May primo Iacobi sold to the Defendant twenty Northern Clothes for sixty pounds Flemish Money to be paid upon Request which sixty pounds Flemish Money amount to nine and thirty pounds English Money and that the Defendant though often requested had not paid the nine and thirty pounds to his Damages of c. The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff should have demanded the summ according to the Contract which was for sixty pounds Flemish and to have shewed that it amounts to nine and thirty pounds English but the whole Court against it for the Debt ought to be demanded by a name known and the Judges are not skilled in Flemish Money and also when the Plaintiff hath his Judgement he could not have his Execution by that name for the Sheriff cannot tell how to levy the Money in Flemish and also it is made good by the Verdict for the Jury have found the Debt demanded to wit nine and thirty pounds But if the Contract had been for so many Ounces of Flemish Money or a Barr of Silver and Gold now it cannot be demanded by the name of twenty pounds or such a summ which is not Coin nor used in Trade or Merchandise but in such Case must have a Writ of Detinue and in that recover the thing or the value and so in the Book of Entries fol. 157. is the President where Debt was brought upon two severall Obligations and demands eight and twenty pounds and declares severally that by one Obligation he owed eight and twenty pounds of Flemish Money and 34 H. 6. 12. 9 E. 4. 46. But note in that Case the Plaintiff if he would might have declared in the Detinet and it had been good ROlles versus Osborn Mich. 3. Jac. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond of a thousand pounds and Serjeant Nichols moved the Court for the Defendant and shewed that the Plaintiff and Defendant were obliged each to other in a thousand pounds a peice that they should intermarry before such a Day and both their Obligations were forfeited and each of them sued the other and the Defendant prayed that common Bail might be accepted of her and she would accept of common Bail of the Plaintiff and the Court held it reasonable but said if they would marry both their Bonds might be saved BArneshurst versus Yelverton Hill 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Administrator of I. S. brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond and obtained a Judgement and afterwards the Administration is revoked yet notwithstanding the Plaintiff proceeded and took the Defendant in Execution and upon a Motion in the Court the Court held the Execution void and that the Defendant ought to be discharged because it issued out erroneously for the Letters of Administration being revoked the power of the Plaintiff is gone
to seal and he refused and upon such Refusall the Plaintiff brought his Action and a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff ought not to have Judgement for he said that the Defendant was not bound and compellable to seal that Obligation because it was not in Law any Assurance but a collateral thing and the whole Court agreed that and therefore being the Action was brought for refusing to seal the Obligation and Letter of Attorney and the Judgement according it ought to be arrested but Cock said that Judgement ought not to be arrested for the Premises of the Delaration it appeared that he refused to seal the Letter of Attorney and thereupon concluded that it should not be arrested and Fennor said that the Letter of Attorney was not any such Assurance as the Law required in such Case for when he had made the Surrender it should be accounted the Surrender of him that made the Assurance and he said he should make a present Assurance of it but Tanfeild was of another opinion and said that when the Surrender was made it shall be said to be the immediate Surrender of him that made the Letter of Atturney and such an assurance as the Law required and Yelverton Justice said the Letter of Atturney was lame for this cause the Letter of Atturney was made to one for the surrendring of such a Copy-hold and did not say in the Letter of Atturney for him and in his name for otherwise the Copy-hold might be the Copy-hold of him that surrendred by vertue of the Letter of Atturney and then he should surrender his own Copy-hold but Tanfeild was of another opinion because he said in the Letter of Atturney that he did constitute and appoint and in his stead and place put such a one which words in his stead and place are as full as if he should have said in his name HOllingworth versus Huntley Pasch 5 Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation the Condition amongst many other things contained that the Husband and Wife being Lessees for life of certain Lands that if the said Husband and Wife should levy a Fine to an estranger at the Costs and Charges of an estranger and also that they should levy a Fine of other Lands that they also held for their lives to an estranger and at their Charge then c. the Obliger sayes that the Husband and Wife did offer to levy the Fine if the estranger to whom the Fine was to be delivered would bear their Charges the Obligee demurres and it was adjudged for the Plaintiffe because the levying the second Fine had not any reference to the other because they are two distinct sentences and these words and also make them so Man versus Somerton Pasch 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe being Parson of Henley brought an action of Debt for six hundred pounds upon the Statute of 〈◊〉 6. for not setting forth Tithe of Wood and the Plaintiffe shews that the Defendant had cut down two hundred loads of Wood to the value of two hundred pounds and saith the tenth part of that did amount to two hundred pounds and so he brought his action for six hundred pounds upon the Statute and the Plaintiffe was nonsuit for one fault in his Declaration for whereas he names the price of the Wood to be two hundred pounds it was mistaken for it should have been two thousand pounds for he demanded more for the tenth part then the principall is by his own shewing and Tanfeild Justice held that Beech by the common Law is not Timber and so it was adjudged in Cary and Pagets Case and it was held that Tithes shall not be paid for Beech above the growth of twenty years in a common Countrey for Wood as in Buckingham-shire for there it is reputed Timber but in a plentifull Countrey of Wood it is otherwise for there it is not Timber and Tithes shall be paid for such wood Silva cedua for which Tithes shall be paid is under the growth of twenty years but Tithes shall be paid for such wood which is not Timber which is above the growth of twenty years PErcher versus Vaughan Trin. 5. Jac. An action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for six pounds thirteen shillings eight pence The Defendant demands Oyer of the Obligation and imparles and after an imparlance the Defendant comes and sayes there was variance between the Plaintiffes writ and the Obligation for it appeared by the Obligation that the Defendant was obliged in viginti nobilis and so his action ought to be brought according to the Obligation and demands Judgement if the Plaintiffe ought to have his action the Plaintiffe demurres and it was argued by the Plaintiffes counsell first that it was no variance for it was said that twenty nobles and six pounds thirteen shillings eight pence were all one in substance if a man be bound to pay a hundred nobles and brings his action for fifty marks it is not variance 34 H. 8. 12. and 4 E. 3. Fitzherbert Title varians 102. agrees to that but if a man be obliged to pay certain money in Flemish money he ought to shew the performance of that strictly 9 Ed. 4. 49. and the Plaintiffes counsell said that it was variance it could not be shewed after an Imparlance in Marks Case Co. 5. 74. and said the conclusion of the Defendants Plea to demand Judgement of the Plaintiffe ought to have his action was not good for this Plea was not in barr of the action but in abatement of the Writ and Yelverton Justice agreed to that and he said when the Obligation was in viginti nobilis it shall be intended twenty nobles and good Tanfeild said that when there is no good and apt Latine words for a thing no unapt Latine word is put in the Bond for that thing the Bond is void as when a man is bound in quinque libris it it was adjudged in Mich. Term 5 Jac. that the Obligation was void because there was a fit Latine word and that was quinque and so it was adjudged in the Lord Danvers Case where the Indictment for one blow super capud and it was held void because it was an unapt word and there was a fit and apt word to wit Caput and VVilliams agreed to this for he said it was adjudged in the common Pleas between Pencrosse and Tout a man was bound in a Bond in viginti literis when it should have been viginti libris and adjudged void for the same cause but after in Hillary Term the Plaintiffe had Judgement because in one Dictionary nobilis was a Latine word for six shillings eight pence VEntris versus Farmer Trin. 5. Jacobi A Lease was made for years rendering Rent payable at a place of the Land and the Court was moved whether a Demand of the Rent may not be made upon the Land but denied by the
that if it had been by Writ he must have shewed it but need not it being by Plaint if the truth appear in that and if a man bring his Action as Assignee he need not shew it in his Plaint if the truth appear in the Declaration but it is otherwise in an Original and a Plaintiffe in Kings Bench as an originall but not in all things and if the Plaint be incertain the Defendant in that Court shall plead in Abatement of the Plaint as to an Original in the Common Pleas and at last two Presidents were shewen one between Champion and Hill and the other between Merrick and Wright that were allowed without naming of the Plaintiff Rector in the Queritur and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff by the whole Court Note it was agreed by all the Court of Kings Bench Mich. 5. Jac. and hath many times been ruled that if a man sell his Tithes for years by word it is good but if the Parson agree that one shall have his Tithes for seven years by word it is not good by the opinion of Fleming Cheif Justice because it amounts to a Lease and he held strongly that Tithes cannot be leased for years without a Deed. COb versus Hunt Hill 5. Jac. Cob sued a Prohibition in the Common Pleas against Hunt Parson of D. in Kent and suggests a Modus demandi as to part of the Tithes demanded against him in the Spiritual Court and as to the residue suggests a Contract executed and performed between him and the Parson in satisfaction of the residue and because he proved not his Suggestion within six Moneths Hunt the Parson had a Consultation and Costs assessed by the Court to fifty shillings and Damages fifty shillings by the Statute of the 2 E. 6. they shall be doubled but in truth no Judgement was given to recover them because these words Videlicet Ideo considerat fuit qd recuperet was omitted yet Hunt thinking that all was certain and perfect brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas for the Costs c. and declared of all the matter above and that the Damages were assessed upon which it was adjudged that he should recover c. and that the Costs were not paid Per quod Actio c. And had a Judgement against Cob by Non sum informat and thereupon Cob brought his Writ of Error as well in the Record and Processe c. of the Prohibition as of the Record and Processe in the Action of Debt for the Costs and assigne the general Error but Yelverton assignes two Errors in special first that there was no Judgement in the Prohibition for Recovery of the Costs but onely an Assessement of Costs without any more which is not sufficient for the Assessement of Costs onely is but matter of Office in Court but no Judgement of Court to binde which was confessed by the whole Court The second Error was that no Costs ought to be assessed or adjudged in the Cause above because the Prohibition is grounded solely upon the Modus decimandi which needs proof and upon the Contract between the parties which requires no proof and the Suggestion being intire and part of it needing no proof they could not give any Costs for that is onely where the whole matter in the Suggestion needs proof and therefore the mixing the Contract with the manner of Tithing priviledges the whole as to the matter of Costs but they might grant a Consultation as to that part of the Suggestion which concerned the manner of Tithing but not for the rest which was granted by the whole Court and so both the Judgements were reversed which mark MArkham versus Mollineux Hill 1. Jac. Mollineux sued out an Original in the Common Pleas in an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Markham by the name of John Markham Alderman de D. and all the mean Processe are continued against him by the name of Alderman Markham he appeared and the Plaintiff declared against him by the name of Markham of D. Esquire and afterwards the parties were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement entred and it was reversed by Writ of Error because it did not appear that that Markham was the same Markham against whom the Original was prosecuted and the Processe continued but it seemed rather that he was another person by reason of his severall Additions of Alderman and Esquire which mark OLiver versus Collins Pasch 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute for not setting forth of Tithes and shews that he is Parson of the Parish Church of Little Lavar in Com. Essex and that the Defendant had so many Acres within the Parish of Little Lavor sowed with Wheat whereof the tenth severed from the ninth part came to eight and twenty pounds and shews that the Defendant at Little Lavor aforesaid took and carried away the Wheat without setting forth the Tithes contrary to the Statute by reason whereof he forfeited threescore Pounds and upon Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement first that the Statute was mis-recited for whereas the the Plaintiff declared that the 4. Novemb. 2 E. 6. it was inacted it was said that there was no such Statute for the Parliament commenced 1 E. 6. and continued by prorogation untill the 4. Novemb. 2 E. 6. and therefore the Plaintiff was mistaken in that but that Exception was not allowed for there were an hundred Presidents against it and in respect of the continual use in that form as the Plaintiff had declared the Court said that they would not alter it for that was to disturb all the Judgements that were ever given in that Court. And secondly it was objected that the matter was mis-tried and there ought to be a new Triall because the Venire facias was of Parva Lavar whereas by their pretence it ought to have been of the Parish of Little Lavar to which Yelverton made Answer that the Triall was well enough for by that Action no Tithe is demanded nor recovered but the Defendant is onely punished for his Contempt against the Statute in not setting forth his Tithe and the wrong done to the Plaintiff complained of is laid onely in the Village of Little Lavor and not in the Parish for all the places in the Declaration where the Parish is named are onely matter of Conveyance and inducement to the Action and not of the substance for the substance is onely that where the wrong and grievance is done to the Plaintiff and that arises onely in Parua Lavor which was granted by the whole Court upon a grand Debate at severall Dayes and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and the like Judgement was given between Barnard and Costerdam in an Action upon the same Statute upon the last point for the Venn and this hath been twice adjudged but in Costerdams Case which concerned the Earl
of Clanrickard with whom Yelverton was of Councel it was resolved that if the Issue be upon the custome of Tithing and that it be found against the Defendant he shall pay the value expressed by the Plaintiff in his Declaration for because by the collateral matter pleaded in Barr the Declaration is in whole confessed SMith versus Smith Trin. 6 Jacobi one Bisse made K. his Wife and John his Sonne being one year old Executors and K. solely proved the Will and afterwards married the Plaintiff and they two brought an Action of Debt as Executors against the Defendant and the Defendant pleads in abatement of the Bill that John was made Executor with K. and is yet in life and not named the Plaintiffes reply that John was but of the age of one year and that K. proved the Will and had Administration committed to her during the minority and that John is and was at the time of the Writ purchased within the age of seventeen years and upon that Yelverton demurred and adjudged for the Defendant that the Bill should abate for both of them in truth were Executors and ought to be named in the Action and although by the Administration granted during the minority K. had the full power yet the Infant ought to be named he being Executor GOmersall versus Ask Trin. 6. Iacobi The Defendant brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of her Husband upon two former Judgements given in two Actions of Debt against the intestate and shews the recoveries the Defendant pleads that the intestate entred into a recognisance 35 El. in Chancery to Sir Henry Bechel and shows that after the Judgements had by the Plaintiff Sir H. obtained a Judgement against the intestate upon the Recognisance and that she hath not assets to satisfie the Plaintiff of the intestates Goods beyond Goods that are chargeable and liable to the Judgement upon the Recognisance to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and by Fennor and Williams justifies the Plea in Barr was good for although the Plaintiffes Judgements mentioned in his Actions are before Sir H. Judgement yet because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not demand Execution of the Judgements but onely his Debt recovered for this Action brought it as an originall and in the same Court as if he did demand the Debt upon the first Obligation and therefore because the Plaintiff had not sued out a Scire facias to execute the first Judgements but had prosecuted a new originall the Plea is good and allowable as it had been upon the said Obligation but Yeluerton and Fleming were of a contrary opinion for the Plea had not been good against the intestate himself and the Executor or Administrator represents his person and therefore the Plea is not good but onely in excuse of a Devastavit and they were of opinion that the Action brought by the Plaintiff was in nature of a Scire facias for he demanded the Debt in another course then it was at first for that Debt which was but matter of escript is now become by the Judgement to be Debt upon Record and of so high a nature that the Judgement being in Force he can never have an Action upon the Obligation which is adjuged in Higgins Case Co. 6 Rep. but Cook doubted and the Plaintiff dying the Court did not resolve APleton versus Baily Mich. 6. Jacobi Apleton as Executor of Apleton brought an Action of Debt against Baily for the Arrerages of diverse Rents as well Copy-hold Rents as Free-hold Rents pertaining to a Mannor whereof the Testator was seised and thereof died seised and the Rents were not paid to him in his life time by reason whereof they belonged to the Plaintiff as Executor And the Defendant though he was requested had not paid against the form of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. And the Court that the Action did not ly for the Arrerages of Copy-hold Land for the Statute of the 32 H. 8. doth not extend to them but only to Rents out of Free Land Secondly It lies not for the Rent of free Land because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that the Defendant had attorned to the Testator in his life And although in pleading it is good to alledge a Feoffment of a Mannor without pleading any Livery or of any Attornment of Tenements but when the Rent of any Free-hold Land comes in Debate it behoves both the Owner of the Mannor and and his Executor that demands it to convey the privity between the Tenant and the Lord which ought to be by attornment for Rents and Services rest not without Attornment which mark PEirson versus Ponuteis Mich. 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Executor of Peirson brought an Action of Debt against Jo. Ponuties of London Merchant that he should render to him three and thirty pounds twelve shillings in that the Defendant 5. Oct. 1598. at London c. By his Bill obligatory hath acknowledged himself to owe to the Testator 1518. Florens Polish which then amounted to thirty three pounds twelve shillings to be paid to the Testator Ad solucionem festi purificat c. Called Candlemas day next insuing and to that payment had obliged himself by the same Bill And the Plaintiff avers that Predicti soluciones dicti festi purificat c. Next after the making the Bill were according to the use of Merchants the twentieth of February 1598. Yet the Defendant had not paid the 1518. Florence Polish or the thirty three pounds twelve s. to the Testator nor to the Plaintiff The Defendant pleads Non est factum and found against him and moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good because first the payment of Candlemas is not known in our Law but that was not allowed for that which is unknown in ordinary intendment is made manifest and helped by the Averment in the declaration because that payment among Merchants is known to be upon the twentieth of February and the Judges ought to take notice of those things that are used amongst Merchants for the maintenance of traffick and the rather because the Defendant doth not deny it but pleads non factum by which he confesses the Declaration to be true in that averment Secondly it was objected that as the Case is the use of Merchants is not materiall because the Testator by any thing that appears was not a Merchant but it was not allowed because the defendant that bound himself to pay was a Merchant and the Testator ought to take the Bill as the defendant would make it and he chose to make the payment according to the use of Merchants and not according to the Ordinary intercourse between party and party which mark this by the whole Court TAlbot versus Godbold Mich. 6. Jac. Godbold 28 Eliz. sealed a Bill to the Plaintiff made in this manner memorandum that I have received of Edw. Talbot who was the Plaintiffes Testator to the
use of my Master Mr. Serjeant Gaudy the sum of forty pounds to be paid at Mich. following the Plaintiffe brought an Action of Debt upon this Bill and declared verbatim as the Bill was and demanded the four pound to which Declaration the Defendant demurred and his pretence was as he supposed because he had received the money but as a servant to another use and so he ought not to be charged as a principall Debtor for the Bill is but a Testimony of the Receit as is the 1 H. 6. and 2 H. 6. in account for there an Indenture testifying the Receit which under Seal did not alter the nature of the first account but it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for although the first part of the Bill witnesse the Receit to be to anothers use yet in the last clause of the Bill for the payment of the money he doth not say to be repaid by his Master for then it would not charge him but the clause is generall to be repaid which of necessity ought to bind him that sealed for otherwise the party shall loose his Debt because he had no remedy against Serjeant Gaudy and because the Debt appears to be due it shall be intended to go onely in satisfaction of a due Debt which mark ALexander versus Lamb Mich. 6 Jacobi the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of forty pounds against Lamb as Executor P. the Defendant pleads that P. in his life time was indebted to him in forty pounds due Debt and that the goods of the Testator to the value of ten pounds came to the Defendants hands which he retained towards satisfaction of his Debt and averred that no more goods beyond the goods to the value of ten pounds came to his hands to be administred the Plaintiffe replyed and shewed that the Defendant is Executor in his own wrong to P. and that he hath many other goods of P. to be administred at S. in the County of Norfolk and concludes hoc paratum est verificare c. the Defendant rejoyns and demands judgement if the Plaintiffe shall be admitted to say that the Defendant is Executor of his own wrong seeing by his Declaration he had affirmed him to be Executor of the Testament the Plaintiffe demurres in Law to this Plea and as to the matter in Law all the Court was for the Plaintiff for he may well reply that the Defendant is Executor of his own wrong notwithstanding the Declaration for there is no other form of declaring as is adjudged in Coults Case 5 Rep. fol 30. but the whole Court held the whole Plea to be discontinued for the Defendant having pleaded as to the Goods to the value of ten pounds which he retained in his hands for a Debt due to him and that he had no other Goods and concludes hoc paratum est definire which is not good for he ought to have said hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam for there being a surplusage of the Goods denied by the Defendant and urged by the Plaintiff it ought to come in issue but could not by reason of the ill conclusion but in the same Term between West the Plaintiff and Lane Defendant West demanded four pounds Debt against Lane as Executor as above and all the rest of the Plea is as above and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant had confessed Goods to the value of ten pounds in his hands which was more then the Defendant demanded and therefore although by Judgement of Law an Executor of his own wrong cannot retain Goods to pay himself and although the other proceedings in the Plea are naught yet Judgement shall onely be given upon the confession of the Defendant and so it was entered with Mark GReen versus Eden Mich. 6 Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation for a hundred pounds dated September the third 1 Jac. the Condition was that if the Defendant the fourth of September anno 20 Jacobi pay a hundred pounds to I. S. at such a place and also save the Plaintiff harmlesse from any suit which should be brought against the Plaintiff by reason of the Bond in which he was bound to J. S. as Surety for the Defendant then c. the Defendant pleaded that true it was that he by his Obligation bearing Date September the third 1 Jac. did become bound to the Plaintiff in two hundred pounds but further said that the said Obligation was not delivered as the Defendants deed untill the seventeenth of September in the second year of King James and then it was first delivered and further sayes that he had found the Plaintiff harmlesse c. to which plea the Plaintiffe demurres and adjudged for the plaintiff for the Bond mentioned in the Declaration is not answered for the plaintiffe indeed shows that the Defendant was obliged to him by his Obligation bearing date the same Day c. which is laid to be a perfect Bond the same day as the Plaintiff counts and then for the Defendant to come and say that it was first delivered the seventeenth of September 20 Jacobi which is a year after is no good Argument but naught without taking a traverse without that it was made the third of September 10 Jacobi Secondly as the Defendant hath pleaded he hath made part of the Condition idle and vain for by the Condition it appears that there is a Condition for the payment of a hundred pounds at a Day to come to wit the fourth of September in the second year and now the Defendant by his Plea hath made the Day of payment passed before he supposes the Bond to be delivered within a manner takes away the effect of the Plaintiffs suit and if the Condition had not stood upon two Branches but upon one onely and the Defendant will plead the Delivery after the Condition becomes impossible to be performed then is the Obligation become single for the whole two hundred pounds which mark by the whole Court BArret versus Fletcher Pasch 7 Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds with a Condition to stand to the Award of J. S. and J. D. so that c. the Defendant pleads if the Arbitrator made no Award the Plaintiff replies and shews the Award made verbatim and concludes that they had made an Award and doth not assign any breach The Defendant rejoyns that the Award pleaded is not the Deed of the Arbitrators and Issue being joyned upon that there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Yelverton moved in arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff in his replication had not assigned any breach of the Award and so had shewed no cause of Action for the replication is not for any Debt but is guided by the Condition and is for the performance of a collaterall thing to wit of an Award and although the Defendant had not answered any thing
will for the Election is in bringing the Action and the words vel and are but Synonimaes and Champions Case Plowden 286. is taken for vel and the 21 E. 3. 29. in Mallories Case u is taken for and therefore they gave Judgement that the Defendant should answer over FReeman versus Shield Trin. 11 Jacobi and adjudged Pasch 12 Jacobi Freeman brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Shield and proved Oyer of the Condition which was that if the Defendant should stand to the Award and Arbitrement of J. S. that then c. the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators awarded that whereas there was no suit in the Chancery depending against the Plaintiff for divers matters that the Plaintiff should be acquitted of that suit and of all the matters contained in the same Bill and the Defendant further alledges that he did not make any prosecution of the said Bill but that the Plaintiff stands acquitted thereof the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant after the said Award such a year and day did exhibit a new Bill which did contain the same matter which the first Bill had and set forth at large both the Bills by which it appeared to the Court that it was so to which Plea the Defendant Demurres and the cause of the Demurrer onely was because the Plaintiff had pleaded that the Defendant had exhibited a new Bill but had not alledged any Processe taken forth upon the same Bill and if this be a breach of the award is the question Govin was for the Plaintiff and he was of opinion that it was a breach for the words were quod staret acquietatus and to be acquitted is not onely to be intended of an actuall disturbance or molestation but if the party be put in fright or is liable to any Processe it is a breach 8 Ed. 4. 27. a Condition to save one harmlesse if a Capias be awarded against him although it be not executed yet it is a forfeiture of the Bond nay though it was never delivered to the Sheriff for otherwise the Plaintiff should be in continuall care trouble for fear lest the Defendant should do it and so the Defendant may dally with him a long time which shal be mischievous therefore it may be resembled to 9 H. 7. where if a man sell a thing with warranty to pay for it at a day to come if the thing sold be corrupt the party may have his Action of deceit before the day of payment because it is in the others power to bring his Action and so it is in the Defendants power to serve the Plaintiff with Processe when he pleases and therefore it is a breach Coventry for the Defendant first because it is no such Process as can prejudice for neither goods nor Body shall be taken and therefore is not like the Cases before cited And secondly it is not such a process as our law respects or regards for a Bill is but as a Petition Haughton Justice was of the same opinion with the rest of the Judges but adjourned untill Hill 11. Jac. and an Exception taken because the Defendant had not answered the Declaration for the Condition is that he should be acquitted the Defendant pleaded that he hath been acquitted and Cook was of opinion that it was good and Pasch 12. Jac. Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court KIpping versus Swain Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against Swain upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and declares whereas the Plaintiff being Proprietor of the Rectory of B. in the County of c. for the term of seven years and that the Defendant was Occupier of Lands within the same Parish for six moneths by a Devise made the tenth of March Anno decimo Jacobi And that the Defendant 27. Aug. the year aforesaid did cut his Corn there growing and that the tenth of September then next following the Defendant being Subdit dicti Domini Regis carried away the said Corn not setting out the Tenth according to the Statute and upon a Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement first because of the Plaintiffs own shewing he had no cause of Action against the Defendant for the interest of the Defendant in the Land was determined before the Tithes were carried away but the Court were of opinion that it was no Exception for although his interest in the Land was gone yet he remained Owner of the Corn for if Corn is cut although a stranger take them away before severance yet an Action will lie against him upon this Statute for otherwise the intent of the Statute may easily be defeated Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff said he was Subdit dicti Domini Regis which is a Fault incurable for the Statute referrs Subdit to his politick capacity but Dicti goes to his natural and sole capacity and so the force of the Statute shall be determined by his Death and for this cause an Indictment upon the 8 H. 6. Contra pacem dicti Domini had been severall times reversed and of this opinion were three Judges but Haughton doubted of it and so it was adjourned PEnniworth versus Blawe Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation and prayed Oyer of the Condition which was that he should stand to the Arbitrement of J. S. of all Suites Quarrels Controversies and Debates from the beginning of the World untill the making the Obligation so that the Award be made in writing under the hand and seal of N. S. and should be delivered to the parties before such a Day c. and observe that the Sealing and Delivery of the Obligation was at twelve a clock the first of May the Defendant pleads in Barr that the Arbitrators made an Award and did deliver that to the parties above-said but said further that in the morning and before twelve a clock the first of May aforesaid one Debate and Controversie did arise between the parties concerning a Trespasse committed by the Plaintiff the same morning of which the Defendant gave notice to the Arbitrator before twelve a clock of the said first of May concerning which Trespasse the Arbitrator made no Award and therefore pretends the Award to be void and demands Judgement to which the Plaintiff demurrs and Yelverton being for the Plaintiff that the Plea was not any Answer to the Plaintiff and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiffs Action is grounded upon an Obligation as single and the thing which helps the Defendant is the Condition indorsed to stand to the Award of S. the which is restrained so that it be delivered under the hand and seal and if the Defendant will plead the Condition against the Plaintiff he must plead it to be performed and executed according to the Submission by the
Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
to the estate casts the possession of his Ancestors upon him but a stranger to whom a Copy hold is surrendred hath nothing before admittance because he is a purchasor And a Copy made to him upon which he is admitted is his Evidence by the custome and before that he is not a customary Tenant and so he could not transfer any thing to another and adjudged so according to 24 Eliz Alderman Dixies Case BEdell versus Lull Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made by Eliz James of certain Lands The Defendant pleads that before Eliz had any thing one Martin James was seised in fee of it and had issue Henry James and dyed seised by reason whereof it discended to H. J. as Son and Heir and that Eliz entred and was seised by abatement and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and that afterwards the Defendant as servant to H James and by his command c. The Plaintiffe by way of replication confesses the seisen of M. James And that he being so seised by his last Will in writing devised the said Land to Eliz in fee and afterwards dyed seised by reason whereof she entred by force of the devise and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and traverse without that Eliz was seised by abatement in manner and form c. And the Defendant demurrs upon this replication and shewed for cause that the traverse was not good and adjudged for the Defendant for the Plaintiffe by his replication need not both confesse avoid and traverse the abatement too for the Plaintiffe made a title to his Lease by the Will of his Ancestor and that proved that he entred legally and not by abatement as the Defendant had supposed And then to take a traverse over makes the replication vitious For a traverse shall not be taken but where the thing traversed is issuable And here the devise is onely the title issuable And it was also held that the traverse was not good as to the manner of it for he should not have traversed without that that he was seised by abatement but it ought to have been without that that he did abate and also if the Plaintiffe had minded to have fully answered the Defendant he ought to have took his traverse in the very same words the Defendant had pleaded it against him to wit without that that he did enter and was seised by abatement which observe The Case concerned Sir H. James to whom the Defendant was Tenant SAunders versus Cottington Mich. 7. Jac. An Ejectment brought of two Houses but the Bill was onely for one and it was filed And the Defendant by his paper book pleaded to both Messuages And the Roll in Court and the Record of Nisi prius were two Houses And there was a verdict for the Plaintiffe and Judgement entred accordingly And a Writ of Error was brought by the Defendant and before the Record was removed the Plaintiffe moved the Court that the Bill upon the file might be amended and made two Messuages And because the Defendant had pleaded to Messuages in his Answer in paper and that the Roll and Record were according it was resolved by the whole Court that the Bill upon the File should be amended and made two Messuages for that Bill which made mention onely of one House could not be the ground of all the proceedings afterwards but it was as if no Bill had been filed and therefore it should be supplied and so had been severall times before the Record was renewed Which observe THe Plaintiffe declared in Ejectment upon a Lease of an House 10 Acres of Land 20 Acres of Meadow 20 Acres of Pasture by the name of one Messuage and ten Acres of Meadow be it more or lesse and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintiffe had a Verdict but moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement was stayed For by the Plaintiffs own shewing in his Declaration he could not have Execution of the number of Acres found by the Verdict for in the Lease there is but ten Acres demised And these words more or lesse could not in judgment of Law be extended to thirty or fourty Acres for it is impossible by common intendment and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature then that which is mentioned in the per nomen c. For that is only of Meadow and the Declaration is of arrable and Pasture MOore versus Hawkins Mich. 8. Jacobi In Ejectment after issue Joyned upon a not guilty pleaded the cause came to be tried before Brook and Yelverton Judges of Assize in the County of Oxford the Plaintiffe had declared of divers Messuages and divers Acres of Land lying in three Villages in the said County And at the tryall before the Jury was sworn Walter the Defendants Counsell put in a Plea that after the last continuance to wit such a day in Trinity Terme before the day of Assize to wit the 20. of July the Assizes being held at Oxford the 21 of July the Plaintiffe had entred into such a Close by name containing eight Acres parcell of the premises specified in the Declaration c. and this Plea was received by the Judges of Assize And afterward in Mich. Terme Yelverton and Walter being of Counsell with the Defendant desired that they might amend their Plea to wit to put in the very Village where the Land did lye into which the entry of the Plaintiffe was because it was but matter of form and not of substance and they were of opinion that the tryall of that new lssue ought to be of all the three Villages named in the Declaration And Yelverton Justice having asked the opinions of all the Judges in Serjeants Inne Fleetstreet related their opinions in the Court the Record of Nisi prius was returned into the Exchequer to wit that it was in the discretion of the Justices of Assize to accept such a Plea as is before and that it might be well allowed as the 10 H. 7. is and it shall stay the Verdict But otherwise it is of a protection for although they allow a protection yet the Judges may take the Verdict de bene esse yet he said that in the 7. E 3. in a Precipe quod reddat a Release was pleaded at the tryal and the Jury found the Verdict but that was the indiscretion of the Judges to allow it when it should not have been allowed And all the said Judges held as he related that the Plaintiffe could not have a replication to that Plea at the tryall for the Justices have no power either to accept a Replication upon that Plea or to try it but onely to return it as parcell of the Record of Nisi prius And they held also that the Plea being put in the Countrey could not be amended in adding the Town in certain in which the Close did lye for it was matter of substance And that the Court of
Exchequer where the Record was would not award the Venire Facias of all the three Villages named in the Record if it did not appear judicially to them that the Close did extend in all the Villages and it doth not appear for parcell if the premises doth not necessarily extend to all the Villages but may well be and so presumed in one Village onely and therefore it is matter of substance And the Judges had not power after their Commission determined to amend the Plea DAvis versus Pardy Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declared of a Lease made by one Cristmas the sixth of May Anno 7. of one Messuage c. In D. by reason whereof the Plaintiffe entered and was possessed untill the Defendant afterwards to wit 18. of the same month Anno sexto supradicto did eject him And not guilty being pleaded a verdict was found against the Plaintiffe And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement to save Costs that the Declaration was insufficient For that Action was grounded upon two things first upon the Lease secondly upon the Ejectment and both those ought to concur one after the other And in this case the Ejectment is supposed to be one year before the Lease made for the Lease is made Anno 7. and the Ejectment supposed to be done Anno 7. 6. And therefore the Declaration naught And Yelverton vouched the case between Powre and Hawkins Anno septimo Termino Pasch Where the Plaintiffe declared upon the Lease of Edw. Ewer 27. April Anno sexto and laid the Ejectment to be 26. April Anno 6. And the Court held then that the Declaration was naught yet in the case in question the Declaration was adjudged good And the word sexto to be void for the day of the Ejectment being the 18. of the same month of May it cannot be intended but to be the same year in which the Lease is supposed to be made by the opinion of the whole Court AYlet versus Chippin Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease made by John Aylet for one year of certain Land in C. in the County of E. by vertue whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did eject him The Defendant pleads that the Copihold Land is parcell of the Mannor of D. c. of which one Jo Aylet the Lessors Father was seised in Fee according to the Custome and that he made a surrendor thereof to the use of his Will and by his will devised the Land in question to John the lessor and H. Aylet his sons and to their Heirs Males of their Bodies and willed that they should not enter untill their severall ages of 21 years And further willed that W. B. and H. B. his Executors should have the Lands to perform his Will untill his said Sons Jo and H. came to their severall Ages of one and twenty years c. To which Plea the Plaintiffe replies and confesses the Will but shews further how that such a day and year before the Lease Jo his Lessor attained to his full Age of one and twenty years and entred and made a Lease thereof to him c. To which Plea the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiffe For although the Estate to Jo and H. precede in words and the devise to the Executors insues in construction yet the estate to Io Executors precedes in possession And is as if he should have demised the Land untill his Sons Io and H. should attain to their severall Ages of one and twenty years And afterwards to them and their Heirs Males c. to be enjoyed in possession at ther severall Ages so that the Executors have onely a limited estate determinable in time when either Son severally should attain to his full age for his part For so it appears the Devisors intent was that either Son might enter when he attained to the age of one and twenty years And although it was objected by Justice Williams that the two Brothers are joyntenants by the Will and if one should enter when he comes to his full Age the other Brother being under age that would destroy the intent of the devise for then they should not take joyntly but the Court as to that said that the entry of him that attained to his full age doth not destroy the juncture but that they are joyntenants notwithstanding For that entry in the intent of the Devisor was only as to thâ— taking of the the profits and the possession and not as to the estate in joyntenancy and this is proved by 30 H. 6. Devise 12. where a devise was to foure in Fee and that one of them should have all during his life and this was adjudged good and it was as to the taking of the profits onely which observe by the whole Court but Williams RIce versus Haruiston Pasch 10. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares of a Lease made by Jo. Bull c. The Defendant pleads that the Land is Copihold Land parcel of the Mannor of c. Whereof the King was seised and is seised and that the King by his Steward such a day granted the Land in question to him in Fee to hold at will according to the custome of the Mannor by vertue whereof he was admitted and entred and was seised untill the lessor entred upon him and outed him and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe and then he entred and did eject him c. The Plaintiffe replies that long before the King had any thing in the Mannor Queen Eliz. was thereof seised in Fee in right of her Crown and before the Ejectment supposed by the Defendant by her Steward at such a Court did grant the Land in question by Copy to him in Fee to hold at Will according to the custome of the Mannor who was admitted and entred and further shewed the descent of the Mannor to the King and how the Lesser entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe who entred and was thereof possessed untill the Defendant did eject him Upon which Plea the Defendant did demurr because he supposed that the Plaintiffe ought to traverse the grant alledged by the copy of the Defendant in his Barr. But the Court held the replication good for the Plaintiffe had confessed and avoided the Defendant by a former Copy granted by Queen Eliz under whom the King that now is claimed and so the Plaintiffe need not traverse the grant to the Defendant but such a traverse would make the Plea vitious for which see Hilliais Case 6. Rep. And 14 H. 8. Dotknis Case 2 E. 6. Dyer And Brooks title confesse and avoid for as no man can have a Lease for years without assignment no more can a man have a Copy without grant made in Court Which observe SHecomb versus Hawkins Pasc 10 Jacobi The case was in an especial verdict in Ejectment that one Mrs. Luttrel Tenant in fee of the Mannor of L. leavied a Fine to the use of her self for life and after death to
by the whole Court held to be a condition but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for doublenesse in the plea. BRown versus Dunri Hill 15. Iac. rotulo 1819. The Defendant made cognizance c. as Bailiff M. Walker Widow Administrator c. R. W. for one rent charge of 6 l. granted by one Warner to the said R. and M. his wife for life of the VVife And the said R. by the said writing granted c. That if it should happen the said yearly Rent to be behind and not paid in part or in all by the space of ten dayes next after any Feast c. being lawfully demanded that then c. the said Warner c. ten shillings nomine paene for every default and that then it should be lawfull to the said W. and M. and their Assigns to enter into the premises and distrain as well for the rent as for the nomine paene and shews that the rent was behind in the life of the Husband and that he dyed intestate and that administration was committed to the woman and made cognisance for the rent due at such a Feast in the life of the Husband and being then behind and the issue was that the Grantor was not seised and after a tryall diverse exceptions were taken one was for that a demand was not alledged another was that the cognisance was made as Bailifle to the Administrator when as the woman by the survivorship should have the rent Another was that it is not alledged that the rent was behind by ten dayes next after the Feast and the exceptions upon debate at diverse dayes were over-ruled First the demand is not necessary for the Distress is a sufficient demand as it was adjudged in Iaces case The second was because the cognisance as Administrator are void idle and superfluous and for the ten dayes it was good because that predicto tempore quo c. It was behind and adjudged by the whole Court for the Advowant SLoper versus Alen Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3002. Replevin upon the taking of 40. Sheep the issue was that the Sheep were not levant and couchant and found by a speciall verdit that twenty Sheep were levant and couchant and that twenty Sheep were not levant and couchant and it was held upon the reading of the Record that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment BVrton versus Cony Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 2044. The Defendant avows for a rent charge granted to him for life by his Father issuing out of all his Lands in such a Town to have and to hold to levy and yearly to take the said annuity or annuall rent of c. during the naturall life of the said P. at two Feasts in the year to wit c. by equall portions the first payment to be made at the first and next Feast of the said Feasts which should next happen after the term of 8. years ended and determined specified and declared in the said will And if it should happen c. And averres in the avowry that there is not any term of years specified and declared in the said Testament before recited And note that in the premises of the Deed it is recited thus in fulfilling the Will or Testament of me the said T. bearing date such a date I have given c. And the Court held that the grant was present if no term was contained in the will and Judgment was given for the Advowant But after Judgment was entred upon Record an exception was taken because it was not averred that the Grantor was dead and it was allowed for a good exception but it came to late judgment being entred HEyden versus Godsulm Judgment for the Defendant who avowed for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and it was moved that the Plaintiff who brought the writ of Errour upon that Judgment ought to find bayle upon the writ of Errour by the Statute of 3. Iacobi and it was held by the greater number of the Judges that the Plaintiffe should not find bayle for Replevins are not within the Statute TVrny versus Darnes Trin. 17. Iac. rotulo 2887. Demurrer in a replevin upon a traverse of Lands when as the parties have not agreed of the quantity of Land The Avowry was that C. was seised of one Messuage two Barns one Mill c. and 100. acres of Land with the appurtenances in W. and held them of c. by fealty rent c. and suit of Court c. And the Plaintiff prayed in aide and he joyned and alledges that he was seised of 70. acres of Land with the appurtenances in his demesne as of Fee and held them of G. by fealty and rent c. and suit of Court and traverses that he held the Tenements of the said G. as if his Mannor of W. in manner and form as c. and a speciall demurrer and one cause was because he denies not the seisin of the said services but only denies and traverses the tenure and therefore they pretended that the plea contained double matter and was a negative pregnant and secondly whether the Seisin or Tenure be traversable and the Plea was held good by Hubberd and Warburton RIchards versus Young Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 104. vel 1700. A Replevin brought for taking of Cattel at Aller in a certain place called Land Mead the Defendant avows as Bailiff of Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant containing four Acres for damage fesant the Plaintiff pleads in Barr that Henry Tearl of Hunt was seised of the Mannor of Aller whereof one Messuage c. was parcell and customary Land and devisable by Copy of Court Roll and that within the said Mannor there was a Custome that every customary Tenant of the said Messuage hath been used to have Common of Pasture in the said place called Land Mead rhe Issue was without that that within the said Mannour with the appurtenances whereof c. is and time out of mind was a custome that every customary Tenant of the laid Messuage c. had Common of pasture in manner and form c. and Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no custome alledged because it did not appear in the pleading that the place where the taking was supposed to be was within the said Mannor and no custome of the Mannor could extend forth of the Mannor but he ought to prescribe in the Mannor and note he ought to have pleaded that the place in which c. was parcell of the Mannor and then the Plea had been good In a Replevin upon an Avowry for Rent the Plaintiff for part pleadeth payment for the other part an Accord the one Issue is found for the Paintiff and the other for the Defendant the Plaintiff shallrecover his costs and damages and the Defend shall have Judgement of Return habend and no costs and damages I think otherwise it is if the Avowries be severall then on both
and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff every Leet was derived out of the Sherifs turn PAul versus Barwicke Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. A stranger in replevin pleaded non est factum where he should have pleaded non concessit and good after a verdict though it 's not formall pleading REad versus How In replevin the place was omitted in the Declaration and the Defendant demurred and held a good cause for the Plaintiff is bound to take notice where the Cattell are distrained a man cannot distrain for a rent charge but in the day time because I may take notice where it is because the Law presumeth that I or my servants are all the day upon the ground A second deliverance must not vary in the place a disclaimer goeth to the locus in quo c. HYnd versus Wainman al. Pasch 8. Jacobi rotulo 758. Wainman pleaded non cepit and the other made cognisance as Bayliff to Wainman The Plaintiff pleads that the parties to the Fine had nothing c. and it was tryed Mich. and Jacobi and it was moved by the Councell of the Defendant that the Plaintiff should prove an actuall taking but the Court held the contrary And the Judges said that if one takes Cattell as Bayliffe to another and by his command this shall be adjudged to be the taking of the Master as of a Bayliff in trespasse FRancis versus Forrest Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 2033. In replevin for the taking of Cattell at A. in a certain place called R. the Defendant avows dammage fesant the Plaintif in his Barre saies that he was seised of one Messuage c. in C. in the Parish of A. and prescribes for common And after a tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the venire facias was ill awarded because it was of A. only and so it was adjudged by the Court. And Cook said that at C. or in C. imply a Village and therefore he said the venire facias ought to have been of C. and A. or at least of the Parish of A. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary agreed to this RIchardson versus Sterer Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 786. In Replevin the Defendant avows for Damage fesant The Plantiffe replies that long before the time of taking the Cattell H. late Earl of L. was seised of one Messuage c. and so prescribes for Common of Pasture for ten Beasts and so justifies the putting in of one Cow of the two Cowsusing his Common And the Plaintiffe further saies that the said W. R. long before c. lent to the said T. P. the other Cow to manure the Land of the said T. P. as long as the said W. pleased And so prescribes for the putting in of that Cow being thereof possessed by reason of the lending of it and so demands Judgement And Hutton Sarâ—eant moved that the Barr was naught because the Plaintiffe had falfified his Replication because the Replication is by two and by the pleading another time of the taking the property was in P. only and the speciall property by verture of the lending was also in P. And so Replevin ought to have been brought in the name of P. onely and the Defendant demurred the Replication and the Plaintiffe was non suit POpe versus Shurm Hill 7 Jacobi rotulo 336. The Defendant avows Damage fesant The Plaintiffe claims Common by reason of a Demise made to him by one H. W. who was seised in Fee of one Messuage and Common for him his Tenants and Farmers c. And alledges one Lease made the thirtieth of March 11. to have and to hold c. from the Feast c. then last past for one yeer and so from yeer to yeer c. The Defendant traverses the Demise and the Jury finde that the said H. W. before the said time of the taking to wit the 25 of March Anno 11. did demise to have for one yeer then next following and so from yeer to yeer and this found specially And Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe because the matter in question was whether he had right of Common or not and not the title of the Lease and it appears by the Jury that he had just right of Common And Warburton put this difference if a Tenant brings an Action of Trespasse wherefore by force of Arms c. against his Lord And the Lord pleads that the Defendant holds by such services and Issue be taken upon it And the Jury finde that he holds by other services the Verdict is sufficiently found for the Lord because the Plaintiffe could not maintain an Action against his Lord. IOhnson versus Thorowgood Trin. 12 Iacobi rotulo 1734. In Replevin the Plaintiffe allows damage fesant the Plaintiffe claims Common by prescription to when the Fields called F. and C lye fallow all the time of the year And when the Fields are sowed after the Corn c. After the Feast of Pentecost they used c. And the Jury found that he had Common to wit when the Feilds lye fallow every year all the time of the year And when the Fields were sowen they used to have Common c. And it was held by Nicholls that for Common Appendant it is not necessary to prescribe but to say he is seised of one Messuage c. in Fee and that he hath Common of Pasture in the said place as belonging and appertaining to the Tenement And saies further that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffe because it appeared by the Record that the Defendant took the Cattle at such time as the Plaintiffe ought to have Common And therefore Nicholls said that if a man have Common for great Cattell and Sheep and the Sheep be taken and he prescribes that he hath Common for Sheep only and the Jury said Common for Sheep and great Cattel the Common is found for the Plaintiffe And the like if one claim Common all the time of the year when the Land lyes fallow and when it is sowen from such a day unto c. And his Cattel are taken in the year when it is sowen as lies fallow it is sufficient for the Plaintiffe to prescribe for Common either in the year when it is sowen or when it lies fallow And if the Jury find all the Common it is sufficiently found for the Plaintiffe The like if a man hath Common from such a day to such day and the Cattell are taken and a day between the dayes and he prescribes that he hath Common in the said time quo c And the Jury find he had Common before that time the same day and after the Verdict is found for the Plaintiffe and Warburton and Winch of the same opinion PIts versus James Mich. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2155. Upon a speciall Verdict for the Misnomer of a Corporation The first question was whether the foundation of poore men to pray for Souls departed is within the Statute of Chaunterys and secondly for the Misnomer And
village is in question or could come in Issue yet it was resolved by the whole Court but him that those of the village of Bail might well know whether the Plaintif being an inhabitant within the village in which the Leet was were a chief Pledge at the Court or no for to have cheif pledges doth properly belong to a Leet which Leet is within the village and therefore they of the Mannor cannot have so good knowledge of the matter as they of the Mannor and village together and therefore they all ought to have been of both as in the Case of Common or a way from one village to a house in another village this ought to be tried of both villages and so also of the Tenure of Land in D. held of the Mannor of Sale the triall must be as well of the village where the Land lies as of the Mannor of which the Land is holden as it was adjudged Hill 45. El. in the then Queens Bench in the Case between Lovlace and and Judgement was reversed and see 6 H. 7. and Arundels case in my Lord Cooks Reports BVrglacy versus Ellington Burglacy brought a Replevin against Ellington for the taking of his cattell c. the Avowant pleads that one W. B. was seised of the place in which c. in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised died by reason whereof the Land descended to one Crist. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband the Avowant the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry confesses that W. B. was seised and that it descended to C. who took to Husband the Avowant but he further said that the 16 of April primo Jac. the Husband and Wife by their Deed indented and inrolled did bargain and sell the same Land unto one Missenden and a Fine levied by them and that M. the 30 of James bargained and sold it to F. M. in Fee and he being so seised licensed the Plaintiff to put in his cattell the Avowant replies if in the said Bargain and Sale made by the Husband and Wife a Proviso was contained that if the said Ellington should pay one hundred pounds a year after then c. and pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. of usury with an averment that the profits of the Land were of the value of twelve pounds by the year the Plaintif rejoyned that true it is there is such a clause in the Indenture but he further said that before the sealing of the Indenture it was agreed by word that the said Ellington should have and receive the profits and not the Plaintif and thereupon the Avowant demurres and the Case was thus Ellington bargains his Land to M for the payment of one hundred pounds a yeare after to be paid and that the Bargainee should have the profits the bargainor enters as upon a void Sale because of the statute of usury for by the Proviso â—he is to have the hundred pounds and ten pounds for the forbearance and by the Law he is to have the profits and the which did amount above ten pounds by the hundred the bargainee to avoid the usury pleaded an agreement by word before the sealing of the Bargain and Sale and the question arising upon this was if the Bargainee might plead this verball agreement for the avoiding of the Deed which did suppose the contrary and Moore of Lincolns â—nne counsell was of opinion that he could not put that maxime that every thing must be dissolved by that by which it is bound and his whole argument depended upon that and he cited divers Cases as 1 H. 7. 28. 28 H. 8. 25. 1 Eliz. Dier 16. 9. Rutlands Case 5 Rep. and Cheyney 6 Case there but the whole Court without any argument were of opinion that he might plead the verball agreement and avoid the usury and first they all agreed that when a Deed is perfected and delivered as his Deed that then no verball agreement afterwards may be pleaded in destruction thereof as it is in the Cases put but when the agreement is parcell of the Originall contract as here it is it may be pleaded and secondly otherwise it would bring a great mischief being the custome so to do by word but if it had been expressed within the Deed that the Bargainee should have the profits and that it was delivered accordingly that no agreement or assignment of the profits could now avoid it for it is an usurious contract and therefore the whole court gave Judgement for the Plaintif that he might well plead the agreement Actions of Trespass and Battery JOhnson versus Turner Trin. 44 Eliz. Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintifs house and the taking and carrying away his goods the Defendant justifies all the Trespasse the Plaintif as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods and the matter therein contained demurres upon the Defendants Barr the Defendant joins in demurrer in this form to wit because the Plaintif aforesaid as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods is sufficient demands Judgement and Judgement given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiff and a Writ to inquire of Damages upon which Damages are assessed for the breaking of the House and taking the goods and whether the subsequent words to wit and the matter therein contained go to the whole matter in the Barr to wit to the carrying of the Goods away also for when the Defendant joyned in Demurrer with the Plaintiff he joyned specially to wit to the breaking of the House and taking the Goods but nothing of the carrying them away and so as to the carrying of them away nothing is put into Judgement of the court yet the Writ to inquire is for the whole and the Judgement also and the carrying of the Goods away being parcell of the matter and for which greater Damages are adjudged and that being not put into the Judgement of the Court by the Demurrer therefore the Judgement is erronious for there is a discontinuance as to the carrying of the Goods away which is part of the matter and this businesse concerned Mr. Darcy of the privy chamber concerning his patent for Cards PVrrell versus Bradley Pasch 1 Jacobi The Plaintif declares in Trespass wherefore by force and Arms such a day the Defendant did assault him and one Mare price six pounds from the person of the Plaintiffe then and there did take and Yelverton moved for the Defendant in arrest of Judgement and the Declaration was not good for the Plaintif did not shew any property in the Mare for he ought to have that it was his Mare or the Mare of the Plaintif for as it is laid in the Declaration the words may have two intendments that the property of the Mare was to the Defendant and then the taking was lawfull or that the property was in the Plaintif and then the taking was wrongfull and it being indifferent to whether it shall be taken most strongly against the Plaintif for his
although another take away part of my Common yet no action lyeth As if one beat my servant lightly except the Master lose his service no action lieth And if my friend come and lye in my house and set my neighbours house on fire the action lyeth against me and Judgment for the Plaintiff HAtton versus Hun Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3314. In Trespasse and Imprisonment the Defendant justifies by vertue of a Capias and the Plaintiff did afterwards escape and he being Sheriffe did follow him by vertue of the said Warrant taken upon the Capias the Plaintiff replies that he escaped by license of the Sheriffe and traverses the latter taking by vertue of the Warrant and the Court held the traverse idle because the Plaintiff had sufficiently confessed and avoided and if he escaped by the Sheriffs License that ought to be the thing put into issue and not the traverse PAtry versus Wilsh Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 1055. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes he broke the Plaintiffs Close and eat his Grasse c. The Defendant justifies for common of pasture and saith that he was seised in Fee of one Messuage with the appurtenances in G. and used to have common for all his Cattell levant and couchant upon the said Messuage And it was moved after a verdict in arrest of Judgment by Sergeant Nichols that the plea was insufficient because the certainty of the Cattell was not expressed as for 200. or the like but the Court held the contrary that levant and couchant is a certainty sufficient and all the Books prescribe for a Common by reason of a Messuage RInghall versus Wolsey Mich. 11. Jacobi rotulo 820. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes the servant of the Plaintifs out of the service of the said Plaintiff hath taken and laid to be at H. The Defendant justifies that one was possessed of Corn at S. And that the said servant by the command of his Master had carried away the Corn and that the Owner came to the defendant being Constable and prayed him to detain the servant untill hee could procure a Warrant of a Justice of Peace and traverses that he is guilty at H. The Plaintiff demurres that it was held by the Court a naughty plea First because the Constable could not detain any man but for Felony And secondly the traverse is naught because the Trespass is in the same County and so he might have justified as well in H. as in S. DArney versus Hardington Pasch 9. Jacobi rotulo 1857. An action of Trespass brought to which the Defendant pleads a justification for an Amerciament set in the Sheriffs turn to which Justification exceptions were taken First because the Defendant justified by vertue of a precept to him lawfully granted saith not at what place Secondly he prescribes for the turn to be held and doth not any or what estate c. And Hutton said that a prescription for a turn or one hundred Court by what estate is naught because a hundred is not manurable but lies in grant but he ought to have said that the King and all they that were seised of the said Hundred have had and from the time c. And my Lord Cook said that a prescription by what estate for a thing incident to a Mannor is good for an Hundred that lies in grant it is naught And he and Warburton held that except it was shewed before whom the turn was held it was naught because where any thing is taken by common right as the Sheriffs turn it ought to be holden before the Sheriff as in the prescription it ought to be shewed before whom the turn was held or else it would be naught ROberts versus Thacher al. Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1928. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Arms the Close and House of the Plaintif at A. did break and a certain Cow price c. took The Defendant saith that the Plaintiff ought not to have his Action against him because he saith that the Close House is one Messuage c. in A. aforesaid and that before the time in which c. such a one was possessed of the said Cow as of his own proper Cow to wit at A. aforesaid and being thereof so possessed certain Malefactors unknown to the said c. before the said time in which c. the said Cow out of the possession of the said B. did feloniously steal take and lead away whereupon he made Hue and Cry and thereupon hee had intelligence came and was in the possession and custody of the Plaintiff and B. upon notice thereof did request the Defendant to ask the Cow of the Plaintiff and to bring her c. By reason whereof the Defendant the said time in which came to the said Messuage by the usuall way by and through the said Close c. to demand c. And the Defendants then there finding the aforesaid Cow in a wall'd parcell of the Messuage they took the Cow from thence and brought her to the said B. and to him delivered her as c. which is the same Trespass to which plea the Plaintiff demurres and it was adjudged a naughty Justification for these reasons First because it doth not appear but that the Plaintiff had good right to the Cow Secondly because the Defendant took the Cow without demand And thirdly it is not pleaded that the Defendants were servants to the said B. R. and that he did it by his command and therefore Judgment given for the Plaintiff HAll versus Stanley al. Pasch 9. Jacobi rotulo 2289. An action of false imprisonment The Defendant as to the whole Trespass except the Battery and Imprisonment and keeping in prison not guilty And as to that pleads that the Marshals Court is an ancient Court c. and so justifies because the Plaintiff was the pledg of T. C. to the Defendant in an action of trespass upon the case in an indebilat assumpsit generall and thereupon a Judgment against C. and a Capias awarded and a non est invent returned and thereupon a capias awarded against Hall the pledge according to the custome by vertue whereof the said Hall was taken and detained and traverses that he was guilty c. of any imprisoning the Plaintiff before such a day and averres that they are the same persons And the Plaintiff replies that neither R. C. nor T. T. at the time of exhibiting the Bill were of the houshold c. The Defendant demurs and Judgment for the Plaintiff and the whole Court agreed that the Marshalls Court could not hold Plea Covenants and Contracts except both of them were of the houshold of the King and all the matters of which they could hold plea were Trespass Covenants and Contracts of the houshold and within the verge to wit within twelve miles of the Court and Doddridge said that before the Statute of 28
l. as it appears by Fleta and Brian the authority of the Marshall was absolute in civill and criminall causes at the Common Law and that Statute restrains them for Debts but not for Trespasse of what nature soever and therefore see the Statute of 30 l. 1. 5 E. 3. ch 2. and 10 E. 3. ch 2. Swaffe versus Solley Trin. 14 Jacobi rotulo 689. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore he took his Close the Defendant justifies for a way the Plaintiff replies that he did the Trespass of his own wrong without any cause alledged and so an Issue joyned and after a Verdict for it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the Issue was not well reined and prayed a new Triall because the Issue ought to be speciall but that exception was disallowed and adjudged that it was helped by the Statute of Jeofails by the opinion of the whole Court PLaint versus Thirley Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 161. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Arms the Goods and chattells of the plaintif did take and impound the Defendant pleaded the common Barr and the plaintif assigns the place and are at issue upon that and after a verdict it was moved in arrest of Judgement that there was no Issue joyned because the Lands are not in question and so no assignment necessary and Judgement was stayed but afterwards upon a motion Judgement was given for the plaintif because the Issue was holpen by the Statute of Jeofails and there was the like case upon a Demurrer in the court of common pleas Trin. 4 Jacobi rotulo 1131. CHild versus Heely 13 Jacobi rotulo 3381. vel 381. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Arms the Close Hedges and Gates of the Plaintiff at W. did break and his grass with walking over it did destroy and other his Grass with Cattell did eat and consume the plaintiff assigned one Close of pasture called Drew and another close called Sutton one other close called L. and the Defendant as to the Trespass except the breaking of the close called G. and P. and the treading c. with his feet and eating with his cattell in the said close called P. and E. not guilty and as to the breaking of the close c. saith the plaintif ought not to have his Action because he saith that E. 6. was seised of the Mannour of W. of which one Messuage c. was copy-hold and shews the custome for a way and another custome for a Common and conveys the Copy-hold to himself and justifies as to the pedibus ambulandi and as to the Trespasse with the Cattell justifies for Common the Plaintif replies as to the Trespass pedibus ambulandi that it was of his own wrong without any cause alledged and traverses the way and as to Trespass with the Cattell demurres and the cause of the Demurrer was as it appeared by motion because in the justification of the Cattell the Defendant had not alledged any custome for Common and so the Plaintif could not take any Issue of that custome but had alledged a custome for the way as for the common and the court were of opinion that it was well pleaded and Judgement upon the Demurrer for the Defendant FAirchild versus Gair Pasch 3 Jac. An Action of Trespasse brought for the tiths of the Church of B. and therein a speciall verdict was as followeth the Defendant was collated to this Church of B. being a Donative by A. and B. the Patrons and that the Church was exempt from the Jurisdiction of any Ordinary the Defendant resigned to A. and C. who was a stranger and to other persons who had no Interest his Church of B. with all Rights c. and afterwards the persons passe their Rights to D. who collates and interests the Plaintiff in the Church by reason whereof he seised the Tithes in question and the Defendant took them and concludes that upon the matter c. and if the Resignation be good then they find for the Plaintiff otherwise for the Defendant and by the opinion of the whole Court Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe for the Resignation was good both in respect of the thing resigned and of the person to whom it was made for it being a Donative and exempt from ordinary Jurisdiction the Resignation must be into his hands and the Incumbent shall not be constrained to keep the Church whether he will or no if the Patron will not accept it and because there is no person to whom the Resignation can be made but onely into the hands of the Patron it is good and although the Resignation be to one Patron and to a stranger it is good to both the Patrons and void as to the stranger and the more strong it is because of the following words to wit to all persons whatsoever which words involve all that have any manner of interest and then seeing it is found that D. who collated the Plaintiff and the Estate of both the Patrons although no agreement be found of the Patrons it is not materiall and the resting of the Plaintiff in the Church is good to give him power to take the profits by reason of the primer possession and although the Defendant did resigne but the Church onely yet it is good to all that appertains to the Church and that which the Defendant may have as Rector there 6 E. 3. is that if the Patron grant Ecclesiam that will passe the Avowson but Herlethen said that was in ancient time and therefore not so then to which the court seemed to agree and the court waived the Dispute of any other thing but onely the Resignation for of that onely the Jury doubted and was onely referred to the court but Popham chief Justice said that if the Patron would not collate any man to such a Donative there was no way to compell him but he is left to his own conscience and he might in time of the vacancy take the profits and sue for the Tithes in the spirituall court for such Donatives at first grow by consent of all persons who have any manner of Right or Interest to wit the Ordinary and Parishioners but Gawdy Fenner Yelverton and Williams against him that the Ordinary might compel him to collate any clerk for the Rectory is only exempted from the power of the Ordinary and not the Patron and that is onely as to charges to be taxed upon the church for the ordinary attendance in a Visitation and such like and Popham said that although the Church in execution of the charge is spirituall yet the patron may collate and a meer lay man as the King may make a temporall man a Dean which hath often happened but all the other Judges were against him in case of the person which is meerly spritual but as to the Deanery they did agree it for the function is temporall but yet Williams said that lay men who have Deaneries ought to have and at all
times used to have a Dispensation from the Archbishop and if the Incumbent in this Case should preach Heresie as the Attorney and Popham said the Ordinary might correct him for the parson is not exempted out of his Jurisdiction but his Parsonage onely but by Gawdy and the rest the Ordinary could not meddle with him for the Parson is priviledged in respect of the place but the Patron may commission and examine the matter and thereupon out and deprive him and so it happened in Coverts Case as Gawdy and Williams said wherein the Bishop of Winchester was the Donor of such a Donative 13 E. 4. LEe versus Lacon 3. Jac. In trespass the action was Land in the County of Salop and not guilty pleaded and the venire facias was made with a space for Salop but Salop was not named there And by vertue of that Writ the Sheriffe of Salop impannelled the Jury and found for the Plaintiff and the matter above specified was moved in Arrest of Judgment to wit that the venire facias was vicious and so a mistriall but by Fenner and Williams it was to be accounted his if no venire facias had been awarded And so indeed by the Statute of Jeofailes for the County to wit Salop is omitted and left out and so the Sheriffe of Salop had no power nor authority to summon the Jury because the Writ which is his Warrant is generall to the Sheriff and not naming of any County but the Court held it to be the best way to amend it and they put this difference For when the action is laid in Salop and upon a special pleading the issue is drawn into a forreign County there the entry and award of the venire upon the Will is speciall to wit to the Sheriff of that County where the issue arises to be tryed and in such case a venire facias with a blanâ—k shall not be good because it cannot be judged to which of the Sheriffs the venire was to be awarded and upon that incertainty it shall be naught but when the generall issue is taken or the matter is triable in the same County where the action is laid there the venire facias is awarded generally and must of necessity be intended to be the Sheriffe of that County where the action is laid and cannot be otherwise intended and for this reason it was but the default of the Clerk which is amendable and so it was amended BAylie versus Moon Trin. 3. Jacobi An action of Battery brought in Plymouth Court before the Major and Bailiffs there and not guilty pleaded but afterwards the issue was waived and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ to enquire of damage was awarded to the Serjeant of the Mace that by the oath of twelve c. he should inquire and the Writ was made returnable at the next Court before the Maior and Baylifs And upon a Writ of Errour brought it appeared by the Record certified that the Writ to inquire of damages was taken before the Maior of Plymouth who was also Judg of the Court and for that cause reversed for the Writ warrants the inquiry to be before the Serjeant of the Mace who by the writ for that purpose is made a distinct Officer and so an inquiry before the Maior is not warranted by any writ And so by consequence a Judgment to recover those damages taxed before a wrong Officer to whom the Writ was not directed is erroneous which was granted by the whole Court LAxworth versus West Mich. 3. Jacobi Trespass brought for the taking of Hay severed from the ninth part of Elthorp in the County of Warwick the Defendant to part pleads not guilty and to the residue pleads a devise of the Parsonage made by Lepworth to the Defendant at Wapenbury in the same County and to inable the devise for tithes in L. alledges L. to be a Hamlet in Wapenbury to the intent that the whole Tithes may pass and upon a non devisavit the venn was of Wapenbury and found for the Plaintif that T. L. did not devise it and the other issue of not guilty found for the Defendant and moved in Arrest of Judgment that the venu was mistaken because it was of Wapenbury only and not of Elthorp and they of W. could not try a matter in E. And although it was answered that the Defendant himself by his plea had confessed that E. was but an Hamlet yet the Court held the venu mistaken for when the Plaintif declares of a Trespass in E. This by generall intendment is presumed to be a Village of which Village the matter which is there in question ought to be tryed and although the Defendant had alledged Elthorp to be but an Hamlet yet it was but to inable the devise and doth not extend to the issue before joyned upon the not guilty for part for in that issue both parties agree that Elthorp is a Village and it is a perfect issue taken which hath not any coherence with the other issue of non devisavit but if the Defendant had to the whole issue pleaded the devise as his excuse and had alledged E. to be an Hamlet of W. and that only been in issue there the venu awarded had been good of W. only but in this case it was adjudged that the venire was mis-awarded and that the Plaintif should have a venire facias de novo DElves versus Wyer Mich. 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an action of Trespasse for breaking his Close and for cropping 200. Pear-trees and 100. Apple-trees and damage found to 40. l. And the Court was moved by Richardson for that the damages might be mitigated because he produced an Affidavit whereby it appeared that the party himself before the Action brought would have took 5 l. but denyed for the Court said that they could not diminish the damages in Trespass which was locall and therefore could not appear to them and the damages might well amount to 40 l. for cropping of an Orchard and so Judgment entred WOody's case Mich. 3. Jacobi Woody brought an action of false imprisonment and Battery against two who justifie and set forth that London is an ancient City and that the Maior of London is a Justice of Peace and that the Defendants were Serjeants of the Mace according to the custome of the City and that the Lord Maior to wit one Lee commanded them to arrest the Plaintif for causes to them unknown but to him known and to imprison him c. Walter moved that this Justification was insufficient because they only shewed that they were Serjeants at Mace duely elected according to the custome of the City but do not shew the Custome and Authority that they have to make Serjeants and to arrest as it is 4. H. 4. 36. in trespass the Defendant justifies that the Tower of London is within the City of London and time out of mind c. one Court was there used
the remainder to John D. bastard in Tail the Remainder to the Defendant Ro. Duckmonton in Fee the woman married with Ro. D. the Defendant the Term expired Jo. D. Tenant in Tail in remainder releases to the Husband and whether this should alter the estate of the Husband he being Tenant at sufferance was the question and adjudged by the whole Court that the Release was void and it was cheifly void because the Release was made to him in the Remainder to take effect as upon the Remainder and there was no privity and he had but a bare possession and no Freehold and 10 Eliz. Dier Lessee for years surrenders and afterwards the Lessor releases to him and held a void Release for the reason aforesaid and 31 and 32 Eliz. it hath been adjudged between Allen and Hill where a Devise was made to the woman for life if she would inhabite and continue in the house and he went and inhabited in Surrey and the Heire released to her and it was held void because she was but Tenant at sufferance and so no privity but Yelverton and Tanfield that such estate for life was not determined without Entry and Yelverton Justice demanded that when the Husband continued in possession after the Lease determined whether he should be in the Right of his Wife and so remain Tenant at sufferance whether he should be in his own Right or be as an intruder Disseisor and then the release made to him was good but no answer was given to him but Judgement was given that the release was void and Fennor put this Case Tenant for life remainder in Tail remainder in Fee he in the remainder in Fee released to Tenant for life a void release because of the mean remainder in Tail and cited 30 E. 3. and no answer was given to it and Yelverton said that if Tenant for life release to him in the remainder in Fee it is void because it shall be void as a surrender and this word release shall not recite as a surrender HOldesden versus Gresill Mich. 5 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close called B. at L. and for taking of two Conies the Defendant to the whole Trespasse but the entring in the Close pleads not guilty and as to the Close justifies because he Common in the Close called B. for five Cowes and because very many Conies were there feeding and spoiling the Common the Defendant in preservation of his Common entred to chase and kill the conies to which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and Judgement was given that the justification was naught for a Commoner cannot enter to chase or kill the Conies for although the owner of the Soil hath no property in the Conies yet as long as they are in his Land he had the possession which is good against the commoner for if the Lord surcharge the common with Beasts the commoner cannot chase them out but the owner may distrain the Beasts of an estranger or dammage feasant or chase them out of the common for the stranger hat no colour to have his Beasts there and also conies are a matter of profit to the owner of the Soil for Housekeeping and therefore because it appears that the cause of Entry was to chase and also to kill which are not lawfull as against the Lord who is Plaintiff therefore the matter of the justification is not good for if the Lord surcharge the Soil with conies the commoner may have an Action of case against him for that particular dammage which is a sufficient remedy against the Plaintiff upon a full and deliberate considera-of all the Judges JEnnings versus Haithwait Mich. 5 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defendant pleaded not guilty the Jury found the Defendant Vicar of D. and that he such a day leased his vicaridg to J. S. for three years rendring rent which J. S. assigned one Acre parcell thereof to the Plaintif and the Defendant was absent severall quarters in one year to wit sixty dayes in every quarter but they did not find the Statute of 13 Eliz. adjudged for the Defendant for the Statute of the 13 Eliz. is a generall Law for although it extends but to those which have cure of Souls yet in respect of the multiplicity of Parsonages and vicaridges in England the Judges must take notice of it as a generall Law and adjudge according to the said Statute and so is the Statute of the 21 H. 8. for non-residence DRewry versus Dennys Mich. 5. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought against a man and his Wife and the Plaintif declares that they did beat one Mare of the Plaintifs and committed diverse other Trespasses and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found that the Woman beat the Mare and for the residue they found for the Defendant and the Verdict adjudged naught by the Court for it is altogether imperfect for they have found the Woman guilty of the beating the Mare and have given no Verdict concerning that for the Husband either by way of acquittall or condemnation and the finding the Defendant not guilty as to the residue doth only extend to the other Trespasses contained in the Declaration and not to the beating of the Mare And Williams and Cooke Justices said that where a Battery is brought against Husband and Wife supposing that they both beat the Plaintif or the Mare of the Plaintif and upon not guilty pleaded it is found that the Woman onely made the Battery and not the Husband this Verdict is against the Plaintif for it now appears that the Plaintifs Action was false for the Husband in this case shall not be joyned for conformity onely and there is a speciall Writ in the Register for this purpose and is not like a Battery charged upon I. D. and I. S. for there one may be acquitted and another found guilty and good because they are in Law severall Trespasses SAnds and others versus Scullard and others Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffs brought an Action of Trespass against the Defendants for entring their Close and Judgement was entred against Dawby one of the Defendants by nil dicit Scullard pleaded not guilty whereupon a Venire facias was awarded upon the Roll between the parties as well to try the Issue as to inquire of the damages And the Plaintiffs took their Venire facias to try the Issue between the two-two-Defendants and the two Plaintiffs And according to that was the Habeas Corpus and Distringas but the Plaintiffs knowing Dawby to be dead took their Record of Nisi prius against Scullard onely and he was found guilty And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement and shewed the Venire facias and that there was no Issue joyned between the Plaintiffs and Dawby for Judgment was given against him by Nil dicit and the Writ ought to have made mention onely of the Issue between the Plaintiffs and Scullard And their ought to have been
an inquiry of damages between the Plaintiffs and Dawby according to the Award upon the Roll which is the warrant for the Venire facias and it was shewed that the Jury knew nothing of the matter for which they were warned for they ought to have onely given their Verdict against Scullard and not against Dawby and it was likened where two matters are in Issue and they give a Verdict for one and nothing for the other it is naught for all And this was the opinion of the whole Court except Justice Williams who relyed upon 9. Eliz. Dyer Sir Anthony Cook and Wottons Case in partition against two one confessed the Action and the other pleaded to Issue and the Venire facias was to try the Issue between the Plaintifs and the two Defendants and it was amended by the opinion of the Court But marke the difference for no damages are to be recovered in partition but it is otherwise in Trespass and therefore in Cooks Case it was found by the Court that it was as if a meer stranger to the Record had been named in the Venire facias WInckworth against Man Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff declares for a Trespass in one Acre of Land in D. and abuts that East West North and South and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found the Defendant guilty in halfe an Acre within written and moved in Arrest of Judgment because upon the matter no Trespass had been found for there is no such moity bounded as the Plaintiff had declared for the whole Acre is onely bounded by the Plaintiff containing his Trespass within those bounds and the Defendant ought to be found a Trespassor within those bounds for otherwise it is not good and it is impossible for the moity of one Acre to be within those bounds But the whole Court except Fenner were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have his Judgement for if the Plaintiff layeth his Action for a Trespass committed in one Acre and the Jury find that onely to be in one foot of it it is good and here they have found the Trespass in the moity of the Acre bounded which is sufficient in this Action where damages onely are to be recovered but if it had been in Ejectment the Verdict had been naught for it is incertaine in what part he should have his Writ of Habere facias possessionem BVckwood against Beale Mich. 5. Jacobi In an action of Trespass it was sayd by the Court That if a Sheriff execute a Capias and there is no Originall to warrant it he is excused it for he is not to examine whether the Originall be sued out or no and for this Trewyrmards Case 38 H. 8. And so if a Bailiff execute a Process made to him by the Steward for damages recovered in the Mannor in a thing in which they had no authority to hold Plea The Bailiff is excused and shall not be punished because he is not to examine the jurisdiction of the Court 7 H. 4. 27. 22 Ed. 3. 22. Ass But if Process come to the Sheriff to arrest J. S. and he arrest J. N. or to make execution of the Goods of J. S. and he make execution of the Goods of I. N. he is a Trespassor for in this Case he must take notice at his perill of the Person and the Goods for when he arrests I. N. or does execution upon his Goods he doth it without warrant And so if I. S. sue a Replevin to the Sheriff to replevin his Cattell and I. S. comes to the Sheriff and shews him the Cattell of I. N. and saith they are his Cattell and he makes replevin of the Cattell he is a Trespassor to I. N. and the Sherif may have an Action of Trespass against I. S. for his false information for the Sherif must at his owne perill take notice whose Cattell they be 3 H. 7. 14 H. 4. but if there be any fraud in the matter he may averr that MOnrey versus Johnson An Action of Trespass brought for entring into a mans House The Defendant pleads that he was a Constable c. And it was held by the whole Court that a Constable may justifie his entry into the House of any man for Felony or Treason STrickland against Thorpe Pasch 6. Jacobi Thorpe brought an Action of Trespass against Strickland wherefore he broke his close the 20. of June 3 Jacobi with a continuance thereof untill the sixth of November after and upon a not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment entred but it was entred nothing of the Fine because it is pardoned And upon a Writ of Errour brought he assigned for Errour that the Judgment should have been entred with a Capiatur because the King and Parliament pardoned all offences before the 25. of September and therefore the Trespass being alleadged to have been continued untill the sixth of November following onely part of the Trespass was pardoned and therefore as to that it should have been a Capiatur but the whole Court were of opinion that the Judgment was well entred for the first Trespass which was by force and Armes being pardoned all that depends on that was pardoned and the continuance of the Trespass being onely as to the entring and consuming the Grasse is for increase of damages onely but not for the Kings Fine for the first entry being only with force and Arms makes the Trespass REpps against Bonham Trin. 6. Jacobi The Case in Trespass was that a Feofment was made of three Acres to R. Repps and Mary his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the first second and third Son of the body of the sayd Mary and after to the heirs of the body of the said Mary by the said Richard to be begotten and they had no Son but one Daughter Richard levies a Fine of the Land and Mary dyes the Plaintif enters and the Defendant pleads Richards Fine and adjudged that the Plaintif is not barred by the Fine for Richard had onely an Estate for life and the Estate tayle was in the woman only by the opinion of the five Justices for they said that the Husband is only named to declare what heir of the body of the woman should inherit and not any Heir but such an Heir as Richard her present Husband should beget And if the limitation had been to the Heirs of the body of the woman by her Husband and by I. S. to be begotten the Inheritance had been only in the woman but by the last words for if shee had no Heirs by her Husband and afterwards marries I. S. the Heirs that shee should have by I. S. should inherit And they were all of opinion that the Inheritance was only in the woman because the word Heir which makes the estate of inheritance is annexed only to the body of the woman but if it had been to the Heirs which the Husband should have got of the body of the woman there the
GOodwin against Welsh and Over Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Trespass for severall things against the two Defendants and declares to his damage c. The Attorney for the Defendants pleads non sum informat and thereupon Judgment was given severally for the Plaintiff and Writs to inquire of the damages issued out and were returned and it was moved that the Writs should not be filed because the Plaintiff at the time of the inquiry did not prove that the goods did appertain to him but only proved the value of the goods for Serjeant Nichols took a difference between an Action confessed and non sum informat for in the first case the property of the goods is also confessed to be in the Plaintiff but it is not so in the other case for here Judgment passes without the privity of the Defendant and only for want of pleading as in the case of a nil dicit but by the whole Court it was all one And the Plaintiff is not bound to prove the property in any of the Cases and the reason is because the Writ commands only the value to be inquired of and no more and that only is the charge of the Jury And the whole Court were of opinion that they themselves as Judges if they would in such Case might assesse Damages without any Writ if they would trouble themselves for the Writ goes onely because it is known what Damages are but it is otherwise when not guilty is pleaded for then the Trespasse is denyed which must be proved and tryed by the Jury and there both the value and property come in proof and observe the Judgement is that he should recover and if upon a Writ of inquiry he should be bound to prove the property and fail thereof it would be in destruction of the first Judgement which cannot b. observe this TAilor against Markham Trin. 7 Jacobi An Action of Trespass and Battery brought for c. The Defendant pleads that he at the time of c. was seised of the Rectory of c. where the Battery was supposed in Fee and that at the time in which c. Corn was severed from the nine parts at the place aforesaid and because the Plaintiff came to carry away his corn and the Defendant stood there in defence of his corn and keeping the Plaintiff from taking it away and the hurt that the Plaintiff had was of his own wrong c. the Plaintiff replies that it was of his own wrong with the such cause alledge c. and the Defendant demurred in Law and adjudged for the Plaintiff for that generall replication is good and doth not behove the Plaintiff to answer the Defendants Title because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not claim any thing in the Soil or corn but only damage for the Battery which is altogether collaterall to the Title but when the Plaintiff makes a Title by his Declaration to any thing and the Defendant shall plead another thing in destruction thereof or if the cause of Action in such Cases the Plaintiff must reply specially and not say without such cause as it is in 14 H. 4. Trespasse brought for taking a servant the Defendant shews that the Father of him that the Plaintiff supposes to be the servant held of him in Knights Service c. and died seised his Heire the Servant being within age by reason whereof he seised as his Ward as it was lawfull for him to do and there the Plaintiff replied that he did it of his own wrong and without such cause and disallowed by the Court because he did not answer to the Seigniory to wit that he did that of his own wrong without it that the Father of him that is supposed to be the Servant held of him in Chivalry and the reason was because the plaintiff by his Action made Title to the Servant according to 16 E. 4. and Judgement given accordingly ALlbon against Dremsall Mich. 7 Jacobi The plaintiff declares in an Action of Trespasse that the Defendint the twentieth day of February 5 Jac. did break the plaintiffs Close at c. called Sandy Heath and entered it and spoiled his grasse and kiiled took and carried away a hundred Conies and also that the Defendant the same day the free Warren of the plaintiff at Sandy aforesaid did enter and chase without license and killed fifty Conies and took carried them away to his damage of c. the Defendant to the whole Trespasse except the entring and breaking of the Close called Sandy Heath not guilty and in Issue joyned upon that and as to the breaking the Close the plaintiff ought not to have his Action for he said that William Lord Russell and Elizabeth his Wife were and yet are seised in Fee in the Right of his Wife in a certain peice of Heath containing ten acres in Sandy close adjoining on every side separated from the place called Sandy Heath that they and all those whose Estate they have in part in that peice of Heath have used to have for themselves and Farmers of the said peice of Heath and for their Servants a passage unto the said peice of Heath and from the said peice in by and through the said Close called Sandy Heath in which c. the whole year at their pleasure to take and receive the profits of the said peice of Heath and the Defendant further sayes that long before the Trespass supposed to be committed very many Conies were wandering in the said peice of Heath and divers Cony holes were there made in which the said Conies did delight to live in and at the time in which c. they were in the said peice of Heath eating the grasse growing there and the Defendant as Servant to the Lord Russell and by his command the time in which c. in by and through the said Close in which c. towards and unto the said peice of Heath did walk over to hunt and take the said Conies in the said peice of Heath then being and feeding as it was lawfull for him to do which walking in by and through the said Close in which c. for the cause aforesaid is the same breaking the Close and entring thereof whereof the Plaintiff complains and averres that the place by which the Defendant walked for the cause aforesaid to Sandy Heath in which c. was the next passage by which he could go to the said peice of Heath to which the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for a passage is properly a passage over the water and not over Land and the Defendant ought to have prescribed for the way and not for the passage for he ought to have observed the usuall words and such as are known in the Law for a prescription and usage is for a way and not for a passage and see 32 Assis 58. and 11 H. 4. 82. b. Secondly the prescription is not good
his house which he could not do for the entring is one act done and ended at the going out again And therefore if he re-enter it is a new Trespass and the continuando is only alledged for the aggravation of damages 2 R. 3. 15. 10. E. 3. 10. 16. E. 3. 24. That a continuando cannot be for breaking the House but Doddridge and Haughton Justices the rest being silent were of opinion that it might be alledged that a continuando for although it might be that if hee went forth and re-entred it should be a new Trespass but if upon his first Entry he continued divers dayes it might be alledged with a continuando And see for that Mich. 38. El. in the Common Pleas fol. 118. If a Disseisee re-enter he shall have an Action of Trespass against the Disseisor with a continuando And so is Fitzherberts Nabrevium 91. L. that a continuando may be laid as well for breaking a House as eating the Grass and so is 10. E. 3. 10. and 20. H. 7. 30. by the opinion of Gapley GEush against Mynne Pach. 11. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Plaintiff did break c. The Defendant justified by reason there was a report that a Vermine called a Badger was found there to the great damage of the Inhabitants by reason whereof he uncoupled his Beagles in the place where c. and hunted there and found the Badger and pursued him untill he Earthed in the place where c. by reason whereof he digged the ground and took the Badger and killed him and afterwards hee stopped up the Earth again which is the same Trespass and demands Judgment whereupon the Plaintiff demurs And upon reading the Record Scamber of the Inner Temple was for the Demurrer and that the Defendant could not justifie as this case was And first he was of opinion that the Common Law warrants hunting such noysome Beasts although it be in the Lands of another because it is good and profitable to the Common-wealth that such hurtfull Beasts should be extirpated according to the 8. E. 4. 15. And Fishermen may justifie their Nets upon anothers Land 13. H. 8. 16. 22. H. 6. 49. A man may justifie entring into a house to serve a Subpaena 3. H. 6. 336. A man may justifie the entring into anothers Land with the Sheriff to help him to distrain but otherwise it is for things of pleasure as 38. E. 3. 10. B. You cannot justifie the Entry when your Hawk hath killed a Pheasant in anothers Land and so for hunting of Hares or Conies in the Free-hold of another but although the Law allows and permits such Entries as aforesaid yet the Law requires that such things shall be done in an ordinary and usuall manner as 12. H. 8. 2. A Commoner cannot digge the Land to make Trenches although it be for the benefit of another and this is confirmed and explained by the Statute of 8. Eliz. cap. 15. For although that Statute gives reward for the killing of Vermins yet the Statute further saies that it must be with consent and with reasonable Engines and Devices 2. R. 2. Barr. 237. Grant of Fish in the Pond one cannot dig the Land and make a Sluce but must take with them Nets And so if a man grant to me all his Trees in such a place I I cannot grub up the roots out of the earth if there be any other way to take them but if there be no other way then it is otherwise as 9 Ed. 4. 35. a. A grant to put a Pipe in my Land and afterward it is stopped I may dig to mend it by the opinion of the Court and therefore there being an Ordinary course to wit hunting to kill the Badger the digging for that is unlawfull and the Action will well ly Mich. 36. and 37 Eliz. 60. Nicholas Case expressely for a Fox and Fenner held it was not lawfull to break a Hedge in the pursuit MIles against Jones Pasch 11 Jac. Miles brought an Action of Trespasse against Jones wherefore by force and Arms his goods c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff 5 Jacobi acknowledged a Recognisance of 100. l. at Mich. at which day he did not pay it and that two years after the Recognisance was extended upon his goods because the monies were not satisfied at the day nor at any time after the Plaintiff replies that they were paid in the sixth year of James and desires this that it may be inquired onely by the Countrey and the Defendant likewise and upon the Triall it was found for the Plaintiff and it was new moved in arrest of Judgement by Goldsmith that there was no Issue joyned for an Issue ought to be joyned upon a thing alledged by the party DOyly against White and Webb Trin. 11 Jacobi Doyly brought an Action of Assault Battery and imprisonment of his wife against White and Webb The Defendant pleads a speciall Justification to wit that in November 2 Jacobi an Action of Trespass was brought in the Common pleas by one A. against Julian Goddard and upon the generall Issue it was found for J. G. and Judgement given for her and afterwards and before Execution J. G. takes to Husband the now plaintiff and afterwards brings a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and upon a Scire Facias against the said Julian the Judgement in the Common pleas was reversed and costs given to A. the plaintif in the Writ of Error and aftewards a Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the now Defendants to take the said I. G. by Force of which the said Defendants took the woman of the now plaintif with an averment that the said I. G. and the Wife of the now Plaintif were one and the same person and the plaintif demurres upon this plea and Yelverton moved that this justification was not good for divers causes first when the Sherif is to execute a process he is to do it duly and upon the right person at his perill and for that see 11 H. 4. 90. b. If the Sherif take the goods of another in Execution he is a trespassor 5 E. 4. 50. a. If a Capias be to take I. S. and there be two of the same name he ought to look to take the right man at his perill and as he ought to take notice so he must pursue his authority and for this see 10. E. 4. 12. b. if a Capias issue out against I. S. the Son of A. and he take I. S. the Son of B. false imprisonment lies against him and in a Case when his Warrant is against I. G. there is no such J. G. for by her marriage with the Plaintiff she had another name and he is therefore a Trespassor for the taking of J. Doyly and his averment cannot help him because it agrees not with his Warrant and so cannot be intended to be the same person but if the variance was
BAnks against Barker Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1979. In an Action of Trespass the venire facias was well awarded upon the case of the venu in Westown and of the Mannor of D. and the Writ of Venire was mistaken to wit of the venu of Westown and exception being taken after tryall the Court was moved for the amending of the venire facias by the roll and it was denyed because the Jury did come of another venu then they ought by the Law of the Land to come and therefore could not be amended but afterwards the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the awarding of the venu in the roll was mistaken because it was of the venu of the Villiage and Mannor and it should have been of the Mannor only being to try a custome of the Mannor FOrrest against Headle Hill 13. Jac rot 1123. An Action of Trespass brought and a continuando of the Trespass unto the day of the shewing forth the Plaintifs Originall to wit the 20. day of November which day was after the shewing forth of the Originall and because the Jury gave damages for the whole time which ought not to be it was proved that the Judgment upon the verdict might stay but by the whole Court the videlicet was held idle and Judgment given for the Plaintiff COcks against Barnsley Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 2541. An Action of Trespass brought and a speciall verdict found and the question was whether Land held in ancient Demesne was extendable for debt and an action of Trespass brought for that cause And Justice Nichols held it was extendable for otherwise if it should not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice for if a Judgment should be had against a man that had no other Land but what was in ancient Demesne and that it could not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice which the Law doth not allow of but an Assize or a re-disseisin doth not lye of Land in ancient Demesne because of the Seisin that must be given by the Common Law and it would be prejudicial to the Lord which the Law allows not and Wynch and Hubbard were of the same opinion For ancient demesne is a good plea where the Free-hold is to be recovered or brought in question but in an action of Trespass it is no plea. And note that by this execution neither the Free-hold nor Possession is removed but only the Sheriffe enters to make execution upon a Judgment had in the Common bench in debt which is a proper Action to be brought there WRight and his Wife against Mouncton Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 43. An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defend pleaded not guilty And the Husband only made a challenge that he was servant to one of the Sheriffs and prayes a processe to the Coroners and the Defendant denies the challenge and therefore notwithstanding the challenge the Venire issued to the Sheriffs and after a tryall exception was taken because the woman did not joyne in the challenge and it was held that the Husband and Wife should joyn in the challenge although the cause of challenge proceded from the Husband only but after tryall it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and judgment given for the Plaintiff BIde against Snelling Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 1819. An Action of Ejectment brought and also a Battery in one and the Writ and after a verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Battery was joyned with the Ejectment The damages were found severally and the Plaintiff had released the damages for the Battery and prayed Judgment for the Ejectment Winch held the Writ naught but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding STeward and his Wife against Sulbury An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Wife while she was sole at D. hath broken and the wood of the said D. to the value of 1005. there lately growing hath cut down and carried away and in his Count shews that he hath cut downe two acres of wood and exception was taken because he declared of so many acres of wood and not of so many loads of wood to wit twenty c. loads and held by the Court to be a good exception BLackeford against Althin Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 3376. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes a certain Horse of the said Plaintiffs took away c. The Defendant conveys to himselfe a certain annuity granted to him by one John Hott The Plaintiff shews that one William Hott Father of the said Iohn Hott the Grantor was seised of Land in Fee which Land was Gavel-kind Land and devised it to his Wife for life the remainder to Iohn Hott the Elder and Iohn Hott the Younger his Sonne and the Heirs of their bodies And afterwards William dyed and the Woman entred and was seised for life and the two sonnes entred and were seised in tayl and being so seised Iohn Hott the younger had issue Iohn Hott c. and traverses without this that Iohn Hott the Father at the time of granting the annuity was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of fee as c. And the Defendant as before saith that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the granting the annuity aforesaid was seised and after the tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgment supposing it was mistried because the issue was that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the grant c. And it doth not appear that the said J. H. was nominated Father neither could it appear that the said J. H. was the Father and so the word Father was idle and the Court were of opinion that it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and the word Father was idle and judgment was given for the Plaintiff A. brought an Action of Battery against the Husband and Wife and two others the Wife and one of the others without the Husband pleads not guilty and the Husband and the other pleaded seu assault demesne and tryed and alledged in arrest of Judgment because the Woman pleaded without her Husband and Judgment was stayed and a Repleader alledged and this case was confirmed by a case which was between Yonges and Bartram HArvy against Blacklole Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 1749. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes his Mare so strictly to a Gelding did fetter that by that fettring the Mare aforesaid did dye If a stranger take a Horse that cometh and strayeth into a Mannor the Lord may have his action of Trespass If my stray doth stray out of my Mannor and goeth into another Mannor the day before the yeare be ended I cannot enter into the other Mannor to fetch out the stray If I take an Horse as a stray and onother taketh him from me the Action lyeth not by the Owner against the second taker
elect him See the Statute of 25 H. 8. That a Canon against Common Law confounds the Roiall Prerogative of the King or Law of God is void and Custome of the Realme cannot be taken away but by act of Parliament See 21 Ed. 4. 44. the Abbot of Saint Albones hath a Charter of the King to be discharged of Collection of tenthes granted by Parliament or Convocation The Clergy grants tythes in Convocation there is a clause in the grant that no one of them who shal be chosen to be collector shal be discharged of collection by colour or force of any Letters Patents and after they return the Abbot of St. Albones Collector who pleads his Letters Patents in discharge of Collector and resolved by the Court that the clause in the grant of tenthes doth not take away the exemption of discharge by the Letters Patents granted And it was resolved that if the Parish clark misdemene himselfe in his office or in the Church he may be sentenced for that in the Ecclesiasticall court to Excommunication but not to Deprivation And after Prohibition was granted by all the court and held also that a Prohibition lyeth as well after sentence as before Trinity 8. Jacobi Common Bench. ON was cited to appear in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury which was out of the Diocesse of Canterbury and upon that he praied Prohibition upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. Which willeth that none shall be cited to appeare out of his Diocesse without assent of the Bishop and Prohibition was granted And yet it was said that in the time of H. 8 and Reigne of Mary that the Arch Bishops of Canterbury had used to cite any man dwelling out of his Diocesse and within any Diocesse within his Province to appeare before him in the Prerogative Court and this without the assent of the Ordinary of the Diocesse But it was resolved by the Court that this was by force of the power Legantine of the Arch-Bishop that as Lynwood saith ought to be expressed in the Prohibition for the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury York Pisa and Reymes were Legati nati and others but Legates a Latere Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Beareblock against Reade IN an Action of Debt brought by Beareblocke against Reade Administratrix to her Husband upon a Judgement given in this Court The case was this the Plaintiffe had Judgment against the Husband and after sued him to an Vtlagary and upon that he brought a Writ of Errous and removed the Record into the Kings Bench and reversed the Judgement for the Vtlagary But the first Judgment was affirmed and then the Husband acknowledged a Statute and dyed And the Wife took out Letters of Administration and then the Statute is extended against the Wife and all the goods which shee had of the Intestates taken in execution After which Beareblock in the Kings Bench sueth a Scirefacias upon the said Judgment against the said Administratrix to have execution and shee pleads upon that the said Statute in Barre and the extent of that and that more then that shee hath nothing to satisfie and this was adjudged a good plea. And then the Plaintiffe being not satisfied he hrought an action of debt upon the said Judgment in this Court and in Barr of that the Wife pleaded all this matter in Barr as aforesaid upon which the Plaintiffe demurred in Law and the Judges seemed to incline that this was no Barr for though that the Wife hath not any means to aide her selfe or to prevent the extent of the Statute yet it seemed to them that this should not prevent the execution upon the Judgement and that the Wife might have Audita quaerela against the Connusee of the Statute and so to make the extent void It was not argued at this day but the point only opened see 3. Eliz. Dyer 7. H. 6. See Pasche 9. Jacobi the Residue Petty against Evans IN an Ejectione firme brought by the Lessee of a Copy-holder it is sufficient that the count be generall without any mention of the License if the Defendant plead not guilty then the Plaintiff ought to shew the Lycense in Evidence But if the Defendant plead specially then the Plaintiff ought to plead the License certainly in his replication and the time and place when it was made and in this case the Plaintiff replied that the copy-holder by License first then had of the Lord did demise and did not shew what estate the Lord had nor the place nor time when it was made and all the Justices agreed that it is not good For the License is traversable for if a copy-holder without License of the Lord make a Lease for yeares The lessee which enters by calour of that is a Disseisor and a Disseisor cannot maintain an Ejectione Firme and the Defendant cannot plead that the Plaintiff by license did not demise for this is a pregnant negative also it ought to appeare what estate the Lord had for he cannot give license to make a lease of longer time in the Tenancy then he hath in the signiory And for that if he be Lessee for life of a Mannor and he licenses a copi-holder to make a Lease for 21. yeares of a copy-hold and then the Lessee for life dies the license is for that determined though that the copy-holder be of Inheritance for the Inheritance of the Lord is bound by that And for that the Plaintiff replies that the copy-holder by license of the Lord first therefore had made the Lease that is not good by Coke and Walmesley expresly and though that the Defendant confesse the Replication by Implication by pleading Yet this shall not ayd the Plaintiff for that it is insufficiently pleaded which note Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. IN action upon the case upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff counts that when he such a day at the speciall instance and request of the Defendant lent to the Defendant the same day ten pound And that the Defendant the same day in consideration thereof assumed and promised to the Plaintiff to pay the same summ of ten pound at an other day to come And it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the consideration was too generall and for that the action not maintainable and all the Justices but Foster seemed the consideration was good but Foster it seems was in some doubt of that but Judgement was entred for the Plaintiff according to the verdict And Coke cheife Justice said that such a like action was maintained against Kercher his Chaplain as Executor of his Father and it seems for good Law Legates Case ONe Legate was committed to Newgate Prison for Arrianisme for denying of the Trinity by the high Commissioners and it was moved on the behalfe of Legate to have a habeas Corpus and it was granted and it was said by Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 5. H. 4. Chapter 10. Inhibits Justices of peace to commit any man to
Cletherwoods Case of the Middle Temple but he said that Prescription to have all the Vesture of the Land is good for such a time and at the first day of the Argument of this Case Foster Justice seemed that the prescription was good and might have reasonable beginning that is by Grant as if they have Common together and they agree that one shall have all for one part of the yeare and the other for another part of the year and that shall be good to which Coke answered that that cannot be by Prescription to have that as Common and at another day Coke cited Shirland and Whites Case to be adjudged 26 of Eliz. in the Kings Bench to be prescription to have common in the Waste of the Lord and to exclude the Lord to have common in the place and adjudged to be void prescription and also he cited a case between Chimery and Fist where prescription was to have common in the Soile of the Lord and that the Lord shall have feeding but for so many cattell and adjudged that the Prescription was not good to exclude the Lord but a man may prescribe to have the first Crop or the first Vesture of anothers Land and it is good and with that agrees the resolution in Kiddermisters Case in the Star-Chamber Warburton justice said that this prescription is not for the excluding of the Lord but for their good ordering of their Lands according to the Book of 46 Ed. 3 25. before cited that the great Cattell should have the first feeding and after that the sheep Coke said that if it had appeared by the pleading that all the Demesnes of the Lord ought to be common and in consideration that the Lord had inclosed part and injoyed that in severall the Free-holders and Tenants of the Mannor which have Common over all the Residue and exclude the Lord and this shall be good by prescription and it is adjourned see 15 Ed. 2. Fitzherbert Prescription 51. And afterwards in Trinity Tearme 1612. 10. Jacobi this case was moved againe and all the Justices agreed as this Pleading is Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff and they moved the parties to replead Pasch 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Portington against Rogers Trin. 8. Jacobi Rot. 3823. MARY Portington brought a Trespasse against Robert Rogers and others Defendants for the breaking of her house and Close upon not guilty pleaded and speciall Verdict found the Case was this A man had Issue three Daughters and made his Will in writing and by that devised certain Land to the youngest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the Eldest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the middlemost daughter in taile with Proviso that if my sayd daughters or any of them or any other Person or persons before enamed to whom any estate of Inheritance in possession or Remainder of in or to the said Lands limited or appointed by this my last Will and Testament or to the Heires before mentioned of them or any of them shall joyntly or severally by themselves or together with any other willingly apparently and advisedly conclude and agree to or for the doing or execution of any Act or Devise whereby or wherewith the said Premises so to them intailed as aforesaid or any part or parcell thereof or any estate or Remainder thereof shall or may by any way or means be discontinued aliened or put away from such person or persons and their Heires or any of them contrary to mine intent and meaning in this my Will otherwise then for a Joynture or shall willingly or advisedly commit or do any act or thing whereby the premises or any part thereof shall not or may not discend remaine or come to such persons and in such sort and order as I have before limited and appointed by this my last Will and Testament then I will limit declare and appoint that then my said Daughter or Daughters or other the said person or persons before named and every of them so concluding and agreeing to or for the doing or execution of any such act or Devise as is aforesaid shall immediately from and after such concluding and agreeing loose and forfeit and be utterly barred and excluded of and from all and every such Estate Remainder and benefit as shee or they or any of them should might or ought justly to have claime Challenge and demand of in or to so much thereof as such conclusion or agreement shall extend unto or concern in such manner and forme as if she or they or any of them had not been named nor mentioned in this my last Will and Testament and that the Estate of such person c. shall cease and determine c. And after that the youngest Daughter tooke a Husband and then shee and her Husband concluded and agreed to suffer a Recovery and so to barr the Remainder and upon that the Plaintiff being the eldest Daughter entred and upon the Entry brought this Action And Harris Serjeant argued for the Defendant that this shall be a condion and not a limitation and he said that Mews and Scholiasticas Case is not adjudged against him see the Commentaries 412. b. And it shall be taken strictly for that that it comes in Defesans of the Estate and then admitting it is a condition it is not broken for this conclusion and agreement is only the agreement of the Husband and though that the Wife be joyned yet be that for her benefit or prejudice that shall be intended only the Act of the Husband and he only shall be charged as in the 48 Ed. 3 18. Husband and Wife joyne in Contract and the Husband only brings Action upon that and 45 Ed. 3. 11. Husband and Wife joyne in Covenant and the Action was brought against them both and it was abated for that shall charge the Husband only 24 Ed. 3. 38 The Husband and the Wife joyne in an Action upon the Statute of Laborers and the Writ abated and so in cases of Free-hold as 15 Ed. 4. 29. b. The Husband and the Wife being Tenants for life joyne in praying aid of a stranger and this shall be no forfeiture of the Estate of the Wife and 48 Ed. 3. 12. a. Statute Merchant was made to the husband and Wife and they joyned in Defeasans that shall not be Defeasans of the Wife and 28 H. 8. Dyer 6. The Husband of the Wife Executrix aliens the Tearme which was let to the Testator upon condition that he or his Executors should not alien and by Baldwin by the alienation of the Husband the Condition was not broken for it was out of the words so here the agreement and conclusion being made by Husband and Wife shall be intended the Act of the Husband only and so out of the Words and by consequence out of the intent of the Condition and shall be taken strictly but he seemed that the Condition shall be void for the Words conclude and agree are words uncertain for what
without title he may have an action of Covenant for the Lessor hath the Evidences and ought to defend the possession of his Lessee and the right also and damages are only to be recovered and so is the difference between a Lease and Inheritance though that the words of the Covenant are all one And also he said that it may be objected that the Incorporation was not well pleaded by Edw. 6. Insomuch that he doth not say after the Conquest for Ed. 3. was Ed. 6. in truth sor there were 3 Edwards before the Conquest and he was the third after And he saith that he hath known many exceptions to be taken to that but hath not known any of them to be allowed and for that he will not insist upon it But the principal matter upon which he insists was that it doth not appear by the pleading that the Deane which made the Lease was dead and it appears by the pleading that he entered in 4 Jacobi and was seised and then of necessity ought to be living and such averment of his life is sufficient as it is agreed in the 13 Eliz. Dyer where a Parson made a Lease for years and the Lessee brought an Ejectione firme and in pleading it was said that the Parson is seised of the reversion and this was allowed to be good without other averment of his life for he cannot be seised if he be not living and then if the Deane shall be intended to be living then they all agreed that the Lease shall be good against him for it was adjudged in this Court between Blackeleech and Smal that if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for years being in Esse and dyes and the Successor accepts Rent this shall bind him and by this it appears that the Lease was good against the Dean himself which made it and also against the Successor till he enter and avoid it and then by consequence the action of Covenant shall be very well maintainable and so he concluded also that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Browning against Strelley MIchael 2 Jac. Rot. 531. In debt the Margent of the Count contains Nottingham and the Count it self contains that the Obligation was made at the Town of Nottingham which is a County of it self and the Defendant pleads non est factum and the view was of the Town of Nottingham and it was tryed by the Jury of the County of Nottingham and this was moved in arrest of Judgment after verdict for the Plaintif by Nichols Serjeant And it was agreed by all the Justices that Judgment shall be given accordingly to the verdict insomuch that notwithstanding that the Town of Nottingham is a County of it self yet it may be that some part of the Town may be within the County and for that possibility they would not arrest the Judgment Ireland against Smith IN action upon the Case for these words the Plaintiff counts that he was and is Proctor in the Arches and in communication between one Morgat and the Defendant of him the Defendant said to the said Morgat You take part with Ireland against me who is an arrant Papist and hath a Pardon from the Pope and can help you to such an one if you will And after verdict it was moved by Hutton Serjeant in arrest of Judgment that the action doth not lye and he saith that it hath been adjudged in this Court 3 Jacobi Rot. 7031. between Kingstone and Hall that an action doth not lye for like words he is an arrant Papist And it were good that he and all such as he is were hanged for he and all such as he is would have the Crowne from the Kings head if they durst And it was adjudged that an action doth not lye for these words which are more strong then the words in this action but of the other part it was said by Haughton Serjeant that he did not insist upon these words that he is a Papist but that he had obtained a Pardon from the Pope the which by the Statute of 13 Eliz. is made High Treason and then notwithstanding that no time was limited when the Pardon should be procured that is before the Statute or after yet it shall be intended such a Pardon which is against the Statute for the presumption of the Law shall be taken in the worst sense and not like to the Case where a man saith to another that he hath the Pox And also it is alledged by the Count that the Plaintiffe is not above the age of 40. years so that he cannot obtain a Pardon before the Statute of 13 Eliz. And for that he supposed that the action is very well maintainable Coke cheif Justice said that it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in the time of Catlyn cheife Justice there that an action upon the Case doth not lye for calling a man Papist And Winch Justice said that if a man call a Bishop or another man which is trusted with government of the Church and Ecclesiastical causes that he thought the action lyes otherwise not Also he supposed that the Pardon might be for Purgatory or other matters which are not within the Statute of 13 Eliz. And also the Pardon may be procured by another and come to his hands by delivery over afterwards that it had passed two or three and the averment is not sufficient for it is onely Implication and Inference Coke and Warberton Justices sayd that a Papist is one that errs in his opinion and though that the Papists are Authors of many Treasons yet the Law doth not intend so and so of Heretick which is alwaies in a fundamentall point of Religion and yet an action doth not ly for calling a man Heretick also the Pope is a temporall Prince in Italy and for this cause also may pardon and this is out of the statute of 13 Eliz. and so they all agreed that the Action doth not ly for these words Pasche 1612. 10 Jacobi In the Common Bench. Marstones Case IN a common Recovery the Tenant appears by Attorney and vouches one which is present in Court which appears and vouches the common Vouchee and the Attorney hath a Warrant of the party acknowledged before a Judge but this was not entred of record and this was in Hillary tearme 16 Eliz. And it was moved by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Warrant of Attorney might be now amended and entred upon the record and Coke supposed cleerly that it shall not be entred insomuch that it is a want of a Warrant of Attorney but if there had been a mis-construing of the Warrant of Attorney otherwise it is for this seems to be within the Statute of 27 Eliz. Chapter 5. Concerning amendments In Debt upon an obligation with condition to perform Covenants in an Indenture of Lease the Defendant pleads that after
the foundation is of Saint Paul and where it is a person certain but all the name is not so precisely recyted and to that which is sayd by my Brother Williams that no difference between conveiance made to them and by them I agree to him with this difference that is if conveyance be made to them of what by presumption in Law they are knowing and are parties as a Fine levied to them and such like but of a Devise it is not presumed that they have knowledge of that till the Death of the Devisor and he conceived that the Lease is voyd and this Decree shewed hath not changed his opinion but he moved the parties again to an agreement and would not as yet give Judgment Hitcham the Queens Attorney moved the Court for a Prohibition and the case was this two Merchants covenanted by Deed with their Factor to allow him ten pound a Moneth for his Wages and one Merchant sealed the Deed in England and the other sealed that upon the Sea and the Factor came and sued the Merchants in the Admiralty for his wages and by the Court insomuch that one of them sealed it upon the Land this is not any thing done upon the Deepe Sea and for that Prohibition was granted to him Upon a Motion made by Wincolt of the Middle Temple to dissolve a Prohibition granted to the spirituall Court upon a Libel for Tithes there the Court took this rule that when a Consultation is lawfully granted there a new Prohibition shall not be granted upon the same Lâ—bell and yet they qualified that with this difference that is when a Consultation is granted upon any fault of the Prohibition in form by the Mâ—sprision of the Clark or by mis-pleading of any Statute in that or such like there a new Prohibition may be granted upon the same Libell but if Consultation be granted upon the right of the thing in question there a new Prohibition shall not be granted upon the same Libell see the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. Pasch 9. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. BRomehead and Spencer Plaintiffs Rogers Defendant where an Action of Debt was brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant as Administrator during the minority of one J. S. and the Plaintiffs shew in their count that the said J. S. at the time of the Writ brought was and yet is within age of one and twenty years and verdict passeth against the Defendant and Crewe moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was insufficient for they have declared that the Executor was within the Age of one and twenty years and the Administration during the nonage shall cease when the Infant comes to the Age of seventeen years so that he may be of the age of 17. 18. 19. or 20. years and yet the Administration ceaseth and so of Action against Administrator and so was the Opinion of all the Justices and the Judgment was stayed upon that according to the resolution of Piggotts Case 15. Coke 29. a. PLomer against Hockhead the Plaintiff declares in Ejectione firme upon a Lease made to him by three Husbands and their wives and that the Defendant ejected him and at the Issue upon not guilty and in evidence to prove this Lease and the delivery of that was shewed a Letter of Attorney made by the Husbands and their wives and the councel of the Defendant takes exception to the Declaration for they have declared upon a Lease by three Husbands and their Wives with a Letter of Attourney to make delivery and a married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney And so this is not a Lease of the Wives and so the Plaintiff had declared upon no Lease And the opinion of all the Court was that a married Wife could not make a Letter of Attorney And Williams Justice compared this to the case of an Infant as if an Infant makes a Feoffment or a lease and delivers that with his hand this is not but voidable But if it be executed by Letter of Attorney that is a disseisin to him but by Flimming and Williams if the Plaintiffs had declared upon a Lease made by the Husbands only this had been very good Thomas Malin Plaintiff in Replevin against Thomas Tully the case was The Queen Mary was seised of a Park called Eestwood Park in her Demesne as of Fee as in Right of her Crown and so being seised by her Letters Patent's let the said Park to two for their lives and after died And the Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents recyting the said Lease for lives and that the said Lessees were alive granted the said Park to Humphrey Lord Stafford and his Wife and to the Heires of the said Lord Stafford of the Body of the said Wife lawfully begotten And by the said Patent the same Queen by these words Ac de Ampliori et Vberiori Gracia Nostris Volumus et Declaramus quod si Predictus Dominus Stafford Solvat seu Solvi faciat prefacto Dominae Reginae 20 s. ad talâ—m Diem Tunc Concedimus quod predictus Dominus Stafford habebit revertionem predictam sibi et Heredibus suis And the Lord Stafford paid the said sum of twenty shillings according to the said Letters Patents and if he shall have Fee-simple or not was the question And it was objected that he shall not have it for the words of the Patent are that if the Lord Stafford paies the money Tunc concedimus the which words seeme that the Grant shall take effect in futuro and it was not a present Grant but when the money shall be paid then shee granted but it seemes to the Justice that it was a good Grant immediatly to take effect upon the payment of the money and the condition was precedent till that be performed the reversion remaines in the Queen Eliz. And the Queen might grant by one selfe same Patent as by diverse See 10. Assise 13. 7. Ed. 3. 8. Ed. 2. Feoffments and that the reversion shall not extinguish the Estate Tayl but they may well be together but otherwise it is of an Estate for yeares or for life Warburton Justice that the King is specially favoured in the Law and for that he shall not be inforced to attend in case as other persons ought to make attendance And for that in case where a common person may make a good Grant the King also may make a good Grant and in the case at the Barr if the Grant had been made by a common Person it had been good without question But the first objection that hath been made was that where a man hath made a Lease for life or for years upon condition to have Fee there the particuler Estate shall be drowned upon the increasiing of the Estate but the Statute of Westminster 2. preserves the Estate tayl that it shall not be drowned and that the Fee in this case doth not vest till the condition be performed for if the
Corpus amended Debt upon two Bils and one not due and tried for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest the Plaintiff released his Damages and had Judgement upon the Bill due Lessee of the Vicars Gleab-land shall pay Tithes Nota. Venire facias de D. or within the Parish of D. or de Parochia good Scire facias upon a Recognisance may issue out into any County Deprivation of a Minister may be given in evidence Best to have Damages severed upon two Contracts Breach for not acknowledging a Fine Nota. Feossment of Land in satisfaction of Debt upon a single Bill held naught A Steward of a Leet within the Statute of E. 6. against buying of Offices One thing in Action cannot be a satisfaction for another thing in Action Vpon a Request and none ready to receive and after a Request Damages shall be paid from the Request Nota. Nota. Nota. An Almoner would have acknowledged satisfaction and doubted Judgement against the Plaintiff for incertainty of his Count. Nota. Judgement for the Plaintiff Nota. Because the first Contract was not usurious the latter shall not No Action of Debt for Soliciting Fees Defendant pleads the Plaintiff was indebted to him and he took Administration and retained his own Debt in his hands Bailiff of a Colledge claims the Liberty of the University but denied to him Special Verdict Nota well Appearance though at another Day the same Terme saves the Bond. Demand necessary for a Nomine penae Costs omitted in the Roll and Error brought and demed to be amended Nota. The Venire facias mis-awarded The Defendant pleads that be was ready to grant and naught No Demand necessary Note this diligently Fully administred no good Plea by an Administrator to a Scire sacias to revive a Judgement had against the Intestate An Executor an Assignee in Law Nota. Nota. Nota. An Executor by wrong shall not by his Plea prejudice a rightfull Executor Condition of non-payment of Rent to re-enter the Rent was behinde but before re-entry accepted the Estate is confirmed by the Acceptance The Defendants name mis-taken in the Venire and a new Triall awarded No costs against an Executor Devise of the profits of the Land it self Debt brought against an Excutor after full age for Goods wasted by the Administrator during his minority Release of all Demands a good Barr in Rent not then due Judgement arrested for improper words without an Anglice The want of a Bill not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles To forbid no Breach The Defendant pleads a Plea by which he pretends the Plaintiff to be barred in another Suit but no Barr. One by his own Election cannot be Executor for part and not for part Tenants in common Severall Debts Debt lies by him to whose use money is delivered Debt upon a Statute of Perjury at a Commission issuing out of Chancery not ly Outlary pleaded in Barr and Nul tiel record pleaded and in the mean time the Outlary reversed Judgement that the Defendant should answer over No Escape lies against a Sherif vpon a Capias upon a Recognisance out of the Chancery Request to make Assurance generally and good Appearance upon warning and for default adjudged naught Action of Debt upon the Statute of E. 6. for Tithes Sufficient to say the Plaintiffe is Proprietor without shewing the Title Misprision of the Clerk amended after Triall Judgement reversed by Writ of error being in the disiunctive The Plaintiffe had no Interest but 〈◊〉 rendring of the Land Lessee at Will cannot determin his will within the year but must answer the whole Rent The Plaintiffe not bound to alleadge a speciall breach when the Defendants Plea continues speciall matter Debt for Flemish Money but demanded by the name of 39. l. English If the Obligor marry the Obligee the Bond gone Judgement obtained by an Administrator and after Administration revoked and party took in Execution and delivered because erroneous To plead an Appearance and not say Prout patet per Recordum naâ—gâ—… Nota. Award void for the incertainty for being the Judgement of one it ought to have plainness and certainty Judgement obtained by President of the Colledge of Phisicians his Successor after his Death and not his Executor shall have Execution Assurance Tithe shall be paid of Wood above twenty years growth if it be not Timber Variance between the Obligation and count shall not be shewed after imparlance Demand of Rent must be at the place of Payment Judgement reversed in an inferior Court for want of this word Dicit Want of an Original after a Verdict no Error but a vitious Original is Error Plea naught for want of a Traverse Nota. Plaintiff in Debt for Tithes need not be named Rector in the Plaint in the upper Bench. Tithes cannot be leased without Deed Judgement reversecâ— for Error in the Judgement If a Suggestion in part need proof and part doth not no Costs Judgement reversed for Error in changing the Defendants Additions Action upon the Statute for Tithes the Statute mistaken yet it being according to divers Presidents ruled good Bill abated for not naming an Infant Executor in the Action although Administration was granted during his minority Action upon the Statute 32 H. 8. of Arrerages of Rents Action lies not upon that Statute for Arrerages of Copy-hold Rents Action of Debt brought upon a Bill for money received to another use An Executor of his own wrong cannot retain Goods in his hand to pay himself Primo deliberat shall not be pleaded without a Traverse If the Plaintiff assign no breach he shall never have a Judgement though he hath a Verdict Rent reserved at Michaelmas or within ten dayes after due at Michaelmas A Judgement reversed by Writ of error notwithstanding a Verdict and the Statute of 18 Eliz. Executor shall not pay Costs upon the statute of 4 Jacobi cap. 3. How a reservation for Rent shall be construed One must not plead in discharge of the Obligation but of the Condition contained in the Obligation A contingent Debt cannot be discharged False Latine shall not overthrow an Obligation A Deed of gift good against him that makes it notwithstanding 13 Eliz. and against his Executors and Administrators Action brought upon an Obligation to stand to the Award of four or two of them Award made by two good Debt Judgement arrested for Nil shewing in what Court the Deed was inrolled Judgement reversed for want of these words in a Tales at Assises nomina Jurat c. By a Release of all demands money to be paid at a day to come may be released before the day If the Defendant confess he hath Assets the Sheriff may return a Devastavit Action of Debt brought against the Sheriff upon an Escape for one taken upon a Capias upon a Recognisance and adjudged that it would not lie Debt brought upon a Lease made to an Infant One may take his Executioâ— either against the principall or Bail at Election An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond
Plaintiff SMith versus Bolles Sheriff of London Pasc 9. Jac. rotulo 1353. In case for that the name of the Sheriffs were omitted on the venire fac And for that cause one Judgement given for the said Smith was reversed by Writ of Error And for that Misprision Smith brought such Action of the Case HArris versus Adams If thou hadst had thy Right thou hadst been hanged for breaking of Paches House the words not actionable Thou art a Thief thou hast stollen the Town-beam meaning the Town of Wickham Serjeant Hutton of opinion the Action would lie STephens Attourney versus Battyn for words Thou hast cozened M. Windsor of his Fee and I will sue thee for it in the Star-chamber for that thou didst not come for Windsor Judgement for the Plaintiff Trin. 11. Jac. BRadley versus Jones Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3390. The Plaintiff brings his Action upon the Case for unjust vexation The Defendant had exhibited Articles against the Plaintiff to have the good Behaviour against him and took his Oath before Doctor Cary one of the Masters of the Chancery and afterwards the Defendant ceased prosecution there and obtained from the Kings Bench a Supplicavit to have the good Behaviour there And the Court was of opinon that the Action would lie because he prosecuted in the Kings Bench and not in the Chancery But the Court said that if he had prosecuted in the Chancery though the Articles had been scandalous yet no Action would have lyen for a man shall not be punished for mistaking the Law for he may be misadvised by his Counsel BRooks versus Clerk Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 307. Action brought for these words His Son Brooks hath deceived me in a Reckoning for Wares And his Debt-book which he keepeth for Sale of Wares in his Shop is a false Debt-book and I will make him ashamed of his Calling Hubbart and Nichols against the Plaintiff and Warburton for the Plaintiff Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. Action of the Case brought for a Nusance for building the Defendants House so near the Plaintiffs that a great part of it superpends And the Plaintiff in the conveying his Title shews a Lease for years made to him if the Lessor should so long live and doth not aver the Life of the Lessor but saith that by vertue of the Demise the Plaintiff hath been and then was thereof possessed and adjudged sufficient MOrton versus Leedell Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 1783. Action of the Case for these words He meaning the Plaintiff is a lying dissembling Fellow and a mainsworn and forsworn Fellow And Judgement for the Plaintiff after divers motions THomas Attourney versus Axworth Pasch 11. Eliz. rotulo 352. Action of the Case for these words This is John Thomas his writing and he hath forged this Warrant meaning a Warrant made by Buller Sheriff of that County upon a Capias prosecuted out of the Court of Common Pleas by M. H. against the Defendant and directed to the Sheriff ROw versus Alport Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1527. Action upon the Case brought for suing in the Admiral Court for a thing done upon the Land and not upon the high Sea BRay versus Ham Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1994. Action of the Case for these words Thou art a cozening Knave and thou hast cozened me in selling false Measure in my Barley and the Countrey is bound to curse thee for selling with false Measure and I will prove it and thou hast changed my Barley which I bought of thee And the Plaintiff sets forth in his Declaration that he was Bayliff to W. C. and H. C. of certain Lands in P. for three years and during the said time had the care and selling of divers Corn and Grain growing upon the same Land and after Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but the Court were of a contrary opinion and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff BRown versus Hook Pasch 13. Jac. rotulo 234. Action of the Case for these words Brown is a good Attourney but that he will play on both sides And it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that those words would not bear an Action but the Court held they were actionable but did not give Judgement because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Declaration that the words were spoken of himself STober versus Green Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1â—91 Action of the Case for these words Thou didst keep and sell by false Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false two Ounces and thy Man will be a Witness against thee and I will prove it The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff occupied one Shop and kept unlawfull Weights and by such Weights sold by reason whereof he said these words Videlicet Thou didst keep and sell by unlawfull Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false an Ounce and three quarters and thy Man c. And traversed the words in the Declaration and it was adjudged a naughty Traverse for that the words in the Bar and justified by the Defendant are actionable AGar versus Lisle Mich. 11. Jac. rot 318. Action of Trover brought in York-shire the Defendant justifies for Toll at Darnton in Durham and traverse c. The Court doubts of his Traverse being onely for the County of York whereas it ought to be any where else generally And Hobart said the Bar was nought because in the justification no conversion was sufficiently alleadged And note that if a man doth a thing which is allowable by the Law as to distrain Cattle and impound them that is no conversion but if he work them it is a conversion AVstin versus Austin Trin. 10. Jac. rotulo 3558. In Troyer the Defendant pleads that before the time that the Plaintiff supposes the Goods to come to the Defendants hands one S. A. was possessed of the Goods and amongst other Goods sold them to the Defendant but kept them in his own hands and afterwards sold them to the Plaintiff by reason whereof the Plaintiff was possessed and afterwards looses them and they came to the Defendants hands who converts them as it was lawfull for him to do The Plaintiff demurs and it was held a naughty Bar for it amounts to a Non cul And Cook doubted whether the Court should compell the Defendant to plead Non cul or award a Writ of Injury And a Writ of Inquire was awarded ALlyns versus Sparkes al. Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 1606 Action of the Case brought for stopping up the Plaintiffs way and the Plaintiff declares that one H. B. was seised of the Mannour of M. of which two Acres were customary Land and that the Lord of the Mannour had for himself and his customary Tenants for the said two Acres a certain high-way in by and thorow c. And that the Lord of the Mannour granted the said two
agreement was not by him performed CRockhay versus Woodward Hill 15. Jac. rotulo 2001. An Action of Covenant brought upon this Writing Videlicet Memorandum that I John Woodward do promise and assume unto B. C. to pay to him such Moneys or other Goods as Josias my son shall imbessell mispend or wrongfully detain of his during the time of his being Apprentice with him within three Moneths next after request to me in that behalf made and due proof made of such imbesselling or wrongfull detaining in witness c. and the Plaintiff shews that the Defendants son did imbessell Goods of his Masters and shewed what Goods and left out in his Declaration these words Videlicet and due proof likewise made of such imbesselling or wrongfull detaining The Defendant demands Oyer of the Writing and pleads that he did not imbessell and it was tried for the Plaintiff and after Triall Exception taken because the Plaintiff did not alleadge any proof made and for that reason Judgement was arrested BRagg Assignee of Bragg versus Wiseman Executor of Fitch Mich. 12. Jac. rotulo 538. Action of Covenant brought and the case was this that Fitch and his Lady were seised of Land in right of his Wife for terme of her life and joyn together in a Lease by Deed indented in which were these words demise and grant and afterwards Fitch dieth the Lady enters and avoids the Lease and maketh a new Lease to a stranger whereupon an Electione firme is brought against the first Lessee and Judgement thereupon and the first Lessee put out of Possession whereupon the first Lessee brings his Action of Covenant against the Executors of Fitch upon the words demise and grant The Defendant demurrs The words were have demised granted and to farm letten for years if the Wife should so long live and Judgement for the Difendant A Covenant in Law shall not be extended to make one do more then he can which was to warrant it as long as he lived and no longer The Law doth not binde a man to an inconvenience If Tenant for Life make a Lease for twenty years and covenant that the Defendant shall injoy it during the terme that shall be during his Life for the terme endeth by his Death but otherwise it is if the Covenant be during the terme of twenty years by the word Demise an Action of Covenant lieth although he never enter and this word Demise implieth as much as Dedi concessi An Action of Covenant brought for that the Defendant covenants to bring again a Ship Perils and Damages of Sea onely excepted and he to excuse himself saith that the Hollander in a warlike manner by force and armes took the Ship and much doubt was where the Issue should be tried and the opinion of the Court was that the Action should be tried where it was laid COwling versus Drury Action of Covenant brought for that the Defendant did not pay a Rent with which the Land was charged the Defendant replies he was to injoy the Land sufficiently saved harmless and answers not the Breach and adjudged a naughty Bar by the whole Court SElby versus Chute Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3804. Action of Covenant brought and the Breach was alleadged that the Plaintiff should quietly injoy the Land demised to him and he shews that Chute exhibited a Bill in Chancery against him pretending the Lease was made in trust and it was decreed to be otherwise and whether the exhibiting this Bill was a Breach of Covenant there being no Disturbance at Common Law was the Question and the Court were of opinion that it was no Breach of Covenant for it was no Disturbance at Common Law nor Entry and the Law could not take notice of it and Judgement for the Defendant HOlder versus Tailor Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 1358. An Action of Covenant brought upon this Covenant that the Lessee should repair the House provided alwayes and it was agreed that the Lessee should have such necessary Timber to be allowed and delivered by the Lessor and the Breach was that the House wanted Reparations and that so many Loads of Timber were necessary and that the Lessor allowed them according to the form and effect of the Indenture and a general Request laid and Exception was taken to the Declaration for that the Plaintiff did not alleadge a special request to the Defendant and that it was laid in the Declaration that a stranger brought the Timber which was held to be naught by the whole Court for it amounted to an Entry upon the Lessees Possession Exception taken to a Breach laid in Covenant for Repairs because it was generally alleadged and not shewed in what but being after a Verdict it was helped by the opinion of the whole Court TIsdale versus Essex Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 2131. Action of Covenant brought upon these words covenant promise and agree that the Lessee should quietly occupy and injoy the Lands demised for and during the terme of seven years and the Plaintiff shews that an Estranger entred upon the Land and shews not that he entred by Title and the Court was of opinion that it was naught because it did not appear that he had a good Title to enter Dedit concessit imply a Warranty for Life and Judgement was given for the Defendant because the Breach was naught HIcks versus Action of Covenant brought and the Land alleadged to be in Weston alias Weston Vnderwood and the Venn was de visu de VVeston Vnderwood and it was alleadged by the Defendant that the Venn was mis-awarded because it was not of VVeston onely but the Court was of a contrary opinion that it was well awarded and Judgement for the Plaintiff CAstilion al. versus Smith Exec. Smith Trin. 17. Jac. rotulo 1849. Action of Covenant brought against the Defendant and the breach of Covenant alleadged to be in the time of the Executor and the Judgement was entred of the Goods of the Testators the Breach was for plowing of Land contrary to Covenant RIdent versus Took Hill 13. Jac. rotulo 3516. Action of Covenant brought to discharge the Plaintiff of a single Bill in which he was bound for the Debt of the Defendant and he alleadges for Breach non-payment and a Suit and recovery at Law for the Money which remained in force The Defendant pleaded that he paid the Money at the Day and thereof gave the Plaintiff notice before the purchasing his Writ the Plaintiff demurs and the Court held the Plea naught and Judgement for the Plaintiff Actions upon Account WIlloughby against Small An Action of Account brought against the Defendant as Receiver of the Plaintiffs Money The Defendant pleads that he never was Receiver where he hath a Release from the Plaintiff whereby he shall lose the benefit of his Release for that he cannot give that in Evidence upon such Issue The Process herein is Summons Pone Distress and upon a Nichil returned
upon the Summons pone or Distress the Outlary lies the Process is returnable from fifteen Dayes to 15 Dayes an Essoin lies In this Action there are two Judgements the first Judgement is that the Defendant shall account because he hath not accounted before in this first Judgement the Plaintiff shall not recover Costs or Damages but a Capias ad computand shall issue and if a Non est inventus shall be returned thereupon then an Exigent and when the Defendant by the rigor of the Law is imprisoned yet the Court doth in favour of the Defendant take Bail for he shall account before Auditors which the Court shall appoint which shall be the Officers of the Court to audit the Account and he shall appear from day to day before the Auditors at every day and place assigned by the Auditors untill the Account shall be determined and before the Auditors the Plaintiff or Defendant may joyn Issue or demurr upon the Plea pleaded before the Auditors and if any of the parties shall make Default and shall not appear then if after Appearance the Defendant shall not plead or if he shall joyn Issue or joyn in a Demurrer the Auditors shall certifie that to the Court and the Court shall proceed to the matter certified by triall of the Issue if it be joyned or by arguing the Demurrer as the cause shall require and if the Plaintiff shall make Default or shall not prosecute or if the Defendant shall not answer they may commit him to the Fleet and if Verdict pass for the Plaintiff Costs and Damages shall be recovered by reason of the inter-pleadings and the Plaintiff shall recover his Goods or Moneys demanded with his Costs and Damages and a Fisa or Elegit or casa shall be awarded and if a Non est inventus be returned then an Outlary after Judgement An account against a Bailiff of Lands shall be brought in the County where the Lands lie In every case in account where an Attachment may be returned an Essoyn lies Where the Defendant is charged to account for Moneys received from the hands of the Plaintiff the Defendant may wage his Law and likewise for Goods delivered to be sold but it is otherwise where the Receit is by the hands of a Testator or of any other then the Plaintiff That after a year and a day after Judgement given every Action shall be revived by Scire facias which is given by the Statute for all Actions at Law if the Plaintiff shall not obtain his Execution within a year and a day he shall be driven to bring a new Action Or if a Defendant be charged as Receiver by Indenture he shall not be admitted to plead that he was not a Receiver If the Plaintiff die before the second Judgement the Writ shall abate and no Scire facias lies for the Executor if the Defendant die before the second Judgement If two be adjudged to account and a Ca. exfa. issue and one appear and the other be outlawed he that appears shall account alone for that the Plaintiffs Process is determined against the other and so if one die the other shall account alone and if one be adjudged to account and will not he shall be committed to the Fleet. That if I deliver Goods to one to the value of 100. l. to traffique with for my use and he sels them for 10. l. I have no remedy but if my Bailiff buy a thing for 10. l. which is not worth it he shall not be allowed it Account lies not before a Sheriff for that he can assigne no Auditors If two be joyntly possest of Goods one of the two deliver the Goods for Merchandise he onely shall bring the Action An Account lies not against an Executor or Infant An Account lies not for a Park of Deer Matter that is in discharge of an Account shall not be pleaded in Barr of the Action for the Judges are Judges of the Action and not of the Account If Money be delivered to render an Account an Account lies but if it was delivered to keep untill the Plaintiff shall require Account doth not lie but Detinue If the Plaintiff account upon Witness of the Receit the Defendant shall not wage his Law If an Account shall be brought for Goods in the Declaration the Plaintiff declares that they were in his house whereas indeed they were not it is good HArrington versus Dean Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 3230. Action of Account render brought against the Defendant for the Receit of Money by the hands of one Rotheram for 200. l. The Defendant pleads that he was not a Receiver for to render an Account the Jury finde it specially that Rotheram was indebted to the Plaintiff in 200. l. and the Plaintiff required the Defendant to receive the said 200. l. and the Defendant required Rotheram to pay the 200. l. and Rotheram upon Request to him made desires the Defendant to borrow of any person 200. l. and to pay the Plaintiff and finde that the Defendant did borrow 200. l. of one Stanhop to pay the Plaintiff and Rotheram became bound to Stanhop for the payment of the said 200. l. and that the Defendant appointed his Wife to pay the Money to the Plaintiff and if upon the whole matter c. and Judgement was given that the Defendant was a Receiver THe Earle of Cumberland against Hilton The Clerk that entred the Cause had omitted the Charge which was for 400. l. and it was omitted in the Roll and Nisi prius and after a Verdict Excepon taken and amended by the Court. Assise IN an Assise Trin. 29. Jacobi rotulo 27. brought against Thacker and Elmer the Defendants come and say that there was no Tenants of the Tenements put to the view of the Recognisors of the Assise aforesaid nor at the time of purchasing the Writ to wit such a Day nor any time after and this they were ready to verifie and pray Judgement and if so then they say that they have done no injury or Disseisin of the Tenements with the appurtenances to the said W. T. and put themselves upon the Assise and the said W. T. doth so likewise therefore the Assise was taken between them and thereupon the Recognisors of the Assise say that the said E. E. at the purchasing of the original Writ of the Assise Videlicet such a Day were Tenants of the Tenement aforefaid with the appurtenances as of his Free-hold and that the said W. T. was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of Fee untill the said E. did unjustly and without judgement disseise the said VV. but not by force and armes and assess Damages to 12. d. and for Costs 6. d. and Judgement given that the said VV. should recover his Seisin of the Tenements aforesaid against the said E. by the view of the Recognisors of the Assise and his
adjudged insufficient and a new Writ awarded but many held that in the case of a Cognisor it was well enough but not in the case of a Purchasor If one knowledge a Statute and after a Judgement is had against the Cognisor now against the Cognisor the Statute shall be preferred but not against an Executor If a man plead a Bond knowledged to the King in the Exchequer it must be averred to be a true Debt If a Debt be assigned to the King in this case no priority of Execution If one staul a Debt by 20. s. a year this shall not stay my Execution the Court were of opinion that an Extent would not be good at Barwick for the Writ runs not there If a Judgement be given in a Court of Record it shall be preferred in case of an Executor before a Statute But if a man acknowledge a Statute and afterwards confess a Judgement and if the Land be extended upon the Judgement the Cognisee shall have a Scire facias to avoid the Extent upon the Judgement otherwise in case of Goods for therein first come first served for if I have a Judgement against one and afterwards he acknowledgeth a Statute and by vertue of the Statute the Goods of him being dead were taken in the Executors hands then upon the Judgement a Scire facias was sued and afterwards a Fieri facias of the Testators Goods it was held that the Goods first extended were lawfully extended and shall be good A Judgement was had against Sir Fr. Freeman and an Extent came to the Sheriff and afterwards and before any thing was thereupon done one Fieri facias against the Executor upon a Judgement given before the acknowledging the Statute was delivered to the Sheriff and the Question was whether the Extent or Fieri facias shall be first executed And note if the Land be first extended upon the Statute and afterwards an Elegit upon a Judgement obtained before the acknowledging the Statute come also to the Sheriff the moity of the Land extended shall be delivered to the Plaintiff upon the Judgement HIll 15. Jac. The case of Villainage is within the Statute of Limitation and in the case of M. Corbet it was held that the Prescription of the Seisin of the Plaintiff and his Ancestors as Villain was more then needeth and the Issue thereupon taken was good by the whole Court after Exception taken thereupon and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In every Elegit the Sheriff must return and set out the moity distinctly unless they be Tenants in common and in that case he must return the special matter An Extent issued out against one Greisley by the name of Greisley Esquire who was at the time of suing out the Writ made Knight and Baronet and it was naught and the Plaintiff prosecuted a new Writ MIch 10. Jacobi A Tenant by Statute Staple or Elegit that hath extended an Abbots Lease or a Lease made out of an Abbots Lease is not bound to shew it because he cometh in by Act of Law but any other that cometh in under the Lease must shew it by the opinion of the whole Court And note that in Hillary 10. Jac. two Inquisitions taken at several Dayes by several Juries upon one Statute Merchant were adjudged naught one was taken of the Land and the other for Land and Goods and Extent of the whole fourth part was naught for it should be of the moity of the fourth part and mark it was of a Lease which was but a Chattell and the Sheriff might have sold it as Goods but seeing he had extended it in this case he should receive benefit but as in a common Extent COmyrrs versus Brandling A Lessee that had a Lease of the value of 100. l. and after the Teste of the Elegit and before the Sheriff had executed the Elegit assignes his terme to one who assignes it over to the Plaintiff in the Scire facias and afterwards and before the last Assignement the Sheriff executes the Elegit and delivers the Lease to the Plaintiff tenend c. for satisfaction of the Debt which came to but 43. l. 6. s. 8. d. it was held by all the Judges that the Sheriff could not deliver the Lease at another value then what the Jury had found it at and the Sale made by the Sheriff is as strong as if it had been made in open Market and that all the Goods and Chattels are bound after the Teste of the Elegit and cannot be sold by the Owner after the Teste of the Writ If a later Extent be avoided by an ancient Extent after the ancient Extent is satisfied the later Extent shall have the Land according to his first Extent without any re-extent by the opinion of Serjeant Hutton if the Husband charge the Lease of the Wife and dieth the Wife shall hold the Land discharged HIll 12. Jac. The Earl of Lincoln against Wood the Earl of Lincoln did arrest Wood upon a Capias upon a Statute Merchant Wood being in Execution obtained in the Chancery an Audita Quaerela and did put in Bail there and had a Supersedeas and was discharged of his Imprisonment and the Audita Quaerela and Bail sent into the Common Pleas to be proceeded on The cause of the Audita Quaerela was grounded upon the performance of the Defeasons of a Statute and after this case was debated for the Bailment of Wood and held by the Court to be good it was allowed of If the Act for Dissolution of Monasteries had not given the Land to the King the Founders ought to have had them And if an Hospital or religious House is impeached upon the Statute of Superstitious uses it must be proved to be regular for they must be religious that are dissolved by E. 6. JOules versus Joules Alderman purchased Land of one against whom a Judgement was given long before the Purchase and the Vendor afterwards became unable to pay the Judgement and long after the Plaintiff in the Judgement purchased a Scire facias against the Defendant and had Judgement against the Defendant by Default and afterwards had an Elegit and by vertue of that the Sheriff extends the Land of Joules the Purchasor who prayes the aid of the Court because the whole Land was not extended but he was forced to bring his Audita Quaerela If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent during my Life and my Wives Life if I die the Rent is gone because she is a stranger she shall never have the Rent because she hath no Interest in the Land if one of them die nothing can survive to the other and a Limitation must be taken strictly otherwise it is by way of Grant that shall be taken strongly against the Grantor If 2. Tenants in common joyn in a Lease for years to bring an Ejectment and count Quod cum dimisissent c.
open any Chest which is locked and take the Goods in that in Execution and if he doth it not an Action of Case will lie against him In Debt if it be demanded by Original the Process is Summons Attachment and Distress and for Default of sufficiency upon a Nichil returned Process to the Outlary if the Summons or Attachment be returned an Essoyn lies And Wager of Law lies if the Count be upon a simple Contract And if the Parties be living which made the Contract or Debt against an Heir the Writ shall be brought in the Debet but when it is brought against an Executor or Administrator or of Chattels it shall be in the Detinet tantum The Judgement in Debt where the Demand is in the Debet detinet is to recover the Debt Damages and Costs of Suit and the Defendant in misericordia but if the Defendant denies his Deed then a Capias for his Fine issues out And if the Original be in the Detinet for Chattels then the Judgement is to recover the thing in Demand or the value thereof and Costs and Damages and the Process of Execution is a Distress to deliver the Chattels or the value and Damages And if the cause of Action be against Executors or Administrators the Judgement is to recover the Debt and Damages of the Testators Goods if the Executor hath so much in his hands and if he hath not then the Damages of the Executors or Administrators proper Goods And if the Sheriff upon a Scire facias return a Devastavit then a Fieri facias or Elegit may be sued out to levy the Debt and Damages of the Executors or Administrators proper Goods And if the Executor plead that he never was Executor and it is found against him that he hath administred but one Penny the Judgement shall be to recover the Debt and Damages of the Executors own Goods Debt brought upon a Record the Execution shall be brought where the Record remaines MIch 9. Jac. rotulo 2304. Throckmorton Administrator versus Hobby The Aministrator releases and afterwards the Administration is revoked and declared by Sentence to be void and null and then the Release is void TRin. 9. Jac. rotulo 917. Brookesby Vaux versus M. Tresham Executor of the Testament of T. T. and Exception was taken to the Defendants pleading because the Defendant pleads divers Statutes to divers persons and the Plaintiff shews that some were by fraud and that others were for performance of Covenants that were not broken and for other Statutes that they were satisfied and the Defendant in pleading a Statute by three sayes two of them did not pay and doth not say that the three nor any of them have not paid In pleading of a Statute it must be generally pleaded that it is a true Debt And my Lord Cook held that a man without a Defeasance may plead that the Statute was acknowledged for Payment of a lesser summ and it was held that if the Count be good and the Plea naught and Replication naught if it appears that the Plaintiff had good cause of Action the Plaintiff shall have Judgement And Warburton said that one may plead generally that the Statute was acknowledged by fraud without shewing the special matter SPeak versus Richards The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Money levied by the Sheriff upon a Levari facias and not paid to the Plaintiff upon the Sheriffs Return upon the Levari issued out of the Chancery and that it would well lie But note the Plaintiff had concluded his Demurrer ill for he demurring to the Defendants Plea which was grounded upon a Release should have demanded Judgement if the Defendant should be admitted to plead a Release which was made after the Sheriff had made his Return TRin. 15. Jac. rotulo 1630. Parson versus Middleton Action of Debt brought to be tried in Durham and the Record sent to the Chancellor of Durham because the Bishops Sea was empty and before the Day given by the Judges a Bishop was elected and he sent the Record and not the Chancellor MIch 15. Jac. rotulo 2118. Maddock versus Young The Plantiff brought an Action of Debt for an Escape against the Sheriff upon a Capias utlegat after Judgement the Defendant pleads that there was no such Record of the Recovery of the Debt and Damages to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs pretending he had not directly and plainly answered the Declaration but Judgement was given for the Defendant Where a Capias is not the Process a Capias ad satisfaciendum is not the Execution and no Capias lies against a Countess or Baroness and at Common Law no Capias ad satisfaciendum would lie but onely where the Action was Vi armis but onely a Levari facias MIch 14. Jac. rotulo 3140. Bawkey versus Isted An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes of Land lying within the Parish of Horsted parva the Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and after Triall and a Verdict Exception was taken to the Venire facias because the Venire facias was of Horsted parva and not of the Parish of Horsted parva but the Court were of opinion that it might be either of the Town or Parish of Horsted parva and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff because both the Town and Parish were named in the Record An Action of Debt brought against an Administrator who pleads that the Intestate was indebted to him and that he had fully administred and that he had no Goods or Chattels which were the Intestates beyond Goods and Chattels to the value of 10. l. which the Administrator retains towards satisfaction of the said Debt to him due the Court were of opinion that the Administrator ought to plead generally fully administred else the Debtor should be prejudiced in taking Issue upon that Plea the Case was between Fox and Andrew PAsch 6. Jac. rotulo 751. Sharpley versus Hurrell Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation and the Defendant pleads the Statute of Usury and sets forth that one Ship went a fishing to New-found-land which Voyage might be performed within eight Moneths the Plaintiff delivered fifty pounds to the Defendant to pay sixty pounds upon the Return of the Ship to Dartmouth from fishing and if the Ship should not come to New-found-land by reason of Leakage or Tempest should return to Dartmouth then the Defendant should pay the principal Debt and if the Ship should never return he should pay nothing and it was held by the Court that it was not Usury for if the Ship stayed at the New-found-land two years he should pay but 60. l. An Action of Debt brought against an Executor who pleads that he had nothing in his hands at the time of the Writ purchased and saith not nor any time after the Plea is not good but if the Plaintiff had took Issue
that he had Assets at the Day of the Writ purchased and it had been found for the Plaintiff now the Plea is made good If an Action of Debt be brought against two Executors and one of them onely appear and confess the Action the Judgement shall be against both of them of the Goods of the Testators in the hands of all the Executors and the Damages of him that appeared onely TRin. 16. Jac. rotulo 988. Houldsworth versus Barker An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill the Defendant pleads the Bill was delivered to the Plaintiff upon a Condition not performed and it was held a naughty Plea by the whole Court HIll 13. Jacobi rotulo 842. Harrison al. at the Suit of Fleet. An Action of Debt brought for 32. l. and the Plaintiff counts upon an Emisset Harrison pleads that he and the other do not detain from the Plaintiff the said 32. l. nor any Penny thereof and the other pleads to Issue and a special Entry made that the Issue should remain untill the said Harrison had perfected his Law or made Default and he at the Day did wage his Law and Judgement was that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ PAsch 16. Jac. rotulo 1200. Rayson versus Winder An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform an Award which was good in part and void in part and the Breach assigned upon the good part and the Award was to pay Money but no time of Payment afterwards it was demanded the Award is good GAsington versus Burcher Knight Turner Jones and Bowden for 1800. l. Burcher was outlawed Turner and Jones appeared by Supersedeas and Bawden appeared by another Attorney and the Plaintiff declared against them three that appeared upon an Account Turner offered to wage his Law and the others plead Nil debent per patriam and the Court was moved pretending that Turner shal not be admitted to wage his Law because the Defendants should not sever in Plea but the Court upon sight of divers Presidents were of another opinion although it was urged that Turner Jones joyned in a Supersedeas and therefore pretend that Turner should not sever in Plea from Jones that pleaded Nil debet per patriam but that Exception was disallowed for although two appear by Supersedeas yet they may vary in Plea MIch 16. Jac. rotulo 581. and the Imparlance entred 16. Jac. rotulo 1727. An Action of Debt brought by Lee versus Arrowsmith upon an Emisset for divers Parcels and upon an Account and the Parcels and Account amounted to the summ of 300. l. but in the Imparlance Roll the Parcels and summ accounted for did not amount to 300. l. by 6. l. And this variance was moved in Arrest of Judgement after a Verdict but the Court were of opinion that it was amendable because Ball the Attorney made Oath that he commanded his Clerk to summ the Account for 6. l. to maintain his Writ and therefore the Roll was amended HIll 36. Eliz. rotulo 1908. Action of Debt brought by Gage versus Gilbert upon an Obligation for 500. l. bearing Date first of February Anno 25. Eliz. The Defendant pleads a general Release made to him by the Plaintiff bearing Date after the making of the Bond of all Dues and Demands whatsoever except an Award made between the Plaintiff and one G. W. why R. R. then dead and one Obligation of 500. l. for performance of the said Award bearing Date 29. April 25. Eliz. and whether these words bearing Date 29. April shall have reference to the Arbitrement or Bond was the Question upon a Demurrer upon the Replication in which the Plaintiff shewed the special matter that the Award was made the 29. April and that the Bond was made the said first of February and it was adjudged that these words bearing Date should have reference to the Award and not to the Bond. And if the Heir pleads Ciens per discent besides one Acre if the Plaintiff please he may have Execution of that Acre or if the Plaintiff plead that he hath Assets beyond that Acre and it be found that he hath ten Acres more the Plaintiff shall have Execution of the Land onely and not of his person as it is where the Heir pleads that he hath nothing by Discent generally and it is found against him that Land and all other his Land which he hath and his Body are liable to the Judgement by a Capias ad satisfaciend Fieri facias or Elegit If a man be retained in London to serve beyond Sea he may have his Action for his Wages in England in any County And the like of an Obligation bearing Date at Roan in France it may be sued in England alleadging the place to be in such a County where he brings his Action And note that Debt may be brought in the Common Pleas without Original against any Officer or Minister of the said Court by Bill exhibited to the Court but no Process of Outlary lies upon that and the Judgement upon that is that the Plaintiff shall recover his Debt and Costs and shall have an Attachment ad satisfaciendum but no Exigont for because it is not by Original and all the Process by Bill shall be returnable at a Day certain but no Bill lies against a Serjeant at Law And note that the Judges Serjeants and Officers Clerks Attorneys and Ministers of the Court may have an Attachment of Priviledge out of the said Court without an Original to arrest any to them indebted or for any personal cause to proceed upon it as if it were by Original but no Process of Outlary lies thereupon and such Process of Attachment shall be returnable at a Day certain and not at the common Return and they may be returned from Day to Day If a man be bound to perform an Award of Arbitrators and they make an Award accordingly that one shall pay Money he may have his Action of Debt for the Money and declare upon the Award and afterward may have another Action upon the Obligation for not performing the Award by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 5. Caroli An Action of Debt brought by an Executor the Defendant pleads an Outlary in the person of the Executor and demands Judgement if he ought to answer his Writ the Plaintiff demurrs in Law to that Plea and Judgement was given that the Defendant should answer over WOlly versus B. and his Wife Trin. 37. Eliz. rotulo 1306. An Action of Debt brought by Husband and Wife as Executrix the Defendant pleads in Barr an Outlary in the Testator by an Estranger which is in its force and upon a Demurr and solemn Debate adjudged a naughty Barr. Trin. 40. Eliz. rotulo 507. The like Plea pleaded to an Executor that brought an Action of Debt and adjudged no Plea And Dixon Administrator of Collins exhibited a Bill against
Fawden an Attorney of the Common Pleas and he pleads in Barr an Outlary against the Administrator and adjudged no Plea MIch 4. Ed. 4. rotulo 144. An Action of Debt was brought against J. R. de W. in Com. L. Chapman the Defendant appeared by his Attorney and offered to wage his Law and essoyned and at that Day the Plaintiff appeared and the Defendant being solemnly required one J. R. came to answer the Plaintiff as Defendant in that Action in his proper person and offered to wage his Law the Plaintiff said that J. R. now appearing to wage his Law ought not to be admitted because the said J. R. is not that person which the Plaintiff prosecutes because this I. R. appearing is I. R. de W. in Com. L. Jun. Chapman and he who the Plaintiff prosecutes is I. R. de W. in Com. L. Sen. Chapman both of them at the purchasing the Plaintiffs Writ living at W. and that he agreed with the Defendant so to do therefore because I. R. de c. hath not appeared to wage his Law prayes Judgement the Defendant confesses such matter and sayes that he beleiving that the Writ was prosecuted against him appeared by his Attorney and offered to wage his Law and prayes to be discharged of the Debt and the other I. R. being exacted appeared not and the Court would advise but no Judgement for the Plaintiff HIll 26. Eliz. rotulo 420. The Lessor makes a Lease by Indenture for years and the Lessee grants over his whole Terme and the Lessor grants over the Reversion and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the Reversion should have an Action of Debt for the Arrears of Rent against the Assignee of the terme and not against the first Lessee HIll 43. Eliz. Pasch 41. Eliz. rotulo 425. An Action of Debt brought against an Executor in the Debet detinet for Rent due in the time of the Executor upon a Lease made to the Testator upon a Judgement given in the upper Bench and that Judgement was reversed in the Exchequer because it was not in the Detinet alone but afterwards in the upper Bench. Int. dominum Rich. Frank Administrator for Arrears due after the Death of the Intestate it was adjudged good in the Debet detinet and also in the Common Pleas Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 2013. MIch 30. 31. Eliz. rotulo 907. An Action of Debt brought to which the Defendant pleads an Outlary against the Plaintiff in its force the Plaintiff replies the general Pardon granted by Parliament the Defendant demurrs and Judgement that he should answer over MIch 40. 41. Eliz. Ralph Rogers brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of 400. l. and Judgement was entred by the Clerk upon a Nichil dic that the said Roger should recover c. and for that Default the Defendant brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgement given for Ralph and when the Record was certified the Judges of the then Kings Bench would not proceed And afterwards the Judges of the Common Pleas upon a motion and before another Writ of Error brought amended the Mistake of the Clerk And Justice Walmsley would have committed Keale the Clerk to the Fleet for his carelesness but afterwards the Amendment was withdrawn by the Court and upon further advice the Roll made as it was before An Action of Debt was brought upon a single Bill for Payment of Money upon Demand and the Plaintiff declares generally that he often had requested c. and Serjeant Harris demurres to the Declaration and the opinion of the Court was that he ought to plead yet if the Defendant had demanded Oyer of the Bill and upon that have demurred it had been a good Demurrer because one special Demand was in the Bill and no special Demand alleadged in the Count. MIch 3. Iac. Burnell versus Bowes Action of Debt brought upon a Bond and the Plaintiff in the Imparlance Roll had counted upon a Bond made the tenth of March and an Imparlance thereupon untill the next Terme and in the next Terme he declared as of a Bond made the tenth of May and the Defendant pleaded per Dures and it was entred of Record and the next Terme after Entry thereof the Plaintiff moved that that Mistake might be amended and at first it was denied to be amended because the Defendant had pleaded to it and by that Amendment his Plea should be altered as if he had pleaded that it was not his Deed and the cause of his pleading that Plea was the the Mistake and if that Mistake should be amended he would be trised and overthrown and upon the first motion it was denied to be amended but afterwards granted to be amended by the whole Court for the Imparlance was entred Hillar first of James and the Issue was Pasch second of James but the Defendant was admitted to plead a new at his pleasure MIch 3. Jac. rotulo 2575. Fitch versus Bissie An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to pay Money yearly according to the forme and effect of the Indenture made between the Plaintiff and Defendant the Defendant pleads that there was not any such Indenture made between the Plaintiff and Defendant as is in the Condition supposed and the Plaintiff demurrs upon that Plea for that the Defendant is estopped to plead that Plea KIng and his Wife Executrix of J. Wright Plaintiffs brought a Scire facias after the said Executrix came to full Age against Death and his Wife Administratrix of W. D. to have Execution of a Judgement had by J. D. and H. E. Administrators during the minority of the Executrix upon a Bond entred into to the Testator and whether a Scire facias lay by the Executrix or no was the Question and by the better opinion of the Court it did not lie MAyor and Burgesses of Linn Regis in Norfolk Mich. 10. Jac. rotulo 2413. brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against one Pain and it was Ad respondendum Majori Burgensibus de Linn Regis in Comitatu Norfolciae Pain pleads that it was not his Deed and a special Verdict was found that the Mayor and Burgesses were incorporated by the name of Majores Burgenses Burgi de Linn non per aliud And whether the omission of this word Burgi should barr the Plaintiffs was the Question and Judgement was given by Cook Warburton and Nichols for the Plaintiff for Cook said that if the essential part of the Corporation was named it was sufficient and in this case the Mayor and Burgesses was one essential part and Linn Regis is another essential part and those two were duly expressed and sufficient to maintain the Action and Cook said that those words Et non per aliud shall be intended to be Non per aliud sensum non literae and of the same opinion were the other Judges there NIchols versus Grimwin Mich.
of the Statute are to have and injoy and Winch said it was within the Statute and so the Office of a Cursitor was within that Statute Exception was taken to an Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting out of Tithes because the certainty of Loads of Corn were not expressed but it was held good notwithstanding HAwes versus Birch Hill 12. Jacobi rotulo 1843. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond of 6. l. for the payment of 3. l. upon the 16. of April The Defendant pleads that an Estranger at the Defendants request the said 16. of April made an Obligation to the Plaintiff in lieu of the first Debt and adjudged naught by the whole Court for one thing in Action cannot be a satisfaction for another thing in Action but this being done by a stranger is good by no means Pasch 12. Jacobi The Court was of opinion that if Money be tendred and none ready to receive it and afterwards he to whom the Money is payable demands the Money and the other refuse to pay and afterwards an Action is brought and a Tender pleaded the Court held that the Defendant should pay Damages from the time that the Money was demanded FLeet versus Harrison Hill 13. Jac. rotulo 841. An Action of Debt brought against two Defendants one of them pleads Nil debet per patriam and the other lets a Judgement go by Default and he that waged his Law at the Day appointed performed it and Judgement that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ for a Respectuatur of the Judgement was entred untill the other had done his Law WIlliamson versus Spark Mich. 13. Jac. rotulo 3511. Upon a cire facias brought against the Bail upon an Attachment of Priviledge The Defendant pleads a Release made after the Verdict and before Judgement which was before the Recognisance was forfeited and if the Recognisee may release before the Damages are ascertained or no was the Question and it seemed he might An Action of Debt brought against a Baker for a Fine imposed on him in a Court Leet and an Exception was taken because it was not alleadged that he sold Bread against the Assise of Bread made to sell for a man may make and bake Bread for his own use under the Assise limited BAcon versus Pain Trin. 14. Jac. An Action of Debt brought and declare that such a Day and Year the Defendant was a Brewer and for one Year then next following and that the Defendant the said Day at K. bought of the Plaintiff the fourth part of the Grains that the Plaintiff that Year next following should make in brewing for 3. l. to be paid upon Request The Defendant pleads that he ought him nothing and after a Triall an Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff did not aver that he made Grains in that Year LOrd versus Huxly An Action of Debt brought on a Judgement thereupon and the Defendant taken in Execution upon that Judgement and afterwards the Plaintiff became Felo dese by which the Almoner seised of all his Goods and afterwards the Almoner would have acknowledged satisfaction of the Debt and Damages in that Judgement and doubted that he could not SAwyer versus Crompton Hill 14. Jac. rotulo The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Costs given before the Judges of the Marshalsey newly erected 9 Jac. by Letters Patents of the same King within the Virge And the Plaintiff declared that whereas at the Court of the said King for the Houshold held at S. in S. within the Virge of the Houshold then at Whitehall such a Day and Year before T. B. Knight Marshall c. and F. B. c. Judges of the said Court to hear and determine all Pleas personal within the Virge between Persons not being of the Houshold arising by vertue of Letters Patents bearing Date such a Day and Year in due manner made came c. and the Court held a repugnancy in the Count and the whole Court against the Plaintiff If it had been brought upon the ancient Court it must be between two of the Houshold and they held that cost lay and the Exception was because the Plaintiff had not shewed the Grant to hold the Court. If a Bond be made to one and he doth not say in the Bond that it shall be paid to the Obligee in this case the Plaintiff must shew that it is to be paid to him though not expressed in the Bond. HOnne Executor of R. Hutton and E. May Pasch 40. Eliz. rotulo 433. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition that the above bound T. G. or his Heirs do or shall at any time before the Purification of the blessed Virgin which shall be in the year 1596. according to the Custome of the Mannour c. Surrender into the hands of the Lord of the same Mannour for the time being all those c. to the use of the said R. Hutton his Heirs and Assignes for ever in such wise as the said R. Hutton his Heirs and Assignes shall or lawfully may by the custome of the Mannour be admitted c. or if after such Admittance the Premises shall be recovered against the said Rich. his Heirs or Assignes by one W. K. within four years then if he shall pay upon notice c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff ought not to have his Action because the said R. Hutton after the making of the Bond and before the said Feast of the Purification which was in the year 1696. to wit the sixth of October 38 Eliz. at B. died The Plaintiff demurs and Judgement for the Plaintiff If one be indebted to one and he dieth intestate and after his Death Administration is committed to the Debtor this is no Release of the Debt If he marry the Executrix of the Debtee and the Executrix dieth the Husband shall be charged with the Debt after her Death VAughan versus Chambers Trin. 20. Eliz. rotulo 145. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond the Defendant pleads the Statute of Usury and shews a corrupt Agreement for Money lent in the year 32. to be paid in 33. and afterwards in 35. a new Bond given for part of the first summ and it was pretended that this Bond was void but it was adjudged because the first Bond was no Corruption the later should not be LEech Attorney versus Phillips Executor of Phillips rotulo 3415. An Action of Debt brought for soliciting a Cause in the upper Bench and it was adjudged by the whole Court that an Action of Debt for Solicitors Fees would not lie but ought to bring an Action of the Case and afterwards the Court held an Action of the Case would not lie PAsch 12. Jac. Grove versus Jourdain An Action of Debt brought against an Administrator who pleads that the intestate was indebted to him
Defendant replies that the Plaintiff had entred into part of the Premises the Day before the Day of Payment and so at Issue upon that and Exception was taken because the Plaintiff had alledged no Demand to be made and the Court held that was implied by the Issue and that it was not necessary FRyer Administrator of Mary Costiden of the Goods not administred by Mary Fryer Executrix of the said M. C. versus Jacobum Gildiich Executor of N. Pope Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1990. The case was this two were bound to one and the Obligee makes the Wife of one of the Obligers his Executrix and one of the Obligers makes the same Woman Executrix and she dies and the Plaintiff takes Administration of the Goods of the Woman not administred and Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court If an Executor hath a Lease and purchaseth the Fee-simple the Lease is gone but it shall be Assets in the Executors hands if a persnal thing be once gone it is extinct for ever If the Husband had survived the Wife he should be charged HArcock Executor of Harcock versus Wrenham Administrator of Wrenham Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1963. A Scire facias brought to revive a Judgement had against the Intestate and the Defendant pleads Plene administravit which was held a naughty Plea by the whole Court for he cannot pay so much as Funerals before he pay the Judgement and therefore that general fully administred is naught The Jury found that the Intestate in trust conveyed one Lease to Fisher and that Fisher promised upon the Payment of 300. l. to re-assure the Interest to Wrenham and after his Death the Administrator the Defendant preferred a Bill in the Chancery as Administrator against Fisher and that the Chancery ordered that Fisher should pay the Defendant for his Interest in the Lease more then the summ received the summ of 1060. l. which was paid the Defendant accordingly and whether that should be Assets was the Question and it was held to be Assets If an Executor make gain of the Testators Money that gain shall be Assets the Doubt in this case was because this was but in Use and now whether the Court shall take notice of this Use they shall being found by the Jury Judgements shall be paid before Statutes or Recognances and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and although in this case the Barr of generally administred be naught yet an Issue taken thereupon and tried shall not arrest the Judgement for the Plaintiff PEase and Stilman Executors Hanchet against E. Meade Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 945. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition if Meade his Executors Administrators or Assignes or any of them shall pay 20. l. within the Porch of the Parish Church of R. unto such person or persons as the said Hanchet shall by her last Will and Testament in writing limit nominate or appoint the same to be made in manner c. The Defendant pleads that the said Hanchet by her last Will and Testament in writing hath not nominated limited or appointed to what person or persons the said 20. l. should be paid The Plaintiff replies and sues that the Testator made him Executor and died and that he took upon him the burden of the Will and that the Defendant did not pay the Executor the Money and a Demurrer thereupon And if it had been to pay to her Assignee that she should name the Executor should have it such things as go by way of Executorship shall be to the Executor without nomination or appointment STannard versus Baxster Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 1123. An Action of Debt brought for Damages recovered in an Assise of Nuzans for stopping the way before special Commissioners The Defendant pleads no such Record and the Record was delivered into the Court by the special Commissioners TRin. 8. Jac. rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition for performance of Covenants of an Indenture The Defendant confesses the Bond and that after the making the Bond and before the purchasing the Plaintiffs Writ the Indenture by the consent and assent of Plaintiff and Defendant was cancelled and the said Plaintiff cancelled the said Indenture and it was held a naughty Plea by the said Court for it did appear but that the Bond might be forfeited For he ought to have pleaded performance of Covenants untill such a Day which Day the Indenture was cancelled BRook versus Smith Hill 9. Jacobi rotulo 829. Two Tenements in Common make a Lease and reserve a Rent and Covenant that neither should release and one of them releaseth his part this is a Breach for that in Debt they both should joyn and now by the Release the Action is gone LAny versus Aldred and another Executor Trin. 10. Jac. vel Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 504. An Action of Debt brought against them as Executors one pleads that he was Administrator and that the Administration was committed to him by the Bishop and pleads a Recovery against him as Administrator and that he had fully administred and had no Assets to satisfie the Judgement and the other Executor acknowledged the Action and the Plea was held a good Plea but it was said the Defendant might have defeated the Action which was brought against him as Executor and therefore they would infer that it was no good Plea but it was a good Plea and it was held by the chief Justice that if an Executor of his own wrong be sued with a rightfull Executor in one Writ the Executor of his own wrong shall not by his Plea prejudice the rightfull Executor MArsh versus Curtis Hill 38. Eliz. rotulo 132. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for performance of Covenants in a Lease upon which Rent is reserved and the Condition was that if the Rent should be behinde then lawfull to re-enter and the Rent was behinde and before re-entry the Rent was accepted The Question was whether he may enter for the Condition broken after the acceptance of the Rent Sir Edward Cook was of opinion that by the acceptance of the Rent he did confirm the Estate but if a Bond be entred into to perform Covenants in a Lease whereupon Rent is reserved and a Fine to be paid with a Condition of re-entry for not paying the Rent or Fine and if the Rent be received and the Fine not paid the acceptance of the Rent doth not take away the Condition for not paying the Fine R. Milton versus R. Pearsey Trin. 10. Iacobi rotulo 445. An Action of Debt brought and in the Venire facias the Defendants name was mistaken for the Venire was to impannell a Jury between R. Milton Plaintiff and I. Pearsey Defendant in a Plea of Debt and the Court held the Venire as none and a new Triall awarded and the like Judgement was given Trin. 7. Iacobi rotulo 787.
Indenture the Covenant was for quiet injoying without let trouble interruption c. The Plaintiff assigned his Breach that he forbad his Tenant to pay his Rent this was held by the Court to be no Breach unlesse there were some other Act and the Defendant pleaded that after the time the Plaintiff said that he forbad the Tenant to pay the Rent the Tenant did pay the Rent to the Plaintiff LEvel versus Hall Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 805. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff brought another Action upon the same Bond in London to which the Defendant there had pleaded Non est factum and it was there found that it was not the Defendants Deed and in London the Entry is upon such a Verdict that the Defendant shall recover Damages against the Plaintiff and that the Defendant should be without day c. but no Judgement that the Plaintiffe should take nothing by his Writ and therefore no Judgement to be barred in another Suit but barr the Plaintiffe for it is onely a triall and no Judgement and the Plea was adjudged naught by the whole Court MIch 15. Jac. Rotulo 2215. One made another his Executor and that Executor died and made another his Executor and the last Executor refused to own his first Will as to his goods and this matter was pleaded in his Action of Debt brought by an Administrator of the Goods of the first Executor pretending the Administration was void although the Executor refused to be Executor as to the Goods and the Court held the Administration void for the Executor cannot be Executor for part at his own Election and not for part and the Defendant pleaded that the Executor should not bring his Action as Administrator but as Executor WHerwood versus Shaw Mich. 44. and 45 Eliz. Shaw Executor of A. brought an Action of Debt against Wherwood Administrator of Feild upon a Bill made by Field to A. by which Feild doth acknowledge himself to have received of one P. forty l. to be equally divided between the said A. and B. to their use and upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas Wherwood brings a Writ of Error and the Judgement was affirmed the matters moved were i. because the forty pounds was given to be equally divided between A and B. therefore they were Tenants in common of it and Shaw should have joyned B. in the Action with himself as Tenants in common are to joyn in personall action but over-ruled that in this case there were severall Debts to wit twenty pound to one and twenty pounds to the other as in case of ten pounds rent reserved upon a Lease to wit five pounds at the Feast of Michaelmas and five pounds at the Feast of the Annunciation yet it is but one Rent and this case is not to be resembled to the Cases of Interest as in the 20 Eliz. where Land or Lease be giuen to two equally to be divided for there they are Tenants in common The second thing moved was whether Debt or account did ly and adjudged that although no contract was between the parties yet when either money or goods are delivered upon consideration to the use of A. A. may have an Action of Debt and of that opinion was Mountain 28 H. 8. in Core and Woods Case and also there is a President of such Actions of Debt in the Book of Entries BRoad versus Owen Mich. 44 and 45 Eliz. The Plaintiffe brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 5 Eliz for Perjury against the Defendant the case was thus one Low was Plaintiffe against Brode in the high Court of Chancery and upon Bill and Answer such matter appeared to the Lord Keeper that he ordered that one Labourer should become party to the Bill against Brode and afterwards one Commission issued out of Chancery between Labourer and Brode to examine Witnesses by which Commission Owen the now Defendant was examined on the behalf of Labourer and did depose directly for Labourer against Brode by reason whereof one Order and Decree was made in the Chancery against Brode and for that cause Brode brought his Action of Debt against Owen upon the Statute of Perjury 5 Eliz. for one party grieved by the Oath and Deposition of another and Owen demurrs in Law and by the opinion of Gaudy and Yelverton Justices the Action would not lie for the words of the Statute are where a man is grieved and damnified by a Deposition in one Suit between party and party and in this Case it appeared that Labourer was no party to the Suit but came in by an Order and no Bill depending either against him or brought by him and so out of the Statute for it is penall and to be taken strictly and quaere if he in the Reversion joyn in aid and is grieved and prejudiced by an Oath and Deposition may maintain an Action of Debt upon this Statute for he may undoubtedly by the Common Law have an Attaint GReen versus Gascoin Pasch 1. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for an hundred pounds to which the Defendant pleads in Barr to the Action an Outlary against the Plaintiff and shews it incertain the Plaintiff replies Nul tiel record and the Defendant had Day till the next Term to bring in the Record and in the mean time the Plaintiff reverses the Outlary by which it is become in Law no Record according to the 4 H. 7. 12. And Yelverton moved the Court for the Defendant that although in Law there was a Failer of the Record yet the Defendant ought not to be condemned but shall answer over according to the 6. of Eliz. Dier fol. 228. where it is adjudged that Failer of the Record is not peremptory and so adjudged for it was no Default in the Defendant his Plea being true at such time as it was pleaded with mark WEaver versus Clifford Action of Debt brought for an Escape the Case was thus upon the Nichils returned against a Conusor in Chancery a Capias was awarded out of the Chancery against him by vertue of which he was taken by the Sheriff and suffered to escape and adjudged that no Action would lie against the Sheriff in this Case for a Capias lies not upon a Recognisance but onely a Scire facias and therefore when a man is taken upon the Capias he is not a Prisoner by the course of Law for the Law hath not ordained any means to arrest him and is therefore in Custody without Warrant and no Escape and it is an illegal Commitment and so is the â—ratuâ—e of Westminster the 2. to bâ— constâ—ued which gâ—… Action against the the Gaolor to wit where the party is in Execution by course of Law and although the Chancery doth award a Capias upon a Recognisance and that there are divers Preâ—â—lents of it et it is bâ—t the use of that
and determined for he prosecuted the Suit in anothers Right and is but a Minister of the Ordinary and then when the Ground of the Suit is over-thrown to wit his Commission he hath no Authority to proceed further and the Execution issued without Warrant And the like Law upon a Judgement had upon an Administrator the second Administrator shall not have Execution by it for he hath no privity to the Record which mark ANdrews versus Robbins Trin. 4. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Debt upon an Obligation made to him as Sheriff with a Condition that the Defendant should appear and Crook said that the Defendant had pleaded his Appearance and had omitted to say as it appears by the Court and it was held a grosse Fault but the Record being perused it appeared to be otherwise for the Case was that the Defendant was obliged to make an Obligation to appear in the Kings Bench at a day prefixed in the Writ and that the Defendant pleaded there was no day prefixed in the writ for his Appearance and Crook moved that it was no Plea for the Defendant was estopped to which the Court agreed that he was estopped and Williams said that if a man be bound to pay a hundred pounds that I. S. owes to him he cannot plead that I. S. doth not owe him a hundred pounds and Tanfield said if it were to pay all sums that I. S. owed him he isconcluded so it is held 3 Eliz. Dyer And the Court commanded Judgement to be entred for the Plaintif if no cause shewed tothe contrary such a day JAckson versus Kirton Trin. 4. Jacobi In Common Pleas an Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation the Condition was that if A. would render himself to an Arrest in such a place c. The Defendant pleads that by Priviledge of Parliament those of the Parliament and their necessary Servants ought not to be arrested by the space of forty Dayes before the Parliament nor sitting the Parliament nor forty Dayes after and sets forth that A. was a Servant to such a man of the Parliament at such a time so that he could not render himself to be arrested to which the Plaintiff demurrs and the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for A. might render himself and let it be at their perill if they will arrest him MArkham versus Jerux Hill 4. Jac. Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition to stand to the Award Arbitrement c. of Master Porley of Grays Inn about the Title of one Copy-hold Tenement M. P. awarded c. that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff six pounds upon the 21 May 3 Jac. at such a place to wit in the Church Porch of C. and further awards that the Plaintiff by his Deed should release to the Defendant his whole Right c. upon the said 〈◊〉 Day of May at the same place upon the payment of the Money and in another Clause of the Award he awarded that the Plaintiff should make further Assurance to the Defendant for the extinguishing of his Title as should be advised c. And Yelverton moved that this Arbitrement was void and is in a manner no Award for it is repugnant and insensible for although it be certain at what Day the Defendant should pay the six pounds yet it doth not appear when nor upon what Day the Plaintiff should release to the Defendant for there is no such first Day of May in the whole Award and it is not bound or tied to any year of the King so that it is altogether incertain and although it may be collected that the Arbitrator did intend the 21. Day of May because it is appointed to be made upon the payment of the six pounds which was the 21. May yet it is not expressed but onely by way of inference and implication and it was objected that admit the Award to be void in that part yet it is good in the residue which is to be performed by the Plaintiff to wit the making of better assurance to which Yelverton answered that all the Clauses in one Award are material and the Clause of further assurance depends upon the repugnant Clause of the Release to be made for the Award appoints that the Release is to be made upon the said first Day of May whereas no such Day in the whole Award shall be the first assurance and the assurances which were to be made by the following Clause were in the intention of the Arbitrator to be for the strengthning of the first Release which was granted and the Court said there was much difference between Wills and Deeds and between Arbitrements for Deeds c. shall be construed according to the intent of the parties and upon the words to be collected out of the Deeds but an Award is of the nature of a Judgement and Sentence in which ought to be plainnesse and no collection of the intent and meaning of the Arbitrators for how it ought to be his Judgement and not the Judgement of another upon the words of the Arbitrator and Tanfeild said it had been adjudged that where the Arbitrator did award that one of the parties should become bound to the other in the summ of and no summ in certain but a space left for the summ that it was void and if an Arbitrement be void in one Clause although it be good in all Clauses yet it is in Law no Award for a Judgement ought to be plain certain and perfect in all things but if the Arbitrators award that one of the parties and J. S. an Estranger shall do such a thing that is good as to the party who is within the Submission and void onely to I. S. the Estranger 19 E. 4. ATkins versus Gardiner Pasch 5. Jac. The Plaintiff being President of the Colledge of Phisicians in London brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant for practising Phisick upon the Charter made to them by H. 8. that none should practise Phisick in London nor within seven Miles thereof except such as were authorised by them and gives them Authority to impose Fines upon such as shall practise Phisick which Charter was confirmed by Act of Parliament in 14 H. 8. and he obtained Judgement upon the Statute to recover a summ for himself and the Colledge and before Execution the President died and whether the Successor should have Execution and 8 E. 1. was cited and divers other Books to that purpose STamford versus Cooks Pasch 5. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition that the Defendant should seal such Assurances as should be devised by the Plaintiff and that the Assurance should be of Copy-hold Land and the Plaintiff devised that the Defendant should seal a Letter of Attorney made to one to surrender the Copy-hold for him and also seal one Bond for the injoying thereof and the Plaintiff offered these Writings to the Defendant
whole Court for they said that the Demand must be made at the place of payment although it be of the Land FIeld versus Hunt Mich. 5. Jacobi Hunt in VVorcester Court obtained a Judgement after a Verdict in Debt upon a Contract for twenty Sheep and after it was removed by a Writ of Error into the Kings Bench and generall Errors assigned but upon opening the Errors it was shewed the Court that there was no Declaration in VVorcester Court for the Declaration was thus Raphael Hunt complains against H. Field of a Plea that he render to him twenty pounds which he owes unto him and unjustly detains and whereof the same Plaintift by M. his Attorney whereas the said Defendant c. and by Fennor VVillams and Cook it is no Declaration for Default of this word Dicit and the sense is imperfect and although Yelverton objected that a Declaration is sufficient if it be good to a common intent and Quer. being writ short it may be Queritur and then it is and whereof the same complaines but the Court held that would not help for it is not certain to whom the word Idem should refer whether to the Plaintiff or Defendant and of the two it should rather refer to the Defendant which is the next Antecedent and the Court held it matter of substance which is wanting and therefore naught but if it had been 4. and whereof the same Raphael quer being writ short it had been good for because the party Plaintiff is certainly named and then Quer. could have no other sense then Queritur and Judgement reversed which mark HArrison versus Fulstow Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Action of Debt for fourscore and six pounds in the Common Pleas against T. Harrison and the Capias was continued accordingly against T. Harrison but the Plur. capias was against William Harrison which was the very name of the Defendant and that was but for fourscore and five pounds which varied from the first Entry and William Harrison appeared upon the Exigent and the Plaintiff declares against William and he pleads and they are at Issue by the name of William and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Judgement accordingly against William and upon a Writ of Error it was assigned for Error that the Original did not maintain the Proceedings for the Original is against Tho. and the Proceedings against William and the Plaintiffs Counsel would have excused it because the Judgement being against William and the Original against Tho. as it is certified it cannot be the Original against William and so the Judgement against William being without Original it is aided by the Statute after a Verdict but the Court held it to be Error for there is great Difference between no Original and a naughty Original for the want of an Original is helped but not a vitious Original and Judgement was reversed for upon Diminution alleadged that this Original was certified as the Original in that Suit or else there was no Obtulit at all LOthbury versus Humfrey Mich. 5. Jacobi Lothbury and his Wife Administratrix of VV. R. brought an Action of Debt as Administrator upon an Obligation of forty Marks dated 4. April 38 Eliz. made by the Defendant to the Intestate 1. the Defendant pleades that Ridge the Intestate October the first Jacobi made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and devised the Obligation and the Money therein contained to one H. Son of the Defendant and died after whose Death the Defendant takes upon him the burthen of the Executorship and administers divers Goods of Ridges and that he is ready to aver this to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs generally and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Defendants Plea is not good without a Traverse that Ridge died intestate For the Action is brought as Administrator and they count upon a dying intestate and that being the ground of the Action ought to be traversed as it is 9 H. 6. 7. Debt brought against one as Administrator of J. and counts that J. died intestate the Defendant pleads that J. made his Will and made him Executor and held no Plea without a Traverse and the same Law 7 H. 6. 13. Debt brought against one R. Executor of R the Defendant pleads that R. died intestate at such a place and held no Plea for if the Plaintiff maintain that R. made the Defendant Executor and the other say that R. died intestate at such a place this makes no Issue and therefore the Defendant ought to traverse that R. died intestate without that that he made him Executor and 4 H. 7. 13. the very Case in question is adjudged that such a Plea in Barr is not good without a Traverse to wit to say without that that R. died intestate according to the 3 H 7. 14. and this was agreed by the whole Court without Argument CHeyney versus Sell Mich. 5. Jac. Cheyney as Executor of Cheyny brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Sell the case was that the Testator had put himself as an Apprentice to Sell for seven years and Sell bound himself to pay to his Apprentice his Executors or Assignes 10 l. at the time of the end or determination of his Apprentiship the Apprentice serves six years and then dies and it was moved by Towse that the Money was due at the time of his Death because then his Apprentiship ended for he said if a man make a Lease for one and twenty years to another and oblige himself to pay to the Lessee ten pounds at the end and expiration of his Term and within those years the Lessor infeoffes the Lessee so the term expires and the ten pounds should be paid instantly but Cook denied that Case because the Lessee hastened the end of his terme but he said that if a man lease Land to another for seven years if the Lessee should so long live and the Lessor oblige himself to pay ten pounds at the end of his terme and he die within seven years there he was of opinion the Money was presently due upon his Death but in the principal case the whole Court held the chief Justice being absent that the Obligation was discharged and that the Money should notbe paid WIllot versus Spencer Mich. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Tithes of Wood upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. and Forster argued that Judgement ought not to be given for the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Plaint that he was Parson for he ought to bring his Action according to that name that he claimed the Tithes by and this ought to be expressed in the Queritur and therefore if a man bring his Action to recover any thing as Heir Executor or Sheriff he ought to name himself so in the Queritur 30 H. 6. 9 H. 4. but Towse said the same Exception was taken between Merrick and Peters and disallowed Fleming Justice said
to the breach if it had been assigned yet the Court ought to be satisfied that the Plaintiffe had good cause of Action to recover otherwise they should not give Judgement and although a Verdict is given for the Plaintiff yet this imperfection in the Replication is matter of substance and is not helped by the Statute by the opinion of the whole Court except Justice Williams BArwick versus Foster Mich. 7 Jacobi Action of Debt brought for Rent the cause was thus the Plaintiff leased certain Lands to the Defendant at Mich. 1 Jacobi for five years yielding and paying Rent at our Lady Day and Mich. yearly or within ten dayes after and for rent behind at the last Mich. the Plaintiff declares as for Rent due at the Feast of Saint Michael and prima facie it seemed to the whole Court but Crook that the Action would not ly but that the Rent for the last quarter was gone for it was not due at Michaelmas as the Plaintiff had declared for his own shewing it is payable and reserved at Michaelmas or within ten dayes after although the Lessee might pay it at Michaelmas Day yet it is not any Debt which lies in demand by any Action untill the ten dayes be passed and the reservation being the Lessors Act it shall be taken most strongly against himself and although the end of the Term is at Michaelmas before the ten dayes untill which time the Rent is not due and because at that time the Term is ended the Lessor shall loose his Rent as if a Lessor die before Michaelmas Day the Executor shall not have the Rent but the Heir by discent as incident to the Reversion and if the Lessee should pay the Rent to the Lessor at Michaelmas day and the Lessor should dye before the tenth Day his Heir being a Ward to the King the King shall have it again for of Right it ought not to be paid untill the tenth day according to the 44 E. 3. but this Case being moved again in Hillary Term Fleming Fennor and Yelverton changed their opinion and held that the Lessor should have the Rent for it was reserved yearly and the ten dayes shall be expounded to give liberty to the Lessee within the Term for his ease to protract the payment but because the ten dayes after the last Michaelmas are out of the Term rather then the Lessor shall loose his Rent yearly the Law rejects the last ten dayes MOlineux versus Molineux Hill 7 Jacobi An Action of Debt brought against Mo. upon an Obligation as Heir to his father the Defendant pleads that he hath nothing by discent but twenty Acres in D. in such a County the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant had more Land by discent in S. to wit so many Acres and upon this they are at Issue and found for the Defendant that he had nothing by discent in S. by reason of which the Plaintiff could recover and had his Judgement to have Execution of the twenty Acres in D. upon which Judgement in the Common Pleas the Defendant brought his Writ of Error and assigned for Error a discontinuance in the Record of the Plea from Easter Term to Michaelmas Term after and whether this were helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. because it was after a Verdict was the question and adjudged to be out of the Statute and that it was Error for the Judgement was not grounded upon the Verdict but onely upon the confession of the Defendant of Assetts and the Verdict was nothing to the purpose but to make the Defendants confession more strong and therefore the Statute of the 18 of Eliz. is to be intended when the triall by Verdict is the means and cause of the Judgement which mark and therefore the Judgement was reversed the Law seems to be the same if the Plainiiff brings an Action of Debt for forty pounds and declares for twenty pounds upon a Bill and twenty pounds upon a non tenet and the Defendant confesses the Action as to the money borrowed and they are at issue as to the money demanded by the Bill which Passes also for the Plaintif by reason wherof he hath Judgement to recover the forty pounds demanded and the Damages assessed by the Jurors and Costs intire in which Case if there be a discontinuance upon the Roll it seems that all shall be reversed notwithstanding the verdict for the verdict is not the onely cause of the Judgement but the Confession also and the Costs assessed intirely for both but yet inquire of this It was adjudged by the whole Court that in those Cases where an Executor is Plaintiff touching things concerning the Testament and is non-suited or the verdict passes against him that he shall not pay Costs upon the new Statute of 4 Jac. for the Statute ought to have a reasonable intendment and it cannot be presumed to be any fault in the Executor who complains because he cannot have perfect notice of what his Testator did and so it was resolved also by all the Judges of the Common Pleas. GOodier versus Jounce Trin. 8 Jacobi Jounce recovered in the common Pleas a hundred and thirty pounds against Goodier in Crastino Animar 6 Jacobi and the eight and twentieth of November the same Term being the last Day of the Term the Plaintiff proved an Elegit against Goodier to the Sheriffs of London where the Action was laid and to the County Palatine of Lancaster returnable Crastino Purificationis after which was granted by the Court and by the Elegit to the County Palatine it appeared that it was grounded upon a Testat returned by the Sheriffs of London that Goodier had nothing in London where in truth they never made such a Return and upon that Elegit by a Jury impannelled before the Sheriff of Lancaster a Lease of Tithes was extended for fifty nine years then to come at the value of a hundred pounds which the Sheriff delivered to J. the Plaintiff as a Chattell of Goodiers for a hundred pounds and returned it and that Goodier had no more Goods c. and thereupon Goodier brought a Writ of Error in the upper Bench and assigned for Error that no Return was made by the Shetiffs of London nor filed in the common Pleas as was supposed in the Elegit and it was adjudged Error for although the Plaintiff might have an Elegit as he desired in the common Pleas immediately both into London and Lancashire but seeing he waived the benefit thereof and grounded his Execution upon a Testatum which was false it was Error in the Execution for as it appears 18 H. 6. 27. and 2 H. 6. 9. that a Testatum is grounded upon a former Return filed that the party had nothing in the County where the Action was brought and because it appeared upon Record that the prayer of the Elegits was made the eight and twentieth of November the last day of the Term and by the Testatum it is supposed
that the Sheriffes of London had returned quindena Martini which is before the eight and twentieth of November that the Defendant had nothing in London which seemed to be contrary to the Record yet that is not materiall but makes the matter more vitious for it may well be that since the Judgement was Crastino animarum a Testatum might not issue out returnable Quindena Martini and it shall be the Plaintiffes fault that he did not file it and it shall be presumed to be such a Writ as the Plaintiffs own Processe doth recite and note that the whole Court did adjudge in this Case that Goodier should be restored to the Term again and although it was valued by the Jury but at a hundred pounds and delivered to Jounce the Plaintiff to hold as his own Goods and Chattells yet Goodier shall have it again from Jounce for he being the party himself it is in Law but a bare delivery in specie and therefore ought to be restored in specie again and doth not absolutely alter the property but attends upon the Execution to be good or naught as the Execution is and so it was adjudged before in Robothams Case and also in Worrells Case as Mr. Noy said to Yelverton but it had been otherwise if the sute had been to an estranger by the Sheriff of the Term for a hundred pounds according to the opinion of 28 Eliz. Dy. for it is the parties folly that he doth not pay the Judgement and if such sales should be made void none would buy Goods of the Sheriff by reason whereof many Ex ecutions would remain undone and this by the opinion of the whole Court SMith versus Newsam and his Wife Mich. 6 Jacobi The Plaintiff as Son and Heire of Geo. S. his father brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant for twenty Marks and declares that his father April the twenty seventh 25 Eliz. leased to the Defendant one house c. in B. in the County of Bedford from Michaelmas next following for one and twenty years yielding and paying during the Term if the Father should so long live thirty pounds at our Lady day and Michaelmas by equall portions and yeelding and paying to the Heires and Assignes of the Father after his death twenty Marks at the Termes aforesaid by vertue whereof the Defendant entred and occupied from Michaelmas 35 Eliz. c. the Father dyed the fourth of May 7 Jur. at B. and because twenty Marks for a half years Rent were behinde the Action was brought the Defendant demurred to the Declaration and adjudged against the Plaintiff for the clause by which the Court is reserved to the Heirs gives but twenty Marks for the whole year and not twenty Marks every a year and therefore the Plaintiff had mistaken his demand in suing for twenty Marks for one half year for these words ad Terminos praedictos are onely the time of payment of the twenty Marks which were to be paid as the thirty pounds were and although in the clause that reserved the Rent to the Heirs the words by equall portions were omitted yet the Law will supply them as it is in the 13 H. 9. Avowry 2. 40. Rent granted to be taken at two Termes of the year and they named it shall be intended by equall portions although the Deed makes mention of that for the reservation being the Act of the Lessor shall be taken most strongly against him and his Heirs and therefore shall have but twenty Marks for all the whole year and no more as in Perkins 22 two tenements in common make a Lease rendring ten shillings it shall be five shillings to each of them March 171. according to it the second cause of the Judgement was because the Plaintiff brought this Action as Heire to his Father and doth not shew in his Declaration that the Reversion descends to him and the Rent demanded is incident to the Reversion discended and so the Plaintiff doth not make any Title to have the Rent which mark and Judgement was given that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Bill NEale versus Sheffeild Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 782. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an obligation for fourteen pounds the condition was that if the Defendant should pay seven pounds to the Plaintiff upon the birth-day of the Child of John living which God shall send after the Date of the Bond then c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff after the making of the Obligation and before the birth of any Infant of the said J. living to wit the 1. September 7. Jacobi was indebted to the Defendant in one load of Lime to be delivered upon request and the same day it was agreed between them at L. that if the Defendant would discharge the Plaintiff of the said load of Lime that then in consideration thereof the Plaintiff would discharge the Defendant of the said Obligation and would accept the said load of Lime which the Plaintiff accepted in discharge of the Obligation and did then acquit the Defendant of the said Obligation and demands Judgement to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two causes first because the Defendant had pleaded his Barr in discharge of the Obligation whereas he should have pleaded it in discharge of the same contained in the Condition of the Obligation for it is not a Debt simply by the Obligation but the performance or breach of the Condition makes it to be a Debt for the Obligation is proved by the Condition so that if the Condition be not discharged the Obligation remains in his force and the matter in the Barr is not pleaded in discharge of the Condition but of the Obligation and therefore it is not good which mark Secondly it appears that the Condition it self cannot be discharged for the seven pounds is not due nor payable untill the Birth of the Childe of John living which is a meer Contingency and remote possibility whether he shall ever have a Childe or no and therefore it resting in Contingency whether it will ever be a Debt or no it cannot be discharged for a possibility cannot be released as it hath been adjudged in Carters Case and it is not to be resembled to the Case where the Condition is to pay Money at a Day to come for that may be discharged presently for it is presently a Duty although it be not demandable untill the Day and therefore because it cannot be known whether the Day will ever come wherein John will have a Childe and because it is no Debt nor Duty therefore it cannot be discharged by the opinion of the whole Court DOdson versus Keyes Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation for ten pounds and declares that the Defendant 23. Octob. 1608. at M. became bound to the Plaintiff in ten pounds to be paid upon request the Defendant demands Oyer of the Obligation which
the Judgement it is made to be by the Coroners yet it is not helped in this Case for the warrant of the Roll is the Clerk of the Assises Certificate and thus is that the Tales was returned by the Sheriff and the Court cannot intend it to be otherwise then is certified and thirdly the name of the Juror in the Tales which is Gregory is made in the Entry of the Judgement to be George and although the will shall be amended in this point according to the Certificate of the postea then in the other point of the Return of the Tales by the Sheriff it is not amendable and so it is error every way and the Judgement was reversed by the whole Court BRidges versus Enion Hillar 9 Jac. The Plaintiff declares how that he and the Defendant February tenth Anno 7. submitted themselves to the Award of S. R. Bodenham who awarded they should be friends and that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff ten pounds at Miasummer following at such a place and the ten pounds being unpaid the Plaintiff brought his Action the Defendant pleads in Barr a release made by the Plaintiff to him of all demands which was made the tenth of April before Midsummer when the Debt was to be paid and the release was of all demands from the beginning of the world untill the tenth of April and shows the Release to the Court to which the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged against the Plaintiff for although the sum of Money awarded is not grounded upon any precedent Debt or contract between the parties yet by the opinion of the Court it lies in demand presently and the Plaintiff might assign it by his will and the Executor should have it and by the spirituall Law Administration may be granted of it before the day of payment if the Plaintif dye before yet it is not recoverable before Midsummer nor will any Action ly for it but it is a duty presently by the Award and as the award is perfect presently as soon as it is pronounced so are all the things contained in the Award if they be not made payable upon a condition precedent on the part of one of the Parties as if an award be made that if the Plaintif shall give to the Defendant at Midsummer one load of Hay that then upon the Delivery of the Hay the Defendant should pay the Plaintif ten pounds in this case the ten pounds cannot be released before the Day for it rests meerly in a possibility and contingency for it becomes a Duty upon the Delivery of the Hay onely and not before and therefore it is like the Case 5 E. 4. 42. of a Nomine pene waiting upon the Rent which cannot be released untill the Rent be behinde for the not paying the Rent makes the Nomine pene a Duty and the Case in question is like the Case Littleton 117. where a man is bound to pay Money at a Day to come for a Release of Actions before the Day cuts off the Duty because by 7 H. 7. 6. it is a Duty presently and the Case is stronger here because the Release is of all Demands which observe MOrgan versus Sock Pasch 10. Jacobi Sock brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of fourteen pounds entred into by Ar. Morgan Anno 1. Jac. against Tho. Morgan his Administrator the Defendant pleads that after the Death of Arth. and after Administration was to him committed to wit the 16 of September Ann. 6. the Plaintiff brought his Original against him of which he had no notice nntill the 24. of February Ann. 6. before which Day the Defendant was upon the Exig for not appearing which Exig was returnable Tres Pasch after and that the 17. of Febr. which was before the notice his Letters of Administration were revoked by the Archbishop and granted to Rich. M. the Brother of Arth. which Rich. is now Administrator and that he at the time of revoking the Administration had divers Goods of the Intestates in his hands and shews them what they were to the value of two hundred pounds and that he after the Administration revoked and before notice of the Suit had delivered them over to Rich. to wit the 22. of February 6. Jacobi and that he at the time of the Administration revoked had fully administred all the Goods of the Intestates besides the Goods delivered to Rich. c. The Plaintiff replied that the Administration was revoked by Covin between the Defendant and Rich. and upon that they are at Issue and the Jury found it to be Covin by reason whereof the Plaintiff had a Judgement to recover the Debt and Damages of the Goods and Chattels of the said Arth. at the time of his Death being in his hands to be levied and upon that Judgement he brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that the Judgement ought to be conditional to wit to recover the Debt of the Goods of the Intestate if so much remain in his hands and not absolutely But the Judgement was affirmed by the whole Court for where the Judgement may be final and certain there it shall never be conditional And because it appears by the Defendants Plea that he had two hundred pounds in his hands of the Intestates Goods it would be in vain to give Judgement against him if he had so much in his hands seeing he himself hath confessed by his Plea that 〈◊〉 more in his hands then would satisfie that Debt and if 〈…〉 could not levy the Debt in the Defendants hands he may upon the Defendants 〈…〉 Damage return a Devastavit and this by the opinion of the whole Court and then there was shewed to the Court a President in the Common Pleas to that purpose DOnghty versus Fawn Mich. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff declares upon an Obligation of an hundred and twenty pounds dated 2. Novemb. 43. Eliz. And the Condition was that one Edw. Astle by his last Will in writing of such a Date had disposed the Wardship of the Defendant whereof the Defendant was possessed c. if therefore the Defendant do save and keep harmlesse the Plaintiff c. from all Charges and Troubles c. which may happen to the Plaintiff c. for or by reason of the last Will of the said Ed. A. or from any thing mentioned in that touching or concerning one M. Fawn or any Legacy or Bequest to her given or bequeathed or otherwise from Ed. A. to her due then the Obligation c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was not damnified The Plaintiff replies that after the Obligation made one M. Smith in the behalf of Jo. and Ed. A. Sons of the said Ed. A. named in the Condition did exhibite a Bill against the Plaintiff as Administrator of A. in the Chancery for the payment of the Portions of the said Sons to which Bill the Plaintiff by way of Answer pleaded fully administred and for the making good thereof sets
Puttenhams Case the Reason because he was not in Execution before And for the second Objection although the Capias did not lie yet it is but Error for if the Court had Jurisdiction to hold plea of the Cause although the Process be naughtily awarded it is but Error of which the Sheriff shall not take benefit and therefore if a Woman have recovered in Dower and hath Damages in the Common Pleas and thereupon the party takes a Capias for the Damages and the party be taken and suffered to go at large it is an Escape 10 Hen. 7. 23. and if a Capias be awarded in the Common Pleas after the Record removed it is but Error and so ruled 13 E. 3. Title Barr 253. But if the Court hath no Jurisdiction in the cause as a Formedon brought in the upper Bench as it is 1 R. 3. 4. or an Appeal in the Common Pleas or where a Writ is awarded out of the Chancery returnable in Chester these are void and coram non Judice and there ought not to be any arrest upon such a Writ and he cited a Case Trin. 31. and 37. Eliz. in the Exchequer Woodhouse and Ognells Case ruled accordingy and as concerning the difference taken there is no other form of pleading but only quod prosecutus fuit quoddam c. without saying that it was by the award of the Court and the Court at that time did strongly incline that it was but Error at the most but Mich. 11 Ja. It was adjudged by the whole Court that the Capias could not ly and that it was onely Error of which the Sheriffe shall not take the benefit KKetleys Case Pasch 11 Jac. An Action of Debt brought for arrearages of Rent brought against R. upon a Lease for years the Defend pleads in Barr that the time of the Lease made he was within age to which the Plaintiff demurres and upon the first reading of the Record the question was whether a Lease made to an Infant be void and it was said it should be void otherwise it might be very prejudiciall to Infants whom the Law intends not to be of sufficient discretion for the mannaging of Land and also the Rent may be greater then the value of the Land to the great impoverishing of the Infant and took this difference where it is for the apparant benefit of the Infant a sa Lease made by an Infant rendring Rent and the like and when it is but an implied benefit as here for the Law intends that every Lease is made for the benefit of the Lessee although prima facie it seems to be but tail and trouble but the Court held it onely voidable as Election for if it be to the Infants benefit be that benefit apparant or implied it shall be void in no Case prima facie as 21 H. 6. 31. b. but the Infant may at his Election make it void for he shall before the Rent day come refuse and waive the Land an Action of Debt will not ly against him for otherwise such a Lease shall be more strong then any Fine or Record and great mischeif would insue and as to the prejudice it well be answered for if more Rent be reserved then the value of the Land he ought to have set it forth that it might have appeared to the Court which is not done for then clearly he should not have been bound for there had been no profit to the Infant as Russells Case is 5 Rep. 27. for if an Infant release it is not good except he hath received the money and it also appears by 21 H. 6. that if he did not enter and manure the Land that an Action of Debt would not ly against him but the principall Case was without colour for the Rent and taking the profits were Land as one day of the Reservation and secondly it was not shewed that the Rent was of greater value and thirdly the Defendant was of full age before the Rent day came HIggins Case Pasch 11 Jac. Action of Debt brought by Higgins against Yelverton was of an opinion at the Barr that if one be arrested upon a Processe in that Court and he puts in Bail and afterwards the Plaintiff recovers that he might at his Election take out his Execution either against the principall or Bail but if he took the Bail or arrested him or had him in Execution for the Debt although he had not full satisfaction he could not meddle with the Plaintiff but if two be Bail although one bee in Execution yet he may take the other also and Coderidge Justice was of the same opinion and Man the secondary said it was the daily practice there and so if the principall be in Execution he cannot take the Bail HAukinson versus Sandilands 11 Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation for forty pounds against the Defendant who demanded Oyer of the Condition and afterwards pleads that the Obligation was made and delivered by him and one M. who is still living at D and demands Judgement of the Writ to which the Plaintiff demnrres the words of the Obligation were Noverint universi c. adquam solucionem bene fideliter faciend Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum And whether this was should be accounted a Writ Obligation or Severall at the Election of the Plaintiffe was the question and Ger. Cook was of opinion that it should be brought against both and his onely reason was that at most the Plaintiffe had but an Election for the word vel could not be taken for et as it is 11 H. 7. 13. a Grant made to J. S. at J. D. is void and 20 H. 6. grant to two to them or to the Heires of one of them is not good and then if he had only an Election he hath made that already for the Defendant hath pleaded and averred that is was made by two joyntly by the appearance whereof he hath agreed to take it accordingly but Yelverton argued in this manner that although the words in an Obligation be not proper and apt yet if they be substantiall it is enough and therefore 28 H. 8. 19. utrumque nostrum is adjudged good and the 21 R. 2. 939. ad quam quidem solucionem obligamus nos singulos nostrum is adjudged severall and joint and for a direct authority he cited 7 H. 4. 66. where an Obligation was nos vel alterum nostrum and the Plaintiff brought severall Precipes and adjudged good that he might make it severall or joynt and all the Judges were clearly of an opinion that the Action was well brought for as it hath been said the Plaintiff had his Election and that Election would be said to be executed by the joynt Delivery for there was no cause to make Election untill the Bond was perfected and therefore though one delivers it at one time and the other at another yet the Plaintiff may have a caput Precipe if he
Arbitrator for else the Bond remaines as single and so in this Case the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrator made an Award and that it was delivered by the Arbitrator but whether it was delivered in writing or under his hand according to the Submission is not pleaded and therefore it is no Answer to the Plaintiff for he hath not pleaded an Award made according to the Condition and therefore the Bond is single Yea Cook argued for the Defendant and said that the Plaintiff by the Demurrer had confessed that the Arbitrator had made no Award as the Defendant had pleaded and then he shal never have Judgement for if it may judicially appear to the Court that the Plaintiff had no Cause of Action he shall never have Judgement and that the Plaintiff ought to have averred and joyned with a Traverse of that the Defendant pleaded to wit that the Arbitrator had made an Award and delivered it in writing under his hand and seal without that c. and as to the other matter of the Trespasse the same Day and so he might have demanded Judgement for his Plea doth but amount to the general Issue that the Arbitrators made no Award but Yelverton answered that it could not be pleaded in any other manner then he had pleaded it because he could not traverse it because the Defendant himself had pleaded that he made an Award and although the Demurrer confesse all matters in Deed yet they are such onely as are well pleaded as Burtons Case 5. Rep. 69. And also although the Award pleaded cannot be intended the same Award specified in the Condition yet the Plaintiff had good cause of Action and all the Court Fleming being absent were of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to recover for the Reasons before alleadged but as for that point whether the Controversie that grew in the morning should be arbitrated because there cannot be a fraction of Dayes it was not argued nor any opinion of the Court delivered onely Cook cited 5 E. 4. 208. that the Arbitrator ought to arbitrate of that because the Condition was of all matters untill the making the Obligation WHeeler versus Hayden Trin. 11. Jacobi W. Parson of the Church of A. brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant for Arrerages of Rent and declared upon a Lease made to the Defendant for four years if the Plaintiff did so long live and continue Parson c. and upon a Non demisit pleaded the Jury found an especial Verdict to wit that the Plaintiff had leased it to the Defendant for four years if the Plaintiff shall so long live onely and whether this Verdict was found for the Plaintiff or Defendant was the Question and Cook Serj. seemed that it was found for the Plaintiff for the main matter was that he should lease it if he so long lived and the subsequent words are of no effect because they contained no more then by the Law was before spoke of for the Law sayes that if he be non-resident or if he resign or be deprived that the Lease shall be determined like to the 30. Ass 8. A Lease to two and the longest Liver of them and the 17 E. 3. 7. A. A Lease to one of Land and a House for years and that the Lessee may make good profit of it this last Clause in both is idle and Dallidge was of the same opinion but Yelverton against them for the Plaintiff had intituled himself to the Action by such a Cause and if he fail in that it is his folly and shall not recover for the Lease upon which he declared had two Determinations the first by Death the second by removing and the Jury had found the Lease onely upon the first Determination and therefore various in substance and therefore the Jury have found against the Plaintiff as if a Lease be made by Baron and Feme if they shall so long live continue married both of them ought to be found Haughton to the same purpose for when a Parson makes a Lease if he shall so long live he doth take upon himself that he will do no Act by which the Lease shall be determined but onely by his Death for otherwise an Action of Covenant will lie against him but if the other Clause be added to wit and shall so long continue Parson then he may resign or be non-resident without danger and so there is great difference between the Verdict and Declaration and it was adjourned the Court being divided in opinion Dower MIch 6. Jacobi Dower may be brought as well against the Heir himself as against the Committee of the Ward but if an Infant be in Ward to a Lord in Chivalry the Dower shall be brought against the Guardian in Chivalry If Dower be brought against one who is not Tenant of the Free-hold the Tenant before Judgement shall be received and upon Default of the Tenant and after Judgement he may falsifie MIch 9. Jac. Dower demanded of the third part of Tithes of Wooll and Lamb in three several Townes and it was demanded of the Court how the Sheriff should deliver Seisin and the Court held it the best way for the Sheriff to deliver the third part of the tenth part and the third tenth Lamb Videlicet the thirtieth Lamb. In Dower against the Lord Morley the Tenant at the Day of taking of the Inquest after the Jury had appeared and before the Jury were sworn made Default and a Pety Cape was awarded and the Tenant at the Day in Banck informed the Court that the Tenant is but Tenant for Tenant for Life and that the Reversion is in one P. who at the Return in Banck ought to be received to save his Title and the Court appointed him at the Return of the Pety Cape to plead his Plea HIH. 13. Jacobi Allen and his Wife Demandants versus Walter in Dower of a Free-hold in Munden Magna Munden Parva B. the Sheriff returned Pleg de prosequend J. D. R. R. And the Names of the Summoners J. D. R. F. And after the Summons made and by the space of fourteen Dayes and more before the Return of the said Writ at the most usual Church Door of Munden Magna where part of the Tenements lay upon the 27. of October being the Lords Day immediately after Sermon ended in that Church he publikely proclaimed all and singular things contained in that Writ to be proclaimed according to the Form of the Statute in that behalf made and provided L. P. Ar. Vic. And Exception was taken to the Return because Proclamation was not made at the Doors of the Churches where the Lands lay and the Court held it not necessary but it was sufficient to make Proclamation at any of the Churches but the Return was insufficient because he said that he had caused to be proclaimed all and singular in that Writ contained and sayes not what and the Demandant released his Default upon the grand Cape CLefold versus
for the intent of a Will must be certain and agreeable to Law and there must not an intent out of the words of the will be sought out and the whole Court held that the Plaintiff was barred YOung versus Radford Pasch 10 Jacobi Rotulo 1515. Action upon an Ejectment brought and the Jury found a speciall Verdict and the Case was that Elizabeth Rudford was possessed of a house full thirty years and she took a Husband the Husband and Wife morgage the Term the Wife dies and the Husband redeems the Land and marries another wife and then dies and makes his Wife Executrix and she maries the Lessor The Defendant takes Administration of the Goods of the first Woman and it was held void and Judgement for the Plaintiff PEttison versus Reel Pasch 12 Jacobi Rotulo 2350. An ejectment brought and Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff and exception taken in arrest of Judgement to the Venire Facias because this word Juratum was omitted for the Writ was posuerunt se in illam and omitted the word Juratum and this was amended by the Court. When a Title is to be tryed upon an Ejectment and a Lease to be executed by Letter of Attorney the course is this that the Lessor do seal the Lease onely and the Letter of Attorney and deliver the Letter of Attorney but not the Lease for the Attorney must deliver that upon the Land and upon an Ejectruent brought of Lands in two villages of a house and forty Acres of Land in A. and B. and a speciall Entry in the Land adjoyning to the house to wit the putting in of a Horse which was drove out of the Land by the Defendant and this was adjudged a good Entry for the Land in both the Villages by the opinion of the whole Court ARden versus Mich. 12 Jacobi The Plaintiff delivers that whereas such a day and year at Curdworth in the said County did demise to the Plaintiff two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in the Parish of C. and the Venire facias was of the Parish of C. and after a verdict exception was taken because it was not of Curdworth but it was adjudged good by the Court and to prove the Lease made Lanheston an Attorney swear that the Lessor sealed the Lease and subscribed it but did not deliver it and by word gave authority to one W. to enter into the Land and to deliver the Lease upon the Land to the Plaintiff as his Deed and by that authority he entred and delivered the Lease as his Deed to the Plaintiff and it was adjudged good MArsh versus Sparry Hill 14 Jacobi Rotulo 1859. An Ejectment brought ex dimissione G. W. and the Originall was made ex divisione and after a Triall Serjeant Hitchaw moved the Court that the Originall might be amended and make ex dimissione and the Court granted it and the Cursitor was ordered to amend it and also in the end of the Originall it was written Barnabiam and it should have been Barnabas and that also was ordered to be amended by the Court. CRadock versus Jones Trin. 14 Jacobi Rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought upon a Demise made by Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and a Challenge to the Sheriff and prayes a Venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is cozen to the Plaintiff and shews how and because the Defendant did not deny it a Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners and after a verdict it was alledged in arrest of Judgement because it was not a principall Challenge and a Venire facias de novo awarded to the Sheriff PArkin versus Parkin 13 Hill Jacobi Rotulo 979. And Ejectment brought and verdict and after a Triall Exception taken to pleading of a Deed inrolled the Action was brought in the County of York and pleaded thus ut infra sex menses tunc proximos sequent coram milite uno Justic c. in West-Riding Com. Eborum ad pacem c. conservand Assign W. C. Clerico pacis ibidem debito modo de Recor. irrotulat and Exception was because the inrollment was not made according to the Form of the Statute because it did not appear that the Justice before whom the Deed was inrolled was a Justice of the Peace of the County of York but of the West-Riding and it was not alledged that the Land did ly in the West-Riding and note that the Defendants Plea in Barr was insufficient because the Defendant did not confesse nor avoid the Count and the Plaintif by his Replication doth not shew any Title to the Land because it did not passe by the inrollment and so he hath lost his Suit and although the Barr be insufficient yet notwitstanding the Plaintif shall not recover GReenely versus Passy Hill 5 Iacobi Rotulo 808. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Jury found it Specially that one Woodhouse was seised of Land in Fee and did infeof the Husband and Wife to have and to hold to the said Husband and Wife and the Heirs of their bodies between them to be begotten by vertue of which Feofment the Husband and Wife were seised of the whole Land in Fee Tail to wit c. the Husband infeofs the youngest Sonne of the land in Fee and afterwards the Husband dies and the woman survives and afterwards she dies before any Entry by her made into the Land and further find the lessor to be the eldest son of their bodies and that the younger Son infeoffed the Defendant and afterwards the eldest Sonne entred into the Land and made the lease in the Declaration and whether the Entry of the eldest Son was lawfull or no was the question upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. that Fines or Feoffements made by the Husband c. during coverture be or make any discontinuance c. or be hurtfull to the said wife or her Heirs and Sir Edward Cook held that the Heir is not barred of his Entry by the Statute PAcy versus Knollis Trin. 6. Iacobi Rotulo 291. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found it Specially and the question is upon the words of the Will to wit And I give to Katharine my Wife all the Profits of my Houses and Lands lying and being in the Parish of Billing and L. at a certain street there called Broke-street and the Jury found that there was not any Village or Hamlet in the said County called Billing and that the Land supposed to be devised lieth in Byrling-street no mans verbal Averment shall be taken or admitted to be contrary to the Will which is expresly set out in the Will If I have two Thomas to my Sonnes and I give it to Thomas it shall be intended my youngest Son because my eldest Son should have it by Discent the Will was held by all the Court to be good HEllam versus Ley Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 2718.
31 H. 8. of Monasteries which gives the Houses dissolved to the King but in the same degree and qualitie as the Abbot had them And the Abbot was charged with the power given by himself and so was the King Which mark VVAnto versus Willingsby Pasch 5. Jacobi The Bishop of Exceter in the time of H. 8. by his Deed gives Land c. to Nicho Turner and by Bill his Cousin in consideration of service done by Turner and for other considerations him moving to them and the Heirs of their bodies and dyes They have Issue Jo. and William N. T. dies and Sybill marries Clap. and they alien the Land to Iohn in Fee Sybill and Iohn leavie a Fine to Walther in Fee of the Land And afterwards Sybill infeoffes William her younger Son who infeoffes Willinghby Io enters and leaseth to Walther and Willingby for the tryall of his title seals a Lease to ward who declares of so many Acres in Sutton Cofeild And the Jury upon a not guilty pleaded foundby the Verdict that the Bishop gave the Tenements aforesaid by his Deed the tenor of which Deed follows c. And by the Deed it appeared that the Lands did lye in Little Sutton within the Lordship of Sutton Cofeild And notwithstanding the Plaintiffe shall recover For first it was held not to be any Joynture within the Statute of 11 H. 7. for it is not any such gift as is intended by the Statute for the Bishop was not any Ancestor of the Husband and the Husband took nothing by that but it was a voluntary recompence given by the Bishop in reward of the service passed And the Statute intended a valuable confideration And also the Bishop might well intend it for the Advancement of the woman who appeared to be Cozen to the Bishop And Tanfeild held if the woman were a Doneâ— within the Statute of 11 H. 7 she could be but for a moyetie for the gift was before the marriage and then they took by moyeties And the Baron dying first the woman came not to any part by the husband but by the course of Law as survivour But quaere of this conceit for the other Judges did not allow it And secondly they held that the Fine of Io. the elder Son of Sybill levied to Walther destroyed the entry of Io. and of Walther For although in truth the Fine passed nothing but by conclusion yet Io. the Son and Walther his Conusee shall be estopped to claim any thing by way of forfeiture against that Fine on the womans part then any title accruing after the Fine For they shall not have any new right but Io the Son upon whom the Land was intayled is barred by the Fine Thirdly although upon view of the Deed made by the Bishop the Land which by the Declaration is layed to be in Sutton Cofeild by the Deed appears to be in Little Sutton yet this is helped by the Verdict by which it is found expresly that the Bishop gave the Lands within written and therefore being so precisely found the Deed is not materiall Which mark KNap versus Peir Iewelch Pasc 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for Lands in Wiccombe which were the Deans and Chapters of Chichester And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court that if it be a Corporation by prescription it is sufficient to name them by that name they are called And the Court held that if a man demands Rent upon the Land to avoid a Lease upon a condition the Demand ought to be made in the most open place upon the Land The Dean and Chapter of Chichester made a Lease to one Raunce the Lessee of the Defendant of Lands in Wiccombe rendring Rent payable at the Cathedrall Church of Chichester upon such a condition it was agreed by the whole Court that the Demand ought to be made in the Cathedrall Church of Chichester although it was of the Land Leased And the Demand ought to be made at the setting of the Sun the last instant of that day and when he made his Demand he ought to stand still and not walk up and down for the Law did not allow of walking Demands As Pipham said and he ought to make a formall demand And because those whom the Dean and Chapter did send to make the demand of Rent said bear witnesse we are come hither to demand and receive such Rent it was held by the Court that such a demand was not good And they held the demand ought to be made at that part of the Church where the greatest and most common going in is And in this case it was said by Popham that if a man make a Lease to one for yeers to commence at a day to come and then he lease to another for yeers rendring Rent upon a condition to commence presently And he enter And the first Lease commence and he enter the Rent and Condition reserved upon the second Lease is suspended A man leases for years rendring Rent after he leaseth to another to commence at a day to come and the first Lessee attorns the second shall not have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease by Popham but he doubted of it And Popham and Tanfeild held none contradicting that the Letter of Attorney made by the Dean and Chapter to demand their Rent was not good because the Letter of Attorney was to make a general demand on any part of the Land which the Dean and Chapter had leased And that ought to have been speciall onely for that Land And secondly it was to demand Rent of any person to whom they had made a Lease And the Letter of Attorney ought to be particular and not generall of any person TOmpson versus Collier Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease of Ejectment made by Robinson and Stone of one Messuage and fourty Acres of Land in the Parish of Stone in the Countie of Stafford The Defendant imparled tryall another Terme and then pleads that within the Parish of Stone there were three Villages A. B. and C. And because the Plaintiffe hath not shewed in which of the Villages the Land he demanded Judgement of the Bill c. And the Plaintiffe demurred upon this Plea And adjudged for the Plaintiffe For first after an Imparlance the Defendant cannot plead in abatement of the Bill for he hath admitted of it to be good by his entring into defence and by his Imparlance And secondly the matter of his Plea is not good because the Defendant hath not shewed in which of the Villages the House and fourty Acres of Land did lye And that he ought to have done For where a man pleads in abatement he alwayes ought to give to the Plaintiffe a letter writ with mark And the whole Court held that this Plea was not in barr but that he should answer over And Williams Justice took this difference that when a man demurrs upon a Plea in abatement And when he
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
the use of her eldest Son in tayl c. With power to her self at any time to make Leases for one and twenty years and before the Lease in being expired she made another Lease to B. for one and twenty years to commence after the determination of the first Lease And as to the third part of the Land she made a Lease of that for one and twenty years after the death of one Carn who in truth never had any estate in the Land and afterwards she dyes the first Lease expires And I the Son enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiffe And the Defendant claims under B. the Lessee And adjudged for the Plaintiffe for by such a power she could not make a Lease to comence at a day to come but it ought to be a Lease in possession and not in interest to comence in future nor in reversion after another estate ended but the Law will judge upon the generall power to make Leases without saying such ought to be Leases in Possession for if upon such power she might make Lease upon Lease she might by infinite Leases detain those in Reversion or Remainder out of the Possession for ever which is against the intent of the parties and against reason and adjudged accordingly Trin. 30 Eliz. Earle of Sussex case 6 Rep. 33. And Justice VVilliams said that when he was a Serjeant it was so adjudged in the Common Pleas in the Earle of Essex Case and Judgement by the the whole Court BRasier versus Beal Trin. 10 Jacobi Upon an especial Verdict in Ejectment the Case was that a Copy-holder in Fee of the Mannour of B. in the County of Oxford by license of the Lord lease the Land in question for sixty years to M. if he should live so long rendring Rent with a Condition of re-entry the Copy holder surrenders to the Lessor of the Plaintiff in Fee who demands the Rent upon the Land which being not paid he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintif without any Argument the Court seemed to be of opinion that the Entry of the Lessor was not congeable for Copy-hold land is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions nor the Lessor such an Assignee that the Statute intends for at the Common Law a Copy-holders Estate is but an Estate at will custome hath onely fixed his Estate to continue which Custome goes not to such collateral things as Entries upon Condition for such an Assignee of a Copy-holder being onely in by Custome is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor onely by him but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord by the opinion of the whole Court ODingsall versus Jackson Mich. 10. Jac. In Ejectment the Declaration was that the Defendants intraverunt and that he did eject expulse and amove in the singular number and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant shewed this matter to the Court in Arrest of Judgement for the Declaration is incertain in that point because it cannot be known which of the Defendants did eject the Plaintiff for by his own shewing it appears that the Ejectment was but against one and upon that Declaration the Jury could not finde all the Defendants guilty for by the Plaintiffs supposal one onely did eject him but the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Declaration should be amended in that point for it was but the Clerks fault and so it was and upon an Evidence in an Ejectment by the Lessees of Cresset and Smith Yelverton said that if a man comes into a Copy-hold tertiously and is admitted by the Lord and afterwards he makes a Lease for three Lives which is a Forfeiture of his Estate yet if he that hath the pure Right to the Copy-hold release to the wrong-doer that it is good for untill the Lord enter he is Tenant in fait and if the rever as Copy-holder 4 Rep. 15. But Walter seemed of another opinion and therefore quaere what benefit he shall have by the Release In an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment of decem acris pisar and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff had declared de decem acris pisar which is not good for Pease are not known by the Acre and therefore he should have declared de decem acris tene pisis seminaris as if a man will demand Land covered with water he must say decem acras terrae aqua co opertas but the whole Court held it good for in a common acceptance ten Acres of Pease or ten Acres sowed with Pease is all one and so is the opinion of Catesby 11 E. 4. 1. And the man the Secondary said that so it had been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error MEerton versus Orib Trin. 11. Jacobi Orib brought an Ejectment against Meerton in the Common Pleas 6 Jacobi of a Cole-mine in Durham in the County Palatine there the Defendant pleaded not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff before the Justices Itinerantes there upon which Judgement the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Errour that the Plaintif appeared by an Attourney whereas it ought to have been by Guardian being under age And upon an Issue that he was of full age was tryed at Durham and found that he was within age but the Plaintif had license to discontinue his Writ of Errour and brought a new Writ of Errour Quod coram nobis residat And declared that M. was inhabiting at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and being within age appeared by an Attorney the Defendant in the Writ of Errour confessed that he was inhabiting at Westminster but that he was at full age at the time And upon the tryall in Middlesex it was found that M. was under age And it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement and it depended a long time that it was a mistryall and the doubt and question was onely whether the tryall at Westminster in this Case was good And Davenport and Yelverton were of opinion that it was not good for the Errour assigned was done at Durham and because they there have the best notice of it it ought to have been there tryed As if Errour be in a Record it shall be tryed where the Record is 19 H. 6. 79. Secondly This is a reall Action in which the Land shall be recovered and therefore though the Issue be upon a collaterall matter yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes because it concernes the realty but if it had concerned the person onely it had been otherwise and this difference is taken by Montham 19 H. 6. 10. And therefore if a Feoffment be made upon payment c. If upon an Assise brought the Defendant plead payment in another place yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes And so likewise if the Issue should be which
is the eldest Son although they alleadge their births in severall Counties yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so in that Case a Release of all his right was pleaded against him and he pleaded that he was within age and borne in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. and 17 E. 3. 36. b. 19 H. 6. 15. Nay though the Espousals be alleadged to be in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. And Davenport inferrs from 36 H. 6. 9. A grand Cape against one he comes and pleads that he was within age at the time of the first Cape which shall be tryed where the Land lyes And another exception was taken because the Venire facias was not well awarded for it was directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex that he should cause to come twelve Coram nobis apud westmonasterium which is not good for that Court follows the King and may be removed to any place and therefore it ought to have been Vbicunque fuerimus in Anglia but all the Judges Fleming being absent after mature deliberation held the tryall at Middlesex good for they took this difference in their answer to the rule layd downe that what concernes the realty it shall be tryed where the Land lyes for when nonage or the birth are alleadged to intitle one to the Land demanded as if in an Assise the Tenant pleads a discontinuance the Demandant sayes he was within age at the time or to debarr another of Land that he was borne before marriage in these Cases because the Inheritance of the Land depends upon it although they be alleadged in another place yet they shall be tryed where the Land lyes 19 H. 6. And so it is 39 H. 6. 49. b. to be intended but if nonage or birth be pleaded as matter dehors and not to the disabling of the title to the Land but to another purpose as here it is to the person because he could not appeare by Attorney in this Case it shall be tryed where the Infancy is alleadged As if in a Formedon in the Remainder the Tenant pleads nonage in the Plaintiff and prayes that the Plea may stay untill his full age if Issue be taken upon it it shall be tryed in the place where it is alleadged And as to the Exception to the Venire facias the Roll is right which warrants the Writ and therefore they held it was but the Writers fault and should be amended and Doddridge and Cook held the Triall good if Infancy be alledged the Triall shall be by inspection during his Nonage as it is 17 E. 3. Account 121. and 11 H. 4. 115. 25. Ass 2. and 48 E. 3. 11. and the 11. Rep. f. 30. but if his Age upon inspection remains doubtfull then the Judges may swear the party and examine Witnesses And 25 E. 3. 44. and 50 E. 3. 5. but if the Infant come to full Age it shall be tried by the Countrey 33 H. 8. and they took this Difference in what place it should be tried for if the Action be reall it shall be tried where the Land lies as it is 21 E. 3. 28. 28 E. 3. 17. 44 Assis 10. 46 E. 3. 7. 13 H. 4. 3. and if both places be in one County then the venire facias shall be of both 22 E. 3. 11. H. 4. 75. but if nonage be alledged in a personall Action the Triall shall be where the writ is brought 43. H. 6. 40. in Debt the Defendant pleaded infancy and that he was born in such a place yet the Venire facias was awarded of that place where the Action was brought and 43 H. 6. 40. Prisot was of the same opinion and the Law is the same when it concerns the person as in misnomer or that he is not the same person and so in the Case in question although the Action be brought in one place and the nonage pleaded in another County yet it shall be tried where the Action was brought and therefore the Action being brought in Midd. the triall of Midd. is good for a writ of Error is of the nature of an Originall which is personall and they held the Venire facias should be amended being but a matter of Form and that it was no mistriall it being awarded at a right place and likewise the will is right which warrants it and therefore it is but a misprision and no mistriall and the Venire facias shall be amended according to the will and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in the writ of Error Formedon BRigham versus Godwin The Formedon did abate by the death of one of the Demandants and upon a new writ brought by Journes accounts the Tenant was Essoined and it was moved by the demanded that the Essoin should be quashed because the Tenant was Essoined upon the first writ but the Essoin was allowed by the Court but it was held by the Court that if the Tenant had the view upon the first Writ he should never have the view again at the Common Law we might have had a new Essoin upon view as often as he brings a new writ and Husband held that if by the Common Law it is to be granted the Statute doth not abridge it two views do not ly upon one writ at the common Law and if this shall be accounted but one Writ the view lieth not but in this case the Tenant did relinquish the view because he had day to plead NEvill versus Nevil Mich. 15 Jac. rotulo 77. Formedon in le Discender the writ was generall and the Count was upon a Feofment made after the Statute of uses and a speciall verdict whether the Deed warrant the Count the verdict is whether upon the whole matter the said A. N. gave the moity of the third part of the Mannor c. for default of Issue of the Bodies of either the said G. and D. to the use of either of them surviving and of the Heires males of his Body to be begotten or no the Jury are wholly ignorant the writ was to the use of G. and D. and of the Heirs males of the Bodies of the said G. and D. lawfully to be begotten and for default of such issue male of the Body of either of them then to the use of either of them having issue male of his Body lawfully begotten and for default of such issue male of both the Bodies of the said G. D. or either of them lawfully to be begotten then to the use c. By Deed an implication cannot be intended if there be not apt words otherwise it is in a Will for this is but a gift to a man and his Issue for this gift is but to both of them for life and severall inheritances Bishop al. versus Cossen Trin. 16 Jac. rotulo 62. In Formedon the Tenant pleaded a warranty and pretends
were his Masters and part his own proper Goods and found guilty as to his own Goods and a special Verdict as to the Goods of his Master and Judgement for the Plaintiff COnstable versus Inhabitant in dimid Hundred de VValsham in Comitat. Essex Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2244. The Action wabrought for a Robbery the Defendant is found guilty and it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie because it was not brought against the whole Hundred and it was answered on the Plaintiffs behalf that the half Hundred is a Hundred by it self and the Court held the Writ should have been brought against them in this manner Inhabitantes in Hundredo de W. called the half Hundred of Waltham but the Writ was held good for the Writis so shall be intended to be brought against the men inhabiting in the half hundred of W. Judgement for the Plaintif in a special verdict the Jury found that the robbery was done upon the Sunday and it was held in the Kings Bench that the Hundred was liable NOrris versus Inhabitantes in Hundredo de G. Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 431. And the Plaintiff declares upon a Robbery done the ninth day of October An. 13 Jacobi And the Originall bears Teste the ninth of October 14 Jacobi and after a Verdict Serjeant Harvey moved to stay the Judgement because the Writ was not brought within one year after the Robbery done according to the forme of the Statute of 27 Eliz. And the Court held it a good Exception CAmblyn versus Hundredum de Tendring Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 1952. The Plaintiff in his Declaration had mistaken to alleadge the very Day of the Robbery for he shewed the Robbery to be committed in October where in truth it was committed in September and the Court was moved that the Record which was taken out for Triall but never put in might be amended for the notice given to the Hundred as the Record is would appear to be before the Robbery and they granted that it should be amended Actions in Partition THe Process in Partition are Summons Attachment and Distress and the Process are returnable from fifteen Dayes to fifteen Dayes and if the Writ be brought against two or more several Essoines will lie but no View and the Sheriff upon the Distress is compellable to return the value of the Land from the teste of the Original untill the Return thereof and if the Writ be against two or more Deâ—eâ—â—iants and onely one appears the Plaintiff cannot declare against him untill the residue of the Defendants appear and Partition lies by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 32. between Joint-tenants Tenants in Common Tenants for Life or for years but at the Common Law Partition was onely between Coparceners his Petit. is no Plea in Partition and in this Action there are two Judgements the first is that Partition shall be made and if the Plaintiff die after the first Jugement and before the second Judgement the Writ shall not abate but his Heir shall have a Scire facias against the Defendants to shew cause why Partition should be made and a Writ of Partition will not lie of the View of Frank Pledges and the Death of one of the Defendants abates the Writ And note the Plaintiff may have a general Writ but a special Count and if the Defendant confess part and plead Quod non tenet insimul pro indiviso for the residue the Plaintiff may have Judgement upon the Confession and a Writ to make Partition upon the Confession before the Triall and afterwards try the Issue for the residue or else he may respit his Judgement upon the Confession untill the Issue be tried but this is dangerous for if the Plaintiff be non-suit at the Assise then the whole Writ will abate and if the Sheriff return the Tenant summoned when in truth he was not an Action of Deceit lies not but an Action upon the Case because the Plaintiff shall not recover the Land by default and you shall never have a Writ of Partition against one where he cannot have one against the other thirteen men joyn in a purchase of a Mannour the Conveyance was of the moity to one of them in Fee and the other moity to the other twelve men in Fee the twelve make a Feoffment to one of twelve several Tenements and Land and that Feoffee makes twelve several Feoffments to those twelve men now the thirteenth man which had the other moity bringeth one Writt of Partition against them all pretending that they held insimul pro indiviso and by the opinion of the whole Court it would not lie but he ought to have brought several Writs and Mich. 6. Jacobi in Partition because both of them are in Possession he that is not prohibited may cut down all the Trees and no Estrepment will lie COcks versus Combstoks The Plaintiff declares that one A. was seised in Fee and demised for years to J. and L. and to the Plaintiff for term of Life and one of them demised to one of the Defendants for years the Defendant as to part pleads that he did not demise and the other pleads Non est informat and a Demurrer to the Plea of Non demisit because it is but argumentative Quod non tenet insimul and it was adjudged a naughty Plea a Writ of Error lies in Partition upon the first Judgement before the Writ be returned MIll versus Glemham The Defendant pleads that he before the purchasing of this Writ had brought a Writ of partition for the same Land against the Plaintiff which yet depends and demands Judgment if the Plaintiffs Writ were brought And the Court held that the Writ last brought is well brought for if the first Plaintiff will not proceed upon his Writ and the Defendant shall confess the Action yet the Defendant cannot sue a Writ to make partition upon that Plaintiffs Writ and therefore it is reasonable that the Defendant in the first Action may sue out a Writ to make partition and that the Defendants plea is naught and the last Writ is well prosecuted Actions upon Quare Impedit THe Process in this Action are Summons Attachment and Distress peremptory by the Statute of Marlborough cap. 13. the Sheriff must summon the Defendant by good summoners and return their names upon the original Writ and not return common summoners as John Doo and Richard Roo for a Writ of deceit lyeth in this Writ if the summons were not made indeed The Writs hereupon are returned from 15. days to 15. days The summons upon the first Writ may either be made at the Church door to the person of the Defendant And although a nihil be returned upon the first summons Attachment and Distress yet if the Defendant make default upon the Distress a Writ shall goe to the Bishop upon the title made by the Plaintiff but at the common Law
a Distress infinite did lie and no Writ to the Bishop before the appearance of the Defendant but now this is taken away by the Statute of Marlborough cap. 13. A Writ of Journes accompts lieth upon the death of the Testator and summons and severance if one of the Plaintiffs will not sue The Judgment in a Quare impedit is to recover the presentment and the value of the Church for half a year if the Plaintiff remove the Clerk And if he do not remove the Clerk then the value of the Church by two years and the value shall be levied by fifa or elegit and not by capias ad satisfaciend for that no capias lay before the appearance upon the Original Four things are to be enquired on in a Quare Impedit the first is whether the Church be full or no the second is if it be full of whose presentment thirdly whether the six moneths be past from the time it became void fourthly the value of the Church by the year If a Quare Impedit be brought against diverse they shall have severall essoins before appearance if the first man be essoined it must be adjourned for 15. days idem dies shall be given to the rest And at that day another of the Defendants may be essoined for 15. days more and an Idem dies given to the rest and so of all the rest of the Defendants And if the Defendant take not his essoin upon the summons he may take his essoin upon the Attachment And if the Plaintiff do not adjourn the essoin he shall be nonsuit And note that the Defendants are not bound to appear after they have had their essoins untill the return of the Distress for an essoin is no appearance because it may be cast by a stranger And note if the Quare Impedit be not brought against the Incumbent that is presented and admitted into the Church at the time of purchasing the first original Writ that Clerk shall never be removed by the Plaintiff although he hath judgment to remove his presentation but if a stranger be presented hanging the Writ if the Plaintiff recove he shall remove him And therfore the surer way is to bring the Writ against the Bishop Patron and Incumbent and then the Bishop shall not present by Cupps and if the Patron be omitted in the originall the Writ is abateable If the Originall writ be brought against three one May appear before his companions and Processe shall be continued untill Distresse be against the rest and the Plaintiff in the mean time declare against him that appears in the Simulcum and if he that appears pleads non impedivit the writ shall be awarded to the Bishop but there shall be acesset Executio untill the Plea between the Plaintiff and the other Defendants be determined and if the Bishop appear and claim nothing but as Ordinary a writ shall issue to the same Bishop upon that Judgement but if the Bishop makes a Title to present Judgement is given for the Plaintiff then the writ shall issue to the Metropolitan of Canterbury if the Church be within his Province and so to the Metropolitan of York if it be within his and upon a Judgement by non sum informat or nihil dicit the writ shall go to the Arch-Bishop and not the Ordinary if the writ be against him The death of one of the Defendants hanging the writdoth not abate the writ nor of one of the Plaintiffs Parcenors If the Incumbent recover he shall recover damages for he cannot have a Writ to the Bishop and if a man recover in a Quare impedit and die his Heir shall not have Execution for it is not a reall Action and the Plaintiff ought alwayes in his Declaration to make mention of the last Incumbent or otherwise his Writ shall abate The Husband alone but in the Right of his wife may without his wife bring a Quare impedit but not an Assise de Durraigne presentment for he shall recover nothing but his presentation and dammages and if the wife dye hanging the writ it shall not abate and a writ did abate because it was that he should permit him to nominate a fit person where it should be to present for an Advowson in VVales the writ shall be brought in the next English County and Judgement shall be given in his Action for the Plaintiffe at the Assises and deceit lyes as upon a Judgement had in this Action upon default upon every Issue issued joyned by Iury the Iury shall inquire of the points of the writ and note admission plenarty institution and ability shall be tried by the Ordinaries Certificate but if the Issue be whether the Church be empty by resignation or whether the Patron have presented his Clerk it shall be tried by the Couutrey and in this writ the Defeudant shall neither have his age nor a protection nor an Essoin as in the Kings service to avoid the Cupps If the King was Plaintiff that the defendant was not summoned by the Sheriff nor attached nor distrained and the King had Judgement by default no writ of deceit lies in an Assise of Durraign Presentment of the writ be brought in Midd. at the Return of the writ the Assise shall be there arraigned by the Serjeants at the Barr in French and the Tenant shall be demanded and if the Tenant do not appear when he is demanded a resummons shall be awarded and if upon the resummons the Tenant shall not appear the Assise shall be taken against him by default and if the Tenant appear he may demand Oyer of the writ and the Return and the writ shall be read to him in haec verba and the Return thereof and the Jury shall have the view and the Tenant may take exception either to the writ or to the Return thereof if there be cause and if there be no cause then he may pray a day to plead and if the Court give a day then the Jurors that appeared shall be discharged of their attendance and ought to appear upon a new Processe to be awarded against them the Judgement in this Assise is to recover the Presentation dammages and the value for half a year and if six moneths be past the value of the Church for two years by the Statute of Westminster Ed. 2. and six of the Jury ought to have the view of the Church to the intent that they may put the Plaintiff into possession if he recover and in this writ the Plaintiff shall not recover the Advowson but the Presentation the Processe in this writ is summons resummons against the Tenant and summons habeas corpus and distresse against the Jury and the Processe shall be returned from fifteen dayes to fieteen dayes and no Essoin nor voucher lies after a resummons If the King present his Clerk one may have an Assise against his Clerk only and not against the King and at Common Law none can have an Assise but
remove the Clerk who was admitted by the presentation of Stoneleys wife to whom a joynture was made by her Husband before he was indebted to the Queen and it was pretended that the joynture was void by the Statute of 〈…〉 and so was the opinion of the Court. If one usurp upon the King where the King hath Title the Clerk cannot be removed but by a Quare Impedit but where the King is to present by laps and one doth present the King during the life of the Clerk shall remove him but if he dye the King hath lost his presentation but if the Clerk resign then is it no prejudice to the King COmes Bed versus Episcopum Exo. Trin. 14 Jacobi rotulo 2235. A Quare Impedit brought the Bishop and Incumbent joyn and plead that there is another writ depending against the same Bishop only and pleads it and that the disturbance in this Declaration and the disturbance in the former Declaration are one and the same disturbance The Plaintiff replies that the first writ was brought for another disturbance and traverses without that that they are one and the same impediment and the Defendant demurs upon that plea and Judgment given for the Defendant that it was a good plea in abatement for although the presentation and the disturbance are both of them in question yet the presentation is the main and the presentation but as accessory BIrkhead versus Archiepiscopum Eborum al. Pasch 14. Jacobi rotulo 953. A Quare Impedit brought for the Vicaridg of Leeds in York-shire The Arch-Bishop claims nothing but as Ordinary and pleads further that the Church became void the first of January An. 12. Jacobi and that six moneths had elapsed by reason whereof he collated the 23. Decem. and Cook the Incumbent pleaded the same plea the Plaintiff replyed and confessed the Avoidance the first of January but he further said that within the six moneths to wit the 20. of May c. he presented his Clerk and the Arch-bishop refused to admit him And afterwards to wit the 30. of May the Bishop collated and the Defendant demurred for the doubleness of the plea. If the Incumbent plead good matter for his presentation although the Bishop plead insufficiently that shall not prejudice the Clerk And the Defendant took exception to the Plaintiffs writ because it bore-date the 9. of May the presentment was 29. of May and the refusall of the Bishop was the said 29. of May and he collated the 30. of May and so the writ was brought before the refusall made by the Arch-Bishop DOminus nuper Rex Jacobus versus Episcopum Roffen al. Hill 13. Jacobi rotulo 2330. A Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Milton near Gravesend in Kent and the issue was that Queen Eliz. was seised of the advowson of the said Church c. and upon tryall of the issue the Jury found it specially by which it appeared that the Queen had Title but at two turns and the Bishop had one turn and because it appeared to the Court that the Queen had Title to that turn therefore a writ was awarded to the Bishop for the King WInchcomb versus Episcopum recutor al. Pasch 14. Jacobi rotulo 1026. The case was that a Clerk in Salisbury when the Church was full contracted with the Patron to give him 98. l. when the Church should become void the then Incumbent being a very old and sickly man and did conclude that the Patron should grant the next avoidance to a Friend of his who presented him And this was held to be a Simonaicall contract The Clerk was admitted and continued in all his life and died and now the King presented The qustion was whether the King not taking advantage thereof during his life shall have now the presentment if he had resigned or made cession and then another had been presented and then the first Clerk had died the King then had lost his turn Hubbard and Winch held that the King had not lost his presentation for he never was Parson and that the King after his death shall have his turn and Winchcomb cannot have it because the Church was void when the lease of the Mannor was made And Calverts case in the Exchequer was remembred for the Church being void P. contracts simoniacally with the Patron to have the presentation and upon this corrupt agreement he presents R. who was ignorant of this corrupt agreement and yet he was removed for he shall be punished for the offence of his Patron the admiission upon such corrupt agreement maketh the institution and induction void AVsten versus Episcopum London al. Pasch 12. Jac. rotulo 2255. A Quare Impedit brought for the Church of B. he claimed by grant of the next avoidance from Sir Edward Pynchion The Defendant pleads a Usurpation by Queen Mary upon a deprivation and plenarty of her Clerk by six months The Plaintiff pleads a recovery by a Quare Impedit upon a non sum informat by the Patron against the Queens Clerk If the King upon usurpation present and his Clerk be in by six moneths if the Patron bring a quare Impedit against the Kings Clerk and recover by non sum informat this shall remit the Patron to his ancient right otherwise it is if the King do present by Title in the case of deprivation the Patron must have six moneths after notice And Judgment was given for the Plaintiff WIvel versus Episcopum Cestrie al. Pasch 12. Iacobi rotulo 626. Tenant in tayle and his sonne grant an advowson and the Father dyeth the grant is void and Judgment for the Plaintif WIndham versus Episcopum Norwic. al. Mich. 13. Jac. rotulo 2042. A Quare imped brought that the Bishop should permit the Plaintiff to present c. to the Church of A. c. and declares that whereas E. W. Knight was seised of the Mannor of M. with the appurtenances to which the advowson of the said Church to wit to present to the said Church every first turn c. and that the Duke of Norfolk was seised of the advowson of the said Church to wit to present to the same every second turn And that one T. G. was seised of the advowson of the said Church to wit to present to the same every third turn c. And an exception was taken to the Declaration because by the writ the Plaintiff claimed the intire advowson and by his count he claimed but the third turn and also he did not alledg that he ought to have the first turn but the exceptions were over-ruled by the Court for when the Church is void and it appertains to him to present he hath the intire advowson but otherwise it is when there are two advowsons in one Church for there the Court must be to the moity of the Church or the third part THe late King James against Matthew Trin. 4. Jacobi The King was Plaintiff in a
first had the Free hold granted to him by the Lord of the Mannor And then he leavied a Fine and five years passe whether he in the Remainder be Barred or no those whose estates are turned to rights either present or future are meant by the Statute to be barred of a Copy-hold for years be put out of possession and a Fine Leavied and no entry by him he is barred by the Statute by the Bargain and Sale he in the Remainder is not put out of possession if a man make a Lease to begin at Easter next and before Easter a Fine is leavied and five years passe this Fine will not barr because at the Leavying of the Fine he could not enter for then his right was future if the Lease had been in possession and the Lessee had never entered he had been barred A Lease for years Remainder for years if the first man taketh for life the first estate is not so determined but that the Remainder standeth if a Copy-hold surrender for life there passeth no more from him then so much as maketh the estate and no more and the rest remaineth in him CRantley versus Kingswel Pacsb 15 Jacobi rotulo 710. The Defendant makes cognisance as Bailiff of Kingswell his Father for Rent service due to his Father at such a Feast And shews that Cramley holds of him by fealty and rent paiable at such a Feast and for Rent due at such a Feast made Cognisance the Plaintiffe in Barr saies that he at the said Feast offered the Rent upon the Land and that no body was there to receive it And the Plaintiffe saith that afterwards he demanded the Rent upon the Land and the Plaintffe made a Replevin pretending the Lord should make a personall demand but the whole Court was against him And Warburton took acception against the pleading the Tender because he saith that he offered the Rent to pay when as he was not present And the question was whether the Lord for a Rent service did not demand it at that day whether he can distrain without a demand of the person and held he might for the Tenant is yet bound to tender and the Land is debter and the Lord may resort thither when he pleases to demand the Rent upon the Land but if he tender his Homage and the Lord refuses it he cannot distrain without a demand of the Person and Judgment for the Defendant STokes versus Winter Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2242. In Replevin the Defendant makes cognisance as Bayliff to Tenant for life to whom the Annuity was granted for life to begin by will after the death of the devisor And alledges the death of the devisor but not the day of the death after whose death the said H. was seised of the yeerly rent aforesaid in his demesn as of his Free-hold for terme of his life by vertue of the devise aforesaid And because seven pounds of the Rent aforesaid for one yeer ended at the Feast c. and by the space of 14. dayes then next following were behinde to the said T. the said time with c. the said T. as Bayliffe of the said H. doth make cognisance of the taking of the cattell aforesaid in the said place in which c. for the said 7 li. for the yeerly Rent aforesaid being so behind c. and issue was taken whether the said I. at the time of his death was seised of the said six Acres of Land in his demesne as of Fee as c. And after tryall exception was taken to the Advowry because it was not alledged that the annuity at such a Feast after the death of the devisor was behinde but it was over-ruled because there is so much expressed and Judgment given for the Defendant HVmfrey versus Powell Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2791. Replevin wherein the Defendant avows for one Annuity granted to the Defendant to whom the office of Catorship of the Church of Roffen in Kent was granted by the Dâ—an and Chapter of that Church for life with an Annuity of 6. pounds for the exercising of that Office with a clause of distresse by vertue of which grant he was possessed and avowes for the Annuity and avers that it was an ancient Office pertaining to the Dean and Chapter of Roffen and doth not aver that the Annuity was an ancient Annuity The Defendant pleads the Statute of the 13 Eliz that all Devises Donations Grants c. made by any Master and Fellows of any Colledge Dean and Chapter c. other then for the terme of twenty and one yeers or three lives from the time of this Devise c. should be totally void And shews that the old Dean died and another was elected And a Demurrer thereupon And Judgement that the Grant was void HYen versus Gerrard Mich. 13. Jacobi rotulo 752. The Defendant in Replevin avows that one being seised in Fee made a Lease to him and avows for Damage feasant The Plaintiffe in Barr pleads and maintains his Declaration and traverses the Lease upon the Avowant demurrs and adjudged a goodtraverse IEnyx versus Applefourth Trin. 17. Eliz rotulo 543. The Defendant avows for a Rent charge the Plaintiffe in Barr pleads that the Defendant had presented a Writ of Annuity And that he had an Imparlance thereunto And demands Judgement if the Defendant did well make cognisance to the taking of the cattell in the said place in which c. in name of a distresse for the rent aforesaid by vertue of the said writing as Bayliffe of the said R. the said Writ of Annuity being prosecuted c. upon the said writing in form aforesaid c. And a Demurrer thereupon and Judgement by the whole Court for the Plaintiffe it is not needfull to lay a prescription to distrain for an Amerciament in a Court Leet but it is otherwise for an Amerciament in a Court Baron by the whole Court DArcy versus Langton The Defendant avows for a Rent charge and for a Nomine penae and no mention made in the Avowry of the Rent charge and the Plaintiffe was non-suit and afterwards in Arrest of Judgement this matter was alledged and at first held to be a good exception but afterwards Judgement was entred an Advowry is in the nature of a Declaration if that be vitious no Judgement can be given for the Advowant TRin. 9. Jacobi Regis rotulo 2033. Replevin for the taking of Cattell at Andover in a certain place there called R The Defendant makes cognisance for damage feasant the Plaintiffe saies that he was seised of the Messuage c. in C. in the Parish of A to which he claimed Common of Pasture And issue taken upon the prescription and a Venire Facias of A. and exception taken because it was not tryed of C. and A. or of the Parish of A. but it was adjudged to be good TRinbone versus Smith Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 626. In Replevin foure and twenty were returned upon the
who makes conisance as Bailiff of Sir Ed. Br. for a common Fine which was assessed upon the Plaintiff who was resident within the Leet of his Master The Plaintiff replies that Sir Edw. by his deed had released to him all rents services exactions and demands out of his Mannor except suit of Court the Defendant demurred And Nichols that suit of Court for which this common Fine was set is excepted and therefore the common Fine is not released by that but is excepted also a common Fine is assessed when the Jurors in the Leet do conceal that which they ought to find and with which they are charged and therefore the release being for exactions out of the Land And this is not for any thing by reason of the Land but because he doth misbehave himself and by the opinion of the whole Court a release of all demands doth not discharge a man of his suite to a Leet by reason of his residency because a Leet is the Kings Court to which every leige-Subject is to come and perform his allegiance to him And also because suit of Court is inseparably inoident to a Court leet which cannot be released PAllets Case Pasch 5. Jacob. In a replevin in which Pallet was Plaintiff the case was such where a man made a Lease of Lands of which Land he was seized by a good Title and of Land of which he was seised of a defeasible Title for years rendring rent and in the replevin the Lessor avows for the whole rent The Plaintiff in the replevin saith that after the lease made the Disseisee had entred upon part of the Land and a demurrer Sergeant Hicham moved for the Advowant that he ought to have a return for he agreed that the rent should have been apportioned but he said that if a man avows for many things and he hath right but to one he shall have a returh habend 5. H. 7. and 9. H. 7. And 4. Ass Pl. 6. where a man brings an assise for rent and hath right but to part yet he shall recover for that part and cited the opinion of Popham put in Walkers Cafe in the third Rep. 24. when rent reserved upon a Lease for years should be apportioned If a man in an action of debt demands more then hee ought yet upon a nil debet pleaded the Lessor shall recover so much as shall be apportioned and assessed by the Jury and shall be barred as to the residue But Yelverton was of another opinion for he said as this case is the Avowant shall not have a return habend But if the apporciament had been made by the Jury he should have had a return habend but in this case the apporciament must be made by the Judges to whom the quantity of the Land cannot appear and therefore they cannot make apportiament for they all agreed that the apportiament ought to be accotding to the value of the Land and not according to the quantity And to prove this he cited Hubberd and Hammonds Case 43. Eliz. co lib. 427. As where the Fines of Copyholders upon admittance are uncertain the Lord cannot exact excessive Fines and if the Copyholder deny to pay it it shall be determined by the opinion of the Judges before whom the matter depends and upon a demurrer to the evidence to a Jury upon the confession or proof of the annuall value of land the annuall value ought to appear to the Judges but in this case the value doth not appear to them and therefore they cannot make any apportiament and therefore the Avowant shall not have a return habend But Tâ—anfield held the Avowant should have a return habend for the whole rent for the Judges could not apportion this because the value did not appear and the eviction is matter of privity which ought to be discovered by the Lessee and he should give notice to the Lessor and he ought to shew the value of the Land from which he is inriched to the Judges And Popham is of the same opinion for he said the value of the Land ought to be shewed by the Lessee for every one ought to plead that which is in his knowledg and that was in the Lessee's knowledg and not the Lessor and Fenner of the same opinion but Yelverton and Williams against it for Yelverton said that it appeared that part of the Land was evicted and therefore it ought to be apportioned but because the value did not appear to the Judges it could not be apportioned Williams said that if the Lessee surrender part the Lessor need not shew the value and Popham agreed to that because the acceptions of the Lessor had made him privy to it KEnrick versus Pargiter Trin. 6. Jacobi The Defendant justifies the taking of the Cattell damage fesant upon a surmise of a custome that the Plaintiff being Lord hath the place in which c. wholly to himself untill Lammas day and after that day it is common for the Tenants and the Plaintiff is not to put in but only three horses c. And because the Plaintiff after Lammas put in more cattell then three horses the Defendant took them damage fesant as it was lawfull for him to do And issue was joyned upon the custome and found against the Plaintiff and Yelverton shewed in arrest of Judgment that the Defendant could not take the Cattell damage fesant for it appears that the Defendant is only a Commoner and it also appears that the place in which c. is the soile of the Plaintiff and the Cattell cannot be taken damage fesant upon his ground no more then the Tenant can have an Action of Trespass against his Lord guare vi armis c. in regard of his Seigniory as it is in Littleton and 5. H. 7. But the Court said that the matter of taking the Cattell did not come into question for nothing was in issue but the custome which is found against the Plaintiff for if the Plaintiff would have taken advantage of that he ought to have demurred And although by that he had confessed the custom yet whether such Commoner could have taken the Lords Cattell would then properly have come into debate And by Fenner Williams and Cook the taking the Lords Cattel damage fesant was good for by the custom the Lord is to be excluded but only for his stint and the Lord may well be stinted and the whole vestive and benefit of the soile is the Commoners and they have no other remedy to preserve the benefit they have in feeding their Cattell but by taking the Cattell of the Lord if he offends And the Custome hath made the Lord as meer a stranger as any other and without doubt the Commoner might take the Cattell of a stranger 15. H. 7. The chief Justice and Yelverton doubted of it And although the Commoners by the custome had gained the sole feeding in the land of the Lord Yet they ought to have shewed the custome and also the usage
is not a fault in form which is helped by the Statute but it is a defect in matter and then the Jury having assessed intire Dammages for both the Trespasses and that no cause of Action is supposed forme the verdict was not good which the Court granted FReshwater vers Reus Mic. 2 Jac. tenant in tail convenanted to stand seised in consideration of a marriage to be had by his Son with the Daughter of J. S. to the use of himself his heirs untill the marriage be had afterwards to the use of himself for life afterwards to his Son and his wife the daughter of J. S. and the heirs of their bodies and suffers a recovery with a single voucher to that purpose they die without Issue and adjudged that the Entry of him in the Remaindant depending upon the estate Tail was lawfull for first there is no consideration to raise an use for the consideration is onely the marriage of his Son with a stranger the which as to the changing of the possession is not any benefit to the Father for he is as a stranger to that personall particular consideration but if the consideration had been for the establishing of the Land in his name and blood it had been good for that onely concerned the Father and the whole Court agreed that although it were an alteration of the Estate as to himself but not to strangers for if he had after such Covenant to stand seisedtook a Wife she should have had Dower In Trespasse the Proces is Attachment and Distress infinite but if nihil be returned Proces of Outlary lyes and if the Defendant be returned attached by such Goods and Chattels if the Defendant omit to cast an Essoine at the returne of the Writ of Attachment he shall forfeit the Goods by which he was attached but if he cast an Essoine he shall have a speciall Writ reciting the matter to the Sheriff to deliver to him his Goods or Cattell although he doe not appeare at the day of the adjournment of the Essoine And if the Defendant at the returne of the Attachment will appear without an Essoine he may and then he shall not forfeit the Goods And note the Essoine shall not be adjourned by from fifteen dayes to fifteen dayes And if the originall Writ be against many they shall have but one Essoine in personall Actions And if a Lord of the Parliament appeare not he shall forfeit an hundred pounds and upon issue joyned in this Action the Proces against the Jury is the Venire facias Habeas corpus and Distresse And if a Baron of the Parliament be a Defendant then if a Knight be not returned upon the Pannell the Defendant may at the Assises quash the Pannell and if at the Assises the Jury doe not appeare full to wit twelve men this may be supplyed by the Justices at the request of the Plaintiff and the Sheriff ought to returne two Hundreds at the least in this Action and so in every personall Action but foure in reall Actions for if a challenge be made Pro defectu hundredo if two be not returned the Jury shall remaine and a Distringas with a Decem tales shall be awarded returnable in Court but no circumstances shall be awarded in Court for if the Jury in Court doe not appeare full or are challenged for that the Jurors have no freehold and it be tryed a new Habeas corpus shall issue out with a Decem tales if it be desired And if the Jury appeare full in the Court and the Array be challenged either for that it was of the Plaintiffs denomination or that the Sheriff or under Sheriff who returned the Jury are of the Kindred of the Plaintiff or any other principall cause of challenge and this is confessed or tryed by two of the Jurors who have appeared being assigned and sworne by the Court to be tryers of the challenge who shall give their Verdict that the challenge is true then the Array shall be quashed and if he that arrayed the Pannell remaine Sheriff the Venirefacias de novo shall be awarded to the Coroners if there be no cause of exception against them or any of them by reason of Kindred or any other principall cause And if there be cause of challenge to any of them the Venire facias shall issue to the rest and his companion shall not intermeddle with the execution of it and if there be good cause against all then a Venire facias shall issue to Estizors to be appointed by the Court to returne the Writ but if the Sheriff who returned the first Pannell be removed then a new Venire facias shall issue to the Sheriff who shall be then in Office And note no challenge shall be made to the Array returned by the Estizors but by the Poll and if the Jury appeare full and no challenge be made untill twelve be sworne the Jury shall proceed to heare their Evidence and give their Verdict and if the Jury finde for the Plaintiffe then they shall give costs and dammages but if they find for the Defendant they shall finde neither costs nor dammages And the Judgement for the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff shall recover his dammages found by the Jury and costs of suit but if the Jury find for the Defendant the Judgment is that the Plaintiff shall in t capiat per breve but if Judgement in this case had lyen a Nil dicit confession or Non sum informat then the Court shall award to the Sheriff a Writ to inquire of dammages and no challenge lyes to the Jury upon a Writ to inquire And if the Sheriff returne but twenty and one upon the Jury and twelve of them appeare and try the Issue and give a Verdict it is a good Verdict but if onely ten or eleven of them appeare and the Jury be made up at the Assises De circumstantibus and the Issue be tryed and a Verdict given it is naught and not holpen by the Statute And if the Issue be joyned and the Sheriff be cozen to the Defendant the Plaintiff shall not have a Venire facias upon the challenge of Kindred of the Sheriff to the Defendant but it ought to stay untill that Sheriff be removed and another Sheriff made And if the Defendant be Lord of the Hundred within which Hundred the ten doth arise the Plaintiff may shew that and have a Venire facias to the next Hundred or if the Array be quashed for that cause he may have a Venire facias to the Coroners of the next Villiage in the next Hundred next adjoyning And note The Venire facias shall not issue to the Coroner but upon the principall challenge and if a challenge be to the Tales and that be found true the Tales onely shall be quashed and the principall Pannell shall stand And if an Issue be joyned between the Mayor and Commonalty of a City and another concerning a Trespass done within that
intaile had been in both 19. H. 6. 75. And the like Law if it had been to the Heirs which the Husband should beget of the body of the woman Little 82. 6. HOrn against Widlake Mich. 6. Jac. An action of Trespass brought wherefore he broke his Close and spoiled his Grass in D. The Defendant pleads that in the Close wherein the Plaintiff supposes the Trespass to be done time out of mind there hath been a foot-way for all people passing in by and through the said Close untill such a day and that such a day the Plaintiff plowed up the said Foot-way and sowed it with Corn and laid thorns on the sides of it And further pleads that in the said Close neer the said ancient Foot-way the Plaintiff before the Trespass supposed to be committed left and set out another Foot-way for all people who would use that new way which way since it was laid forth hath been used by all Foot-passengers by reason whereof the Defendant the time in which c. went in the way so laid forth unto such a place c. which is the same trespass c. and demands judgment c. and the Plaintiff demurs and adjudged against the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff made the first wrong in stopping up the ancient way and had assigned a new way for passengers And therefore the Defendants plea is good by way of excuse as to the Plaintiff for it is not fit he should punish the Defendant against his own agreement As if there were a Foot-way through the Close of I. S. over an hedg and I should remove the hedg into a new place if passengers in using their way goe over the hedg where it is newly placed and fixed they shall not be punished for that for it arises of the Act and wrong of the Plaintiff himselfe and volenti non fit injuria As if water run by the Land of M. and M. stop the water-course so that it surround my ground if now abate this hee shall not have an action against me for entring into his Close because the stoppage was his own Act and the same law in the principall case And although the Defendant hath pleaded generally that the Plaintiff hath set out a way and shews not where it is is not materiall for that which is common to all cannot be assigned to any particular person which was the opinion of the whole Court except Justice Yelverton MEtham versus Barker Mich. 6. Jacobi An action of Trespass brought for that the Defendant the first of August in the fifth yeare the Plaintifs Close at L. in the County of Suffolke hath broken and entred and spoiled his Grass with his Cattel c. The Defendant pleads that in the time when the Trespass c. the free-hold of the Land where c. was in Sir Jo. T. And that the Defendant as servant and by his commandement hath entred and put in his Cattell The Plaintiff replyed that true it was that the Free-hold was in Sir John T. But said that a long time before the Trespasse c. Sir Iohn leased the Close to the Plaintiff at will by reason whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and traverses without that that the Defendant by the command of Sir Io. entred and put in his Cattell and the Defendant demurred and adjudged against the Plaintiff for the plea in Barre is good and in no wise avoided by the Replication for the Replication must be good only by way of Title And the Plaintiff doth not intitle himselfe to any good Lease at will for he doth not alledg indeed any Seisin in Sir Iohn or any possession in him out of which a Lease at will may be derived And although a Declaration may be good to a common intent and in debt upon a Lease as 21. H. 7. is the Plaintiff may declare that he devised And need not alledg a seisin in himself when he made the Lease c. Yet when a title is made by Barre or Replication as 2 E. 4. 9. is that ought to be certain to all intents because it is traversable and because the Defendant had made a good Justification in Law that ought to be answered by the Plaintiff with a good title to wit that Sir I. T. was seised and made a Lease to him at will which is not so done but it is all one as if he should have replyed that Robin-Hood in Barnwood stood without that by the command of Sir Iohn c. which observe And this by the opinion of Fennor Williams and Cook being only then in Court and Judgment was given accordingly GOodman against Ayling Mich. 6. Jac. An action of Trespass brought that the Defendant the 8. of February 4. Iacobi broke the Plaintiffs house and took and carried away one Brasse Chafer of the Plaintiffs price 20 s. The Defendant pleads that the house is parcell of halfe a yard Land in P. and that it was holden of H. Earl of North as of his Mannor of W. by homage fealty escuage incertain suit of Court inclosure of the Park-pale rent one pound of Comyn and for the Rent behind for three years and the homage and fealty of Th. P. Tenant thereof the Defendant as servant of the Earl and by his command justified the Entry and taking c. The Paintiff replies that the house was held of R. Stanley as of his Mannor of Lee without that that it was held of the Earl in manner and form and upon this they were at issue and the Jury found it was held of the Earl as of his Manner of P. by homage fealty inclosure of the pale rent of a pound of Comyn and no otherwise And if it seemed to the Court that it was not held in manner and form they found for the Plaintiff c. And adjudged for the Defendant for although the verdict did not agree with the plea in manner and form of the tenure yet it agreed in substance in the point for which the taking was to wit that the Land was holden of the Earl and that suffices for there is difference between a Replevin and Trespass For in Replevin because the Avowant is to have return it behoves the Avowant to make a good Title in all things but otherwise it is in Trespasse for there the Defendant is bound only to excuse the Trespass and therefore if there be any tenure it suffices for if the Lord or Bayliffe in his right distrains for that which is not due yet he shall not be punished in Trespass as Littleton 114. for the manner and form And 9. H. 7. which mark by the whole Court and Fleming Justice vouched the 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. B. where the issue was whether a Villain regardant c. or free And the Jury found a Villain in grosse yet it was held good for the substance of the Villianage and of the issue were found H. 5. Jac. rotulo 834.
Disseisin and Doddridge sayd It would be mischeivous if it should Hill 6. Iac. In the Common Pleas that if in the Common Barre in Trespass the place in the Common Barre is alledged to be Blackacre the Plaintiff may plead that it is his Free-hold and then it was held by the whole Court that an abuttall of one side is sufficient without alledging it of every side SWaine against Becket An Action of Trespass brought for cutting down of Trees And upon a speciall verdict the question was that whereas there is a Mannor wherein are Copi-holders for life which have used to lopp Trees growing upon the Copy-holds for their necessary fire and repairing of their customary Tenements the Lord of the Mannor maketh a Lease of the Mannor for yeares excepting the Trees the Lessee of the Mannor granteth a copy for life the Copy-holder loppeth the Trees growing on his Copy-hold whether by law he might do it or no was the doubt of the Jury And it was held by all the Court that the Copy-holder might lopp the Trees because he is in by the custome which is above the Lords Estate after he is admitted and that the copy-hold doth not depend upon the Lords interest And that the Trees excepted and the Soil remained parcell of the Mannor because the Lease was but for years but if the Lease had been for life it had been otherwise because it had been severed from the Mannor And whereas it was objected that the Tenant should not be in a better condition then his Author it was answered that a Lord of a Mannor at will may grant a copy for life or in fee and it is good If the Lord cut down all the Trees so that the Copy-holder can have no lopping he may have his Action upon the Case against the Lord as it was adjudged in Gosnolds case If the Lord sell away his waste and the Copy-holder dye and the Lord grant a new copy he shall have his Common If the Lord sell away the Trees so that the Copy-holder cannot have Estovers because the Bargainee felleth down the Trees the Copy-holder shall have his Action against the Bargainee Common and lopping are incident to the copy-hold Judgment for the Defendant HArris against Ap-John An Action of Trespasse brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and verdict found for the Plaintif And in Arrest of Judgment it was alledged that the venire facias was de placito debiti and so also was the habeas corpus and it should have been de placito transgressionis And it was amended by the whole Court MYnwinnock against Bligh Trin. 16. Jacob. rotulo 1697. An action of Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close done Septemb. in the 13. year of King James The Defendant pleads as to part of the Trespasse in award and that the Defendant submits himself to the award the 15. yeare and that the Arbitrators in the 13. yeare which was before the submission made the Award and traverses that he was guilty of the Trespasse after the award made And the Plaintiff replies that the Arbitrators the said day in the 13. year made not any award c. And after Tryall exception was taken that the issue was ill joyned being of a thing that was void yet notwithstanding Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and they resembled to a payment upon a single Bond and conditions performed at a Feast not contained in an Obligation Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3044. An Action of Trespass brought wherfore by force and armes his Goods and Chattels to wit a thousand posts and forty railes took and caryed away and damages given intire and after a verdict exception taken because Rales was pretended to be no Latine word nor to have any exception but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff DVncomb against Randoll Hil. 9. Jac. rotulo 2267. Three issues in Trespasse One issue was upon a prescription to wit that they had accustomed to have for himselfe his Farme and Tenants of the same Mannor common of pasture in the said c. for all his Sheep which are levant and couchant in and upon the Demesne Lands of W. which lye and are in A. aforesaid every yeare And exception was taken for the uncertainty because it did not appear that those were demesne Lands which lye in A. for it was ill pleaded and ought to be averred but notwithstanding it was held good after a tryal and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and in this case an exception was taken to the venire facias because it was of A. and of the Mannor of C. and because it was made in this manner to wit de visu de A. and de visu manerij de C. but it was disallowed because against the form used in the Common Pleas. DOwnes against Skrymsher Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 334. An Action of Assault and Battery brought and there was a Demurrer upon the Evidence And the case was that the Defendant the day specified in the Declaration said that the Plaintiff assaulted the Defenant and in defence of himselfe justifies the beating the Plaintiff replies that he did it of his own wrong without any such cause and in the Evidence the Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff beate him the day mentioned in the Declaration and in the same place And the Plaintiff perceiving that gave in evidence that the Battery was made another day and place to wit c. which was the cause of the speciall verdict for if there be two Batteries made between the Plaintiff and Defendant at divers times the Plaintiff is bound to prove the Battery made the same day in his Declaration and shall not be admitted to give another day in evidence by the opinion of the whole Court HEydon against Mich. 8. Jac. rotulo 839. An Action of Battery brought against three two of them pleaded not guilty and Judgment by non sum informat against the third and the two were found guilty for all And the Jury gave damages severally against one a 100 l. and against the other a 100 s. and what Judgement should be given was the question and at first the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Judgment at all for where the Defendants are found guilty of all the Trespass in this case the damages shall be intire but if one shall be found guilty of part or at another time in this case the damages shall be severall otherwise not And they thought a Venire de novo ought to issue out because the Jury had mis-behaved themselves in severing the damages but afterwards it was resolved that the damages that were given by the first Jury to wit one 100 l. should be recovered against all the Defendants in that Writ named and that in Trespass the first Jury taxes the damages for the whole Trespass and that shall bind all the Defendants and therefore execution was given against all the Defendants for the hundred pounds Trin. 9. Jam. rotulo 1835.
because the first taker hath devested the property out of the Owner The Defendant in this justified the taking of the Mare as a stray and did not alledg that he came as an estray and the Plea was held insufficient and the Court held they could not tye them together And the Defendant said that the Hayward took the Mare and delivered her to the Defendant this was but not guilty and Judgment for the Plaintiff LVttrell against Wood and other Defendants Pasch 40. Eliz. An Action of Trespasse brought wherefore by Force and Armes he broke the Plaintiffs Close and cut down his Trees The Defendant in Barre to the new assignment alledges that he is a Copy-holder for life of the Mannor of Mynehead in the County of Somerset and that in that Mannor there was a Custome that every Copy-holder for life had used at his pleasure to cut downe all the Elmes growing upon his customary Lands and to convert them to his own use when and as often as hee would and so justifies and a Demurrer upon the Barre And the question was whether the Custome was good and reasonable and the later opinion was that it was a good and reasonable Custome but now it is otherwise held Actions of Waste IN Waste the Writ shall be brought where the Waste was committed And the Processe in this Action is Summons Attachment and Distresse peremptory by the Statute of Westminst 2. But at the Common Law the Distresse was infinite And if the Defendant doth not appear upon the Distresse although a Nihil be returned yet the Plaintiff shall have Judgment and a Writ to inquire of damages of the Waste and an Essoine lies as in a Quare Impedit and the Processe shall be executed as in a Quare Impedit and returned from 15 dayes to 15 dayes and the Plaintiff in this Action shall not recover costs but the value of the Waste found by the Jury shall be trebled by the Court for costs shall not be recovered in such Actions as are given by the Statute as in this Action a Decies tantum and Quare impedit And so Judgment is to recover the place wasted and severance lies in this Action Mich. 9. H. 4. rot 104. And note in the tryal of the issue in Waste if the Defendant by his Plea doth not confess the Waste six of the Jury which are impannelled to try the Waste must have the view of the place wasted to the intent that the Plaintiff may be put in possession of the place wasted by the view of the Jury And if the Defendant confesse the Waste the Jury ought only to inquire of the value of the Waste but not who committed the Waste But upon a default upon the grand Distress the Sheriff in his proper person shall repair to the place wasted and there inquire what waste and spoile is done And if he doth not return that he was there in his proper person it is naught But upon a Judgment by non sum informat nil dicit or in a Plea by which the Defendant confesses the waste the Sheriff shall inquire only of the damages And he is not bound to return upon that Writ that he in proper person went to the place wasted And when the Judgment is by default the challenge lies against the Sheriff and if it be denyed it is Errour And if the Plaintiff do not take jungment upon the first distress being returned executed but takes another distress it is Error And no receit lies by the VVife upon the default upon the Distress at the return of the VVrit to inquire of the wast Trin. 6. H. 6. rotulo 133. For if the VVoman at the Assize before verdict doth not pray to be received she shall never be received afterwards in the Court at the return of the Nisi prius And note that the Jury may give severall values and one joynt value of the place wasted but severall values is the better way If a Lessee for yeares makes a Lease of one moity to one man and of the other moity to another man and one of them commit Waste the Action shall be brought against the two for the Waste of one is the Waste of the other if a Lease be made by three to one for life and afterwards two release to the third and the Lessee commits wast he alone shall have a Writ of Waste supposing that hee demised onely If Waste be committed in two Villiages and the Sheriff hath executed his Office naughtily in one Villiage and well in another all shall be inquired of De novo because the whole in Inquisition was but one Inquest at one time but if the Plaintiff assigne the Waste in the Houses and Woods and it doth not appeare by the Count that the Houses were demised and upon a Nihil dicit a Writ to inquire of the damages issues out and the Jury find c. the Plaintiff shall have his of the Houses BEdell against Bedell Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3052. An Action of Waste brought the Case was There is a devise to two for one and twenty yeares the Father and Son and made the Son Executor and he refuses to prove the Will and take the terme and so no Waste committed And if Lessee for life and his Lessor joyne in a Lease for yeares by Indenture and the Lessee for life dye and waste is committed the surviving Lessor shall have the Action of Waste and shall count that he did demise it alone If a Lease be made to Husband and Wife for life and for twenty yeares after their deaths and the Wife dye and Waste is committed the Wife shall not be named in the Wriâ— nor the terme after her death If Husband and Wife during the Coverture make a Lease and Waste is committed they both shall joyne in the Action of Waste And if a Lease be made but for one yeare or for halfe a yeare onely yet the Writ shall be for a terme of years but the Count shall be speciall if a Lessee for yeares or life grants Rent out of the Land he had for yeares and afterwards commits Waste if the Lessor recover the place wasted the Land shall be charged If a Lessee for a hundred yeares grants part of his terme to another and be commits Waste the Action shall be brought against the first Lessee If Tenant for life commits waste and afterwards grants his estate to another waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet and after Judgement a Scire facias shall issue to the Grantee to shew cause wherefore the Plaintiff shall not have Execution of the place wasted and the like if Lessee for yeares commit waste and grants over his Estate Waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet And if a Lease be made for life upon condition that if the Lessee shall do such an Act his Estate shall cease and he doth commit such an Act the Writ shall be brought against the Lessee in the Tenet
of Parent 42 Imparlance what plea after 42 Judgment Arrested 2 Judgment reversed because the Sheriff was not named in the Venire facias 3 Iudgment arrested 5 Justification not good where 5 Justification amounting to a not guilty naught 5 Innuendo will not help the action 7 9 Imparlance Roll supplyed by the issue 9 Juror committed 44 Judgment upon a By-law 48 49 Judgment pleaded in Bar by Executor 49 Judgment against Executors 53 Imparlance amended 53 Judgment arrested for improper words Sans Anglice 82 Jeofaile the statute not helping where 82 Judgment reversed by Error in the disjunctive 88 Intendment upon a Will 89 Judgment reversed in an inferiour Court why 97 Judgment reversed for Errour in the judgment 99 Judgment reversed for changing the Defendants addition 100 Judgment priority considerable 102 Judgment reversed for not shewing in what Court a deed was enrolled 115 Judgement reversed for want of words in the Tales 115 116 Implication not allowed of in a surrender where 128 Judgment in an Eject firmae 129 Interest what 136 Judgment reversed by Writ of Error non obstante a verdict the Statute of 18. Eliz. 106 Imparlance what is pleadable after 138 Joynture what 139 Interest in possession and in future the difference 148 Implication not intended where 153 Judgment arrested for that the plea was naught 172 Jurors name mistaken was amended upon constat de persona Iudgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lie to which Common did belong 188 Iury challenge 194 Iudgment it 's nature as to the Plaintiff and Defendant 194 Issue helped by the Statute of Jeofailes where 200 Iudgement reversed because the writ of Enquiry was before a wrong Officer 203 Imprisonment justified by the commandment of the Maior of London naught where 204 Justice of Peace cannot command his servants to arrest in his absence without Warrant 205. Iustification in Trespass for a way 212. Iustification not good where 218. Iustification speciall pleaded in Battery 226. Issue of things in severall places 229. K. KIngs Title not lost 164 Knight ought to be returned in the Pannell where 193. L. LAw Gager lies not if the except be per manus proprias 25 Lease to two determined upon the death of one where 30. Lease of a Reversion sans Attornament where good 30. Legacy of Land not suable for in Court Christian 32. Legacy of a Chattell suable for in Court Christian 34. Locallity not to be made transitory 35. Limitation is taken strictly grant aliter 39. Lessee at will cannot grant over his Estate 43. Law mistaken where it is hurtfull 41. Letters of Administration ought to be shewed 9. Law waged where 53. Law wager by a false party 55. Letter of an attorny where naught 94. 95. Law Gager lies not in debt for sallery 60. Law Gager where 70. 65 Lessee at will if he determine his Will Devis au yet shall pay the intire Rent 90. Lease to try a Title of Lands in the hands of many 129. Lease to be executed by Letter of an Attorney how 129. Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remain to the survivor for 90 years is a good Interest in the Survivor 136. London how houses passe without inrollment 141. 142. Liberty to make Leases 169. Lease for life to three where it was naught 175. Lord of Parliament not appearing shall forfeit 100 l. 193. Lunatick where an Action ought to brought in his name 197. Levant and Couchant is certainly fufficient 198. M. MIstryall the Ven. fac mistaken 17 Mistake of the Iury 18 Misprision of the Clerk amended 26 Monasteries dissolved onely those Regular 39 Mistake by the Court no prejudice 42. Mistriall 7. Missworn fellow Actionable 9. Medietas Linguae where 45. Master chargeable where 64 Misprision of the Clerk amended after tryall 88. Mannor by that name what will passe 155. Mistake of a day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudicial 196. Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea of Debt except one party be of the houshold 199 Marshalsey no Iurisdiction 199. 200. Master cannot have an Action for the loss of Service if the Servant die of the beating 205. N. NOtice not necessary 10 Non est inventus where the party did escape 12 Nusance where it lyeth 4. Non damnificatus pleaded 7 Noverint for non assumpsit 8. Notice where needfull 46. Nul tiel Record pleaded to a Plea of Outlawry 84. Non damnificatus pleaded 118. Nisi prius amended by the Roll 133 Nonage tryed where it is alledged not where the Land lies 150. 151. Non-tenure pleaded 153. Nisi prius the Record amended upon motion 156 Nullum tempus occurrit Regi 166. Negativum praegnans 172. Non residency the Statute 13 El. a generall Law 208. New Asignment where not good 217. Bar to it 236. Nihil dicit 237. 238. Non omittas 240. O ORdinary cannot make a division 32. Ordinary his power 45. Outlawry no Plea where 55. Outlawry in the Testator 55. Originall want of it after verdict no Error 97. Obligation discharged why 98. 99. Originall against four count against three without a Simulcum adjudged naught 130 Ordinary and Patron their severall Rights 202. P. PArdon generall de effect 10. Promise by an Infant not good 11 Papist to a Bishop actionable 12. Proviso implicit where good 14. Perjured knave actionable 15. Proviso 18 19. Pyracy no excuse in an Action of Covenant 21. Plea in abatement 27 in Assise 28. Premunire in a Parson 30. Pleas severall cannot be in a joint debt or contract 30. Proof how far extendible 33 Where required and where not 34. Pardon crimen legitur non tollitur 34. Priviledge from Arrest where not to be allowed 84 Prender and Render the difference 34. 35. Prescription where good 35 Property not altered upon a Scire facias 41. Punishment corporall not to be imposed for the default of a deputy where 45. Proviso Executory and executed the difference 8. Priviledge respective 47 Payment where peremptory 49 Plea made good by verdict 52 Payment when upon demand 52 Pardon generall pleaded 56. Plea to a Bond taken by the Sheriff 58. Payment to the Heir and not to the exceutor where good 64. Priviledge of an Vniversity where not to be allowed 75. Plene adm nistravit no Plea where 77 78. Proprietor sufficient 88. Priviledge of Parl. pleaded 92 Plea naught for want of traverse 98. Primo deliberat shall not be pleadded sans traverse 105. Propriety of goods cannot be in abeyance 132. Prescription and custome do differ how 132. Processe misawarded where helped by the Statute 134. Plea where it shall be in discharge but not in Barr of an obligation 109. Partition Processe in it 156. For whom it lies 157 Partition error in the first Judgement 157. Partition in another Writ was pleaded Presentment of a Clerk by words good 162. Patrons 6 moneths 165. Proprietate probanda 167. Plea naught 173. Pannell of hab corp
of his confirmation and not by the first see 11. R. 2. Grants 9. Ed. 3. 4. 12. R. 2 Feoffments 58. See Perkins fol. 8. b 9. a. Grants 10. Eliz. Dyer 279. 4. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Styles against Baxter STyles brought an Action upon the case against Baxter for calling him perjured man the Defendant justified that he was perjured in such a Court in such a deposition and so pleaded that certainly and it was found for the Defendant at the Nisi prius and Judgment was given accordingly and the Defendant afterwards published the same words of the Plaintiff upon which he brought a new Action for the new publication in which the Defendant pleaded in Barr the first Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it was adjudged without any Contradiction that it was a good Barr. Hillari 8. Jacobi 1610. In the common Bench. Andrewe against Ledsam in the Star Chamber ANdrewe exhibited his bill in the Star Chamber against Ledsam the matter Andrew being a rich Usurer delivered to Ledsam being a Scriâ—ener one thousand pound to be imployed for him for Interest that is for ten pound for the use of every hundred pound for every yeare Ledsam being a Prodigall man as it seemes spent the Money and delivered to Andrewe diverse severall obligations every of them containing three severall persons well known to be sufficient being some of them Knights others Gentlemen and Esquires of great Estates and the other good Citizens without exceptions were bound to Andrewe in two hundred pound for the payment of one hundred sixty pound to Andrew at a day to come within six Moneths then next comming as Andrew had used before to lend his Money and delivered the Obligations with Seales unto them and the names of the parties mentioned to be bound by that subscribed and his own name also subscribed as witnessing the sealing and delivery of them as a publique Notary aâ— the good and lawfull obligations of the Parties which were mentioned in them where indeed the parties mentioned in them had not any notice of any of them But Ledsam had forged and counterfeited them as he hath confessed upon his Examination upon Interrogatories administred by the Plaintiff in this Court and at the hearing of the Cause and sentence of that it was moved if Ledsam shaâ—l loose both his Eares or but one for if it be but one forgery then by the Statute of 5. Eliz. Admitting that the Bill is grounded upon this Statute he shall loose an Eare and pay the double dammageâ— and cost to the party greeved And also if Andrew being but the Obligee and not any of the parties in whose names the Obligations were forged if he be such a party greived which shall have double costs and dammages and these doubts were resolved by Coke cheife Justice of the Common Bench where they were moved and Flemming cheif Justice of the Kings Bench that Ledsam should loose but one eare for that shall be taken as one forgery for that it was made at one time and also that Andrew was the party greived within the Statute but Coke said that the Bill was generall that is against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and not precisely upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. For he said that when a Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament that this ought to containe all the branches which are mentioned in the Act the which wants in this Bill but insomuch that it was adjudged in Parliament what punishment such offenders shall have they inflicted the same punishment which is appointed by the Statute and added to that that he should be Imprisoned till he found good Suerties for his good behaviour and also that hee shall be brought to every one of the Kings Courts at Westminster with great Papers in his hatt containing his offence in Capitall letters but the Lord Chancellor expounded the double dammages in such manner that is that they shall not be intended double Interest but only the Principall Debt Note that if Execution be directed to a Sheriffe to Arrest any man or to make Execution within a Liberty And the Sheriffe direct his Warrant to a Bayliffe of the Liberty for to make Execution of the Processe which makes it and after is a Fugitive and not able to answer for that the Lord of the Franchise shall answer for that and shall be liable to answer for his Bayliffe by all the Justices Burdett against Pix IN Debt upon a single Bill by Burdett against John Pix as administrator of Freewen the case was this that is Freewen was bound in an Obligation of thirty four pound to Burdett the Plaintiff and was also bound to one William Pix in 80. l. Freewen dyed Intestate and the Letters of Administration of his Goods were Committed after his Death to the said John Pix the Defendant and the said William Pix also made the said John Pix the Defendant his Executor and died and the Defendant in this Action pleads that the said Freewen was indebted to the said William Pix and that he was his Executor and that he had Goods of the said Freewens sufficient to satisfie the said debt the which he retained for the satisfaction of that and that over that he hath not of his to satisfie him upon which the Plaintiff Demâ—…or that that the Defendant doth not plead that he hath â—…is election to retaine the said goods for the satisfaction of â—…own said Debt before the Action brought and by all the Justices he ought to make his election before the bringing of the Action otherwise he shall be charged with the other Debt See Woodward and Darcyes Case Commentaries 184. a. and 4. Cook 30. Coulters Case Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Bone against Stretton THe case was this A man seised of two Acres of Land makes a Lease for years of one Acre to one and another Lease for yeares of the other Acre to another and then he enters and makes a Feoffment and severall Liveryes upon the severall Acres and one of the Lessees being present doth not assent to the said Livery and the use of the said Feoffment was not the use of his last Will and then he declares his last Will and by that recites the said Feoffment and then declares the use of that to be to the use of himself for life the remainder over to a stranger and after the Tenant for years which did not assent to the Livery grants his Estate to the Feoffor and the Feoffor dies and Nicholls Serjeant moved first That this enures as a grant of a reversion and that the grant of the perticuler Tenant enures first as an Attornement and then as a surrender of his Estate as if it had been an expresse surrender and all the Justices agreed that this doth not enure to make Attornement and surrender as expresse surrender will for an expresse surrender admits the reversion to be in the Grantee to whom the surrender is made
Statute and if the Words do not extend to that then the Equity of the Statute shall not extend to that and he said that Copy-hold is not within any of the Statutes which are made in the same yeare as the Statute which gives Elegit and such like and to Littleton that an Estate by copy is where Lands are given in Fee-simple Fee-taile and that Formedon lies for that with which agrees 10 Ed. 2. Formedon 55. It seems that the Estate taile here mentioned shall be intended Fee-simple conditionall at the Common Law and the Formedon in Discender which was at the Common Law for alienation before Issue And so Littleton shall be intended For the Estate is within time of memory see Heydons case that a Copy-hold Estate is an Estate in being within the Statute of 31 H. 8. And Manwood there said that insomuch the Estate of that is created by custome and the Estate taile is created by Statute yet it shall not be within the Statute and he said that the case of 15 H. 8. B. Copy of Court 24. is repugnant in it self in the words of Formedon for he saith though that Formedon was given by Statute and was no otherwise in Discender yet now this Writ lies at the Common Law and it shall be intended that this hath been a custome there time out of minde c. And so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Pasche 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Yet Bearblock and Read SEE the beginning before Hillary 8. Jacobi this Case was argued by Hutton Serjeant that the Plaintiff in the Action of Debt ought to Recover for if Executor may pay Debt due by the Testator by Obligation before Debt due by Judgement this shall be a Devastavit as it is resolved in Trewinyards Case 6. and 7. Edward 6. Dyer 80. 53. And he shall be charged for the Iudgement with his owne goods And so it was adjudged between Bond and Hales 31. Eliz. that Judgement at the Common Law shall be first satisfied before the Statute which is but a Pockett Record and Medium redditer in invitum Also it was adjudged in Harrisons Case 5. Coke 28. b. That Debt due upon an Obligation shall be first payd before Statute with Defeasans for performing of Covenants the which Defeasens is not broken and also it is adjudged between Pemberton and Barkham here cited that Judgement shall be satisfied before Statute Merchant or Staple or Recognizance though that the Statute be acknowledged before the Judgement had by the Testator See this Case in Harrisons Case 5. Coke 28. b. and in 4. Coke 60. a. Sadlers Case upon which he infers that if an Executor first satisfie a Statute or a Recognisance before a Judgement that this shall be a Devastavit as well as if he satisfies an Obligation first as in Trewynyards Case and that when the Plaintiff which hath Judgement the Executor may aid himselfe by Audit a querela by this matter subsequent Quere of Doctor Druryes Case as in 7 H. 6. 42. in Detinue against Gamishe and Judgment had for the Plaintiff If the Judgement be reversed restitution shall be made to every one which hath losse So here by Audita Querela if the Executrix hath not more then was taken in execution by the Statute and it seemes to him that the Judgement in the Scire Facias shall not be a Barr in this Action for the Judgment remaines Executrix and the Plaintiff may have Action of Debt upon that But of the contrary if the Plaintiff had brought Action of Debt upon the Judgement and had been barred then shall be barred in Scire Facias also But the Plaintiff this notwithstanding may have Scire Facias upon surmise that there are new assets come to the hands of the Executor and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Nicholls Serjeant for the Defendant relies only upon the Judgement had upon the Scire Facias and that till that he Defeated the Plaintiff cannot maintaine Action of Debt for the Action of Debt is nothing but demanding of Execution and for that till the first Judgement be Defeated the Plaintiff hath no remedy at the Common Law All things which barr the Execution of the Judgement in Scire Facias these shall be Barrs in an Action of Debt as in Baxters Case here last adjudged in an Action upon the Case for slanderous words the Defendant pleads that he had justified the speaking of these words at another time in another Action brought against him and had a verdict and Judgement upon that and so demands Judgement and adjudged a good Plea till the first Judgement is reversed for Judgement is the saying of the Law and 13. Eliz. Dyer 299. 34. in Debt for Costs recovered in a Writ of entry the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff hath sued an Elegit which was Executed and a good Barr in an Action of Debt and so 1. and 2. P. and M. Dyer 107. 24. In Debt for Dammages recovered in Assise the Defendant pleads in Barr that after the verdict given and before Judgement the Plaintiff entred into the Land and there no Judgement is given But it seemes if the Plaintiff fayl of Course that the Common Law prescribes that then he shall not have Execution for of those things which rightly are Acted let there be Executions but if the Defendant in the first Action had pleaded a release and Judgement was given upon that against him he cannot plead that againe for it runs into the thing Judged 34. Ed. 3. in Debt against an Executor and part of the assetts found the Plaintiff cannot have new Scire Facias without Averrment that there are new assetts and 34. H. 6. Action with averment that there are assets and Judgement good both waies and presidents shewed of both Courts And he intended that the Executor could not have helped himselfe by Audita Querela unlesse he feares to be impleaded but after Execution he cannot have Restitution and so concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that there cannot be a Devastavit in the Wife unlesse that it be voluntary payment by her for the Statute of 23. H. 8. gives present Execution of a Statute Staple without Scire Facias So that the Wife had no time to plead the Judgement and for that this unvoluntary Act shall not be a Devastavit for she is no agent but only a sufferer And at the Common Law if the Plaintiff hath Judgement in an Action of Debt after the yeare he hath no remedy but new Originall and this mischeife was remedied by the Statute of Magna Charta which gives Scire Facias in place of new Action But it seemes to him that the Barr in the Scire Facias shall remaine good Barr till it be reversed as in 2 Rich. 3. A man hath election to have action of Detinue or action of Trespasse and he brings his action of Detinue and the Plaintiff wages his Law and after
by Hull 9 H. 4 Wast 59. but this ought to be such Wast that is prejudiciall to the Inheritance as it is agreed in Herlackendens case 4 Coke Where it is agreed that the Bargainee hath severall Interests in the Land and in the Trees and by the Writings by the making of the Lease of the Mannor they are not reunited and annexed to the Free-hold again and then the cutting and selling is no prejudice to him in reversion and so no Wast to make forfeiture and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant and is adjourned see the beginning fol. Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. As yet Doctor Hūfreys Case see Hillary 8. Jacobi IN the Writ of Ravishment of Ward between Francis Moore Esquire Plaintiff against Doctor Hussey and Katharine his Wife Robert Wakeman Clark and many other Defendants Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Defendant Doctor Hussey that a marryed Wife is not within the Statute of Westminster 2. chapter 35. By which the Writ of Ravishment of Ward is given that which before the Statute was only Trespasse is by the Statute altered in manner and form of proceedings and in penalty of Judgment and he thought that this Writ being formed upon the Statute doth not extend to a married Wife for by the Statute if the Defendant cannot satisfie for the marriage he must abjure the Realme or shall have perpetuall Imprisonment which goes neer to every man next unto his Life the love of his Country and liberty and those the makers of the Statute did not intend against a married Wife and he grounded his argument upon these words of the Statute by which it appears that the makers of the Statute did not intend any person which had no property in any Goods nor power to make satisfaction For first the Statute provides that if he be able to make satisfaction that then he should satisfy if not that then he shall abjure the Realme by which it appears that the Statute intends those that have property and by possibility may satisfy but a woman cannot for her marriage is a gift of all her goods personall to her Husband see for that Fox and Girtbrookes Case Commentaries Secondly The Statute provides new form of proceedings for if the Ward or any of the parties dy hanging the Writ the Writ shall not abate but it shall be revived by Resummons by or against the Executors of him that is dead by this it appears that he which hath no power to make Executors shall not be intended to be within the Statute and a married Wife cannot make a Will and by consequence cannot make Executors see Coke 6. a. Forse and Hemblins case 3 Ed. 3. Devise 13. 4 H. 6. 6. and if the Executors have no assets then the statute gives remedy against the Heir Thirdly The Statute intends to give action against him which may have possession of the ward the which a married Wife cannot have for her possession is to the use of the Husband and by the words of the statute he against whom the Action is given ought to be made Fidei possessor and to the objection that though that the Wife married cannot by any possibility have sufficient to make satisfaction according to the intent of the statute yet if the Husband hath sufficient he shall answer for his Wife as in 48 Ed. 3. 26. and 17 H. 6. A married wife shall be attached by the Goods of the Husband he saith that there the reason is that the Wife is answerable by the Husband but this is only to make him to appear but he against whom the action is given by this statute ought to have property and in such cases a married Wife shall not be punished as in the same Parliament Westminster 2. chapter 25. Is provided that if a Disseisor faile of Record that he shall be imprisoned in Assise for this is the speedy remedy but if a married wife pleads a Record and failes of that to the Jury she shall not be imprisoned though that the Assise was brought against the Husband and the Wife or against the Husband and the wife is received see 1. 3 Ass 1 44 ass 3. 17. as 19. 11 H. 4. Also the statute of Conjunctim Feoffatis fol. 99. Which was made in the time of the said King Ed. 3. in which time the statute of Westminster 2. was made and is contemporary with the same statute by which it is provided that if any plead Joyntenancy which is found against him in the Assise that he shall be imprisoned by the space of a yeare and 16 Assise 8. Husband pleads Joyntenancy with his wife and maintaines the Exception which is found against them and resolved that the Wife should not be imprisoned by this statute 21 Assise 28. 31 Assise a. accordingly and he said there was not any president nor Book of Record by which it appears that a Writ of Ravishment of Ward was maintained against a marryed Wife for Ravishment after the Coverture but for Ravishment before the Coverture see 6 and 8. Ed. 3. and to the Objection that the Plaintiff hath election if he will have the sufficiency come in question may but admit the Defendants to be sufficient and then the imprisonment nor the abjuration shall not be inflicted as it seems to be some opinion 8 Ed. 3. 52. and to that he saith that the admittance of the parties cannot alter the Law for if it were not the intent of the makers of the Statute that this should extend to the Wife the admittance of the parties will not make that extend over the provision of that also it seems to him that the Verdict is not perfect for that it is not fonnd by whom the VVard was married but only that he appeared marryed and it ought to be without the consent of the Plaintiff and for that it might be that he was marryed by the Plaintiff and then there is no cause of action nor to have the value of the marriage and it appears by 22 R. 2. Damages 130 that they ought to inquire by whom he is marryed and also the value of the marriage and if it doth not appear whether he be married or not then the Verdict shall be conditionall and the Judgment also and all the Presidents are he appears married without the assent of the Plaintiff and so he concluded and prayed that the Judgment might stand Harris Serjeant for the Plaintiff prayes Judgment and he supposed that it is in the choyce of the Plaintiff what Judgment he would have for he ought to have Dammages and the value of the marriage and it remaines in the discretion of the Plaintiff what judgment he will have that is upon the Statute for to have the corporall punishment or allow the Defendants to be sufficient and so to have judgment for the Damages and the value of the Marriage without any Imprisonment or Abjuration as in 29 Ed. 3. 24. and 8 Ed. 3. 52. where
that the Husband was subject to that then by consequence it was intended that all persons which were chargeable by the common Law shall be chargeable by the Statute and by the action which is formed upon that and by the common Law the Husband was chargeable and by consequence shall be chargeble by the Statute and he intends that there would be difference between actuall wrongs and others which are come by omission and if the VVife be the person which did the wrong then she shall be punished as well by Statute as she was before by the common Law also she shal be out-lawed and it hath been agreed that Ravishment of Ward shall be maintainable against the Husband and the wife if they both are Ravishers and also if the wife be Ravisher before marriage and after takes a Husband the Husband shall be charged with the damages and his Body shall be imprisoned and by consequence shall be abjured also shee may make an Executor by the consent of her Husband but admitting that she could not then the remedy is given against the Heir and she shall be within this Statute as well as other Statutes made in the time of the said King as the Statute of Westminster 1. 37. And shall be a Disseisor with force and shall be imprisoned whether the Husband joyn with her or not as it is adjudged 16 Assise 7. for all Statutes which provide for actuall wrong a married VVife shall be intended within them as it is 9 H. 4. 6. But the pleading of Joyntenancy there the Plea is the act of the Husband and so fayling of Record upon the Statute of 34 Ed. 3. as it is 16 Assise 8. for the Husband propounds the exception but if the VVife propounds the exception then she shall be within the Statute and shall be imprisoned 21 Assise So if a married VVife make actuall disseisin with force she shall be imprisoned 9 H. 4. 7. b. 8 Ed. 3. 52. 22 Ed. 2 Damages 20. 27 H. 6. Ward 118. And so the President Trinity 33 H. 8. Rot. 347. in a case between Thomas Earle of Rutland against Lawrence Savage and his VVife in Ravishment of Ward at the Nisi prius the Defendants make default and the Judgment was that the Husband and the VVife should be taken and upon that he inferred that the Husband should be subject and charged with the damages and so it is taken upon the statute of 35. Eliz. That the Husband shall be charged with Debt for the Recusancy of the VVife and shall be imprisoned for the not payment of it as to the verdict it seems that this is good and it shall be intended the VVard was marryed by the Defendants as in 33 Ed. 3. Verdict 48. It is found by verdict that Mulier enters and resolved that this shall be intended in the life of the Bastard or otherwise it is nothing worth and in Fulwoods case 4 Coke the Jury found that the Defendant acknowledged himself to be bound and that shall be intended according to the statute of 23 H. 8. and so here though that it be not found that the VVard was married by these Defendants yet it shall be so intended notwithstanding that nothing is found but only that he appeared married and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff This case was sollemnly argued this Tearme by all the Justices that is Coke and Walmesley Warberton and Foster and upon their selemn arguments Coke and Walmesley were of opinion that a married wife is not within the statute and Warberton and Foster were of the contrary opinion and so by reason of their contrariety in opinion the Judgment was staid Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Burnham against Bayne THE case was A Man seised of divers Lands the halfe of them were extended by Elegit and before Judgement was had against him a new Elegit Awarded and if all the halfe which remaines or but the halfe of that which was the fourth part of all should be extended was the question And it was agreed by all the Justices that but the halfe of that which remaines and not the halfe of all which he had at the time of the Judgement But the halfe of that which he had at the time of the Elegit And if all which remaines be extended the Extent shall be void by all the Justices see 10. Ed. 2 Execution 137 16. E. 2. Execution 118. And here the principall case was A man hath a Rent of forty pound reserved upon a Lease for years and two Judgments in Debt were had against him at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and three Judgments at the Suit of the Plaintiff the halfe was first extended by Elegit upon the first Judgment had at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and after upon the Judgment had at his Suit the halfe of the residue was extended and after upon the Judgment at the Suit of the Plaintiff all the residue was extended and all the Justices agreed that the Extent was void for they ought to extend but the halfe of that which remaines and that was but the fourth part Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Trobervill against Brent THE Case was A man makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after grants the Reversion for life to which Grant the Lessee for years attornes the Grantee acknowledgeth a statute and after surrenders his Estate the Conusee extends the Statute and distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes for the cause aforesaid and adjudged that the Avowry was good Agreed that Creditor may sue the Executors and the Heir of the Debtor also but he shall have but one Execution with satisfaction see the Statute of 23 H. 8. for such course in the Exche quer Note that no Court of Equity may examine any matter of Equity after Judgment which was precedent the Judgment see the Statute of 4 H. 4. chapt 23. Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Hamond against Jethro THe case was this Edward Hamond was Plaintiff in Debt upon a Bill against VVilliam Jethro and the Bill was made in this manner Memorandum that I VVilliam Jethro do owe and am indebted unto Edward Hamond in the Sum of ten pound for the payment whereof I binde my self c. In witnesse and after the in witnesse it was thus subscribed Memorandum that the said VVilliam Jethro be not compelled to pay the said ten pound untill he recovers thirty pound upon an obligation against A. B. c. And in the Count was no mention made of this Subscription but this appears when the Defendant prayes hearing of the Bill the which was then entered Verbatim of Record and upon that the Defendant demurred in Law Harris Serjeant for the Plaintiff agreed that if it had been in the Body of the Bill it ought to have been contained in the Count to inable the Plaintiff to his action but that which is after in witnesse
is now out of the Statute for the advancement ought to be continuing until the death of the Father And so he saith also it was adjudged in Butler and Bakers Case that if a man devise Socage Lands and after sell to a stranger for good consideration his Lands held by Knights service this devise is now good for all for hee hath not any Land held by Knights service at the time of his death and so he concluded that the devise was good and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff Houghton Serjeant for the Defendant he thought the contrary and hee argued that before the statutes of 32. and 34. of H. 8. men were disabled to devise any Land and for that they cannot provide for their Wives Children or for payment of their Debts and for remedy to that Feoffments to uses were invented and then to dispose the use by their Wills and then experience finds that to be inconvenient and then the statute of 27. H. 8. transfers the use into possession and then neither use nor land was deviseable without speciall Custome and then this was found to be mischeivous after five years experience and then was the statute of 32. H. 8. made and where by the statute of Marlebridg of those which did enfeoff their begotten sons a Feoffment by the Father to his son and Heir was void for all Now by this statute this is good for 2. parts and void only for the 3d part that for the good of the Lord but as to the party that is good for all as it is agreed in Mightes case 8 Coke Then to consider in the case here if all things concur that the statute requires and to that here is a person which was actually seised of Land held by Knights service in 12. Eliz. So that it is a person which then was having within the statute 2. If here be such conveyance for advancement of his children as is intended within the statute and to that he seemed that so notwithstanding that it may be objected that here is no execution to the youngest children insomuch that it is first limited to such Farmers and Tenants c. But he intended that this is no impediment Secondly also there is a limitation to the use of his last Will. Thirdly also there is a limitation to the use of such persons to whom he devises any estate by his Will But these are no impediments for the last is no other but a devise to himselfe and his heirs and there is not any other person knowne but meerely contingent and it is not like to a remainder limited to the right heirs of I. S. for there the remainder is in Abeiance but here it is only in contingency and nothing executed in Interest till the contingency happen and the not having of a son at the time shall not make difference as in 38. Edw. 3. 26. in formedon in Remainder where the gift was in one for life the remainder to another in tayle remainder in fee to another stranger and he in remainder in tayle dyes without Issue in the life time of the Tenant for life he in remainder in fee may have formedon in remainder without mentioning the remainder in tayle But here he intends that the devise shall be void in respect of the Lands first conveyed which were held in cheife by Knight service for the words of the statute are by act executed either by devise or by any of them and they are conjoyned and it is not of necessity that the time of the Conveyance shall be respected but the time of the value And notwithstanding that the Testator doth not mention any time But in so much as the provision of the statute is to save primor seisin and livery to the King as if the man had 20 l. by year in Socage and one acre in cheife and makes a conveyance of all that it shall be void first to the livery and priâ—or seisin to the third part So if he make conveyance of the 20 l. by yeare and leave the said acre held in cheife to discend and after that purchase other Lands to the value of the third part of all the conveyance of the 20 l. land notwithstanding which for the advancement of his Wife Children or payment of his Debts for he had a full third part at the time of his death which discended And he supposed that the having of a dry reversion depending upon the estate tall is sufficient having within the words and letter of the Statute and yet he agreed the ease put in Butler and Bakers case that if a man devise his Socage Lands and after alien his Lands held in cheife by Knight service to a stranger bonafide this is good So if he had made a reservation of his Lands held in chiefe to himselfe for his life in so much that his estate in that ended with his life and hee remembred the case cyted in Bret and case Comment That if a man devise a Mannor in which he hath nothing and after hee purchaseth it and dyes the devise is good if it be by expresse name But when a man hath disposed of two parts of his Land the Statute doth not inable him to devise the Residue but he hath done all and executed all the authority which the Statute hath given to him But he agreed also that the reversion is not such a thing of value which might make the third part discend to the Heir but it is uncertaine as a hundred and the other things of uncertain value contained in Butler and Bakers Case And also he intended that the remainder could not take effect insomuch that the condition is precedent and it is not found that the eldest Sonne hath aliened and then dead without Heir male and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant In Replevin the Defendant avows for 9 s. Rent the Plaintiff pleads a Deed of feoffment of the same Land made before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum by which 6 s. 8 d. is only reserved and demands Judgment if he shall be received to demand more then is reserved by the Deed See 4 Ed. 2. Avowry 202. 10. H. 7. 20. Ed. 4. 7. Edw. 4. Lung 5 Ed. 4. 22 H. 6. 50. This Deed was without date and it was averred that it was made before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum which was made in the 18. of Edw. 1. And also it ought to be averred to be made after the beginning of the Reign of Richard 1. For a writing after the beginning of his Reign checks prescription But if a man hath a thing by grant before that he may claim by prescription for hee cannot plead the grant insomuch it is before time of memory and a Jury cannot take notice of that and for that the pleading before with the said averments was good If debt be due by Obligation and another debt be due by the same Debtor to the same Debtee of
not the accidentall as here it is but it is the substantiall forme and every one knows that Meale of Wheat is the same as Pepper beaten in a Morter and Pepper and all other Spices so that it is the same in number existence substance and essence and he intended also the same in intention for Meale is Victuall and is dead Victuall be it Corne or Meale and Corn grownd and made in Meale then sold yet that remains dead Victuall and Meale is the same dead Victuall though that it be not the same Corne and to prove that Corn is Victuall he cyted the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. 5. Stat. Chap. 7. Which provides that no Forester shall make any gathering of Victuals by colour of their Office and hee intended that Corne was within this statute and so also of the statute of the 3. P. and M. Chap. 15. Rastal Universities which provides that to the Purveyor Bargainor for any Victuals within 5 miles of any of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridg where Grain and Victuall are joyned together So the Statute of 25 H. 8. Chap. 2. abridged by Rastall Victual 15. which inhibits the transportation of Victuall if it be not of Meal and Butter into Ireland by which it appears that Meale is dead Victualls And he said that Victuals is that which refresheth men and Victualls are those things which to the use of eating and drinking are necessary So that Meale is the same in number though that the Corne were turned into Meale And he cyted Peacock and Reynolds Caâ—e to be adjudged 42 Eliz. That if a man buy Corne and convert that into Meale and so sell it it is within this Statute And hee said that if a man be made a Knight hanging his action that this shall abate his action but yet he remains the same person but his name is changed which is the cause of the abatement of his action 7 H. 6. 15. Also the Defendant is concluded by his demurrer upon the Information to say that it is not the same thing for this is confessed by the Demurrer and though that the name be changed this is not materiall if the substance be the same and he agreed that a Baker which buys Wheat and makes it into Bread is not within the Statute for he furthers that to the use of man as a Curryer makes the Leather more fit and apt for use but so doth not he which makes it into starch for he furthers the abuse for it is no lawfull Occupation but idle and friâ—olous furtherance of vanity of men And in 35. H. 6. 2. If a man enter into the Land of another man and cut Trees and that square and make into Boards yet if the Owner enter hee may take them But if it be made into a House otherwise it is for there it is mingled with other things as it is 5 H. 7. 15 16. So Iron made in Anvill But of Leather made in Shooes otherwise it is insomuch that it is mingled with other things 12 H. 8. 11. a. A dead Stag is not a Stag but is a certain dead thing and flesh As a man dead is not a man but agreed the Book of H. 7. 15. and 16. That Corne converted into Meale cannot be restored nor reprized no more may that if it remains in Corne if it be not in Baggs And hee said that upon the Statute of Merton the Re-disseisin after the Recovery in Assise if the same Disseisor makes Re-disseisin the Sheriffe may examine that c. And it is agreed in 27 H. 6. That if Tenant in tayle be disseised and recover in assise and is put in possession and after his Estate is altered and he become Tenant in tayle after possibility of Issue extinct and then the Disseisor makes Re-disseisin that this is aided by the statute not that it is alteration of the Estate And also he saith it appears more fully by the Proviso by which it is provided that Barley turned into Malt and Oates turned into Oatmeale if it be by Ingrossing it is within the purview of the statute So if it be by way of Fore-stalling or if they sell them again before that they are converted shall be Regrators And to the Objection that other things that is Water and Fire are added to that he saith that none of them remains for the Fire dryes the water and the fire also goeth out and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the King and the Informer and it was adjourned Michaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. IN Dower against Infant which makes default upon the grand Cape returned and agreed by all the Justices that Judgment shall be given upon the Default for the Infant shall not have his age and so it was adjudge upon a Writ of Error Charnock against Currey Administrator of Allen. IN debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant as Administrator as above he pleads Judgment had against him in an action of debt and over that hath not to satisfie to which the Plaintiff replies that this Judgment was for penalty and the condition was for a lesser sum and that the Plaintiff in the first action had accepted his due debt and had promised to acknowledg satisfaction of the Judgement at the request of the Defendant and at his charges and the Administrator which was the Defendant did not make request upon fraud and Covin to avoid the Plaintiffs action Upon which the Defendant hath demurred and so confesseth the matter of the Plea But Foster seemed that the Plaintiff ought to aver that the Plaintiff in the first action hath offered to acknowledg satisfaction and that otherwise he should be put to his action upon the Case but Coke and Warberton intended that the Replication is very good without such averment for it shall be intended that the Plaintif will perform his promise But further this Demurrer which was only for part was also for another part an Issue joyned for the other part which was to be tryed by the Country and which shall be tryed of the Issue or of the Demurrer was the question and it was agreed by them all that the Issue or Demurrer shall be first at the discretion of the Court see 11 H. 4. 5. 38. Ed. 3. Commission is granted to the Councel in Wales of which the President Vice-president or Cheife Justice to be one And the question was if they might make a Deputy and it was agreed that a delegate power could not be delegated but they might make an Officer to take an accompt in any such act Note that a Caveat was entred with a Bishop that he should not admit any without giving notice that the admission this notwithstanding is good but if he admit one which hath no right he is a disturber but otherwise the Caveat doth nothing but only to make the Bishop carefull what person he admits Foster Justice seemed that if the Ordinary now after the statute of
any satisfaction in tender to satisfaction Insomuch that this is only the fruit of Tenure and not like to cutti ng of Trees nor to digging of Cole or other Ore And so Coke cheife Justice that it hath been adjudged and with this agreed the booke of 21. Ed. 3. 1. The manner to make Summons in Dower if the Land lieth in one County and the Church in another County Then upon the Statute the Sheriffe ought come to the next Church though it be in another County and there make Proclamation asthe Auditors in Accompt ought to commit the Accomptants found in arrerages to the next Gaole and there ought to be committed though that they are in another County The words of a Patent of a Judge of the Common Bench are as follows that is to say James by the grace of God c. Know that we have constituted Humphrey Winch Serjeant at Law one of our Justices of the Common Bench during our good pleasure with all and singuler Vales and Fees to the same office belonging and appertaning In Witnesse of which c. Michaelmasse 1611 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Jacob against Stilo Sowgate IN an Action upon the Case for slanderous words The declaration was that the Defendant said of the aforesaid Plaintiff that he is perjured to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff another time hath brought an Action in the Kings Bench against the same Defendant for that that he the said Plaintiff was perjured and had cozened John Sowgate and that the Defendant had pleaded to all besides these words Thou art perjured not guilty and to the words thou art perjured he Justifies that the Plaintiff was perjured in making an Affidavit in the Star-chamber and this Issue was Joyned and it was found for the Defendant but it was not pleaded that any Judgement was given upon it And Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff which had Demurred upon the Defendants Plea Argued that the Plea is insufficient for if it shall be intended by that that the Plaintiff was afore times barred if it be in a reall Action it ought to be averred that it is for the same Land and if it be in a personall Action it ought to be averred that it is the same Debt or Trespasse and if it be pleaded by way of Justification then he ought to have averred also that the Plaintiff hath taken a false and untrue Oath upon which Issue might have been taken But here nothing is pleaded but the Record and nothing averred in Facto So that the Issue cannot be taken upon it for the pleading is only of Record and that the Defendant for the cause aforesaid in the Record afore said mentioned spoke the said words and this is not good for there is not contained any cause of Justification as in Quare Impedit in the 15. and 16 H. 6. The Defendant pleads that he was Incumbent by the cause aforesaid and without that But this was no good Plea for he ought to plead his Title specially And also it is not pleaded as Estoppell for then he ought to have relied upon that precisely as 35. H. 6. in Replevin the avowant relies upon discent 30. assis 32. 2. H. 7. 9. Also Estoppell it cannot be insomuch that Judgement was not given in the first Action Also it is not pleaded as Estoppell for the Plea is concluded Judgement if Action where he ought to have relied upon the Estoppell and peradventure also the Triall was voyd by unawarding of Venire Facias or other Error So that without Judgement it can be no Estoppell and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Barker Serjeant argued for the Defendant that the Declaration is very good and notwithstanding that the words are generall that is he is perjured yet this may be supplyed very well by the Innuendo as it appeares by James and Alexanders Case 4. Coke 17. a. And also that Estoppell by the Verdict is good without Judgement as in Action of Debt release was pleaded and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Defendant and after another Action was brought for the same Debt and agreed that the first Virdict was Estoppell 2. Ed. 3. 19. b. c. And he cited Baxter and Styles Case to be adjudged in the point that the Estoppell is good and also Vernons Case 4. Coke where the bringing of a Writ of Dower Estopped the Wife to demand her Joynture and so concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendant Coke the Count is good being of the aforesaid Plaintiff and may after be supplyed by Innuendo though that the words after are generall But if the words were generall that is He is perjured without saying that the Defendant spoke of the aforesaid Plaintiff these English words following Videlicet he Innuendo the Plaintiff is perjured this is not good and shall not be supplied by Innuendo and he said that another time convicted is a good Plea in case of life without Judgement but this is in favour of life but in trespasse it ought to be averred that it is the same Trespasse and also there ought to be Judgement and the Defendant ought to relye upon that as an Estoppell and agreed by all that Judgement should beâ—given for the Defendant if cause be not shewed to the contrary such a day c. Michaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Hall against Stanley IN Trespass for Assault and Imprisonment the Defendant justifies insomnch that the Action upon the case was begun in the Marshalsey for a Debt upon an Assumpsit made by the Plaintiff and that upon that Capias was awarded to this Defendant being a Minister of the said Court to Arrest the Plaintiff to answer in the said Action and that he by force of that Arrested the Plaintiff and him detained till the Plaintiff found suerties to answer to the said Action which is the same assault and Imprisonment To which the Plaintiff replied that none of the parties in the said Action were of the Kings houshold and so demanded Judgement upon which the Defendant Demurred in Law And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant that the Court of Marshalsey may hold Plea of Actions of Trespasse by the parties or any of them of the Kings house or not and he intended that the Jurisdiction at the Common Law was generall and then they have Jurisdiction of all Actions as well reall as personall and though that their Jurisdiction be in many cases restrained yet in an Action of Trespasse there is not any restraint but at this day they have two Jurisdictions That is in Criminall cases and also in Civill causes within the Virge See Fleta book the second and third where he discribes the Jurisdiction of all Courts and amongst them the Jurisdictions of this Court and also Britton which wrote in the time of Ed. 1. lib. 1. chap. 2. which saith it was held before Bygott who was then Earle
of Norfolke and Marshall and their Authority and Jurisdiction was absolute and their Judgements not reversable unlesse by Parliament and this appeares by the Statute of 5. Ed. 3. chap. 2. that they might hold Plea of things which did not concerne them of the household and also the words of the Statute of Articuli super chartas chap. 3. 28. Ed. 1. provides that the Marshalsey shall not hold Plea of free hold of covenant nor of any other contract made between the Kings people but only of Trespasse made within the Kings house or within the Verge and of such Contracts and Covenants which one of the honse made with another of the house and within the house and in no other place where Trespasse is Limited to the Kings house or within the Virge but no restraint that the parties shall be of the Kings House or otherwise it shall not be intended which shall be only those which are of the Kings House insomuch that the Trespasse is limited to be made within the Virge also he sayd it was a statute made 30 Ed. 1. which provides that if any causes arise amongst the Citizens of London only that this shall be tryed amongst the Citizens but if it be between them of the House it shall be tryed by them of the House by which it appears that they may hold plea between Citizens of London where none of the parties are of the Kings House also the statute of 6 Ed. 3. chapter 2. provides that in Inquests they shall be there taken by men of the Country adjoyning and not men of the Kings Houshold if it be not betwixt men of the Kings Houshold if it be not for Contracts Covenants and Trespasses made by men of the Kings Houshold of one part and that the same House which referrs to the statute of Articuli super chartas before cited and this expounds and so the Statute of 10 Ed. 3. chapter 2. provides that in Inquests they are to be taken in the Marshalsey that the same inquests shall be taken of men the Country thereabouts and not by People of the Kings House if it be not of Covenants Contracts or Trespasses made by people of the same House according to the Statute made in time of the Grand Father of the said now King and according to that the use hath been that is if none of the parties of were the Kings house then the tryal had been by the men of the country adjoyning And if one of the parties be of the house and another not then the tryall is by party Juries and if both the parâ—ies be of the house then all the Jury hath used to be of the house and if the Cause be between Citizens of London then the tryall hath used to be by Citizens of London and in the Book of Entries the same plea was pleaded in false Imprisonment 9 10. and the Register fol. 1 1. A. in action upon escape in Trespasse and to the Books of 7 H. 6. 30. 10 H. 6. Long 5 Ed. 4 19 Ed. 4. 21 Ed. 4. He saith that none of these Books are in action of Trespasse but one onely and that is mistaken in the principall point and so may be mistaken in one by case And the Booke of 10 H. 6. 30. is directly in the point but Brooke in abridgement of that saith that the practise and usage of the Court was otherwise But it may be objected that this is Indebitatus assumpsiâ— which is in nature of an action of debt and founded upon contract he said that Fitzherbert in his Natura Brevium said that there are two sorts of Trespasses that is General and upon the Case and Trespasse is the Genus and the other are the Species and that the action is founded upon breach of promise which is the Trespasse as for not making of a thing which he hath promised to doe and it is Majesteale breve and not breve formatuâ— and so is an action of Trover and Conversion or Assumpsit are Writs of Trespasse but admit that no yet action of false Imprisonment doth not lye for hee ought not to dispute the authority of the Court for the duty of his Office is only to be obedient and diligent for otherwise he should be judged of the Judg And who by the appointment of the Judge doth any thing doth not seem to do it deceitfully because it is of necessity he should obey and 14 H. 8. 16. a Justice of Peace awarded a Warrant to arrest a man for suspition of Felony where his Warrant was void and yet the party to whom it was directed justifies the making of the Arrest by force of that And 12. H. 7. 14. Capias was awarded to the Sheriff without original yet it was a sufficient Warrant to the Sheriffe and 22 Assis 64. Court awarded a Warrant where they had no Jurisdiction and yet it was a sufficient Warrant for him to whom it was directed And so in Mansells case if the Sheriffe execute an habere facias sesinam awarded upon a void Judgement this is a sufficient Warrant for him So in this case allowing that the Court hath no Jurisdiction yet the Plaintiff cannot be retained by this action but is put to his Writ of Error or to his action upon the Statute and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff argued to the contrary and hee intended that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff for the matter and also for the Parties and that the Judgement and all other proceedings in the Marshalsey were meerly void and he denyed that they had originally such absolute jurisdiction as Fleta pretended for originally that was only for the preservation of the peace as it appears by the stile of the Court and also by the diversities of the Courts and that Criminall causes which require expedition are there only tryable and that civill causes are incroached of later times and it was necessary to be restrained and reformed by Parliament And it appears by the Statute of Articuli super Chartas that they have encroached to hold plea for free-hold and for that the Court which is mentioned in Fleta cannot be otherwise intended then the Kings Bench which then followed the Kings Court And also that they have not incroached only upon matters as to hold plea for Free-holds but also to persons and place where Contracts and Trespasses were made and this was the cause of the making of the said Statute And to this action of Trespasse for indebitatus assumpsit there begun he intended that it is for another thing of which they could not hold plea and it might be criminall for Civill is that which begun by contract and it is part of the commutative Justice for which is recompence given by one party to another and is not founded upon the Contract but is translated to an action of Trespass which manner of Trespass is not within the Statute and so he intended that
for the matter it is not within the Statute and then for the persons also he intended that it is not within the Statute and this appears by the words of the Statute of 28. Edw. 1. Articuli super Chartas and to that 10. H. 6. 130. it is adjudged that Judgement in such case there given is void and Coram non Judice so 7 H. 6. 30. expresses the cause to be insomuch that none of the parties are of the houshold of the King 4 H. 6. 8. 19 Edw. 4. 8. 5. Edw. 4. 32 H. 6. Rot. 27. And he cyted also Michelburns Case to be adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench 38 Eliz. That they could not tender a Plea in Trospasse for Trover and Conversion if none of the parties were of the Kings house and further he said that when a Court hath Jurisdiction and errs in matter of proceedings or in Law there the Execution made by force of their Process shall be lawfull But where the Judgement is void by default of Jurisdiction as in this Case there it is otherwise as 10 H. 6. 13. Recovery of Land in the Spirituall Court is void so Formedon commenced Judgment given upon that before the Judges of Assises void So 36 H. 6. 32. Recovery of Land in Wales in this Court is void and 8 Edw. 4. 6. Recovery of Land in ancient demesne is avoidable by Writ of Deceipt But in the other cases before the Judgment and Recovery is absolutely void and Coram non Judice for default of Jurisdiction So in 9 H. 7. 12. b. Recovery of Land in Durham Chester or Lancaster here is void for the same cause And in this case also the said Statute makes that void by expresse words see the statute of Articuli super Chartas Chap. 3. And to the case of 14 H. 8. before cyted of Warrant awarded by Justice of Peace he agreed that insomuch that the Justice of Peace had Jurisdiction of causes of Felony and erred only in the forme and manner of his proceedings and so in all the other cases which were put of the other part And also hee agreed that a Writ of Error may be well maintained if such Judgement which is void as it was in Michelburns case for the party may admit the Judgment to be but voidable if he will And to the exceptions to the pleading that is that the authority is not prosecuted 1 Postea that is such a day which was before the Judgment and yet it seems good and that in the first the authority was very well prosecuted in the 2 Postea was sufficient and the other words that is such a day is but surplusage and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives Triâ— 9. Jacobi Rot. 1151. IN Trespasse and Ejectione firme the Defendants pleaded that one of the Defendants made agreement with the Plaintiff for the said Trespasse and Ejectment with satisfaction and demands Judgment if action upon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plantiff that the agreement was no plea though it be said by Keble in the 11. H. 7. 13. That though it be a Plea in Ravishment of Ward quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum insomuch that they are actions personall But Wood denyed that insomuch that Inheritance is to be recovered and in Ejestione firme tearm shall be recovered and for that it shall not be spoken and of this is Wood expresly in the 13. H. 7. 20. b. That in Ejectione firme agreement shall not be a plea insomuch that the tearm is to be recovered which is the thing in demand And there also it is agreed that in Waste brought against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet agreement is good plea and so Vavasor intended if it be in the Tenet but not if it be brought against Lessee for life And also he intended that by Recovery in Ejectione firme more shall be recovered then the tearm only for by that the reversion shall be also reduced and for that the Inheritance is drawn in question and it is said in 11. H. 7. 13. that it shall not be a plea in Assise insomuch that there the Free-hold is to be recovered and by the same reason hee intended that shall be no plea insomuch that more is to be recovered then in Assise for there the Tenant only shall recover the free-hold and his damages but here the Tearm and the Inheritance also are reduced and revested And this is the reason also which is given in 11. H. 7. 13. b. by Fisher That if a man make a Lease for years rendering Rent and after brings Debt for the Rent behind the Defendant cannot wage his Law notwithstanding that the action is personall But this is more high in his nature as it is there said and yet there nothing shall be recovered but only damages for which a man may have satisfaction Also he intended that it was not well pleaded that is that such agreement was had between the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants and betwixt those shall be intended those two only and also Ipsum and Alios by his commandâ—ment and doth not shew that this was made by the other two by his commandement and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the Plea is good and that the nature of the Action is only Trespasse by force and arms and differs from a Quare ejecit but Ejectione firme differs from predict infra terminum and lyes against the immediate Ejector but Quare ejecit lyeth against him which hath title as he in reversion 7 H. 4. 6. b. Ejectione firme was brought by Executors of Land let to their Testator for years upon outing of the Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action for the Executors of goods taken out of the possession of their Testator and it seems to him also that proces of Outlawry lyes in an Ejectione firme but in Quare ejecit infra terminum only summons So it is 11. H. 7. 13. There is a great difference between Waste and this for there the Process is Distress and other speciall Process But so is it not here but only the Process which is in other generall actions of Trespasse and so is the expresse opinion of Keble in 11. H. 7. 13. That in ravishment of Ward Quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum that agreement is a good plea and yet all these trench upon the Realty and in ejectione firme if the tearm expire hanging the action this shall not abate the Writ but the Plaintiffe shall have Judgement for his damages otherwise in a Quare ejecit infra terminum And it was resolved 20 Eliz. That if an ejectione firme be brought at the common Law of Lands in
a good condition for this doth no wrong nor is repugnant to the Estate given or leased And secondly he argued that admitting it is a good condition yet here is no act done to operate conclusion or agreement which might make a forfeiture for he sayd that Mildmayes case was an expresse condition that Tenant in tayl should not suffer common recovery the which he might lawfully do at the common Law and he was not restrayned by the Statute of Donis conditionalibus which was doubted till 12 Ed. 4. but here he intends that the agreement and conclusion in this case shall make no forfeiture in respect that the Wife in whom the Estate was marryed at the time of the making and then when her Husband joynes with her it shall be sayd the agreement of the Husband and not the agreement of the Wife and yet he aagreed the case in 20 H. 8. b. Dyer 1. that if a man makes a Lease for yeares upon condition that the Lessee his Executor or Assignes shall not alien and there if the Wife executrix and her second husband alien that this shall be forfeiture insomuch that there the condition followes the Estate and is inherent to it but here the agreement is collaterall and personall and this depends upon the Estate as if condition be that a woman shall not beate J. S. and she takes a Husband which beats him this shall not be forfeiture for the condition is annexed to the person of the wife and for that the beating of the Husband shall be no breach of the condition but the wast of the Husband is the Wast of the Wife also for that followes the Estate and is not personall so he agreed that acts made by a Wife married the which she is compellable to do are good as partition between Coparceners as it is sayd by Littleton or Administration of Goods by Executor or Administrator or to make attornement so of things made for her benefit as accepting an Obligation or the bringing of an action of Wast upon a Lease made by him are also good but here the agreement and conclusion made by her and her Husband are for the disadvantage of the Wife and for that they are meerly voyd as to the Wife as in 3 H. 6. 19. 50. Contract is made with the Husband and Wife and they joyne in debt upon that and the writ abated insomuch that the contract to the Wife is void and shall be intended to be made with the Husband only and so in Russells case 5 Coke 27. b. It is agreed that a marryed Wife cannot do any thing as Executrix to the prejudice of her Husband so in 45 Ed. 3. 11. Lease was made by Husband and wife and they covenanted to make suerties and after the Husband dies and the Wife accepts the Rent and she shall not be bound by her Covenant insomuch that this was Colaterall to the Estate and if it be so that the agreement made by the married Wife is void to her then it is no agreement and by consequence no forfeyture of the Estate Also he intended that the conclusion of the condition for the words of the condition depends only upon the agreement and conclusion and not upon any Act made So that the suffering of any Act doth not make any matter in the case nor is to the purpose and also the Replication relies only upon the agreement so that the Recovery is not materiall And he intended that it is a condition and that it cannot be Limitation insomuch that the words are that the Estate shall cease as if such person had not been named in the Will and so that the Estate shall cease as if he had been dead which are words of Defeazance only and not of Limitation for he doth not appoint the Estate to continue so long And also the words are repugnant for it cannot make the Estate void as if he had not been named for this is only the office of an Act of Parliament to make a man to be dead to one and to be alive to another purpose and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff argued that it is a matter sufficient upon which Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff and he first considered the words of the Condition that is if the devisees by themselves or by any other shall make any conclusion or agreement c. This shall be a forfeyture as in 28 H. 8. 13. Dyer 65. Where a Lease was made to the Husband and Wife Proviso that if they are disposed to sell and alien the Tearme that the Lessor shall have the first offer and agreed that if that be a Condition and the Wife survive the Husband notwithstanding that it was not her Deed but the Act of the Husband she shall be bound by that insomuch that her Estate is bound with that and this was the pleasure of the Lessor and she cannot hold it otherwise then it was given and 47. Ed. 3. 12. If a man makes a Lease for yeares to the Husband and Wife and after outs them they shall joyne in a Covenant and so 48. Ed. 3. 18. They joyne in a Fine yet there the Husband only brings Debt for the money notwithstanding that it be the Land of the Wife which was sold and 38. Ed. 3. 9. If the Husband and the Wife joyne in Covenant See 45. Ed 3. 11. b. Where they joyne in Lease and also to make further assurance and the Husband and the Wife also charged with that and so in the 20. H. 6. 25. Feoffment was made to a woman sole upon condition and after she takes a Husband which breakes the Condition so in 35. assis 11. A woman sole makes a Feoffment upon condition to re-enfeoff upon request and after takes a Husband and then makes request and good and if it be so in these cases then in this case the Wife shall not be received to say the agreement was made against her will and for this see the Statute which gives Cui in vita to the Woman where the words are to whom she in her life could not contradict And after this agreement if the Husband give warrant of Attorney to suffer Recovery this is sufficient as it is agreed in 4. Ed. 3. and in 6. Coke 41. Mildmayes Case is agreed That if a man make a Feoffment to a Husband and a Wife upon condition that they shall not alien it is good to restraine alienation by which it apeares that if they Joyne in Feoffment that this shall be forfeyture and yet this is the Feoffment of the Husband only So here the agreement of them notwithstanding it is the Act of the Husband yet insomuch that it is against the expresse words of the Condition this shall be breach of the Condition and he intended that the words of the Condition amount to as much as if he had said that neither the Daughter sole nor the Daughter with another
executed for then it would be too late for then the Estate is transferred to another as it was in the cases put by Anderson in Corbetts Case But here all the Estate limited to him which made the forfeyture shall be determined and also he intended that the Reason that the Replication containes that the parties being in actuall possession are only to satisfie the words of the Condition And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff In dower the Demandant recovered Dower of tenths of Wool and Lamb and how execution shall be made was the question And the Justices intended that the Sheriffe might deliver the tenths of every 3 yard land and assign the Yard Lands in certain Bâ—t after it was conceived that this would be uncertain and unequall and for that the Sheriffe was directed to deliver the third part of all in generall and yet the first was agreed to be good but onely in respect of Inequalities as in dower of a Mill the third Toll dish and of a Villayne the third dayes work as in 23 H. 8. And it was also agreed that the Sheriffe may assign this dower without a Jury It was moved if an Attachment be granted against a Sheriffe for contempt after he is removed out of his Office and the Justices intended that not insomuch that now he is no Officer and for that he cannot be now fyned and without fyne they did not use to Imprison but the Judges would be advised to see the Presidents of the Court in such a case Mâ—chaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Kemp and Philip his Wife James and Blanch his Wife Plaintiffs against Lawrere and Trollop and the Wife of Gunâ—er Executrix during the minority of the Wives of the Plaintiffs THe case was An Executrix during the nonage for so it was and not Administratrix that is shee was ordained Executrix till the Wives of the Plaintiffs came to their full age or were marryed and then they should be Executrixes And this Executrix during the minority brought an action of Debt and recovered and before Execution the women Executrixes took Husbands and brought Scirefacias upon the Record to have Execution upon the Judgment against these Defendants as Ter-tenants which pleaded specially that they had nothing in the Free-hold nor in the Land but only a lease for yeares and that the free-hold was in another stranger upon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred in Law And Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiffs that there is the difference betwixt this Executor and an Administrator during the minority as in 26 H. 8. 7. a. if an Administrator have Judgment and dyes before Executors or other have sued out their Letters of Administration they shall have no execution of this Judgement insomuch as he comes in paramount the first Administrator and as immediate Administrator to the first Intestate as it is agreed in Shelleys case So the Administrators of one Executor shal not have execution of a Judgment given for the Executor as it is resolved in Brudenels case 5 Coke the 9. b. And in 21 Edw. 4. It is agreed if two are made Joynt-Executors and one of them dies the other shall be sole Executor to the Testator and if hee make his Executor and dyes his Executors shall be Executors to the first Testator And also there is in Fox Gretbrooks Case in the Com that one may be Executor for certain years and another after and this differs from the other cases for in this case all these Executors were in privity one to another but in the other case one comes paramount the other But here they are all made by the first Testator and the Will And he cyted the 2 Case in the Lord Dyer and 18. and 32 Edw. 3. there cyted where a Purchasor brought a Writ of Errour and was not privy to the first Record And Grantee of a Reversion brought a Scire facias against Conusee of a Statute-Merchant alledging that he had received satisfaction So if a Parson of a Church recovers an Annuity and after the Church is appropriate to a house of Religion the Soveraign of the said house shall have a Scire facias And so if union be made of two Benefices and yet in all these cases there was no privity to the first Judgement so he in reversion shall have Errour in Attainâ— upon Judgment against his Lessee for life and the Reason is given in Brudenels Case that is they which may have prejudice may have scire facias and it is not like where two Joynt-tenants are and one makes a Lease for years and dyes the other shal have the Rent insomuch that he comes in by survivorship and not in privity But here the Executors come in in privity as in case of two Executors are joyntly one â—yes the other which survives shall have Execution of Judgement given for them for Administrator during the nonage is only to the use commodity and profit of an Executor and of a Testator so that he being Executor to the Testator he shall have execution And to the second that is that the Defendants have nothing but for yeares and that the free-hold is to a stranger he intended that this is not good yet he agreed that in scire facias where a free-hold is to be recovered speciall non-tenure is a good plea as in 8 Edw 4. 19. and 8 H. 6. 32. but not of the contrary and there also generall non-tenure is no plea But here where the free-hold is not to be recovered nor one nor the other is a Plea for it may be averred that the Defendant hath a release from him that hath the reversion and as in 14 H. 4. 5. in scire facias to accompt against an Executor who pleads that the Testator was never his Bayliffe to give an accompt and yet it is agreed that this hath been a good plea for the first Defendant and this is the reason that it was not taken nor was allowed for a good plea in the 11 H. 4. 11. Insomuch that this amounts to non-tenure and in 44. and 45. Eliz. Mich. Rot. 834. it was adjudged in Scire facias where the Defendant pleads that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and adjudged no plea And so he said it was adjudged in the case of All-soules Colledge in Scire facias to have execution of a Judgment in Ejectione firme and the Defendant in the Scire facias pleads that he was but Lessee for years and adjudged no Plea insomuch that nothing was to be recovered but only the tearm and not the Free-hold and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff in Scire facias Harris Serjeant argued to the contrary and he intended that the Return of the Sheriffe is void insomuch that the Writ commanded him to give notice to the Tenants of the Land in Fee-simple and hee did not return that those which he had returned were Tenants of the Land in Fee-simple and
to whom the private damage is done may have action And he said that the Register contains many Writs for publique wrong when that is done to private men as fol. 95. A man fixes a pale crosse a navigable River by which a Ship was cast away and the Owner maintained action of Trespasse And fol. 97. A man brought Trespasse against one which cast dung into a River by which his Medow was drowned so if the River be infected with watering Hemp or Flax he which hath fishing there may maintain action of Trespasse and 2 H. 4. 11. Action of Trespasse by one for ploughing of Land where one had a common way and so it is 13. H. 7. 17. One brings an action of Trespasse against another for erecting a Lyme Kill where many others are annoyed by that So by an assault made upon a servant the Master and servant also may have severall actions and so in the other cases many may have actions and yet this is no reason to conclude any one of them that hee shall not have his action for in truth those are rather actions upon the Case then actions of Trespass for the truth of the Case is contained in the Writ Also in this case it doth not appeare that there are any other Commoners which have Common there and for that this Objection is not to the purpose and it appears by Heisman and Crackesoods Case 4 Coke 31. That Copy-holder shall have Common by prescription in the demesnes of the Lord and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice said that it was adjudged in this Court Trinity 41 Eliz. Rot. 153. b. between Holland and Lovell where Commoner brings an action upon the Case as this Case is against a stranger which pleads not guilty and it was found by verdict for the Plaintiff and it was after adjudged for the Plaintiff for insomuch that the Plaintiff may take them damage feasant that proves that he hath wrong and this is the reason that he may distraine doing dammage And by the same reason if the Beasts are gone before his comming he may have action upon his Case for otherwise one that hath many Beasts may destroy all the Common in a night and doe great wrong and shaâ—l not be punished and it is not like to a Nusance for that is publique and may be punished in a Leet but the other is private to the Commoners and cannot be punished in another place nor course and he also cyted one Whitehands case to be adjudged where many Copy-holders prescribe to have Loppings and Toppings of Pollards and Husbands growing upon the Waste of the Lord and the Lord cuts them and one Copy-holder only brings his action upon the Case and adjudged that it was very well maintainable notwithstanding that every other Copy-holder may have the same remedy And he said also that so it was adjudged in the Kings Bench Hillary 5 Jacobi Rot. 1427. in George Englands Case And 2 Edw. 2. b. Covenant 49. If a man Covenant with 20. to make the Sea banks with A. B. and every one of them and after he doth not doe it by which the Land of two is drowned and damnified and they two may have an action of Covenant without the others Quere for it seems every one shall have an action by himselfe But Foster and Wynch Justices seemed that the Plaintiffe ought to sue in his Court that the Beasts of the stranger escaped in the Common or were put in by the Owner for it may be they were put in by the Lord which was owner of the Soile or by a stranger in which cases the Owner of the Beasts shall not be punished But Coke and Warburton seemed the contrary and that this ought to be averred and pleaded by the Defendant in excuse of the Trespasse as in action of Trespasse why he broke his Close And so it was adjourned see Gosnolds case 490. see Judgment Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Henry Higgins against George Biddle IN Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Leigh and Daine Katherine his Wife intimating that Isabel Bradburn was seised of the place where c. in their demesne as of Fee and so seised the first of June 15 H. 8. gives this to the Lord Anthony Fitzherbert and Maud his Wife and to the Heirs males of their bodies which have Issue Thomas Fitzherbert Knight John Fitzherbert and William Fitzherbert Anthony and Maud dyed and the said place where c. discended to Sir Thomas Fitzherbert as Heire to the Donees to the Intayl and the said Thomas Fitzherbert the 5. of Aprill 6 Edw. 6. of that enfeoffed Humphrey Swinnerton Ralph Cotton and Roger Baily to the use of William Fitzherbert and Elizabeth his Wife for their lives and after to the use of Sir Thomas Fitzherbert and the Heirs of his body the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the said William Fitzherbert William Fitzherbert dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert disseised the said Elizabeth and the said John Fitzherbert had Issue Thomas and dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert dyed without Heir of his body and the said place where c. discended to the said Thomas as Cousin Heir of the said Sir Thomas and Son and Heir of the said John Fitzherbert which enters and was seised to him and to the Heirs Males of his body as in his Remitter And the said Thomas Fitzherbert 4 of Novemb. 39. Eliz. by Indenture of Bargain and Sale enrolled in the Chancery within six moneths bargained and sold the said Land to Sir William Leighton his heirs and Sir William Leighton 5 of Novemb. 43. Eliz. by Indenture enrolled within six moneths for 4000. l. bargained and sold the said land where c. to Sir Thomas Leigh and Dame Katherine as aforesaid and so avowed the taking for doing damage And the Plaintiff for Barr to the said Avowry pleads that well and true it is that the said Sir William Leighton was seised of the said place where c. in his Demesne as of Fee as it was alledged by the Defendant But further hee saith that the said Sir William Leighton so being thereof seised 1 Decemb 44 Eliz. enfeoffed the Plaintiff in fee and by force of that the Plaintiff was seised and put in his Beasts into the said place where c. without that that the said Sir William Leighton bargained and sold the said Land in which c. to the said Sir Thomas Leighton and Katherine his Wife as in the Conusance hath been alledged by the Defendant upon which the Defendants joyn Issue and it was agreed by all the Justices that notwithstanding this admission of the Parties is an Estoppell by the pleading yet as well the Plaintiffe as the Defendant were admitted to give another evidence to the Jury against their own pleading that is that Sir William Leighton was not seised and so nothing passed by the bargain and sale and also
and before the originall purchased the Indentnre was by the assent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancelled and avoyded and so demands Judgment if action and it seemes by Coke cleerly that the Plea is not good without averment that no Covenant was broken before the cancelling of the Indenture Pasch 12. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Barde against Stubbing IT was moved in arrest of Judgment that the Venire facias wants these words Et habeas ibidim nemina Juratorum but the words Venire facias duodecim c. were incerted and it seems by all the Justices that it was good and that the first words are supplyed in the last and they are aided by the statutes of Jeofai es after verdict and so it was adjourned In Audita querela sued by the sureties upon an escape made by the principall they being in execution offered to bring the Money into the Court or to put in sufficient Sureties to the Court and so prayed that they might be bayled and it was agreed that if Audita querela be grounded by specialty or other matter in writing or upon matter of Record Supersedeas shall be granted before that the party be in Execution and if he be in execution he shall be bayled but if it be founded upon a matter in Deed which is only surmise he shall not have Supersedeas in one case nor shall be bayled in the other case and so was the Opinion of all the Justices In an Action of Waste for digging of earth to make Brick Estrepement was awarded and upon Affidavit that the Writ of Estrement was delivered to the Sheriff and that he gave notice of that to the party and he notwithstanding that continues to make waste attachment was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Fetherstones Case Trinity 1612. IN Ejectione firme The Plaintiff had Judgment and an Habere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of Coventry which returnes that he had offered possession to the Plaintiff and he refused to accept it and it seems that the Plaintiff cannot have Habere facias possessionem insomuch that it appeares by the Record that he hath refused to have the possession The case was A Dean and Chapter being Lord of a Maunor parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor being severall adjoyned to the Common which was parcell of the wast of the Mannor and one Copy-holder which had Common in the sayd Wast puts his Beasts into the sayd waste to take his Common and they for default of inclosure escape into the sayd Demesnes by which the Lord brings his action of Trespass and upon this the Defendant pleads the speciall matter and that the Lord and all those whose Estate he had in the said place where the trespass is supposed to be made have used to fence the said place which is parcell of the Demesnes of the sayd Mannor against the Commoners which have Common in the sayd Common being parcell of the waste and also of the demesnes of the sayd Mannor and that the Beasts of the sayd Defendant escaped into the sayd place in which c for default of inclosure and so demands Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurrs in Law In the agreement of which it was agreed by Hutton and Haughton the Serjeants which argued it whether a man by prescription is bound to make fence against Commoners as it is agreed in the 22 H. 6. 7. 8. 21 H. 6. 33. But the doubt which was made in this case by Haughton which demurred was for that that the Lord which by the prescription ought to inclose is owner of the soyle also against which he ought to inclose and so he ought to inclose against himself and for that he supposed that the pleading should have been that there is such a custome there and of time out of minde that the Lord shall inclose against the Common insomuch that by that the Copy-holder would bind the Lord and upon that it was adjourned c. Pasch 12 Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife IN Warrantia Charte the case was Sir Robert Osborne and his Wife levyed a Fine of the Mannor of Kelmersh with other Lands in Kelmersh to Sir Henry Rowles against all persons and this is declared for the Lands in Relmersh to be to the use of Sir Henry Rowles for life with diverse Remainders over and for the Mannor no use was pleaded to be declared at all and then a Writ of Entry in the Post was sued against the sayd Sir Henry Rowles which vouched Sir Robert Osborne and his sayd wifeâ— and this was declared for the sayd Lands to be to the use of the sayd Sir Henry Rowles for his life with other Remainders over which were declared upon the Fine of the Lands in Kelmersh only and of the Mannor of Kelmersh no uses were declared upon the Recovery also and upon this Recovery pleaded in barr the Plaintiffe demurred and it was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiffe that the Plea in Barr was not good insomuch that it doth not appeare that the warranty which was executed by the Recovery was the same warranty which was created by the Fine and also the Fine was taken for assurance against the Issue in tayle and the Recovery to Barr the remainders and so one shall not destroy the other and for the first he sayd that a man may have of another severall warranties and severall causes of Voucher and all shall be together for warranty is but Covenant reall and as well as a man may have severall Covenants for personall things as well he may have severall reall Covenants for one self same Land as if the Father infeoff one with warranty and the Sonn also releases to the same Feoffee with warranty or if the Father infeoff one with warranty against him and his Heires and the Sonn release with warranty against all men the Feoffee may vouch one and Rebut against the other so of Warranty of Tenant in tayle and release of an Ancestor collaterall with warranty in Law and expresse warranty as it is agreed in 31 Ed. 1. Fitzh Voucher 289. And upon that he concluded that a man may have severall warranties of one selfe same man and the one may be executed and the other remaine notwithstanding that it be for one selfe same Land and he supposed the effect of these warranties are as they are used for if that may vouch generally and bind himselfe upon the Fine or upon his owne warranty or upon the warranty of his Ancestor notwithstanding that the voucher be generally as it is 31. Ed. 3. Warranty of Charters 22. So if he be vouched as Heire though that it were speciall but if he be Heire within age otherwise it is for that is a good Counter Plea that he was within age and so praied that the word might demur during his nonage 17.
But here the thing which makes the execution is only release which enures as Release And for that the accepting of the release it cannot be execution of a Legacy But if the Executor to whom the first Devise was made had had any Co-executor and he would not have suffered him to joyn in occupation with him that had been full Declaration of his Intent that he took it as a Devise and not as an Executor as it is agreed in the 10 El. 277. Dyer 50. And he said also that it hath been agreed to him that it is such a possibility that cannot be granted as it is agreed in Fulwoods case 4 Coke 66. b. And he said it is not like to Harveys Bartons case where two Joynt-tenants for life were and one made a Lease for years to begin after his death and dyed and his companion survived him and agreed to be a good Lease against the Survivor notwithstanding the Contingency And he conceived that this might be released and that it is not like to contingent actions insomuch that it is a release of right in Lands see 5 H. 7. 31. b. Colts Assise where it is said if Lord Mesne and Tenant are and the Mesne is forejudged by the Tenant and after the Lord releases to the Tenant and after by Parliament it is enacted that the fore-judger shall be void yet the release shall be good against the Lord and so of actions by Executor before Probate and 14 Ed. 3. Barr Release of Dower by Fyne doth extingush it and Althams case 8 Coke if it be made to the Tenant of the Land that shall be a Barr. And 21 H. 7. fol. the last Release to a Patron in time of Vacation shall be a Barr in annuity brought against the Incumbent and if the Lessee for years be outed and the Disseisor makes a Lease for years to a stranger and the first Lessee release to them both this is good as it is 9 H. 6. and yet regularly such release is not good without privity But insomuch that it is of right to the Land and to one which hath possession it is very good So Release by Copy-holder extincts his Copy-hold right as it is resolved 4 Coke amongst the Copy-hold cases and yet hee agreed that some possibilities cannot be released as in Albayns case power of Revocation if it be not to the Tenant of the Land insomuch that this is a meer possibility So if an annuity depend upon a condition precedent but where the returning of the estate is to the party himselfe as in Diggs case 1 Coke 174. a. And also the release in this case is the more strong insomuch that the estate in this is recited as in the case of 44 Ed. 3. in release of Ayde And so he concluded that admitting there be no election and execution of the Legacy by the acceptance of the Release then the title of the Defendant is good and if it be a good election execution Yet he conceived that all the tearm remains in the first Devisee and that the remainder is destroyed by the release and so prayed Judgment for the Defendant and so it was adjourued Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Manley against Jennings IN Debt upon an Obligation with Condition to performe observe fulfil and keep all Covenants Grants Articles Payments contained in a Lease c. The Lessee doth not pay the Rent at the day and the Plaintiff without making of any request begins a Suit upon the Obligation and upon this matter pleaded in Barr the Plaintiff replyed that he was not demanded and upon this the Defendant demurred And Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that when any penalty is annexed to a payment of the Rent be that annexed to the estate or otherwise yet it ought to be requested and without request to pay it no penalty shaâ—l be incurred as in 22 H. 8. 57. a. b. by Newton Ashton and Port where a difference is taken between an Obligation taken for payment of Rent generally without any relation to a Lease and where it is only for performance of Covenants and Issue taken upon the request and after demurrer joyned and the question if the Lessee ought to tender it 14 Edw. 4. 4. accordingly And in 21 Edw. 4. 6. a. b. Pigott and Bryan agreed that there shall be no penalty nor Obligation forfeited without request where the Obligation is for performance of Covenants and not precisely for the payment of Rent and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nichols Serjeant for the Plaintiff conceived that the Lessee ought to make tender upon the Land to save the penalty and this shall be sufficient and the Lessor need not to make request and this is the Obligation for performance of Covenants for this doth not alter the nature of the Rent but if it be for payment of Rent precisely there the Lessee ought to seek the Lessor or otherwise for not payment he shall forfeit his Obligation for there tender upon the Land shall not excuse him And for that if a man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent at Michaelmass with nomine poene if it be not payed within 10 dayes after Michaelmass and within the 10. dayes and these differences appear and are agreed in 22 H. 6. 57. and 6 Edw. 6. Brooke tender 20. And he conceived that the Books of 14 Ed. 4. 4. 20. Ed. 4. 6. and 11 Ed. 4. 10. depends upon these differences that is that a man shall not distrain for Rent charge without Request insomuch that it is as a Debt which is due upon Request and admit that the case were that a man made a Lease for yeares the Lessee covenants to pay the Rent at the day with a nomine pene in default of payment of that and after the Lessee assignes his Interest to one which Covenants to pay the Rent and performe all the Covenants in the Lease he demanded in this case who shall make the request that is the first Lessor or the Lessee insomuch that it is penall to the Assignee of them both and so many Suits may arise upon that and also he sayd that it was ruled here upon a motion in arrest of Judgment that in Debt upon an Obligation to performe Covenants there need not to be alledged demand upon Solvit or non Solvit put in Issue for it may be pleaded that it was tendered or payd and so he sayd it is confessed by the Demurrer that the Obligation is forfeited and for that he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cited Myles and Dragles Case where a man was bound for performance of a Will he need not to pay Legacy devised by that for which is no day assigned without request so if the Obligation be for payment of Legacy expresly and no day assigned and so it was adjourned Trinity 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Gravesend Case IN Debt the case was this that is the
Port-reeve Jurates and Inhabitants of Gravesend brought Debt against one Edmonds a Water man which plyed the Ferry betwixt Gravesend and London and counts that Gravesend and Milton are ancient Townes and next adjoyning to the River of Thames and that the Inhabitants of these Townes have had time out of minde c. ancient passage from thence to London and have used to make By-Lawes and constitutions for the Government of that passage and have provided Water-men Steer-men and Rowers for the said Passage the which used time out of minde to take of every Passenger and his Fardell two pence and that for their maintenance and ought to hold the Passage if their benefit at this rate amounted to foure shillings or more and that the Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents under the great Seale of England incorporated the said Inhabitants by the name of Port-reevs Jurats and Inhabitants of Milton and Gravesend and this was in the tenth yeare of her Raigne and also that they injoyed the said Ferry without any Interruption and that they held the tide and Ferry and that the Port-Reeve Jurat and twelve of the Inhabitants had power to make By-Laws and Coustitutions for the government of the sayd Ferry and that every Water-man should observe his turn and also to impose Fines for the not observing of them and that in the thirty seventh yeare of the said Queene Elizabeth a Constitution was made by the then Port-reeve Jurats and twelve of the Inhabitants of the said Towns insomuch that many Water-men ply poore Passengers before that the Barge was furnished and so that many other Passengers were inforced to loose their passage by the Barge insomuch that the passage did not amount to four shillings so that they did not hold their tyde so that the Barge which had such preheminence that is that no Water-men shall ply any Faire or passenger till the Barge had received so many of their passengers by which they might receive four shillings at the Rate aforesaid and be removed from the Bridg at Gravesend unto the Land marke and that if the Tiltboate or any other Water-man received any passenger before that the Barge be so furnished that he should pay the sayd Port-reeve Jurats and Inhabitants for the maintainance of the said Barge for every passenger so received two pence and so assigned breach of the By-Law in the Defendants and that he had received so many of the passengers before the Barge was furnished which amounted to as much as is demanded by which Action accrued to the Plaintiff to demand it to which the Defendant pleads that he oweth nothing to the Plaintiffs in manner and forme as they have demanded it and by the Jury at the Barr it was found for the Plaintiffs and after that upon motion in the behalfe of the Defendant the Judgment was arrested and now at this day Judgement was prayed for the Plaintiffs By Dodridge Serjeant of the King and he conceived that the custome was good notwithstanding that it was alledged in the Inhabitants and he sayd it was no prescription but Custome and it is declared to be a good and laudable custome and usage by the Statute of 6 H. 8. Chapter 7. Rastall Passage 8. and he agreed that Inhabitants cannot prescribe to have matter of benefit but to have matter of Ease he conceived they might very well as it is 15 Ed. 4. 29. 22 H. 6. Prescription 46. 18 Ed. 4. 2. 18 H. 8. 1. Secondly As to the Objection that the living of the other Watermen which are not imployed in the Barge is by that abridged and that when the Water-man is willing to carry and the Passenger to be carried by him it is no reason that a By-Law should abridge this voluntary act of a man upon which his lively-hood depends he sayd that so it is not for nothing is challenged by the By-Law but only preheminence and that provision be made for the Poore which is for the publick good for every one may go with any that he will paying two pence to the Barge or after the Barge is furnished paying nothing and he conceived that the Liberty of the subject ought to be so abridged but not alltogether abolished as it is agreed in the Arch-Bishop of Yorkes Case in the Register in the Writ of Trespasse fol. 105. b. c. 8 Coke 125. a. Wagoners Case 8 Ed. 3. 37. a. 3 Ed. 3. 3. Where the Bishop of York claimes in the Mannor of Ripon such liberty that is that he and all his Predecessors time out of mind c. have had a custome that none in the said Town ought or had accustomed to use the office or mistry of a Dyer without Licence of the said Arch-Bishop or his Bayliff of the said Town And also he cited a case in the Register where the Abbot of Westminster prescribed to have a faire in Westminster upon Saint Edwards day and for ten daies after And that no Citizen nor other in London during that time should sell any thing in London but in this faire and after the Abbot remitted this priviledg and had of the Citizens of London for that one thousand five hundred pound And so it was adjudged in Sir George Farmers Case for a bake-house in Tossiter and that none shall bake any Bread to sell but in his bake-house and good And so he conceived that Custome may be restrained all passengers till the Bardge be furnished as in 2. Ed. 3. 7. Granâ— that all Ships laded and unladed in such a Haven shall be laded and unladed in such a place and a good grant notwithstanding that it restraines all people to a certaine and if this be good by grant then a Fortiore shall be good by custome and to the other objection that this custome shall only bind the Inhabitance and not strangers he conceived that custome might tye strangers that came into the said Town very well as it is agreed in 22. H. 7. 40. So the By-Law shall bind strangers when it is only for Acts to be made within the Town and for the publike good as it is agreed in the 44. Ed. 3. 13. and 8. Ed. 2. assis 413. ordinance against him which estops passage by water and good and so he agreed in the Chamberlaine of Londons Case that By-Law made in London shall bind all as well strangers as Citizens which sell any Drapery in the Hall there though that they Inhabit in any place out of the City And also he said that the Bardge-men which have the losse shall have the benefit for they shall have the two pence for every one that passes otherwise before that they are furnished and this is recompence for them which are tyed to perpetuall attendance and he conceiveth that the demand is very well made notwithstanding that the duty accrues from many times for he hath carried so many men at one time and so many at another the which in all amonnts to the sum demanded And so he
Inhabitants to it Sixtly He conceived that the constitution is not pursued for the constitution is that if any Water-man carries any passenger willing to go by the Bardge that such Water-man shall pay for every such passenger two pence And it is not averred that the passengers which the Defendant hath carried were willing to be carried by the Bardge and so not pursued Seventhly The Constitution is further that no Wherry-man shall carry any passenger before the Bardge be fully dismist and transmist and this is not good for it may be the Bardge will not passe to London at all this Tyde and for that it ought to be averred that the Bardge departs in convenient time after that it is furnished for otherwise custome that none shall put his Beasts into such a place till the Lord hath put in his Beasts is not good for it is resolved in 2. H. 4. 24. And the reason is insomuch that it may be that the Lord will not put in his Beasts at all And to the objection that the By-Law shall not bind a stranger he conceives that if all other circumstances had been concurrent that had been very well insomuch that it was within the place where they had power to make By-Lawes and also for the publick good and this as well as the custome of Forraine bought and Forraine sold the which is only for strangers And to the objection that they are severall owners of severall Bardges and for that ought not to joyne in this Action he saith this doth not appeare by the Count but it is said that they were possessed and for that they shall be intended Joynt Owners and so he concluded that Judgement shall be arrested Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. in the Common Bench. Downes against Shrimpshaw Trin. 9. Jacobi Rot. 334. IN action of Trespasse for Assault and Battery the case was this The Plaintiff in his Count supposeth the Trespasse to be made the first day of May 8 Jacobi at such a place The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff the same day would have assaulted and beaten him and that the Defendant laid his hands upon him to defend himselfe and if any hurt came unto him it was by his own wrong the which is the same Trespasse for which the Plaintiff hath complained him The Plaintiff replyes of his own wrong without such cause upon which Issue was joyned and at the Nisi prius for Justification the Defendant produced Witnesses which proved an assault to be made by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant long time that is by the space of a yeare before the day contained in the Count and that at this time the Defendant to defend himselfe hath assaulted the Plaintiff And upon this Evidence the Plaintiff demurred insomuch that this proves an assault made at another day then is contained in the Count and the Defendant by pleading hath confessed an Assault and Battery made upon the Plaintiff the day contained in the Count and now upon Evidence proves his Justification at another day and if this Evidence were sufficient to prove his Justification was the question And if by this pleading the day be made materiall in which it was agreed by the Court and Councell also That if the Defendant had pleaded not guilty the day had not been materiall But the Plaintiffe might have given in Evidence any Battery before the day contained in the Count or after before the action brought and this is sufficient to prove his Declaration but the Parties that is the Plaintiff by his Count and Replication and the Defendant by his Justification have agreed of the day And for that if they may now vary from that it was moved and so it was adjourned Trin. 10. Jac. 1612. in the Common Bench. Laury against Aldred and Edmonds IN Debt against the Defendants as Executors of William Aldred dead upon an Obligation made by him in his life time of 50. l. The case was this one of the Defendants confessed the action the other pleaded that the Testator dyed such a day and that he intending to have letters of Administration caused the Corps of the Testator to be buryed and his goods safely to be preserved and kept and that after administration was granted to him by the Arch-Deacon and that after that one Harnego brought action against him as Administratrix by letters of Administration committed to her by the Commissary of the Bishop being Ordinary there and recovered and averred that this was a true Debt and that he had no goods which were the Testators besides the Goods and Chattels which did not amount to the said Debt and so demanded Judgment if action and upon this the Plaintiff demurred in Law Davis Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the Defendant ought to have confessed and avoyded or traverse the point of the action and not conclude Judgement if action See 1 Eliz. Dyer 166. 10. When intermedling made men Executors of their owne wrong that is when he meddles without any colour of title or authority as receiving Debts and disposing the goods to his owne use But if a man administer about the Funeralls or be made a Coadjutor or Overseer this shall not make him Executor of his own wrong or by reason of a Will which is after disproved by probate of one Letter and in these cases if he be charged as Executor he ought to plead speciall matter without that that he administred in other manner and in 20. H. 7. 27. a. 28. b. adjudged in Debt against one as Executor which had Letters ad Colligendum bona definisti only which pleaded the speciall matter without that that he administred any other way and other manner was out of the pleading for he did not administer in any manner with Intermedling by the letters ad colligendum and 9 Ed. 4. 33. b. If an action be brought against an Executor of his owne wrong and after administration is committed to him by the Ordinary this shall not abate the action upon which Books he inferred that the Defendant ought to have traversed that he administred as Executor and insomuch that hee hath pleaded that he hath not so pleaded the plea was not good and also insomuch that he hath pleaded that he hath no goods of the Intestate besides goods which doe not amount c. And this is uncertain and not good for he ought to have shewed what goods he had in certain and the value of them insomuch that they remain as Assets in his hands and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Barker Serjeant for the Defendant argued that though that the action in which Harnego recovered was begun after the action now hanging yet insomuch that judgment was first had in that now that shall be preferred otherwise before Judgment for till Judgement the elder action shall be preferred And he conceived that if the Writ was abateable and the Defendants would not abate it by plea that shall not prejudice the Plaintiff which
is a stranger and doth not know if these Defendants are Executors or Administrators as it is said by Danby 9 Edw. 4. 13. And he conceived that the plea is good that the Defendants have not goods besides the goods which do not amount c. And divers presidents were cyted by him to this purpose as Trin. 18. Eliz. Rot. 1405. between Blanekson and Frye Hillary 40 Eliz. Rot. 902. Smalpeeces case and Trin. 44 Eliz. Rot. 1900. between Goodwin and Scarlet in all which the pleadings were all one with the plea in question and no exceptions taken to that and infinite other presidents may be shewed in the point for which cause he demanded Judgment for the Defendants Coke cheife Justice seemed that in an action brought against one as Executor he may plead that Administration was committed to him for such intent that the dead dyed Intestate and demands Judgment if action without traverse that he was Executor and with this agreed 1 Ed. 4. 2. a. 20 H. 6. 23. And so if the Ordinary be charged as Executor he may plead that he administred as Ordinary without traverse that he was Executor but only shewed that the party dyed Intestate and the Plaintiff ought to reply that he made a Will and the Defendant proved that and traverse that he dyed Intestate and with this agreed 9 Edw. 4. 33. and 1 Edw. 4. 11. And if an action be brought against Executor of his own wrong hee may plead that administration is granted to such an one and the Party dyed Intestate and demand Judgment if action for he shall not be charged for more goods then came to his hands But if a man administer of his own wrong and after rightfull administration is committed to him yet he may be charged as Executor of his own wrong insomuch that Right of action is attached in him But this seems for the goods that he hath administred before rightfull administration committed unto him And he cyted 14 Eliz. Dyer 305. b. where in debt brought against one as Executor which pleads never Executor nor ever administred as Executor and the Plaintiffe replies that he administred as Executor of the Will c. and so to Issue And in Evidence the Defendant shews Letter of administration to him committed of goods of the dead by which he administred them and before that he did not administer and this seems there to be good Evidence but the Book was Quere of that and for that he would rather plead that in abatement of the Writ and so the Book inclined also And he conceived here that the medling with the goods here by the Defendant as Administrator made him Executor of his own wrong insomuch that it was for Funeralls and when it is a work of Charity and the other is to preserve them And the Defendant hath not conveyed himselfe to be Executor insomuch that he said that administration was committed to him by an Arch-Deacon and he doth not say that Administration of right belonged to him to commit insomuch that hee hath but a sub-ordinate Jurisdiction And the Common Law doth not take notice that he nor no other but the Ordinary hath such power and for that the power of all which have such subordinate and peculiar Jurisdiction is pleaded that ought to be shewed as it seems by 1 Ed. 4. 2. a. b. 22 H. 6. 23. And the rather when this is pleaded by the Administrator himselfe which ought to have notice of that and make title to himselfe and if so it be then he conceived that the Recovery by Hornego was void and so all the goods confest remain as Assets Also he conceived that if the Executor allow a Writ to suffer Judgment to be had against him upon a Writ which is abateable he shall not have allowance of that but this shall be returned as Devastavit as in 10 Edw. 3. 503. a. If the Tenant vouch when he might have abated the Writ he shall lose the benefit of his Warranty So here and Com. Manwells case 12. a. 22 H. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 Also he conceived if a man be charged as Administrator where he is no Administrator he cannot plead that he never administred as Administrator but he ought to traverse the Commission of Administration as it appears by 21 H. 6. 23. And it seems also to him and by 9 Edw. 4. 33. that if a man be an Executor of his owne wrong and after administration is committed to him and he is charged as Executor after administration committed that the Writ shall abate otherwise if administration be committed hanging the Writ So if a man be made Executor and hee not knowing of that Iues letters of Administration he shall be named Administrator and if after when he hath notice of the Will he proves it then he shall be impleaded by the name of Executor for in such manner as the power is given to him by the Bishop he shall be charged and it seemes though that he plead where he is Administrator and is sued as Executor or otherwise in such manner that hee might have abated the Writ or suffer Judgment yet the Writ shall abate and he intended also that Executor of his owne wrong might pay debts due to another and shall be discharged and shall not be charged with more then he hath in his hands And if two Executors are joyntly sued and one confesse the action this shall bind him and his companion also for so much as he hath in his hands But if an Executor of his own wrong confesse the action this shall not prejudice him which is rightfull Executor and so he conceived that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice conceived that the Barr is good notwithstanding that he did not shew that the Arch-Deacon had power to grant Administration insomuch it is no Inducement and the Defendant doth not relie upon it as Littleton saith in Trespasse where the Defendant pleades that it was made by two and the Plaintiff releases to one and if the Defendant pay due Debts it is not materiall whether he have Authority or not though that it be in another respect As if a man be Indicted of man-slaughter and aquitted and after is Indicted of Murder by the same man he may pleade another time aquitted insomuch that these are matters of substance But here it is but of forme and then if it be not shewed it is not materiall But the matter upon which he relied was insomuch that the Action was brought against two Executors and one hath confessed the Action And he intended without question that if this shall bind his companion and for that he will not dispute the other questions but declares his opinion cleerely that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgement against both these Defendants upon the confession of one and this shall bind his companion Wynch Justice conceived that the Plea is good by Administrator without traverse insomuch that it is to the Writ as it
appears by 9 Edw. 4. 33. 37 H. 6. 32 H. 6. 1. Ed. 4. 2. 50. Ed. 3. And he conceived that the burying is not any Administration nor the taking of the goods into his custody to preserve them no more then in Trover and Conversion when a man takes the goods for to preserve them And he agreed that where a man intitles himselfe to goods by Administration committed by any but by the Bishop he ought to pleade specially that he which committed it had power to doe it But here it is not so but only conveiance and for that need not here such precise pleading of that insomuch it is only execution of Administration and for that it is good without intitleing the Arch-Deacon And he agreed that an Executor of his owne wrong may pay Debts due to another and shall be discharged And he agreed also that the Confession of one Executor shall bind his Companion and that Judgement shall be given upon that for the Plaintiff And they all agreed that the pleading that the Defendant hath no goods besides the goods which do not amount c. it was not good and for these causes they all agreed that Judgement ought to be given to the Plaintiff Trinity 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Tyrer against Littleton 9. Jacobi Rot. 299. IN Trespasse for taking of a Cow c. Upon not guilty pleaded by the Defendant the Jury gives speciall Verdict as it followes that is that the Husband of the Plaintiff was seised of eighty Acres of Land held of the Defendant by Harriot service that is the best Beasts of every Tenant which died seised that he had at the time of his death and that the Husband of the said Defendant long time before his death made a Feoffment of that Land in consideration of marriage and advancement of his Son to the use of his Son and his Heires with such agreement that the Son should redemise to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that after the marriage was had and the Son redemised the Land to his Father and the Father injoyed that accordingly and paied the Rent to the Lord and after died and that the Plaintiff had no notice of his Feoffment and that the Husband at the time of his death was possessed of the said Cow and that the Defendant took it as the best Beast in name of Harriot and also found the Statute of 13. Eliz. of fraudulent conveiances to deceive Creditors and so praied the direction of the Court and this was agreed by the Plaintiff aforesaid Nicholls Serjeant first that all conveiances made upon good consideration and Bona Fide are by speciall Proviso exempted out of the Statute of 13. Eliz. chap. And he conceived that this is made upon good consideration and Bona Fide and for that it is within the said Proviso and also he said that as upon the Statute of Marlebridge there is fraud apparent and fraud averrable as it appeares 12. H. 4. 16. b. Where in ward the Tenant pleads that his Father levied a Fine to a stranger the Lord replies that this was by Collusion to re-enfeoff the Heire of the Tenant at his full age and so averred that to be by Collusion to out the Lord of his Ward and this is fraud averrable But if the Tenant had enfeoffed his Tenant immediately in Fee-simple this is apparent without any averment and the Court may adjudge upon it And so upon the Statute of 27. Eliz. chap. 4. it appears by Burrells Case that the Fraud ought to be proved in Evidence or confessed in pleading or otherwise this shall not avoid conveiance for it shall not be intended 6 Coke 78. a. and see 33. H. 6. 14. b. Andrew Woodcocks case upon which he inferred that this is but a fraud averrable if it be a fraud at all and of this the Court could not take notice if it be not found by the Jury and he said upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Devisees as it appeares by Knights Case 8 Coke and 12. Eliz. Dyer 295. 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Circumstances which are found in the speciall Verdict are sufficient to satisfie the Court that it is fraud for as well as the Court may give direction to the Jury upon Evidence that it is fraud and what not as well may the Court Judge upon the special matter being found by special Verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. and 268. that is the special matter being found by special verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. 268. that is the speciall matter is found by Inquisition upon Mandamus and leave to the Court to adjudge if it be fraud or not and in 12 El. 294. and 295. 8. the speciall matter was found by Jury upon Eligit directed to the Sheriffe and by him returned to the Court And in Trinity 27. Eliz. between Saper and Jakes in Trover the Defendant pleades not guilty and gives in Evidence as assignement of a Tearme to him with power of revocation And the Court directed the Jury that this was fraudulent within the Statute of 27. Eliz. to defraud a purchasor and in Burrells Case 6. Coke 73. a. before the fraud to the Court upon Evidence to the Jury and the Court gave direction to the Jury that it was fraud and that upon the Circumstances which appeares upon the speciall Evidence And so in this case he conceived that insomuch the circumstances appear by the Verdict that the Jury may very well adjudge upon it and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 13. Eliz. Doth not aid the Defendant insomuch that the Feoffment was made for good consideration and for that shall be within the said Proviso for if that shall be avoided at all that shall be avoided by the Statute of Marlebridge which is ouly affirmance of the Common Law and this is the reason that not withstanding the Statute speakes only of Feoffment by the Father to his Son and Heire apparent yet a Feoffment to a Cosin which is Heire apparent is taken to be within the Statute and in the 24. of Eliz. in Sir Hamond Stranges Case It was adjudged that if the Son and Heire apparent in the life time of his Father purchase a Mannor of his Father for good consideration this is out of the Statute and so it was adjudged in Porredges Case also he said that the Law is an Enemie to fraud and will not intend it being a conveiance made for consideration of a marriage to be fraudulent no more then if the Father had made a Feoffment to the use of a stranger for life the remainder in Fee to his Son and Heire the which is not within the Statute of Marlebridge as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33.
awarded good because it comes in Lieu of Goods which they had as Executors and shall be Assets in their hands as the Goods should have been and for that it is well brought in the Detinet only And they said that in the principall case it shall be mischeivous if the Action shall be brought in the Debet and Detinet for it may be the Rent reserved is of more worth then the Profits of the Land will amount unto and that the Executors or Administrators have no other Assets now shall be the Executor or Administrator be charged with his own proper Goods which shall be mischeivous and the case of 10. H. 7. 5. and 6. that is direct in the point was often times cited and all these three things which were of councell with the Defendant informed the Court that they were of Councell with Hargrave when the Judgement given in the Kings Bench was reversed for Error in this very point and for this cause because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet where it should be in the Detinet only And so they praied that the Judgement should be hindered But by the whole Court except Yelverton And so it was adjudged that the Action was well brought as it is and especially for the reasons given in Hargraves Case 5. Coke 31. And to that which hath been said by Yelverton Justice that in all cases where Executors are charged by the name of Executors or Administrators that there the Action shall be against them in the Detinet only Flemming cheife Justice answered that â—rue it is in all personall things where they are named as Executors Action shall be in the Detinet But as it is an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Chattell reall and an Executor is as an Assignee in Law and so charged as privy in Estate and not meerely as Executor and if he have no more Assets then the Rent which he is to pay he may plead nothing in his hands against all the World and to that that hath been said that the Executor hath been charged of his own Goods If the profits be not more then the Rent or the Rent more then the profits to this he said that in this case where the Executor hath the Tearme and hath not any other Assets that they may wave this Tearme And in Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent may plead to the occupation and that recover The reason of the diversity between this case and the case of 28. H. 8. Dyer 14. is plain for in an Action of Debt against the Termor himselfe Non habuit nec occupavit is no Plea for there was a contract between them and for this privity of contract is the Lessee charged though he did not occupy But in the case of an Executor the privity of the contract is gone and so may be a difference But yet it seemes if he have Assets sufficient to pay the Rent he cannot wave it And to the case 14. H. 4. 28. that hath been cited that doth speake nothing how the Action should be brought And the Justices have seen the record of Hargraves case and the Reversall of that And they said the same error which was in Hargraves case is in this case and for that bring your Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber if you will for we so adjudge And then it was moved that the Lord Rich was Tenant in Tayle of part of the reversion and Tenant in Fee-simple of the other part and so it seemes that he ought to have two Actions because he hath as two reversions But it was resolved by all the Court that if a man have a reversion of part in Fee-simple and of the other part in tayl and makes a Lease for yeares rendring a Rent he shall have but one Action both being in the hands of one But otherwise it had been if the reversion had been in severall hands they should not Joyne in Debt and for that Fenner put this case two Coparceners are of a reversion and they make partition now the Rent is apportioned and they shall sever in Debt But if one dies without Issue and the part discends to the other Parcener now he shall have but one Action of Debt againe and so it is if a man makes a Lease of two Acres rendring Rent and after grants the reversion of one Acre to J. S. and of the other Acre to J. N. now they shall sever in Debt for this Rent but if J. S. and J. N. Grant their reversions againe to the first Lessor he shall have but one Action of Debt and so the exception dissalowed by all the Court and the Judgement given for the Plaintiff according to the Verdict Yates and Rolles THe case was this J. S. covenants by Indenture with J. N. I. D. and A. B. to enter Bond to pay ten pound to J. N. and J. N. dies and his Administrator brings a Writ of covenant and the question was insomuch that this ten pound was to be paid to J. N. if his Administrator shall have Action of Covenant or if the Action shall survive to the other two and it was moved by Stephens that the Action shall be well brought by the Administrator for this shall be taken as a severall covenant and this now is in nature of a Debt and enures only to him which shall have it also the payment of the money which is the effect of the covenant shall be to him only Ergo the Damages for the not performing of it shall goe to him also and by consequence to his Administrator But it was adjudged insomuch that this was a joynt covenant that this shall survive to the others and not well brought by the Administrator So also resolved that insomuch that the words are that he would enter Bond and doth not say to whom that this shall be intended to the Covenantees and though that the Solvendo is but to one of them yet that is very good as an Obligation made to three Solvendum to one of them is good by Fenner and by Williams Obligation to two Solvendum ten pound to one and ten pound to another both ought to joyne in Debt upon this Obligation and Judgement for the Defendant Sammer and Force THe Case was this The Lord of a Copy-hold Mannor where Copy holders are for life grants Rent-charge out of all the Mannor one Copy-hold Escheats the Lord grants that againe by Copy the question was If the Grantee shall hold it charged or not and by the whole Court but Fenner he shall not hold it charged because he comes in above the Grant that is By the custome the same Law of Statutes Recognizances or Dowers but the 10. of Eliz. Dyer 270. by the whole Court that he shall hold it charged but this hath been denyed for Law in a Case in the Common Bench between Swaine and Becket which see Trinity 5. Jacobi But to Coke Justice it seemed that
Thirdly The third point was that after the disseisin of the Tenant for life he that had future Interest of a Tearme to begin after the death of the Lessee for life during the disseisin assignes over all his Interest if this assignement be good or not and he argued that not for by him the disseisin of the Tenant for life the future Interest to commence after the death of the Tenant for life is converted into a Right and Right of a Tearme cannot be transferred over for though that Lessee for years to begin presently may grant over his Interest before his Entry and it is well for that that it is an Interest forth with yet if before his Entry the Lessor be disseised by a stranger yet by him now he cannot grant his Interest over for that it is converted into a Right of a Tearme but he ought to re-enter before that the Lessee may grant over his Tearme so in our case though that before the disseisin of the Lessee for life the future Interest was transferrable over for that that it was Interest though that it was not a Lease in posaession yet when the Tenant for life was disseised then his Interest of a Tearme was turned into a Right of a Tearme and then it is not transferable over till the re-entry by the Lessee for life and he said that it was resolved by the 2. cheif Justices in the Star-chamber as he hath heard that if Lessee for years be and before his entry a stranger enters and disseises the Lessor that now the Lessee cannot grant his Tearme before that the Lessor hath entred or he himselfe hath gained the Tearme in posaession And so it seemes to him that the future Tearme doth not passe by this assignement and then it is extinguished by the purchase which commeth after and then the Justification of the Defendant as Servant to the Assignees not good And so upon all the matter he praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Williams Justice said that it was cleer if a man have a Lease for years to begin after the death of a Lessee for life as is the case at the Barr that though that the Lessee for life be disseised yet the Interest remaines good Interest to the Lessee and is not turned into a Right of a Tearme and for that he may grant it over notwithstanding the disseisin and so is Sapphins case 5. Coke 104. Otherwise if the Lessee for years had been any time in posaession by force of his Lease and it is Adjourned At another day the same Tearme the case was argued againe by Yelverton of Grayes Inne of the other part that is for the Defendant and first he said that the Plaintiff which claimes under the Wife of Hlobeame hath not any right to one Moytie cleerely for the Husband and the Wife were Joynt-Tenants before the coverture So that they take by Moyties and not by Intirities and when the Husband bargaines and sells all that is a seperation of the Joyntenancy and his Moytie is gone for ever as it appeares by 3. M. Dyer 149. 82. So that for one moytie it is cleer that the Plaintiff hath not any right any way how ever the case prove for the other Moytie and this Moytie which was conveied by the Husband is discended to the Defendant which hath no speciall outer found by the Verdict But only that he entered which he well might having the other halfe and then no Trespasse found by the Jury and also the Damages found by the Jury are Intire and then being no cause of Damages for part there shall be no Judgement for the residue And the first point that he moved was if after this disseisin and feoffment over the Feoffor might tender the money to cease the first Estate and it seemes that not for the Free-hold cannot accrue as it seemes to him by any tender after his disseisin and so it hath been agreed to him as he said by the Councell of the other part and then by him this condition consisting of two parts this is Disseisin of one Estate and Accruing of the other Estate if by this desseisin the condition be distroied for the accruing of the Estate it seemes also that it shall be distroied as to the ceasing of the first Estate for if a condition be distroied in part it shall be distroied in all for it is Intire and cannot be apportioned and by consequence if one Estate cannot accrue the other shall not cease And he resembled it to the cafe in the 14. H. 8. 17. And Perkins condition being in the Coppulative one part being dispenced with the other was a discharge so when a man hath election to do one of two things if one be discharged though that it be by the Act of God as by death c. Yet the other shall be discharged by the Law as it was in Langtons Case 5. Coke 22. a Fortiore when one is discharged by the Act of the party also by him if he had made any Feoffment after this desseisin yet the very disseisin would destroy the accruing of the Estate for though that he do not gaine Fee by the disseisin but only Estate for life and retaines his old reversion in him according to 9. H. 7. 25. Yet the Fee and the Free-hold are so conjoyned by discent of that Estate alters an entry as it appeares by 3. Ed. 3. Entry Congeable 58. And if he in reversion disseise Tenant for life the Contingent uses shall never rise by Chidleys Case first of Coke 158. Condition that he retaine his old remainder no more of the accruing of the Fee in our Case for by him it appeares by 10. Assis and Nicholls Case Com. That Estate ought to accrue upon posaession or at least upon an Estate in being and not upon a right of an Estate only And for that he cited 6. R. 2. Pleasingtons Case Lease for years upon condition that if the Lessee be outed he shall have Fee though that he be outed yet he shall not have Fee for that that at the time of the condition performed he had but a right of Tearme and no Tearme in posaession so is our case after the disseisin he having but right the Estate cannot accrue Secondly if the Grantee or he to whose use may performe the Condition either by the Common Law or by Statute Law And he conceived that none of these might performe that for first at the common Law though that Grantees of reversions may take advantage of a Condition by way of cesser of Estates upon the condition performed yet this is only when the condition was to be performed of the part of the Lessee and so was the case cited by Serjeant Nicholls of 11 H. 7. but if the condition were of the part of the Lessor otherwise it was as the Book is in 26 H. 6. Entries And then a Fortiori here the Assignee of a Disseisor cannot performe the condition which may be performed of the part
the Arbitrator awards that one party shall enter into Bond to another for injoying of certain Lands and doth not say in what Sum and adjudged void for the uncertainty and so in this case by which c. But it was answered and resolved that the Arbitrement was good And to the first objection it was resolved and agreed that every award ought to have respect to both parties if it be not a matter which concernes one party only and neither recompence nor acquittall due to the other party in which case the award shall be good And it was resolved in the principall case that the award was made of both parties for one was to have money and the other though there was no expresse mention that the other should be discharged of his Assumpsit yet the award was a good discharge in Law and may be pleaded in Bar upon an Action brought upon the Assumpsit and so it was for both parties And to the second objection it was agreed that where submission is with Ita quod c. as above that there the Arbitrators ought to make arbitrement of all the variances and controversies referred to their arbitrement and if they do make no arbitrement of all the matters of which the submission is made the award is void but if the submission be generall as of all matters in variance or controversie between them There if the Arbitrator makes his award of all matters which are known to him the award shall be good As my Lord Coke conceived though that there are other matters in variance of which the Arbitrator hath no notice as if divers Creditors sue a-commission upon the statute of Barkrupts and an another person to whome the Bankrupt was indebted doth not come in as a Creditor nor give notice to the Commissioners that the Bankrupt was indebted to him he shall not take benefit of the commission for the Commissioners cannot releive those Creditors of which they have no notice as it appeares by the case of Bankrupts in 2. Coke And to the third objection it was answered and resolved that the award was good notwithstanding that no place be expressed where the money shall be paid for in Law that ought to have resonable construction and the party ought to have reasonable time for the payment of that but Foster conceived that it is not good for it seemed to him that if the award shall be good that the Obligation of submission shall be immediatly forfeyted for that there was neither time nor place where the money should be payd but this was answered with the Bookes of 3. H. 7. 16. Ed. 4. Where it is said that if an Arbitrator award that one party shall pay such a sum of money at such a day and keeps the award in his Pocket till such a day be past that yet the Obligation shall not be forfeyted And so it was resolved and adjudged by all the other Justices that the award was good and Judgement was entred accordingly Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Foster against Jackson RICHARD Foster Plaintiff in Scire Facias against Anno Jackson and Myles Jackson Executors of Thomas Jackson upon Judgement had against the said Thomas in an Action of Debt The Defendants pleades that the said Thomas Jackson the Testator was taken upon a Capias ad Satisfaciendum awarded upon the sayd Judgement and in execution for the sayd Debt by force of the said Capias and there died in execution and so demands Judgement c. And the sole question was if the said Testator being in execution for the said Debt by force of the said Capias and there dies if this be satisfaction of the Debt or not And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant which argued for the Plaintiff in the sayd Scire Facias conceived that it is no satisfaction but that notwithstanding the Debt remaines for the words of the Writ are Capias ad satisfaciendum and all others Executions as Fire Facias and Eligit are satisfactory But the Capias is but a restraint of his liberty till he hath satisfied the Debt and for that it is no plenary satisfaction but only restraint of his liberty which the Law more respects then Goods or Lands and for that Custodia ought to be Salva stricta So by this the party may be Inforced to pay his Debt Salva to the party so that by this the party may be safely detained till he hath satisfied the Debt and Stricta to the King so that by this Justice may be satisfied and for that Bracton saith that it is only to compell the party to make satisfaction And it is resolved in the 33. H. 6. 47. That it is no satisfaction but that the Body should remain as a Pledge till satisfaction a were made or as return Irreplevisable and yet neither the one nor the other are satisfaction And the words of the Writ are Capias ad satisfaciendum the party but if he will satisfie then there is no reason that the Defendant shall be Imprisoned by the Writ But if he will not pay then he shall continue in Prison Quousque satisfecerit by which it appeares that the Imprisonment is no satisfaction and it appeares also by the Register and Fitz. Na. Bre. 246. b That if a man recover Damages of Trespasse before the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and hath the party in execution by force of this Judgement now if the parry which is in execution dies in Prison he which recovered may sue Certiorari to the Justices to remove this Record into the Kings Bench that the Justices there may make upon that Record as the Law will in such case And it seemes by this that the party shall have execution by Elegit or by Fieri Facias for it is not reasonable as it is there sayd that the death of him which died in Prison shall be satisfaction to the party which recovered but Fitzh here saith Tamen quere for he doubted of that but in the Register there is a speciall Writ of Certiorari to this purpose that is to remove the Record into the Kings Bench so that the Justices may do there upon that as the Law will and if the Law will not allow the party to have new execution it were in vain to have such Certiorari for other course cannot be taken and the end of every suit is to have payment and so is the Judgement that the Plaintiff should recover his Debt and so is the Writ and the count and the Capias also and to the end of Justices in Suum cuique tribuere And the party hath not any of these ends if the death of the Defendant in prison shall be satisfaction and in the 47. Ed. 3. Fitz. execution 41. Persey said that if in Trespasse the Plaintiff recover and the Defendant is taken for the Kings Fyne if he pray that the Defendant continue in Prison till he have made agreement with him perchance he shall not
have Elegit and for that being in Prison he prayed execution of his Body and had it but if the party gets out that he hath no execution that it is not his default he shall have Elegit after for that that he cannot have his purpose according to his first election And if any be in this case then upon that he inferrred that the party in this case may have a Fieri Facias against the Executors And also it is resolved by the whole Court in the Common Bench 29 H. 8. B. Execution 132. That if two are bound in an Obligation conjunctim devisim the Obligee impleads one and hath execution of his body and after impleads the other and condemns him hee may have Execution against him also for the taking of the body is good execution but it is no satisfaction and therefore he may take the other also but if he have satisfied the Plaintiffe he shall not have execution afterwards And therefore this Order that the Plaintiff upon an Obligation shall have but one Execution is intended such an Execution which is a satisfaction See 33 H. 6. 48. b. 4 H. 7. 8. 4 Edw. 4. 38. 5 Edw. 4. 4. 5 Coke 92. Blumfields case resolved by all the Court that if the Defendant in debt dye in Execution that the Defendant shall have new execution by Elegit or Fieri Facias for the death of the Defendant is the act of God which shall not turn the Plaintiff to prejudice as it is said in Trewynyards case 38 H. 8. Dyer 60. The Plaintiff shall not be prejudiced of his Execution by act in Law which makes no wrong to any And to the first Objection which may be made against him that is That all processe are determined after the party is taken and in execution to that he answered that this is where the Plaintiff hath satisfactory execution as it appears by 41 Edw. 3. 13. where an action of Account was brought against two one was out-lawed and the other comes by the Exigent and enters in the Court and he which was out-lawed obtained his charter of pardon and for that that processe was determined against him And the Plaintiff hath chosen to have his action against the other he prayed that he may be discharged But it was resolved that the processe was not determined nor he which was out-lawed shall not be discharged till the Plaintiff be satisfied by which it appears that the process is not determined till execution with satisfaction Two other Objections also he endeavoured to answer that is that the Plaintiff hath determined his election by taking the Capias and that cannot resort to any other Process and to that he agreed that where the party hath made such election that he cannot resort to any other Process during the life of the party But if the satisfaction be prevented by the act of God as in the principall case But when his person which was the pledg for the debt and was to remain in prison till the debt be satisfied is discharged by the act of God and the Plaintiff hath not the fruit of his Suit nor the Judgement is not satisfied and the Plaintiff hath done all that hee can and there was no defect in him it is no reason but that he may have new processe and the third objection is a Judgment which was given in the Kings Bench Pasche 43. Eliz. Rot. 58. between Williams and Curtiz And to that he said that he he conceived that this was a rule for default of prosecution for the cause was referred to Arbitrement and so hanged for long time and so though the Judgment was directly against Law in the principall points yet for that that it was not upon solemn argument of the Judges hee saith it is not to be compared to other authorities by him cyted before for which he includes and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Hutton Serjeant that argued for the Defendants conceived the contrary and first he examined how the body of a man cometh subject and lyable to any Execution and to that he said that by the Common Law the body was not subject to Execution for the debt of any man but in accompt only a Capias ad computandum lyes and no other processe in this action but distresse infinite till the Statute of Marlbridge Chap. 23. and West 2. Chap. 11. Capias was given in Accompt for by the Common Law the Processe in that was Distresse Infinite as aforesaid and after by the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. Chapter 17. Such like Processe was given in debt as in accompt and before that the body of the Defendant was not lyable to execution for debt if it be not in the Kings case as it appeares by Sir William Harberts case 12. a. And upon this he inferred upon the words of the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. Chap. 17. which saith that such like Processe shal be in debt as were in accompt That after the Plaintiff hath determined his election and taken a Capias that then he is in the same case as if it had been in accompt and for that he cannot resort to any other Processe And he said that the words of the Elegit and Fieri Facias do not differ in substance from the words of Capias for there is to satisfie the party as well as in the other And when a man hath made his Election to have Elegit he shall not have other Execution But when the Defendant hath neither goods nor Lands Then qui non habet in are licet in Corpore and the Plaintiffe at the first when he hath Judgment hath election to have Fieri Facias Elegit or Capias then he cannot have fieri facias but if he determine his Election at the first and sue Elegit or Capias then he cannot have fieri facias but may first sue fieri facias and after Elegit or Capias as it appears by the 15 H. 7. 15. 14 H. 7. 28. and 7 H. 6. 7. But if it be upon Statute staple Then he may have execution for his Body Goods and Land together as it appears by 31 H. 6. 47. Lynnacres Case is put in Blunfields case 5 Coke 92. b. and 15 H. 7. 15. But the reason of this is that a speciall Execution by statute is given in this case And he agreed that where a Judgement is given against 2 or 3. and the Plaentiff sue Capias against one of them by that he hath determined his Election So that if he dye in Prison or otherwise he may sue another Capias against the others but he cannot sue fieri facias or Elegit as it appears by 33 H. 6. 47. before and Blunfields case 5 Coke 92. b. 4 H. 7. 8. And he said that the body is the principall and becomes chargeable by statute and it appears by 22 Assis 43. That when the party is in Prison that this is adjudged in Law an Execution for the party and further in the
Booke of 33 H. 6. 47. is but the opinion of Prisot and Lacon And the principall case there depends upon another point Fitz. 246. before cyted is but a quere and Eitz himself doubted of it and the book of 44 Edw. 3. Fitz. Execution 41. is but the opinion of Percye But the Judgment upon the principall point is otherwise And the principall case in Blunfields case 5 Coke was upon another point also as it appears by the Booke and so he concluded with the Judgment before cyted to be in the Kings Bench Pasche 43 Eliz. between Williams and Cuttris which was direct in the point according to his opinion and prayed Judgement for the Defendants in the Scire Facias and it is adjourned This Case was argued in Trinity Tearm next ensuing by all the Judges of the Common Pleas and first Foster the youngest Judg argned that the death of the Defendant in Prison being in Execution was no satisfaction but the Plaintiffe may have a new execution against his Executors for he said it was an old saying That debts went before deadly sinne And that every one ought to satisfie his debts by the Law of God before Legacies given to charitable uses And so by the Law of the Realm if it be not the default of the Plaintiffe as it was not in our Cause for the death of the Defendant in Prison was the act of God and the Executors have confessed by pleading that they have assets and the Plaintiff hath nothing but griefe and pain and he said as before that at the Common Law no Capias lay till the Statutes of Marlebridge Chap. 23. and Westminster the 2. Chap. 11. Capias was given in Accompt and then the statute of 25 Edw. 3. Chap. 17. gives such like Processe in debt which was in Accompt and then in Accompt Capias ad Computandum lyes and in debt Capias ad Satisfaciendum And if in Accompt the Defendant was adjudged to accompt and Capias ad Computandum be awarded and he taken by force of that and committed to Prison and here dyes a new Writ shall be awarded So in debt if the Defendant be taken by Capias ad satisfaciendum new Writ shall be awarded against his Executors see 1 Edw. 3. 24. 1 H. 7. 5 Coke 92. Blundfields case for it is only the default of the Defendant that the debt is not satisfied and for that it is no reason that the Plaintiff should be prejudiced by that and 11 H. 4. 44. and 45. by Skreene Debt upon an Escape doth not lye against the Executor of the Sheriff but new Processe shall be awarded against the Prisoner which is escaped for a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong as in the case of Littleton If the sonn makes disseisin and enfeoffs the Father which dyes the sonne shall not take advantage of this Discent because he was particeps criminis and he said it was no wrong to any if execution were made of the goods of the Testator and it is mischievous to the Plaintiffe for he shall loose his debt And to the Objections which have been made that there is an end of Processe when the Defendant is taken by Capias and dyes in Execution the which he agreed as long as the Defendant lived but after his death he may make new election 47 Ed. 3. Fitz. Execution 41. by Percye And it appears by the pleading in 17 Ed. 3. That Judgment Execution without satisfaction is no Plea in Bar. And also he cyted the Register 285. and Fitz. Na. Bre. 246. 19. Ed. 3. 21 H. 6. 5. where the Plaintiff had effectual execution which was satisfaction 44 Ed. 3. 21 Edw. 4. 1 Edw. 4. 8 H. 7. 16 H. 7. to the same purpose for which Dodridge cyted them before And also he said that the Judges have always had respect to the satisfaction of Debts and for that would not bayle one in Execution upon a Writ of Errour where Errour indeed was assigned but suffers him to remain in Prison till the Judgment were reversed But here the Plaintiff hath neither Bale nor any satisfaction but griefe and pain And in the 21 of H. 7. the Sheriff returned that the Defendant had no land but lands in use and was adjudged that he should execute the Elegit upon these Lands such was the respect that the Judges have to Executions and to the Case of 35 H. 6. 47. This is but the opinion of Lacon which erred in the principall case and may as wel erre in this point and his opinion also is so intricately penned that he cannot understand it And Martins opinion also in 7 H. 6. 7. is against the Judgment of the principall case And to the Objection that the Party had determined his Election by the Execution of the Capias he agreed to that with this difference that is if the Plaintiff sue Scire facias the Sheriff levyed part that this notwithstanding the Plaintiff may have Capias for the residue and so Elegit after Fieri facias or Capias for there is not any Entry made of awarding of fieri facias or Elegit But the Plaintiff only sued that out of the Court see 44 Edw. 3. 18 Ed. 4. 31 Ed. 3. 17 Ed. 3. 20 Ed. 2. 22 Assis 17. H. 7. 1. And so he coucluded that the Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff in the scire facias Warburton Justice conceived the contrary that is that the Plaintiff in the Scire facias shall be barred And he agreed and said that none will deny but that Debts shall be paid but that ought to be according to the rules of the Law For by the Common Law the body of the Defendant was not lyable to execution and then it is to examine in what cases he is at this day subject to execution and though in Trespasse Capias lyes at the Common Law but in Debt no Capias lyes till the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. which gives the same processe which was in Accompt and this is as well in the Originall processe as in the Judiciall and Elegit was first given by the statute of Westminst 2. And this was of the half of the Land But Levari facias was at the Common Law of the profits of the Land That in debt Acceptance and Election binds the party and so this remains for the said Statutes being in the affirmative doth not take away that nor abate it and by that if Conusee of a statute accepts Land extended at too high a value he is bound by that 22 Edw. 3. 32. H. 6. 15 H. 7. And that when the Party hath Judgment he hath election to have execution by Fieri facias Elegit or Capias for he hath determined his Election So if he makes his Election of a Capias at first he cannot have Elegit after 30 Edw. 3. adjudged 32 Edw. 3. Processe 52. according Long 5 of Edw. 4. by Markeham and others and the reason which is given in
47 Edw. 3. 17 Edw. 4. and 21 H. 7. that have been remembred to the contrary is only that it is reason that the Plaintiff should have the same process which was at the Common Law and there was not any such processe as Capias in debt at the Common Law and 21 H. 7. may be understood that the Elegit was not returned and so no record of that And 50 Edw. 3. a man may recover in Debt and pray Elegit and after brings Debt upon the Record but it doth not lye And he agreed to the Book of 23 H. 6. For there the Defendant was bound in an Obligation to make satisfaction of Debt and hee dyed in Prison and this cannot be satisfaction according to the Condition And in the Case of Fitz. Nat. Brev. the same doubt of that and this was the more strong case then the case at the Barr and if he doubted of that is the cause that he doubts also And cyted Williams and Cuttis case Rot. 88. in the point where the reason of the Judgment was for that that the Plaintiff had his plain and full satisfaction and saith that it was apparent difference between that and Blunfields case for there was 2 Defendants and here if one dyes there shall be no satisfaction and so these reconciled And so if a man be taken upon a Statute Merchant and dyes in execution that shall not be satisfaction for this is speciall processe given by statutes And 14 H. 7. 1. If a man being in Execution escape he shall not be taken againe and in the 14 H. 7. in debt upon an Obligation Capias profine was awarded and the Defendant taken by that And the Plaintiff prayed that he might be in Execution for his debt also and could not for that he had sued Fierifacias and it doth not appear if the Sheriff have that executed or not And so he concluded that the Judgment should not be revived by the Scire facias against the Executors and that Judgment shall be given for the Defendants in the Scire facias Walmsley Justice accordingly He specially observed the forme of the Writ which suggests quod executio adhuc restat facienda c. And to that the Defendants in the Scire facias plead that Capiás was awarded at the suit of the Plaintiff and upon that the Defendant was taken in execution and there dyed by which it appears that the words and suggestion of the Writ was answered directly and upon that the strongly relyed and then said that there were 3 ways to have Execution that is by Fieri facias Capias and Elegit And there is a speciall order to be observed in the suing of that for a man may have Fieri ficias and if the Defendant have not goods may have Elegit or Capias But if he make his Flection to have Capias he cannot have Fieri facias nor Elegit or if he sue Elegit he cannot have a Fieri facias nor Capias In 33 H. 6. and 44 Edw. 3. which have been cyted the Plaintiff sues Elegit and after that would have sued Capias supposing that he had not accepted the Elegit but of the other part it was said that the Sheriff had made Execution of it the which he could not contradict it And if the Plaintiff had Fieri facias and goods delivered to him in Execution and the Writ returned he shall not have a second Execution and so if Elegit executed and returned 14 H. 7. 15 H. 7. and said that Executions are tickle things for if the party escape he delivers himselfe out of Execution and the Plaintiff shall not have other Execution against him for that he hath had one Execution 2 Edw. 4. And so if a man sues a Writ of Priviledg out of Parliament and by that is delivered out of Execution he shall not be taken again And so if a man be delivered upon a Writ of Error for when the Party hath made his Election to take processe against the body it was his folly that he made such Election for though that death be the act of God yet for that that statutum est omnibus semel mori and for that God hath done no wrong for he hath but performed his Eternall Decree and for that it is not the act of God only but the folly of the party to make such Election and the Book of 47 Edw. 3. by Percy is but his opinion and more other Books are against that and 〈◊〉 H. 6. Danby and Prisot are against Lacon and though that the death of the Party in Execution is no satisfaction in rei veritate yet in Law it is satisfaction for that that the party hath no other remedy the Writ in the Register is certiorari ad faciendum in omnia singula que secundum legem consuetudinem fieri c. And there is not any Law nor Custome to warrant any such Course and here is not any other proceedings upon it But if he may have a Writ of Scire facias ostensurus quare satisfactionem habere non debet then it may be that the Defendant's ought to give another answer but for that that there is not any such Writ it seems that Judgment shall be given for the Defendants Coke chief Justice seemed the contrary and he agreed with Foster and he said that it is vexata et spinosa questio for the Books vary and great arguments have been made of both parts There are three things considerable 1. Reasons 2. Authorities 3. Answers of Objections And for the Reasons First he considered in whom the default is for which the Plaintiff shall lose his Debt 2. That the Debt remains after the body is taken in Execution 3. If the body taken in Execution be satisfaction 4. If the dying in Execution be a discharge 5. The Mischiefs if so they shall be And to the Objections First Escape which is the wrong and act of the Party it is no satisfaction nor discharge and here is the act of God and election of the party 2. Execution by Elegit If Lands be extended upon that this is no satisfaction And so if he be delivered by a Writ of Error and so in this case And for the first the fault was in Jackeson for he did not keep his day in the Condition and upon this was sued then he pleaded a false plea and upon that Judgement was given against him in all which actions the default was in the Defendant and no default in the Plaintiff for he took the Body which is the visible execution not in satisfaction but to satisfie and the Defendants have not pleaded fully administred but confesse that they have Assets and there is more reason that the Plaintiff shall be satisfied then the Executors keep the goods to their own use for it is Summa Injustitia nocentem habere totum lucrum innocentem totum damnum Second reason was that it is no satisfaction for the Defendant to dye
in Prison and agreed that if 2 Precipes are contained in one Originall there shall be but one satisfaction But if one be taken by Capias and remains in Execution Capias shall be awarded against the other and he shall remain in Prison till satisfaction be had for execution is no satisfaction as it is said in 29 H. 8. b. Execution 132. adjudged See 4 Ed. 4. 38. 5 Ed. 4. 4 H. 7. 8. And Hillaries case 33 H. 6. And to the third that is that the Debt remains after the taking of the body in execution and agreed that when execution is made of goods or lands no Debt remains but otherwise it is of execution of the Body as it appears by 29 H. 8. before cyted B. Execution 132. and 41 Assis 15. where a man was condemned in Damages in Trespass and committed to Prison by Capias and escaped the Gaoler dyed the Plaintiff prayed debt against his Executors and could not have it for they are not charged without specialty and the Plaintiff alleadged that the Defendant was vagrant in the County of M. and prays Capias to the Sheriff of M. to take him and it was granted for his remedy against the Sheriff was determined and this proves also that the Debt remains after escape scire facias is licet Judicium redditum sit tamen executio restat ad huc facienda de debito for the body is but as a pledg the form of the Writ in the Register Capias ad satisfaciendum and not in satisfaction which proves that there is no satisfaction but upon the payment of the money his body shall be delivered out of Prison this is execution with satisfaction for there are two Executions that is Medius finalis the first is the Capias the second Satisfaction which is Vltimus Finis And it is a good rule quod nihil videtur factum ubi aliquid restat faciendum and here is aliquid faciendum that is Satisfaction for in all acts there is a beginning progression and consummation Consummation in this case fails Mors est horendum divortium which is the act of God And when the act of God hath delivered him which lyes in prison for his own default it is no reason that the Plaintiff should be prejudiced 43 Ed. 3. 27. A man enfeoffs the Father with Warranty which infeoffs an estranger which enfeoffs the son the father dyes the son may vouch for it is the act of God And to the Mischiefs nec crudelis creditor nec delicatus debitor sunt audiendi for they play at Bowls and keep Hospitality in the Prison Or if a man be arrested and makes a tumult and is slain in indeavouring to break the Prison and breaks his Neck it is no reason that he by such act should defraud the Plaintiff of his Debt the opinions against him are coupled with absurdities as 7 H. 6. 8. Martins opinions is also imparted with absurdity 33 H. 6. 48. The opinion of Lacon is also coupled with another absurdity and 22 Assis b. Execution is also coupled with absurdity that is if the Defendant escape this determines the debt and is satisfaction and 15 Edw. 3. Quare Impedit 174. in Writ of Right of Advowson the Plaintiff hath Judgment and habere facias sesinam in the life time of the Incumbent and after his death sues Scire Facias the first is Execution but not with satisfaction and the last is satisfaction for by this he hath the fruit of his Judgment So 19 Ed. 3. Execution 12. a younger statute is extended and Liberate sued executed and returned And after an elder statute is extended and after satisfaction of that he that hath the youngest may sue Scire Facias and have execution of the youngest So of Beasts distrained and put into the Pound and there dye he which distrayned may distrayâ— again for this is no satisfaction of his Rent 14. H. 4. 4. 15 Edw. 4. 10. 11 Eliz. Dyer 280 And so Capias ad computandum is not Accompt nor Capias ad acquietandum Acquital Register 30. 39. 285. And it is said in Bract. lib. 7. Chap. 17. Sunt brevia Magistralia fâ—rmata the first are made by Masters of the Chancery the others which are Originall by Cursitors which are founded by acts of Parliament and cannot be changed without Parliament and as Fitzherbert in his Preface to his Na. Bre. saith that every Art and Science hath certain Rules and Foundations to which a man ought to give faith credence and the Writ of Fieri facias being founded upon a Statute and the form that executio adhuc restat facienda he saith that this was the Judgment of the Parliament that the first Execution was not Satisfaction But as the Writ is also in the Register 245 That where a man is condemned in Trespasse and committed to prison detinendum quousque he satisfie the party by this it appears that he is but a pledge And Fitz. Na. Bre. 63. 65. 67. and Register If a man be taken by Capias Excommunicatum ad satisfaciendum parendum Clavibus Ecclesiae and is delivered by Writ which issues improvide another Writ of Capias shall be awarded And to the matter of Election he agreed that if Elegit were awarded the party cannot have Fieri facias nor Capias for there is Entry made quod Elegit sibi executionem de meditate But when Fieri facias or Capias is awarded no entry at all is made But if any of them are returned executed then he cannot resort to another Processe and with this difference agrees all the Books of 15 H. 7. 15. 21 H. 7. 19. 30 Ed. 3. 24. 31 Edw. â—3 Process 52. 19 H. 6. 4. 34 H. 6. 20. 45 Edw. 3. 19. 50 Edw. 3. 4. and 5. 18 Edw. 4. 11. 20 Edw. 4. 13. 11 Eliz. Dyer 296. And to the case of Williams and Cuttrys cyted to be adjudged 43 Eliz. the which he cyted as Lambs case he said in this was many apparent Errors in forme of pleading so that the matter in Law cannot come to Judgment 35 H. 6. Prisot seemed that by the law of God the Imprisonment of the body of a man was no satisfaction for by that the Creditor may sell his Debtor and his Children for the payment of his Debts Matth. chap. 18 vers 24. 4 Kings 4 Chap. vers 1. Matth. chap. 5. Luke chap. 12. And so he agreed with Foster in opinion and concluded that the death of the Defendant in the action of Debt was no satisfaction nor determination of the Processe nor of the election But that the Plaintiff may have new Execution against the Executors and by consequence that Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff in the Scire facias but no Judgment was given for that there was equality of opinions that is Coke and Foster against Walmesley and Warburton Danyel being dead and for that it was adjourned Pasche 8. Jacobi 1610. See Hillary 7. Jacobi the beginning Chalke
part this shall not extend to other persons Commoners and it is like to the case in 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. A man makes a Lease for years and covenants that the Lessee shal injoy the Tearm without eviction of the Lessor or any claiming under him if he be evicted by a stranger this shal be no breaking of the Covenant for a stranger is no party to the Deed nor claims under the Lessor and for this his Entry shal not give Action to the Lessee and so is the Case in 21 H. 7. between the Prior of Castleton and the Dean of Saint Stephens which was adjudged the 18 of H. 7. Pasch Rot. 416. Though that no Judgment be reported where it appears that the King Ed. 3. seised al the Lands of Priors aliens in time of War for that that they carried the Treasure of the King out of the Realme to the Kings Enemies and so it was made by H. 4. also during the time of his Reign and then in the second year of the Reign of King H. 5. by a statute made between the King and the sayd Priors aliens al the Possessions of the sayd Priors were resumed into the hands of the sayd King and adjudged in 21. H. 7. 1. before that this shal not extend to the Prior of Castleton which had Annuities issuing out of the Possessions of the sayd Priors for the said Prior of Castleton was not party to the sayd act of Parliament and for that he shal not be prejudiced by that and so it was adjudged 25. and 26. Eliz. In the Court of VVards in the case of one Boswell where the King made a Lease for years which was voydable and after by another Patent granted the Inheritance and then came the statute of 18. Eliz. to confirm al Patents made by the sayd Queen within her time and adjudged that the sayd Act shal not make the sayd patent voyd to the Patentee which is a stranger to the act of the Parliament but only against the Queen her Heirs and successors for by the statute it is made only against one person only and shal not be good against another though there be no saving of such person in the sayd Act. And also he conceived that the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Doth not extend to any woods in forrest in which another hath Common for it doth not extend only to such woods which a common person hath in the Kings forrest or common person and that it may be inclosed for the space of three years after the cutting of the wood in this before the making of the sayd statute and this was no wood in which an Estranger had Common as it appears by the Preamble of the sayd statute and then after in the sayd statute it is sayd such woods may be inclosed And also he conceived where the statute sayth that they may inclose the same Grounds with such sufficient hedges able to keep out all manner of Beasts and Cattell out of the same Grounds but this refers to the quality of the hedge for before it ought to be a small Ditch and by this statute it ought to be with such hedg which shall be able c. And it shall not be referred to the manner of the Cattell But for the difference between Beasts of Forrest Beasts of Chase and Beasts of Warrain see the Register fol. 96. 43 Ed. 3. 13. 12. H. 8. 12. b. Hollinsheads Cronicle fol. 20. b. 32. And he conceived that Sir Francis Barrington is such a Vendee of Wood that is within the statute though that he be Vendee of Inheritance and hath a greater Estate then Vnica vice but for that that he conceived that it was not within the statute for other reasons before cyted he would not dispute it But he conceived if this had been the question of the Case that this was within the statute and also he conceived that this was a generall statute of which the Judges shall take notice without pleading of this And this reason was for that that the King was party to it and this which concernes the King being the head concernes all the Body and Common Wealth and so it was adjudged in the Chancery in the case of Serjeant Heale that the statute by which the Prince is created Prince of VVales was a general statute and for that see the Lord Barkleyes case in the Commentaries Also he conceived that the said statute of 22 of Ed. 4. was repealed by 35. H. 8. for this was in the Negative that none shal cut any wood but only in such manner as is prescribed by the said statute and for that shal be a repeale of the first and that by the first Branch of the sayd statute it appeares that if such giving of Wood in his own Soyl within any forrest he cut to his own use he cannot inclose and by that Branch Commoner is not excluded but by the second Branch it is provided that he may inclose the fourth part of his Wood and cut that in such manner as is appointed by the said statute and then he shal loose his own Common in the three other parts and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff which is the Commoner and Judgment was entred accordingly Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Cesar against Bull. THomas Cesar Plaintiff in Assise against Emanuel Bull for the Office of Clock-Keeper to the Prince this he claims by grant of the King during his own Life with the fee of two shillings a day for the exercising of it and three pound yearly for Livery and the patent purports only the Grant of the Office and not words of creation of the Office as Constituimus officium c. And the Plaintiff could prove that it was an ancient Office and for that was non-suited in the Assise though that the Tenant had made default before Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Heyden against Smith and others THE Plaintiff counts in Trespasse against these Defendants and these Defendants justifie as Servants to Sir John Leventhorp who was seised of a free-hold of Land in which the Tree for which the action was brought was cut and so demands Judgment if action the Plaintiff replyes that the place where c. was parcel of a house and twenty Acres of Land which time out of mind c. have been demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll which was parcel of the Mannor of A. of which the sayd Sir John Leventhorp was seised in his Demesne as of see and by Copy at a Court held such a day and year granted the said Messuage and twenty acres of Land whereof c. To the Plaintiff and his Heirs according to the custome of the said Mannor and prescribes that within the sayd mannor was a Custome that every Copy-holder may cut the boughs of all the Pollingers and Husbands growing upon his Copy-hold for fire to be burnt upon his
action is well maintainable Vi armis as Quare Impedit for disturbance by word or presentment by word And it is also found that the Defendants did take all the profits and that the Deputy of the Plaintiff came to the usual place where the Court was kept and that could not be intended to be out of the Mannor And so for these reasons he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff And Coke cheife Justice argued to the same intent that is that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgment And first he conceived that the Patent is good notwithstanding the uncertainty that the Mannors are not named in what Counties they are either in England France or Ireland for the Mannor is named very certain by which it may be granted though it be in the Kings case as it appears by 32 H. 6. 20. where the King grants all Mannors Messuages c. which were parcell of the possessions of I. S. attaint and good And such grant was made to Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolke and adjudged good though that the person of a man is more incertain then the Mannor yet Id certum est quod certum reddi potest And 39 Ed. 3. 1. in the Abbot of Reddings case where a grant was made to the Abbot and his Successors that the Prior and Covent shall take the profits in time of vacation Fitz. Na. Bre. 33. b. And 23 Ed. 3. 20. The King grants to the Queen the Barrony and all Mannors c. till Iohn of Gaunt be able to govern himselfe and that shall be intended till the Law intends him able to govern himself and Mannor is very certain of which a view shall be awarded The second exception which was taken to the grant was for that that it was to take effect at the ful age of the Earl And after it is recyted in the Patent that he was of full age before the making of the Patent and so by consequence the Patent is to take effect from the time that it was past And to that he said that it shall be intended to the profits of the Office only for it appeares by the Patent that the Queene had granted it to another during his Minority That is the office And to the third mattter That is if hee cannot make a Deputy then he hath forfeited the said Office by the not using of it And to that he said it appeares by Waltons case 10 Eliz. Dyer fol. 270. That if a man grants a Fee pro concilio impendendo or keeping of Courts the Fee shall not be forfeited without speciall request to the Patentee to give Councell or to hold his Courts for hee doth not know if the Grantor will have his Courts held or not and so it is 39 H. 6. 22. Brewens case where it is also agreed that it shall be no forfeiture of an office without speciall request to hold the Courts or to give Councell But in the case of the Queen otherwise it is for she ought not to make demand in case of Rent nor Condition though that it be within the Statute of 32. H. 8. And yet it was argued in Sir Thomas Hennages case that if the King make a Lease for years upon condition to cease this shall cease without office upon the breaking of the Condition but a Lease for life shall not cease without office though that the Condition be broken And so if the King grants an Office for life this shall not be avoided without Office And he doubted the case of the Lease for yeares And also he agreed that the Grantee of a Stewardship cannot make Deputy to exercise his Office without speciall words in the Patent But if the Office be granted to him and his Heires or to him and his assignes it is sufâ—â—cient without other words to make a Deputy And also he sayd that the word Steward is the name of an Office and is derived of Steed and Ward which are Saxon words and intend the Keeper of the place which the party himselfe ought to hold and it appeares by Cambdem and Lambert And so the word Senescalls also signify for this is but a Custos sive officiarius loci See Fleta liber 2. chap. 72. Senescallum providebit Dominus circumspectum fidelem Modestum pacificum qui in consuitudinibus c. Jura Domini sui teneri c. Quique balivos suos instruere potest Cujus officium est curia maneriorum c. And a Deputy is a person authorised by the Officer in the name and right of the Officer and for all that he doth the Officer shall answer for he is but as a shaddow of the Officer But assignee is in his own right and he shall answer for himselfe and forfeiture by assignee of Tenant for life shall not be forfeiture of the reversion 39. H. 6. And he agreed that a Marshall Steward Constable Bayliff and such like cannot make Deputies without speciall wordes in the Grant as it appeares 39. H. 6. 11. Ed. 3. 10. Ed. 4. 14. 17. and 7. 21. Ed. 4. Nevills case in the Com. and Littleton And to the exceptions which have been taken to the Writ and Count he saith that an Action of Trespasse which is founded upon the case doth not lye Vi et armis where the point and cause is Action is supposed to be made Vi et armis and for that he takes difference between Causa causans and Causa causata for where the matter which is supposed to be done Vi armis is not the point of the Action But the cause of the Action there lies very well Vi armis But wherein the point of Action is supposed to be made Vi armis there the Writ shall abate As if a man brings an Action of Trespasse for casting dung into a River by which his Land is drowned in this case an Action of Trespasse upon the case Vi armis lyeth very well for here the casting in of the Dung is but Causa causans And the drowning of the Land is Causa causata 8. R. 2. And so disturbance to hold a Leet by which he hath lost his offerings 19. R. 2. 52. And the Earle hath election to have Trespasse or Assise though it be not Manurable As if a man prescribe to have seven pence of every Brewer which sells strong Beer for disturbance to have the seven pence Action upon the case lyes for this disturbance is Dissesin 15. Ed. 4. 8. 14. Ed. 3. 4. 1. Ed. 5. 5. 19. R. 2. Action upon the case 51. And to the objection which hath been made that disturbance found by the Jury is not the same disturbance which is mentioned in the Count for in the Count the disturbance is supposed to be made Vi Armis but the Jury do not find any distubance to be made Vi Armis But this notwithstanding it seemes that the Count is good As if a Sheriff enters a Franchise and executes
a man off an action of a higher nature 219 Vsage its exposition 222 Usitatum whom it doth advantage ibid Variance what 239 Valuable consideration out of the statute 102 Vnity of possession 26 Uoluntas donatores how to be taken 77 Vexation unjust remediable how 100 Vniversity of Oxford was removed for a certain time 244 Vniversity not locall ibid Variance what 245 W WAles councell and presidents Jurisdiction 29 Wast 46 150 168 Wittall who 37 Westminster 2 chap 35 expounded 92 93 94 95 Writs 147 Warrantia chartae 169 Warranty to a tenant pur view 191 Warrantia chartae not upon two deeds 56 Writ of error 137 208 Wife joyn with her husb in feoff what shall bind 141 Wager of law 255 FINIS Case for words You are a Bastard tried by the Countrey Judgement arrested because the Plaintiff did not averr that he was an Attonrney at the time of the words spoken Case for words which dâ—d amount to but petty Larceny For calling one Witch no Action will lie If Felony be committed good cause to arrest one for it but not to speak words to defame one A Feme covert cannot convert Action upon the casebrought upon a collateral consideration and good Judgement reversed by Writ of Error because Sheriffs name was omitted on the venire fac Case for words not actionable Gase for words A man shall not be punished for mistaking the Law Case for words The like The like for Words Judgement arrested because the Plaintiff omitted to shew in his Declaration the words were spoken of himself The Defendants Justification adjudged naught because he justified for words that were actionable To do a thing allowable by Law is no conversion The Defendants Justification amounted but to Noguilty and adjudged naught Judgement arrested for want of certainty in the Count. Judgement arrested for that the consideration was not valuable Case forwords for calling an Attourney Bribing Knave Judgement arrested being mis-tried An inuendo will not maintain an Action Difference between a promise executory and executed quod nota Non cul pleaded where Non assumpsit should have been pleaded and adjudged a good Issue Action of case for words upon the statute of 1. Jac. against Invocation of Spirits Ehe Imparlannce role supplied by the Issue being perfect Judgement arrested for not shewing the Letters of Administration Judgement arrested for that the Communication did not appear but by the Inuendo Action of the Case for calling a man mainsworn fellow Moved in Arrest of Judgement because no Demand alleadged but not allowed Judgement arrested for incertainty in the Declaration By a general Pardon both Punishment and Fault taken away Promise upon condition notice not necessary Nota. Judgement arrested for incertainty in the Count and for that the promise was made by an Infant Justification for calling a man perjured dis-allowed because he was t convicted Action of the Case will not lie for calling a Currier Barretor For this word Papist no Action will lie unless spoken of a Bishop Nota. Action of the Case for double prosecution of a fieri sac Upon a non est invent returned upon an Outlary where the party escaped the Plaintiff hath his Election where to bring his Action Judgement arrested for want of an Averment Judgement arrested for the incertainty of the Count. For collateral matters which are not Duties a Request is necessary The word Witch will not bear an Action An implied promise where it is upon the reality will not lie except upon a collateral cause An Indebitat assumpsit for money ruled good without expressing for what Action against the Sheriffs of London for discharging one who was arrested coming to defend a suit depending there The Court cannot discharge one arrested except he be arrested in the face of the Court. Judgement stayed for variance between the Count and Writ to inquiry Release by the Husband pleaded in Bar to an Action brought by the Wife after his Death for money to be allowed her after his Death and adjudged no Bar. Action for calling an Attourney Champertor The Roll mended after the Record was certified by Writ of Errour it being the Clarks misprision He is a forging Knave spoken of an Attourney actionable Implyed words will not beare an action Trover brought by Administrator as of his owne goods and adjudged good Demand and demall makes a Conversion The Sheriff justifies by vertue of a Process out of the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of S. Lands 59. s. arrear upon the said Lands Common appurtenant cannot be divided Mis-triall the Venn being mistaken Judgement arrested for a mistake of the Jury In consideration the Plaintiff would agree the Testators son should marry the Plaintiffs daughter adjudged a good consideration Rents arrear no Plea in Covenant Difference between Covenant and Debt to bring an Action Difference between Covenant and Debt to bring an Action Breach assigned in default of the Party that never sealed the Indenture of Covenants Covenant lies against the first Lessee upon breach of Covenant made by the Assignee Difference between Covenant and Debt Covenant upon a void Lease is good Action would not lie because if the Covenant was not performed Piracy is no excuse to perform a Covenant Judgement arrested for default in the Declaration A Covenant in Law shall not be extended to make a man do more then he can A Suit in Chancery no Disturbance Judgement arrested for defects in the Declaration Breach that one entred and shews not by what Title and naught Release cannot be given in Evidence upon a Plea that the Defendant was never a Receiver of the Plaintiffs Money In Account the Process are sum Attaint and Distress In Account two Judgements and upon a Nichil Process of Vlamy lies Account against a Baily local The Defendant may wage his Law if the Receit be per manus proprias Nota. In Account the Writ abates the Death Nota. Nota. Nota. Matter in discharge of the Actions shall not be pleaded in Bar. Nota. Nota. Judgement in Account upon a special Verdict Misprision of the Clerk amended after Verdict No Tenant at the time of the Writ purchased nor afterwards and if c. no Disseisin Note upon the Kings Grant View to be there where the Office is performed Another Writ brought and hanging a good Plea in abatement Assise taken by default against Harvey and the other Tenant pleaded in abatement of the Assise that there was a Quare impedit depending Nota. The King cannot create an Office to the Queen who may bring an Assise No Costs in a non-suit in Assise The Court was denied a Supersedeas the surmise being onely matter in suit Nota. A Writ of Covenant brought against more then acknowledged and prayed to be amended and denied Lease made to one during the life two if one die the Lease is ended Nota. A case of Jointure Nota bene Difference between Tenant at will and sufferance Joynt Debt and Contract cannot have several Pleas. Nota. Nota.
Nota. If I command one to do a Trespass an Action will lie against him Wife not bound to perform Covenants of the Lessee Nota. No Action for small Tithes Administration granted during minority not within the Statute 21 H. 8. Nota. Ordinary cannot make a Divident of themselves Legacy of Land shall not be sued for in Court Christian Nota. For Tithes Nota. Nota. Recitall shall not inlarge the Grant Nota. Money paid by an Executor upon a usurious Contract is a Devastavit Proportiament of Rent No Attornement necessary for Acts in Law Nota. For Tithes Nota. Note how far Proof extends Nota Difference Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Copy-hold land extendable upon Statute of Bankrupt Being a member of the Cinque Ports will not free one from Arrest Difference of things that are in Prender and that are in Render Nota. Omission in awarding the venire of these words Quoad triand c. held good Local things shall not be made transitory A Tales prayed by the Defendant upon the Plaintiffs Distring in another Terme but denied If Chamberlain of Chester make an ill Returne the Sheriff shall be amerced No Distress in a Court Baron but by Prescription Actions upon penal Statutes not within the Statute of Jeofailes Nota. Judges not meddle with matters of fact Nota. Information against three and two appear may declare against those two Nota. Return of a Sheriff insufficient upon a Statute Merchant for omitting that he had no other Lands c. Nota. A Statute first acknowledged shall be preferred before a Judgement afterwards retained The case of Villainage within the Statute of Limitation Nota in Elegit Two Inquisitions taken at several Dayes by several Juries upon one Writ naught Nota. All Goods and Chattels bound by the Teste of the Elegit and cannot be sold afterwards Audita Quaerela and Bail put in in the Chancery and held good The Act of E. 6. for Dissolution reaches onely to such that are regular Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Deed of Gift for things in Action Supersedeas granted because Capias ad satisfaciendum was not returned Nota. Nota. A Juror who hath appeared cannot be passed by and to swear others Goods cannot be sold upon a Levari facias in a Court Baron without a Custome Sheriff returned but 21. upon a Venire facias and naught Nota. Judgement that it was a good Devise The property is not altered upon the Sheriffs taking of goods upon a Fieri facias but remains in the Defendant Nota. Alien born no Plea in a Writ of Error Nota. Issue cannot be bastarded after Death Nota. Where the principal is omitted cannot be supplied by Writ Nota. King could not grant precedency in publique things Nota. Ancient Demesne tried by Doomesday Book The Venire facias was Album Breve and denied to be amended Lessee at will cannot grant over his Estate Note difference between Tenant at will and sufferance Nota. One committed bailed being no cause expressed Attorneys name put out of the Roll for a mis-demeanour Nota. Nota. Nota. Writ of Entry filed after the Death of the Tenant Ordinary to place and displace in the Church Fraud shall never be intended except apparent and found Nota. High Commission nothing to do with matters of instance for Tithes Nota. Nota Master shall not be corporally punished for his Deputies Offence Nota. Nota. Nota. One at seventeen years old may be an Executor No new notice needs if the Attorney be living If no place of Payment be in a Will must be a Request Nota. Warrant of Attorney filed upon a motion after Writ of Error brought and Error assigned Nota. Warrant of Attorney filed after Writ of Error by Order of Court Attornement of an Infant is good An Attorney ought to have no Priviledge as on Attorney Husband shall pay for his Wives Clothes though bought without his privity A mans Wife or Infant cannot be examined One Bond cannot overthrow the other Exceptions to an Award pretending the Arbitrators had exceeded their Authority but adjudged good Judgement for the Defendant for insufficiency in the Count. Judgement ' for the Defendant upon a by-law The Defendant at his perill ought to make Payment If part of a Condition be to be performed within the Realm and part without ought to be triable here Defendant pleaded six Judgements in Barr and two found to be by fraud and Judgement for the Plaintiff The Sheriff cannot break open the outward Door to do Execution but that being open he may break open any other Exception taken to the Defendants Plea Nota. Debt lies for Money levied by the Sheriff upon a Levari Nota. Nota. Exception taken because the Venire facias was of the Town and not of the Parish but ruled good Creditor administred and is sued ought to plead fully administred generally Debt brought for 60. l. tr be paid at the Return of a Ship from New-found-land to Dartmouth onely 50. l. lent is not Usury Plea made good by Verdict Nota. Judgement against both of the Testators Goods and Damages of him that appeared onely Nota. Nota. If no time of Payment in an Award due upon Demand Though two appear by one Supersedeas yet they may vary in Plea The Imparlance amended after Triall upon the Attorneys Oath Nota. Bene case A Servant hired to serve beyond Sea may have his Action in England Nota. Nota. Outlary in the Executor no Pled Outlary in the Testator in Barr adiudged naught A wrong man of the same name offers to wage his Law Lessor and Lessee for years one Assignes his terme and the other grants his Reversion Grantee of the Reversion shall have Action of Debt against the Assignee Nota. Nota. Default of the Clerk amended and afterwards upon advice made as it was at first A Bill to pay Money upon Demand must lay a special Demand Amendment of Issue Roll by the Imparlance Roll. Estoppell Repleader awarded Money due upon a Mortgage payable to the Heir and not to the Executor Money to be paid fifteen Dayes after return c. he proving his being there Court divided which proof shall be precedent or subsequent Condition that an Vnder-Sheriff shall not intermeddle with Executions of such a value held void Judgement arrested because the whole matter laid was found and part was not actionable Bail discharged upon the principals rendring his Body in another Terme after a case returned Quaere An Award good in part and naught for part and Breach assigned in the good part and held good If the Plaintiff be non-suit yet no Cost upon the Statute of Perjury Nota. Amendment of the Imparlance demed after Error brought A thing out of the Submission awarded and void Nota. Defendant wage his Law upon a Recovery in a Court Baron A man cannot send his Apprentice beyond Sea except he go with him Vpon a nul tiel Record though some Variances yet the Debt and Damages agreeing Judgement for the Plaintiff Bond taken to appear in the Court of Request void Return of the Habeas
brought against Administrators The breach was for not repairing Houses by the Administrators according to a Covenant made by the Intestate The Administrators plead divers Judgements given against them in Bar of the Covenant and that they have not Assetts over HAre versus Savill Trin. 7. Jac. rotulo Action of Covenant brought upon an Indenture upon a special Covenant to pay Rent at certain Dayes therein specified and reserved The Defendant pleads that no Rent was behinde The Plaintiff demurrs to that Plea and it was held by the whole Court to be a bad Plea in Covenant for by that Plea the Defendant confesses the Covenant broken and that Plea tends but in mitigation of Damages MOrdant versus Wats Pasch 17. Jac. vel 7. Jac. rotulo 1532. Action of Covenant brought for a Rent-charge granted for the life of an Estranger and for half a Year after to be paid at the Feasts of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary and Saint Michael the Archangel and alledge that the Estranger died in February and that the Rent was not paid at the Feast of the Annunciation and so the Covenant broken the Defendant demurres pretending that the Rent was not due untill half a year after the Death of the Estranger and not at the Feast but the Court held the contrary And if the Grantee had died his Heirs should have had it during the Life of the Estranger because it was payable to him his Heirs and Executors If I grant an Annuity for Life and twenty years after these are two severall Grants and the Executor shall have it after the Death of Tenant for Life And Sir Edward Cook said When an express Covenant is made to pay the Rent at divers Dayes an Action of Covenant will lie before all the Dayes of Payment be past but an Action of Debt will not lie untill all the Dayes be past and that in such case Debt doth properly lie upon a Grant of an Annuity for life or years H. 7. Eliz. rotulo 908. LAm versus Tresham Hill 7 Jac. rotulo 2145. The Indentures of Covenant were made between T. Tresham E. Lord Stourton Meriel T. and the Defendant and the Lord Stourton and Meriel never sealed the Indenture and mention thereof was made in the Count Videlicet which Lord Stourton and Meriel were parties to the said Indenture but never sealed The Case was Sir T. T. conveyed one Lease to the Lord Stourton and he to the said Meriel and by the Indenture brought into the Court it was covenanted that the said T. T. M. and L. or one of them at the time of the ensealing and Delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully possessed of and in the Mannour of c. And covenant that the Defendant his Executors and Assignes might and should quietly have and injoy the said Mannour clearly and absolutely freed and discharged or otherwise upon request saved harmless from all Incumberances and former Bargains by the said T. S. E. M. and the Defendant or any of them and the breach was that the Plaintiff was damnified for that the said M. that had the State did not seal and adjudged good PYot versus Lord Saint-John Mich. 7. Jac. rotulo 3214. The Plaintiff had the Reversion of two Houses one in Fee and the other for years and makes a Lease for years with Covenant for Reparations of both Houses and Question was whether the Plaintiff should have one Action or several Actions and adjudged that he should have a joynt Action for both FIsher versus Ameers Hill 8. Jac. rotulo 1061. Action of Covenant brought against the first Lessee after he had assigned over his terme for not repairing and the Question was if an Action of Covenant would lie against the first Lessee upon a Covenant to repair the Houses c. who had assigned his terme to another whom the Lessor had accepted for his Tenant and received the Rent and he suffered the House to be consumed by fire and if the Covenant by such Acceptance were gone as Debt for the Lessor is barred of his Action of Debt for Rent against his first Lessee after he hath assigned and the Lessor accepted the Rent of the Assignee If I covenant that I my Executors Administrators and Assignes shall pay the Rent if I assigne over my terme and the Assignee pay the Rent to the Lessor yet the Covenant lieth against the first Lessee otherwise it is where Rent is reserved and no Covenant to pay it there if the Lessor accept the Rent of the Assignee the Action will not lie against the Executor of the Lessee and Judgement after a Demurrer for the Plaintiff that the Action would well lie WAlter versus Decanum Capitulum Norwici Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 1414. Action of Covenant brought upon an express Covenant in a voidable Lease and the Question was whether the Covenant be good the Lease being void and it was adjudged Trin. 10. Jac. that the Action would lie although the Lease were void and Mapes case was cited which was Mapes made a Lease of a Parsonage of D. for seven years and did covenant to save the Lessee harmless against B. the person c. in that case it was held if the person sue the Covenant by right or wrong an Action lies upon the Covenant and Sir E. Cook said that if the Lease were originally void yet the Action of Covenant would lie for else a great mischief might happen for a Dean might as to day make a Lease to one and keep it secret and to morrow make another and covenant to injoy it and so avoid the second Lessee If a Lease be good at the beginning and become void after their terminus is the number of years otherwise where it was void at the first if a Dean and Chapter make a Lease contrary to the Statute and reserve a Rent it shall not be void against them so long as the Dean liveth but against his Successor The Lease in question was not void but voidable A Covenant in Law shall go to lawfull eviction although the Lease be void A Covenant real to Warrant and Defend there must be a Title paramount and a lawfull eviction Covenants for Lessees shall be taken beneficially for the Lessees BRight versus Cowper Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 638. Action of Covenant brought upon a Covenant made by the Merchant with a Master of a Ship Videlicet that if he would bring his Fraight to such a Port then he would pay him such a summ and shews that part of the Goods were taken away by Pirats and that the residue of the Goods were brought to the place appointed and there unladed and that the Merchant hath not paid and so the Covenant broken and the Question was whether the Merchant should pay the Money agreed for since all the Merchandises were not brought to the place appointed and the Court was of opinion that he ought not to pay the Money because the
Damages c. An Assise brought and the Grant was of the Herbage and Pannage c. and whether this were good or no some held it void for the incertainty of the Grant when it should begin Sir Edward Cook held the Grant good for if the King make a Lease for Life and granteth the Land without reciting the state to one for life this is a good Grant for Life of the Reversion to begin immediately after the Death of the Tenant for Life Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 35. An Assise brought for the Office of a Harald at the Funeral of the Earle of Exceter and the great Question was where the view should be made and it was alledged that it should be made in the place where he exercised his Office but the Court doubted of that but they were examined of the view made in the Abbey of Westminster being the place where the Funeral was performed and the Court were of opinion that in Dower where Tithes are demanded no view lies for of things that are invisible no view lies but the Tenant in such case shall be denied it SIr William Saint Andrew brought an Assise de Darrein Presentment against the Arch-bishop of York the Countess of Shrewsbury and F. H. for the Church of O. in the County of Nott. The Archbio p and H. appeared and the Countess did not appear and though the Countess made Default yet the Assise was not taken against her by Default but a re-summons was awarded against the Countess and the same Day given to the Arch-bishop and H. and a Habeas Corpora against the Recognisors And note the Tenants that appeared pleaded in abatement that a Writ of Quare impedit for the said Church was hanging in such a Court between the same parties and the Assise was brought afterwards and with this agrees the Register and it was adjudged a good Plea The Writ was returned in this manner Pleg de prosequend John Doo Richard Roo The within named Arch-bishop and Countess are attached and either of them is attached per Pleg H. S. N. J. And the within named H. hath nothing in the Sheriffs Bailywick by which he may be attached nor hath a Baily within his Liberty nor is therein found and the residue of the Execution c. and Judgement given that the Writ should abate and the like was in the Earle of Bedfords case where two Quare impedits were brought one after another and the last Writ abated J. Lovelace versus Baronissam Despencer R. Harvey Clericum Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 74. de Darrien Presentment for the Church of M. And the said H. being solemnly exacted came not and the Sheriff made a Return that he was summoned by J. O. and W. C. and therefore the Assise was to be taken against him by Default but the said Baromsh by T. her Attourney faith the Assise ought not to be so taken and confesses the said J. was the person last presented but conveys a Title to her self of the Mannour to which the presentation belongs and that being so seised the Plaintiff in the Assise by usurpation presents the Clerk in the Count whereupon the Defendant brought a Quare impedit and hanging the Writ the Clerk in the Count dies and the Plaintiff presented the Clerk that made Default who by vertue of that presentation is yet Parson of the said Church by which she is seised of the Advowson as in her former Estate and so she saith that the Presentation of the said J. by the said L. made ought not to prejudice her and a Demurrer upon this Plea and that the Assise should remain to be taken c. for want of Recognisors and the Sheriff was commanded to distrain them c. and Judgement given that the Plea was good but quaere of the Declaration whether sufficient because it was not alleadged that he that presented was seised of the Advowson Pasch 8. Jac. rotulo 31. An Assise brought for the Office of Clock-keeper of and it was held that it must be an ancient Office and because they could not prove that it was an ancient Office the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Plaintiff shewed a Grant of the same in E. 6. time but that was held no ancient time Pasch 6. Jacobi It was held by the whole Court that an Assise of Sadler to the Queen would not lie being granted to one by the King but was held void by the whole Court for the King cannot make an Officer to the Queen and by the Patent no place was expressed where he should injoy and exercise his Office and take the Profits and therefore the Jury could not have the view and for that cause an Assise cannot be taken and if the King should grant the Office of Usher to his Son the Prince an Assise would not lie An Assise brought against Demetrius the Plaintiff was non-suit and Demetrius moved to have Cost and it was denied by the whole Court because an Assise is not within the words of the Statute Audita Quaerela BIrd versus Kirton Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3118. An Audita Quaerela brought and the case was this Bird and Milles were bound to Kirton and Kirton makes a Bond to Milles in the summ of 100. l. that if Milles be not sued upon the first Bond then that shall be void and it was alleadged that Kirton did both sue Milles and Bird and that he had no notice of the second Bond that he might have pleaded it and so pretends that the second Bond should be a Defeasance of the first and Judgement was given for the Defendant BEck brought an Audita Quaerela and surmises the matter following that Boon Administrator of C. brought his Action of Debt upon an Obligation and before Judgement that Administration was revoked and Administration granted to another and notwithstanding the Revocation he procured Judgement and the second Administrator released and the rest brought an Audita Quaerela upon that Release and the Court would not grant a Supersedeas because the Revocation was but matter in fait for that Revocation was not under Seal and the first Administrator might appeal Cases in Law and Notes IF a Writ of Covenant be brought against two and if one acknowledge the Fine before one of the Justices and the other acknowledge by Dedimus or before another Justice that Fine cannot be proceeded upon these two acknowledgements by the opinion of the Court. A Writ of Covenant was brought against three men and their Wives and onely two men and their Wives acknowledged the Fine and the other Husband and Wife never acknowledged and the Fine was sued as a Fine acknowledged by all and it was desired the Fine might be amended and the Man and Wife that did not acknowledge might be put out but the Court would not grant it If I make a Lease for years reserving Rent during the Life of A. and B. if one of them die
the Rent is gone If I make a Lease for Life reserving a Rent to me and my Executor neither the Executor nor the Heir shall have the Rent Justice Walmsley held this difference in making a Lease to two during their Lives if one die the other shall have it otherwise it is if it be made to one during the Life of two and one of them die in this case the Lease is ended and there is difference between a reservation of Rent and Lease for Reservation is according to the will and pleasure of the Lessor and Justice Walmsley said if a Lessee for years granteth a Rent to A. during the Life of B. and C. this Reservation is good although one should die which Sir Edward Cook denied and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in Hills case If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent and then I grant demise and to farm let Reversionem domus for years and the Rent to have and to hold the Reversion and the Rent from a time past if the Lessee cannot get an Attornement yet it is a good Lease in Reversion and shall take effect after the end of the first Lease habendum terram habendum reversionem est terra revertens and no difference If the Husband with his own money purchaseth for his Wives Joynture Land to them and the Heirs of their two Bodies the Remainder in Fee to the Wife and they have Issue two Sons and the Husband dieth and the Wife suffereth a Recovery to the use of the youngest Son the eldest Son notwithstanding shall have the Land by the Statute of Joyntures Hill 6. Jac. If I set-out my Corn and after take it away the Parson may sue me in the Spiritual Court or bring an Action of Trespass against me but if the Parson sue in the Spiritual Court a stranger for taking away the Tithes which were set out this is a Praemunire in the Parson Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent if a man hold over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will For one joynt Debt for one Contract you cannot plead Nil debet for part and demur for the rest for he pleads Nil debet and the matter in Law is reserved Licet saepius requisit is a sufficient Request upon a Bond because it is a Debt Unto an Action brought against a man upon a Bond pleads Denis age the case was this that when the Obligation was sealed and delivered the Defendant was of full age but at the time when the Bond bore Date he was under age and at the Assises the Judge there ruled that at the time of making the Bond was when the Bond was sealed and not when it bore Date The Court were of opinion that where a Bishop holds Land discharged of Tithes and he makes a Feofment of the Land the Feoffee shall be discharged of Tithes and the like if the King hath ancient Forest-land discharged of Tithes and the King grants this Land the Grantee is discharged of Tithes and it is a general Rule that he which may have Tithes may be discharged of Tithes If I let Land for years reserving Rent if I command one to put his Cattle into the Land I cannot distrain them for my commandement is a wrong and an Action of case will lie against the commandor If I make a Lease and bid the Tenants cut down the Trees yet I may have an Action of waste against my Lessee In Sir Cheydens case the commandment to take Possession was void unless he had commanded him to expell the Tenant and then he might joyn either to distrain or bring an Action of Debt for the Lease was made by him and two more 28 H. 8. If I make a Lease to the Husband and Wife covenant to do no waste or repair Houses and the Husband dieth and the Wife surviveth and holdeth in if the Wife commit waste or not repair the House no Action lieth against the Wife but to such a Lease the Wife is tied to pay the Rent or to perform a condition made by the part of the Lessor but not observe or perform Covenants of the Lessee Pasch 10. Jacobi The Court much doubted whether one that had a Park and was used to pay one Shoulder of Deer for all manner of Tithes and the Park is dis-parked should now pay Tithes in kinde or not For Wooll and Lamb no Action upon the Statute for not setting out of Tithes for they are no predial Tithes and no Action lies upon this Statute for small Tithes An Administration granted durand minori aetate execut is not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. And by the Civil Law the Judge may after Administration by him granted revoke it and grant it to another And if an Administration be granted to a Feme Covert yet she shall sue in their Court as a Feme sole One Briefly married an Administratrix and entred into Bonds for the Intestates Debts and afterwards the Wife leaveth her Husband and refuseth the Administration and it was granted to another and now B. prayeth a Prohibition for that he may be sued for Debts and denied by the Court untill he be sued This Administration was first granted by Doctor B. and after by him revoked and a new granted by him to the Wives Brother and afterwards he revoked that and established the first Administration and the Appeal A Feofment in Fee by Deed indented Rent reserved it is good but without Deed cannot reserve Rent If Land be devised by three upon condition to pay them 100. l. equally to be divided and one of them dieth his Executor or Administrator shall have the Money and so it is if one were bound to pay Money The Commissary granted Administration of the Intestates Goods to the Wife and did make a Divident of his Estate to some of the rest of his Kindred and this was-held not to be warranted by Law and more then the Ordinary could do because the Administratrix is chargeable to pay all Debts and Promises of the Intestate and to bring up his Children which she cannot do if the Goods be taken away Vbi delinquit ibi punietur If a Copy-holder of Inheritance accept a Lease for years of his Copy-hold the Copy-hold is gone by the opinion of the whole Court If a Legacy be granted of Land this shall not be sued for in the Spiritual Court but if one by Will devise Land to be sold for payment of Legacies this shall be sued for in the Spiritual Court by the opinion of the whole Court If two Fulling-mils be under one Roof and a rate-tithe paid for the Mils and after you alter these Mils and make one a Corn-mill your Rate is gone and you must pay Tithes in kinde or if you have but one
pair of Stones in your Mill and pay a Rate for them then if you put on another pair of Stones new Tithes must be paid in kinde If one in Fee make a Lease for Life and after granteth a Rent-charge if the Grantors Cattle come upon the Ground I may distrain them although I cannot distrain the Tenant in Possession but the Grantor cannot avoid it If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a Messuage of all Incumberances then one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all Incumberances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease then I must shew how If a man devise his Trees to his Executors to pay his Debts the Executor must in convenient time cut down the Wood. And so if a man sell his Trees the Vendee must sell them in a convenient time If I grant you out of my Mannour 10. l. per ann and recite but five pounds the Recitall shall not diminish the Grant And so if I grant you ten pounds out of my Mannor and recite 20. l. this shall not inlarge it If I infeoff two of Land habendum to me in Fee and habendum to the other in Fee they are Tenants in common In the Court of Wards one Dymack was a Purchasor by Bargain and Sale and before inrolment D. dies and after his Death the Indenture was inrolled the Question was whether his Son shall be in Ward for the Land and it was adjudged that he is Heir to the Land and is in by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Bargains and Sales and not by the Statute of Uses My Lord Hobard held that if an Executor pay a Bond made upon a usurious Contract it shall be a Devastavit in the Executor and if he be bound to present one to a Church and he present one upon a Simonaical Contract the Bond is broken Hill 10. Jac. Resolved if one make a Lease of a Mannour reserving Rent and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of forty acres thereof now if an Action of Debt be brought by the Grantee he may aver the rate of the Acre and if the Defendant plead Nil debet per patriam the Jury shall rate the value and although the value be found less by the Jury then the Plaintiff surmiseth yet the Plaintiff shall recover after the proportion For Acts in Law no Attornement is necessary as if a Lease made for years reserving a Rent which is assigned to a Woman for Dower she shall have the Rent without Attornement In Cambels case upon an Elegit returned that the Lessor was seised in Fee and that by vertue of the Judgement the moity was delivered to the Plaintiff and for the Rent reserved upon the Lease for years before Judgement If a man top a Tree under the growth of 21. years and suffer the body to grow and afterwards when the boughes are grown out again he doth lop and top it again I shall pay no Tithes although the Tree was not priviledged at the first cutting by the opinion of the whole Court If a Debt be recovered in a Court of Record that Debt cannot be assigned over to any man by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 10. Jac. Pasch 14. If Money be to be paid upon proof made there the triall shall be the proof to be made before but if it be to pay Money within 3. Moneths after proof there proof must be made first but if it be upon proof before A. then proof being made before A. this extending proof shall tie the party but Warburton held the contrary and he resembled this to a surmise to have a prohibition which is no binding proof for the Jury may pass against the proof in the surmise when a Bond is to pay Money upon proof this is a legal proof by Law if it be laid generally to be paid by proof if it were by proof before two Justices or two Aldermen this shall be intended a sufficient proof when the Action shall be brought upon the Bond and if the Defendant say that due proof was not made then they shall say that before the two Justices c. it was proved by testimony before them and then the Judges shall judge whether it be a sufficient proof or not If I devise Lands to my Executors for three years for the payment of my Debts this is Assetts in the Executors hands but if I devise my Land to be sold for the payment of my Debts it is no Assets before it be sold Mich. 9. Jacobi It was held in the Common Pleas by the whole Court that in the Kings case the consideration of the Money paid is never to be proved Likewise in a common case of Bargain and Sale in consideration of Money paid where in truth none was paid yet it is good and the Bargainee is not tied to prove the Payment for the Bargainer may have an Action of Debt If a Legacy be granted out of Leases and a Suit in the Spiritual Court for this shall not be prohibited but otherwise it is if it were out of Fee Simple Lands HE le versus Frettenden Resolution upon two Cases upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes Videlicet A man possessed of Corn sels it and before two Witnesses sets out his Tithes and afterwards privately takes away his Tithes and the Parson sues him upon the Statute of treble Damages for not setting forth of Tithes and the Defendant proves by Witnesses that he set forth his Tithes yet this Fraud is helped for the words are without fraud or deceit In the second case one secretly sels his Corn to one who was not known and afterwards the Vendee commands the Vendor to cut the Corn which he doth and takes away the whole Corn without setting forth his Tithes and the Question was who should be sued for the Tithes and the Court held the first Vendor should be sued for it was fraudulent If a man be found guilty of Felony and after receives his Pardon he shall not be Legalis home to pass upon a Jury If a Venire facias be against an Arch-bishop the Venire facias shall be Tam milites quam alios liberos c. because he is a Lord of the Parliament If a man be obliged in a Statute staple his Copy-hold Land is not extendable but it is upon a Statute of Bankrupt If a man have Common in three Acres and purchase one of the three Acres his Common is extinct If a man of the Cinque Ports shall come to London he may be there arrested and shall not have the Priviledge of the Cinque Ports Difference between those things which are in the Prender and such things that are in the Render for if I take not such things as are in Prender according to my Prescription it is void If I have Estovers in Woods to be taken every other year if I
lie by the Heir for pulling down the Coat-Armor c. of his Ancestors set up in the Church A Pew cannot belong to a House Fraud shall never be intended except it be apparent and found and that conveyance which at the time of the making was good shall never by matter ex post facto be adjudged to be fraudulently made for before primo Eliz. at the Common Law A conveyance made for natural affection without valuable consideration is not to be avoided none shall avoid it but such as come in upon valuable considerations Lands devised to one in Tail upon condition that he shall not alien and for Default of such the Remainder to R. in Tail this is a Condition and no Limitation by the whole Court and the Heir at the Common Law may enter for the Alienation Matters of instance which are between party and party as for Tithes and Matrimony are not to be dealt withall by the high Commissioners if they proceed inverso ordine that cannot be holpen in the Common Pleas but by superior Magistrate if they be Judges of the cause If one in Norfolk come within another Dioces and commit Adultery in another Dioces during the time of his residence he may be cited in the Dioces where he committed the Offence although he dwell out of the Dioces by Cook Warburton and Winch. If the King grant Lands to A. and his Heirs Males and doth not say of his Body he is but Tenant at will Tamen quaere A Deputy of an Office for Bribery cannot make his Master be punished corporally but pecuniarily equity shall not barr me of the benefit of Law Note the Probate of Wils and Administrations did not belong to the Ordinary originally but to the Common Law If two Aliens be at Issue the Inquest shall be all English but if between an Alien and Denizen that Inquest shall be de medietate Linguae 21 H. 6. 4. A Judgement given against a dead person is not void but Error 28. Ass 17. A Juror was committed to the Fleet For making his Companions stay a whole Day and a Night having no reason for it and without the Assent of any of the rest of his Fellows and after was bailed but not untill the Court was advised 8 E. 3. 75. In a Writ of Estate Probanda every Juror ought to be of the Age of 42. years If I grant Land to one and his Heirs in the Premises of the Deed Habendum to him and the Heirs of his Body he shall have the Land in Tail and the Fee-simple after the State in Tail when the Estate is certain in the Premises the Habendum shall not controll it If one make two Executors one of seventeen years of Age and the other under Administration during the minority is void because he of seventeen years old may execute the Will of Administration during the minority in such case be granted and the Administrator brings his Action the Executor may well release the Debt Pigot and Gascoins case If a Record go once to Triall and warning given if the first Attorney be alive the Plaintiff is not tied to give warning again but if the Attorney be dead he is If no place of Payment be in a Will which appointeth Money to be paid there must be a Request to pay the Money for he is not bound to seek all England over for him otherwise it is if it were by Bond. In every case where the Plaintiff might have Judgement against the Defendant there if the Plaintiff be non-suit the Defendant shall have his Costs if the Plaintiff be non-suit TRin. 11. Jac. In cases of remitting causes from the inferior Judge the Arch-deacon cannot remit the cause to the Arch-bishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Arch-bishop It was held by the Court that one might distrain for a Legacy In a special Verdict the Plaintiff must begin to argue first OLive versus Hanmer A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement by Nil dicit for want of a Warrant of Attorney and the Record certified and a Certior are to the Clerk of the Warrants and Error assigned for want of a Warrant And the Court was moved that a Warrant might be filed and it was granted and a Warrant filed accordingly Pasch 12. Jac. An Action was brought against Baron feme and an Attorney appeared for the Husband alone and the Court held it was the Appearance of Baron feme in Law PAsch 12. Jacobi Sheriff versus Whitsander One Judgement was confessed in Trin. 42. Eliz. rotulo 504. And afterwards in Trinity Terme 43. Eliz. the Defendant brought a Writ of Error bearing Date the 12. of May Anno 43. and upon that Writ the Record was certified 25. May and afterwards Error was assigned in the upper Bench for want of a Warrant of Attorney by the Defendant And Mich. 43. 44. Eliz. the Warrant of Attorney was received and entred upon Record by Order of Court of Common Pleas. And the like was Pasch 2. Jac. rotulo 1956. Int. Bathgrone and Smith and the like Mich. 1. Jac. rotulo 1306. Inter Smith Kent CRane versus Colpit Question was whether the Attornement of an Infant be good or not and by the whole Court it was held good by three Reasons First he gives no Interest Secondly it is to perfect a thing Thirdly he is a Free-holder IT was held in the case of Gage an Attorney who as an Administrator brought an Action of Priviledge that his Priviledge ought not to be allowed And after a Bill was filed against Drury an Attorney as Executor and held that the Bill would not lie but in both cases the Suit should be by Original BEarbrook versus Read The name of Confirmation must stand for Sir Francis Gawdy was christened Thomas and confirmed Francis by that name he must be called SIr Henry Compton was sued for Cloathes of his Wife bought without his command or privity and the whole Court were of opinion that if the Wife should buy Merchandises and thereof make Cloathes and wear those Cloathes although the Husband know nothing of them yet he shall pay for them PAsch 10. Jac. The Court was moved to know whether the Wife of a Bankrupt can be examined by the Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupt and they were of opinion she could not be examined For the Wife is not bound in case of high Treason to discover her Husbands Treason although the Son be bound to reveal it therefore by the Common Law she shall not be examined An Infant shall not be examined If an Administration be granted to one during the minority of two Infants and one of them dieth the Administration continueth still Actions of Debt LOvelace versus Cocket Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1001. Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for the Paiment of Money at a
arbitrated or else it is void and in every award there must be satisfaction of that which was awarded POwel versus Crowther trin 9. Jacob. rotulo 313. det port e un three executors which appeared at several terms and plead severally ne unques execut the plaintiff proceeds to triall against one of them and was non-suit And then one of the other defendants take the record down by proviso and the plaintiff was again non-suit and both the defendants desire costs before the third issue was tried but costs was onely given to the first and denied to the second for his trial was erroneous because by the first triall the originall was determined If a defendant wage his law no excuse of sickness or water can save his default but in real actions he may excuse himself by such accidents If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a messuage of all incumbrances there one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all incumbrances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease there he must shew how NOrton versus Sims Pasch 11. Iacob rotulo 346. debt upon a Bond entred into by an under Sheriff to his high Sheriff that the under Sheriff shall not meddle with the execution of executions and shall discharge the Sheriff from all escapes and the plaintiff shewes a breach in the under Sheriff for an escape by reason whereof the Sheriff paid the debt and damages question was whether this covenant be good or not Judgment for the plaintiff A high Sheriff may make an under Sheriff to be at will An under Sheriff hath the same authority an high Sheriff hath it is a void condition to save a man harmless from all men but good if it be special if the condition be to discharge and acquit I must shew how An under Sheriff was before the Conquest A Bond made to the Sheriff by the under Sheriff to discharge of all escapes this is good and lawful If any part of the condition of a Bond be against a Statute-law it is void in all but otherwise if part be against the common-law See Boswels case 10. Rep. when a man is under Sheriff he may do all ministerial things the Sheriff may do but not judicial If the under Sheriff will covenant that he will not meddle with executions above 20. l. this covenant of his own accord is good if a Sheriff binde his under Sheriff that he shall not return Venire Facias nor intermeddle with executions untill he be acquainted it is against Law and naught by all the Court A Bond to perform divers Covenants some against Law and others lawfull it is good for lawfull things and void for the rest The Death of one of the Parties in an Original Writ doth abate the Writ it is otherwise in a Judgement If Husband and Wife sue a Scire facias and the Husband dieth the Scire facias shall abate for it is no more a judicial Writ but as it were an Original to revive a Judgement The Court were of opinion in the case of Sir H. Dowckray that where he had delivered Money to his Servant to provide Victuals and the Servant buyes the Victuals in his Masters name and payes not for them and afterwards an Action is brought against the Master for the Money and he offers to wage his Law and the Court held he could not safely wage his Law because the Victuals came to his own use and therefore he is chargeable and must have his Remedy against his Servant But if the Master did forbid the Tradesman to deliver any Wares except his Man paid for them in that case if the Tradesman deliver Wares the Master may safely wage his Law as it was adjudged in Sir H. Comptons case MAntell versus Gibbs Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 1254. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that an Estranger was imprisoned by another stranger and kept in Prison untill the Defendant as Surety of the stranger made the Bond and it was held a naughty Plea and a Repleader awarded ALston versus Walker Mich. 6. Jacobi rotulo 1342. Land was Mortgaged and a Promise that if the Mortgager at such a time and place should pay the Money to the Mortgagee his Heirs or Assignes that then the Mortgage should be void the Mortgagee died and the Money was paid to his Executors and it was adjudged to be no performance of the Condition for the Executor was not named and the Money ought to be paid to the Heir who should have the Land if the Money were unpaid and not the Executor STurges versus Dean Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 2915. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill for Money to be paid within fifteen Dayes after his Return from Ierusalem he proving his being there the Defendant pleads that he did not prove-his being there to which the Plaintiff demurrs he making proof that is if it be true Sir Edward Cook and Daniel held that the proof should be made upon the Triall and the proof should be subsequent But Warburton and Foster held that the proof shall be precedent because it was restrained to a certain time but it had been otherwise if no time had been appointed NOrton versus Goldsmith Trin. 7. Iac. rotulo 3100. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition that Chamberlain his Under-sheriff should not meddle with Executions beyond such a summ and alleadges a Breach for intermeddling with Executions contrary to the Condition and the opinion of the whole Court was that the Bond was void PAin versus Nichols Trin. 8. Iac. rotulo 134. An Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of Ed. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and the Plaiutiff declared as well for Prediall Tithes for he might well bring his Action and for other Tithes as of Lamb and Wooll for which no Action would lie and upon a Triall the Jury found for all as well for those that would as would not bear an Action and after a Verdict this Exception was taken and Judgement arrested BOoth versus Davenant Trin. 8. Iacobi rotulo 805. A Bail taken in the then Kings Bench and an Action of Debt brought upon that Recognisance which was that if it happened the Defendant in that Action to be convicted then the Manucaptors granted and every of them granted that as well the Debt as Damages and Costs which should in that Action be adjudged the Plaintiff should be levied upon their Lands and Chattels And in Easter Terme 7 Iacobi the Defendant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum awarded against him did not render his Body but afterwards Mich. 7. Jacobi he did render his Body and the Court accepted of it and discharged the Bail and whether the Bail should be discharged or not was the Question and the Court held the Bail should be discharged and Judgement was given for the Defendant RAyson versus Winder Pasch
was entred in haec verba Noverint universi per praesentes me Thomam Keyes tenerie firmiter obligarie Edw. Dodson c. Anno Regni Reginae Dom. nostri Jacobi c. Rege Defensor suis de Scotia sexto Angliae quadragesimo secundo 1608. And upon this the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff for there are two principal things to be contained in one Obligation first the parties to whom secondly the summ in which one party is bound and they are both here expressed sufficiently to the view of the Judges for both the Obligor and Obligee are well named and also the summ is well expressed to be ten pounds but those words by which it may be gathered that the party intends to binde himself are found in false Latine Videlicet tenerie obligarie in which words there is onely an e. too much and it is true false Latine as it is 10 H. 7. shall abate a Writ because the party may purchase a new Writ but it shall not overthrow an Obligation for the party cannot be again bound when he will and although there is no such year of the Reign of the King as of Scotland the sixth c. it is not material for it is good though it have a false Date as 13 H. 7. Kelly and the party may surmise a Date in his Declaration and it is good and the Defendant must answer to the Bond and not to the Date and the Law is the same if it have an impossible Date as the 30. of February whereas there is but eight and twenty Dayes in February yet it is good but in the principal Case it is helped by the Year of our Lord which is certain and sufficient and the Declaration good which had omitted the year of the King and put in the year of our Lord and Judgement was given by the opinion of the whole Court HAwes versus Leader Hill 8 Jacobi Hawes brought an Action of Debt against Leader Administrator of Cookson the Case was Thomas Cookson the nineteenth of February 20 Jacobi for twenty pounds paid into the Defendants hands by the Plaintiff grants all his Goods mentioned in a Scedule annexed to the Deed and gives possession of the goods by a Platter and the goods remained in his house as they were before to be carried away upon demand by the Plaintif and covenants that the intestate his Administrators c. should safely keep them and quietly deliver them and to perform that covenant the intestate binds himself in forty pounds to the Plaintiff and afterwards Cookson died and the Plaintiff the sixteenth of March the sixth of King Iames demanded the goods of the Defendant being Administrator and he would not deliver them by reason whereof the Plaintiff brought his Action and in his Declaration shews in specie what goods were contained in the Scedule the Defendant pleads the Statute of the 13 Eliz. of fraudulent Deeds and gifts c. and further sayes that Cookson the intestate the twelfth of February 2 Jacobi was indebted unto divers persons and names them in severall summes amounting to a hundred pounds and being so indebted the nineteenth of February 2 Jacobi made the Deed of gift as is above declared being then of those and other goods possessed amounting to fourscore pounds and no more and that it was made by fraud and covin between Cookson and the Plaintiff to the intent to deceive his Creditors named and shewes how that Cookson notwithstanding the Deed of gift occupied and used the Goods all his life and died and that Administration was committed to the Defendant the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant had assets in his hands to satisfie the Debts demanded and further sayes that the Deed of gift was made upon good considerations upon which they were at issue and at triall at Huntington Assises Cook rejected the Triall because the Issue was not well joyned and a Replender ordered upon which the Defendant pleaded as is above and the Plaintiffe demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff first because the Defendant had not averred in his Barr that the Debts due yet certain unpaid to the Creditors named for there was four years time between the Deed of gift made and the death of the intestate in which time the Debts might well be presumed to be satisfied Secondly the Defendant did not shew that the Debts due to the supposed Creditors were by specialty and then the matter of his Plea is not good for the Defendant cannot plead such a Plea but to excuse himself of a Devastavit and that could not be as this Case is for he being Administrator is not chargeable with the Debts if they be not upon Specialty Thirdly the Defendant supposed that it would be a Devastavit in him if he should deliver the Goods to the Plaintiff which were contained in the Deed of Gift but that cannot be for those Goods in the hands of the Plaintiff are liable to the Creditors as an Executor of his 〈◊〉 wrong if the Deed of Gift be fraudulent And fourthly it may be the Creditors will never sue for their Debts and by that means the Defendant will justifie the Detainer of the Goods for ever which would be very inconvenient But if the Defendant had pleaded a Recovery by any of the Creditors and that such Goods to the value c. had been taken in Execution this had been a good Plea Fifthly the Defendant is not such a person as is inabled by the Statute of 13 Eliz. to plead the Plea aforesaid for the Statute makes the Deed void as against the Creditors but not against the party himself his Executors or Administrators for against them it remaines a good Deed of Gift and this by the opinion of the whole Court SAllows versus Girling Pasch 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond and the Condition to stand to the Award of A. B. C. D. of all Actions Quarrels and Demands c. so that the said Arbitrement were made in writing before such a Day by the said A. B. C. D. or by any two of them under their hands c. The Defendant pleads that the said A. B. C. D. nor any two of them made no Award the Plaintiff replies that A. and B. two of the Arbitrators before the Day by writing under their hands c. made an Award and set forth the Award and assigned a Breach in the Defendant for not paying of three pounds at a Day past limited by the Award to which the Defendant demurrs and it was adjudged the Plaintiff and the Question was whether the Award made by A. and B. alone were good or no because the Submission was to four named and in the Premises of the Condition the Defendant is bound to stand to the Award of four also yet it was adjudged by the Court upon consideration had upon every part of the Condition that the Award made-by two alone is good for the
Arbitrators are made Judges by the assent and election of the Parties and it appears that the parties put their trust not in the four joyntly but joyntly and severally and the Ita quod c. is an explanation of all the Condition that they four or any two of them might arbitrate all matters between them and so much appears 2 R. 3. 18. where two of one part and one of another part put themselves to the Award of I. S. now by this Submission I. S. may arbitrate as well any matters between the two parties of one part as between them and the third because in the intent of the parties the end of their Submission was to have peace and quietnesse and 4 H. 4. 40. the Condition of a Recognisance was that if A. A. shall stand and abide the Award of four named three or two of them of all matters c. which is a division of their power and observe in the principal Case that untill the Ita quod comes the Condition is not perfect for all the Condiâ—… is but one Sentence BRisco versus King Trin. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond for three hundred pounds with a Condition that the Defendant should perform all Covenants Clauses Payments and Agreements contained in one Deed poll of the same Date made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff the Defendant by way of Plea sets forth the Deed poll in haec verba in which Deed was contained one Grant and Bargain and sale of certain Lands made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for one hundred pounds paid and two hundred pounds to be paid in which Deed there was one Proviso that if the Defendant should not pay for the Plaintiff to one J. S. forty pounds to J. D. forty pounds c. at such a Day that then the Bargain and Sale should be void and the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants c. comprised in the Deed the Plaintiff assigned a Breach for the not paying of forty pounds at the Day according to the Proviso and the Defendant demurrs and adjudged for the Defendant by the whole Court for the Condition bindes the Defendant to perform other Payments then such as the Defendant is bound by the Deed to perform for the Obligation was made but for the strengthning of the Deed and the Deed requires not any compulsory Payments to be made but leaves it to the will of the Defendant or to make the payments specified in the Proviso or in Default thereof to forfeit the Land to the Plaintiff and therefore it appears that it was not the intent and meaning of the parties to make an Obligation with a Condition repugnant to it and contrary to the Deed poll of Bargain of Sale and by this means the Payment of forty pounds to J. S. which is made voluntary by the Deed poll shall be made compulsory by the Obligation but the word Payments in the Condition of the Obligation shall have relation onely to such payments contained in the Deed poll which are compulsory to the Defendant and not otherwise and because the neglect of the payment of forty pounds to J. S. assigned for the Breach is denied to be voluntary for the Defendant to pay or not to which the Condition of the Obligation cannot in any reasonable construction extend therefore it was adjudged against the Plaintiff WOolby versus Perlby Mich. 9. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff derives his Title by the grant of the Reversion by way of bargain and Sale in Fee from the first Lessor and declares that by an Indenture of such a Date one grants bargains and sells for money the Reversion to him in Fee which Indenture was inrolled such a day according to the form of the Statute and because he shewed not in his Declaration in what Court it was inrolled and the Statute of 27 H. 8. Parles of many severall Courts and that it is no reason to put the Lessee to such an infinite labour to search in all Courts as well at Westminster as in the Countrey with the Clerk of the Peace and for this cause after a verdict a nil capiat per Billam entred by the whole Court SIR George Savill versus Candish Hill 9 Jac. The old Countesse of Shrewsbury had a Verdict against Savel and upon a challenge of the Sheriff on the Plaintiffs part of the County of Derby the Tenure was directed to the Coroners who returned all the Writs and at the Assises a Tales was awarded and the name of one of them of the Tales was Gregory Grigson c. and by postea returned by the Clerks of the Assise in the Common Pleas the Tales was returned to be by the Sheriff but in the entring up the Judgement it was made by the Coroners and the name of the man of the Tales by the Clerk of the Assise was restored according to his right name Gregory but entred in the Roll by the name of George and upon that Judgement Savill brought a Writ of Error which depended ten years and more and the first Plaintiff who was the Countesse of Shrewsbury died this matter being indiscussed and Candish as Executor to the Countesse revived all by Scire facias why he should not have Execution and after many debates the Judgement was reversed for three causes first because upon the Pannell of the Jurors names after the twenty four Jurors were named at the foot of the Pannell two names were added to the Jurors which in truth were the men of the Tales but no mention was made that they were the names of the Jurors impannelled de novo according to the form of the Statute which ought to be for at the Common Law the Justices of assise cannot grant any Tales to supply the default of the first Jurors but it is given only by the Statute of the 35. H. 8. which ordains that their names shall be added to the first Pannell and this cannot be discerned to be done accordingly if such a stile and Title be not made over their names viz. nomina Jurator de noto apposit secundum formam Statuti to distinguish what is done by the Common-Law and what by the aid of the Statute and also the Coroners names ought to be added to the Tales at the bottom of the Pannell and in this Case their names were onely indorsed which was upon the Return of the first Pannell and although divers Presidents were shown to the Court wherein the names of the Jurors de novo appoposit c. were united upon the Pannell yet the Court did not regard them because it seemed that they passed in silence without debate had upon them the second cause was because it appeared by the Return of the postea that the Tales were returned by the Sheriff which is error in the first Processe to the Coroners and although in the Entry in the Common Pleas of
forth divers payments by him made and amongst other payments shews that he had payed to M. Fawn named in the Condition sixty pounds for a Legacy due by the Will of the said Ed. A. the payment of which sixty pounds was disallowed by that Court and by the Order of the Chancery sixty five pounds paid for not allowing the first sixty pounds to Ed. A. the Son which sixty and five pounds the Defendant had not repaid though thereunto requested and so he was damnified to which Replication the Defendant demurrs and the opinion of the whole Court after a great Debate was against the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff in his Replication had alleadged two Causes to inforce his Damage the first was that the Plaintiff in his Answer in the Chancery had alleadged the payment of sixty pounds to M. F. for a Legacy due to her by the Will and that such Allegation was rejected by the Court of Chancery and neither of those matters are certainly alleadged but by way of Implication and not expresly for he ought to have shewn that a Legacy of sixty pounds was given to M. F. by the Will of E. A. for although the Will of E. A. is recited in the Condition in the Date against which Recitall the Defendant may not be admitted to say that he made no such Will yet the Legacy given to M. F. is not recited in the Condition if not in the General against which the Defendant may take a Traverse that Eáw. A. did not bequeath such a Legacy of sixty pounds and upon that a good Issue may be taken And secondly the Plaintiff sayes that the payment of the said sixty pounds was disallowed by the Court of Chancery and doth not appear in the Replication where the Chancery was at that time to wit whether at Westminster or at any other place and it is issuable and triable by a Jury whether any such Order of Chancery were made or not for the Orders there are but in Paper and are not upon Record to be tried by Record but by a Jury and the Plaintiff perceiving the opinion of the Court against him prayed that he might discontinue his Suit which was granted by the whole Court but Quaere of this it being after a Demurrer WEaver versus Clifford Pasch 44. Eliz. rotulo 453. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Escape against Clifford and declares that one A. was bound to the Plaintiff in one Recognisance of a hundred pounds to be paid at a Day at which Day A. made Default of Payment and the Plaintiff sued out two Scire fac and upon the second Scire fac a Nihil was returned and the Plaintiff had Judgement to recover and afterwards he sued out a Levari fac and a Nihil being returned the Plaintiff prosecuted a Capias ad satisfaciend by vertue of which Writ the Defendant being then Sheriff took the said A. and afterwards at D. in the County of S. permitted him to go at large to which the Declaration the Defendant demurred Damport for the Defendant and he shewed the cause of the Demurrer to be because a Capias upon the Recognisance did not lie and he divided the Case into two parts first whether a Capias would lie in the Case and secondly whether the Sheriff would take the Advantage of such a naughty Processe and as to the first it seemed to him that a Capias would not lie because it appeared by Herberts 5. Repub. fol. 12. And Garnons Case 5. Rep. fol. 88. that the Body of the Defendant was not liable to Execution for Debt by the Common Law but onely in Trespasse where a Fine was due to the King or that he was accountant to the King and the Plaintiff could have no other Processe but a Fieri facias within the year and if the year were passed then he might have a new Original in Debt But now by the Statute of Marlbrig cap. 23. And Westm. 2. cap. 11. a Capias is given in Account and by the 25 E. 3. c. 17. Capias is given in Debt and Detinue and by the 19 H. 7. c. 9. the like Processe is given in Case as in Debt and Trespasse and the 23 H. 8. c. 14. a Capias is given in a Writ of Annuity and Covenant but Statute gives a Capias in this Case and therefore it remaines as it was at Common and by that it would not lie which is also apparent by the Recognisance for that is that if the Debt shall be levied of the Goods and Chattels Lands and Tenements c. and doth not meddle with the Body and by an expresse Authority 13 14 Eliz. Dier 306. Puttenhams Case it is held that the Chancery hath no Authority to commit the Defendant to the Fleet upon a Recovery in a Scire facias upon a Recognisance because the Body is not liable And for the second point it seemed to him that the Sheriff should take Advantage of this which should be as void and as null whereof a stranger may take benefit and to prove this he took this Difference when a Processe will not lie and where it is disorderly awarded as if an Exigent be sued out before a Capias or an Execution before Judgement for if that Processe be originally supposed there the Processe is but erroneous in Druries Case 8. Rep. 142. 34 H. 6. 2. b. But if the Action it self will not maintain the Processe as a Capias in Formedon there that Processe is as void and null and he took another Diversity when the Capias is taken by the Award of the Court when Judgement is given that he shall recover for in that Case it shall remain good untill it be reversed because it is the Act of the Court and so is Druries Case to be intended but if the party himself take it it is at his own peril as here it is for the Plaintiff hath onely pleaded that he prosecuted c. which is as void to the party who sued it out and he shall have no benefit of it but the Sheriff shall not be punished for false Imprisonment because he is not to examine the illegality or validity of the Processe for the 11 H. 4. 36. If a Capias issue out without any Original and the party be taken the Sheriff shall not be punished and for these Reasons he prayed Judgement for the Defendant Noy was for the Plaintiff and he agreed that at the Common Law no Action did lie in this Case as it hath been said but he was of opinion that this Case is within 25 E. 3. cap. 17. for the intention and drift of the Statute was to give speedy remedy to recover Debts and the Action is all one in the eye of the Law as if it had been done by Original which in the equity of the Statute And a Capias lies upon a Recognisance against a Surety for the Peace and upon a Scire facias against the Bail in the Upper Bench. As to
A special Verdict in an Ejectione firme the Question was upon the words of the Will which were that her Husband had given all to her and nothing from her and whether these words imply a consent and so an Agreement to the Devise of the Husband or no. And Foster Warburton and Walmsley that it was an Assent but Sir Edward Cook was of a contrary opinion and note she was made sole Executrix and she proved the Will and Justice Foster held it to be an Assent in Law The property of Goods cannot be in obayance they must be in the Executor Administrator or Ordinary and Warburton held that the words made an Assent and said that when the Bond is delivered to one to the use of another untill he dis-assent it is his Deed but when he dis-assenteth then it is not his Deed Ab initio if a Lease be given by Will to divers and made one of them his Executor in this Case the Executor must make his special Claime else he must have it as Executor and Sir Edward Cook held that the general Entry and proof of the Will is no Assent she must first have it as an Executor before she can have it as a Legatee a Legacy is waiveable but if the Law work it in me whether I will or no then I cannot waive it and therefore he held she should enter specially ROlles versus Mason Hill 6. Jacobi rotulo 2613. An Ejectment brought and the Question grew upon two Customes one was that the Copy-holder for Life may name to the Lord of the Mannour who should be his Successor in the Copy-hold and the other that the Copy-holder for Life may cut down all the Trees of wrong upon the customary Land and the third Question was whether the second Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the pretended Forfeiture for cutting down the Trees by the Law a Copy-holder shall have house-boot free-boot and hedge-boot and common of Turbary to burn in his house but he cannot sell them A Copy-holder by Custome may name his Successor and if the Lord refuse to admit him the Homage may set a reasonable Fine and so he shall be admitted The Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the Forfeiture but in this Case it is no Forfeiture and the Copy-holder may cut downe Trees for he hath a greater Estate then a sole Tenant for Life because he shall name his Successor APrescription goeth to one man and a Custome to many and Judgement for the Defendant MAson versus Strecher alios Pasch 7. Jacobi rotulo 606. An Ejectment brought for the Mannour of P. it was held by the Court that the consent of a Servant in the absence of him who is possessed of the Terme shall not out his Master of the Possession because the Servant hath no interest in the Land CRamporne versus Freshwater Pach 8 Jacobi rotulo 2742. An action of Debt brought upon an Ejectment the Plaintiff was non-suit upon his own Evidence because he declared upon a Devise made for three years and it was confessed by the Plaintiff that the Lands were Copy-hold Land and that the Plaintiff had not license to demise them for three years neither could he prove that by any custome he could demise them for three years without a license and so the Lessor was taken for a Disseisor by the opinion of the Court. CAffe versus Randall Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 3299. An Ejectment brought against Randall and his Wife the Ejectment made by the Wife and not guilty pleaded and tried and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Issue was pleaded in this manner Et dicunt quod ipsi in nullo sunt culpabiles c. And the Ejectment was made by the woman alone and ought to have been that she was not guilty and upon examination of the Plea Rol and Record of Nisi prius it appeared to the Court that the Plea Roll was right but the Record of Nisi prius mistaken but Serjeant Barker said that at the time when the Record of Nisi prius was tried the Plea roll agreed with the Record and was afterwards amended and Waller the prothonotary confessed that he amended the plea rol as upon his private examination of the roll but without notice that there was a Record sent down to try that Issue and therefore the Court ordered that the Record of Nisi prius should be amended according to the Plea roll which was done accordingly PAts versus Chitty Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 2151. vel 2151. An Action of ejectment brought the Defendant pleads a concord with satisfaction in Bar the Plaintiff demurs and it was held by Winch and Foster a good Plea because the Action is not only in the realty for he recovers damages and possession which are meer Chattells Secondly Because the Defendant pleads the satisfaction as in discharge of that Action and all others and ten shillings for rests Warburton of the same opinion and he vouched the like case satisfaction is good Plea in a Quare impedit wherein a man recovers the presentation And Cook said that in all Actions wherein money or Damages are recoverable as well wherein the Defendant might wage his Law as wherein he might not it is a good Plea Pasc 3. Jacobi rotulo 1033. Eden and Blake but in matters where one Free-hold or Inheritance is recoverable concord is no Barr and in dower recompence in other Lands or Rent is no Barr. But by petition in Chancery but Rent Issuing out of the same Land demanded is a good Barr and in all Actions Quare vi armis wherein process of Outlary lies by the common Law concord or an Award is a good Barr 38 H. 6. title Barr satisfaction in trespass by an Estranger is a good Barr although it be without notice of the trespassor by the opinion of the whole Court CRaddock versus Iones Trin. Iacobi rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought and declares upon a Lease made by W. Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and makes a challenge and praies a venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is Cozen to the Lessors Wife which is not a principle challenge but by favour and after a Triall and Verdict it was amended in arrest of the Judgment because it was mistried and Barker vouched a case in the Exchequer Chamber in 43 El. upon a Writ of Error between Higgins and Spicer upon a Venire facias awarded in the like manner and it was adjudged to be mistryed and it was then agreed that misconveyance of process is where one Writ is awarded in place of another to an Officer which of right ought to execute that process and he returns it this is helped after a Verdict by the Statute But if a writ be awarded to an Officer who ought not to execute that process and he returns it this is a mistriall and not helped by the Statute and Warburton said that Dyer
folio 367. To the contrary is not Law two Tenements in Common joyne in a Lease for years to bring an Ejectment and declare that whereas they did demise the Tenements and it was held nought for it is a severall Lease of moities and if they had declared that one of them had demised one moity and the other another moity it had been good WIlson versus Rich Pasch 44. Eliz. The Husband and Wife joyn in a Lease by Indenture to A. rendring Rent and this is for years and make a Letter of Attorney to seal and deliver the Lease upon the Land which is done accordingly A. brings an Ejectmentand declares upon a Demise made by the Husband and Wife and upon Evidence to the Jury ruled by Popham Fenner and Yelverton that the Lease did not maintain the Declaration for a Woman covert could not make a Letter of Attorney to deliver a Lease upon the Land although Rent was reserved by the Lease and so the Warrant of Attorney is meerly void and the Lease is onely the Lease of the Husband which is not made good by the Declaration by the opinion of the Court. STretton versus Cush Pasch 1. Jacobi J. L. leased a House for fourscore years in which Lease there is one Condition that the Lessee his Executors and Assignes should keep and maintain the House in reparation and if upon lawfull warning given by the Lessor his Heires and Assignes c. to enter the Lessee for fourscore years leases the House to A. for thirty years and A. leases it to Wilmore for fifteen years the Assignee of the Reversion came to the House and seeing it in decay gave warning to Wilmore then possessed of that House to repair it which was not done within six Moneths by reason whereof the Assignee entred for the Condition broken and upon a Not guilty pleaded the matter before recited was found by a special Verdict and adjudged against Sir William Wade the Assignee of the Reversion for the warning given to Wilmore to repair who was but an under tenant was not good for he was not Assignee of the terme nor had but a pety interest under the grand Lease upon whom no Attorney could be made for the Rent nor any Action of Waste brought against him for there wanted the immediate privity and in this Case there is a difference to be taken between a rent and a Condition for reparations for the Condition is meerly collateral to the Land and meerly personal and therfore warning is not of necessity to be given at the House but notice of Reparations ought to be given to the person of the Lessee who had the grand interest And a Difference is to be taken between a time certain in which a thing is to be done and a time incertain for in the Case of Rent reserved at a Day certain Demand thereof must be made upon the Land onely because the Land is the Debtor for Popham said that if the Lessor should come and demand his Rent and there should meet with J. S. a stranger and should say to J. S. Pay me my Rent this is no good Demand of the Rent having mistaken the person who is chargeable with it but in this Case one general Demand of Rent without reference to any person who is not chargeable is good And he was of opinion that if a man lease Land rendring Rent for a year whensoever the Lessor should demand it in this Case the Lessor come and demand it before the end of the year his Demand upon the Land is not good except the Lessee be there also for the time being incertain when the Lessor will demand it he ought to give notice to the Lessee of it And if the Lessor come to the Lessee in person and demands the Rent yet it is not sufficient for although notice is to be given the Lessee in person yet the Land is the Debtor and therefore the Law ties the Lessee to the Land as to the place in which he shall be paid but if the Lessor stay nntill the eud of the year then the Lessee at his peril ought to attend upon the Land to pay it for the end of the year is time of payment prescribed by the Law which was granted and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff CLerk versus Sydenham Pasch 4. Jacobi An Ejectment brought by the Plaintiff of a Lease made of Land by P. and B. and Not guilty pleaded and the Evidence of the Defendants part was by reason of a Lease of the Land in Question made by the Abbot of Cleeve before the Dissolution to W. D. and Jo. his Wife and F. their Daughter for their Lives by Indenture and by the same Indenture the Abbot covenants grants and confirmes to the three Lessees that the land should remain to the Assignee of the Survivor of them for ninety years Fr. survived and took to Husband one Hill who the 20 Eliz. grant their Estate for life to J. S. and all their interest in the Remainder and all their power for all the term and this by mean Assignements came to the Defendant and whether any interest passed in Remaindor by the Lease of the Abbot was the Question and by all the five Judges it was held to be a good interest in possibility and to be reduced into a certainty in the person of the Survivor as where Land is given to three and the right Heirs of the Survivor this is a good limitation of the Inheritance presently but it is in expectancy untill the Survivor be known for then the Fee is executed in him And Popham vouched a Case in his experience 17 Eliz. in which Serjeant Baker was of Counsel and it was a Lease was made to Husband and Wife for life and for forty years to the Survivor of them the Husband and Wife joyn in Grant of this Interest and although it be certain one of them shall survive yet the Grant is void because at the time of the Grant there was not any interest but onely a possibility in either of them and although in the Case in Question the Remainder is not limited to any of the three Lessees but to the Assignee of the survivor yet the Court was of opinion that this was not a bare nomination in the survivor to appoint what person he pleased but a terme and an interest and Popham took this difference if a Lease be made to J. S. for life and after his death to the Executors and Assignes of J. S. this is an interest in J. S. to dispose of it but if it had been limited to J. S. for life and afterwards to the Executors and Assignes of J. D. here this is a bare power in J. D. and his Executors because they are not parties or privies to the first interest which was agreed and it was also agreed that whether it was an interest or a word of nomination it was all saved to the party by the Statute of
only the Tenant of the Freehold but by the Statute Tenant by Statute Merchant or Elegit may have an Assise if the Incumbent hanging the writ die and the disturber present again that writ lyes by Journes account upon the first disturbance and alwayes in a Declaration in a Quare impedit you must lay a Presentation in him from whom you first derive your Title or under some from whom he claimeth otherwise it is not good The Bishop cannot grant a Sequestration in no Case but where the Church is void but if the Clerk be instituted and inducted no Sequestration lieth CVppel versus Tansie Trin. 16 Jac. rot 3210. Quare impedit brought for the Church of Bleby the Issue was that there was no such Church and the Venire was de visu de Bleby and the Exception was because it was not of the Body of the County but the Exception was salved because in the Declaration it was alledged that one died at Bleby aforesaid and it was held that every place alledged shall be intended to be a Town and by the user of the writ it is presumed in Law to be a Parish and then if there be a Parish and a Town if the Venire facias be either of the Parish or Town it is good and it is a good Writ to demand Manerium de D. with the appurtenances Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall Defendants as one against the Bishop and another against the Patron and Incumbent but if J. S. brings a Quare impedit against A. B. that A. B. cannot have a writ against the said J. S. if a Quare impedit abates within the six moneths the Plaintiff may bring another writ but if the Plaintiff be non-suit within the six moneths he cannot have a new writ because the Defendant upon Title made hath a writ to the Bishop and for that cause a new writ will not lie COmber versus Episcopum Cicester al. Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 1629. The issue in a Quare impedit was if S. Rose by covin between him and Comber and Rivers did resign into the hands of the said Bishop if the King hath Title of lapse and a resignation be made by fraud and one admitted this shall not take away the Kings Title for if the Kings Title appear upon Record then shall go out a writ for the King but otherwise it is upon matter of Evidence the King shall loose his presentation as well by resignation as by Death where he hath Title to present by lapse and doth not except the resignation be by fraud and where an avoidance is by Statute there needeth not notice to be given to the Bishop LOrd Say versus Episcopum de Peterborrow Mich. 30 Jacobi rotulo 2601. The Imparlance and the demurrer entred Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 3458. The Case was Tenant in Tail grants the Advowson to others to the use of himself and his wife and the Heirs males of the Husband and the Husband dies and the wife survives and the Lord Say marries the woman and brought the Quare impedit the estate is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail and Judgement was given for the Bishop upon a Demurrer in a Quare impedit if any of the Defendants do barr the Plaintiff the Action is gone WAllop versus Murrey Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3905. The Church became void by resignation and a presentation upon the proviso in the Statute of 21 H. 8. for the Kings Chaplains The Kings Chaplains might have three Benefices with license nay he may give to them as many as he will being of his own gift Judgement for the Plaintiff if the Incumbents Plea be found for him he shall never be removed although other Pleas be found for the Plaintiff by the whole Court Pasch 9. Jacobi If the writ abate for Form you shall never have a writ to the Bishop nor where it appears that you have one Title DOminus Rex versus Emerson Trin. 8. Jac. rot 1811. The question was where the King had Title to present to a Church by reason of ward-ship and after livery and before the King doth present under the Seal of the Court of Wards the King doth present by his Letters patents under the great Seal of England and the Clerk is admitted instituted and inducted whether the Clerk shall be removed or no and the Court held that he should not and Judgment that the Plaintiff nihil capias per breve he that getteth it first by the Court of Wards or great Seal shall have it there needeth no recitall in the grant A common person by his letter or his word may make a presentation to a Benefice to the Bishop the King may present by word if the Ordinary be present for a presentment is but a commandement if the King under any Seal present it is good It is best to plead the King presented generally and not to plead it by Letters Patents for it is the worst way and judgment was given for the Defendant and Mich. 10. Jacobi it was held by the whole Court that a presentment under the great Seal to a Church parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster is good and needeth not to be under the Dutchy Seal CRanwell versus Lister The Defendant had been Parson for three years and pleaded plenarty generally by six moneths of the presentation of one Stiles a stranger to the Writ And the Court held the Plea to be nought because the Defendant shewed no Title in Stiles NEedler versus Winton and Needham Hill 12. Jacoci rotulo 1845. In a Quare Impedit the Case was Husband and Wife bargain and sell Land to the King this is as good as a Fine being found if it was delivered to the King but not entred of Record if it was made and delivered it was good but if the King should before it be delivered grant it out it had been void being not enrolled of record for the King in consideration of the bargain and sale of the Husband and Wife before the Deed inrolled did grant to them the Parsonage of Horsham in this case the Wife is bound as strong as by Fine and the King made the grant between the date of the deed and before inrolment If the Kings Clerk be once inducted the K. cannot remove his Clerk at the common Law before the Statute of 34. H. 8. If a Quare Impedit were brought against the Patron and Clerk the Patron might confess the Action and so prejudice the Clerk therefore by the Statute the Clerk being inducted he may plead that he is Parson impersoned and so defend himself GLaswick versus Williams Hill 9. Jacobi rotulo 854. A Quare Impedit brought of the Rectory of I. Stoneley one of the Tellers in the Exchequer was indebted to Queen Eliz. And it was found that he was seised of a Mannor ad quod c. in fee and sold it to the Plaintiff who brought a writ to
sides they shall recover costs and dammages LEe versus Edwards Trin. 19 Jacobi rotulo 470. The Case was in Replevin a Copy-holder claims Common in another mans Land the Lord infeofleth the Copy-holder of his Copy-hold Land whether he hath now lost his Common and held that he had but if a Copy-holder hath Common in the Lords waste and the Lord inseofeth him of the Copy hold with all Commons the Common is not gone Oabel versus Perrot Hill 9 Jacobi rotulo 2734. Tenant in Tail hath power to make a Lease for 89 years if three persons live so long and reserving the old Rent due and payable yearly and he maketh a grant in Reversion for years and whether that be good or no was the Question there being a Lease for life in possession the second Lease was for 89 years if three live so long for the matter in Law the Court held the Lease good but for want of an averment of the life of c. the Plea was not good ROberts versus Young Hill 9 Jacobi routlo 1835. the Defendant in a Replevin pleads that he offered amends and doth not shew that he offered it before the impounding of the Cattle and adjudged an ill Plea and the offer of amends cannot be made to him that maketh cognisance BAcon versus Palmer Trin. 12 Jacobi rotulo 3947. A Copy-holder in Replevin prescribes to have Common of pasture appurte nant to the Copy-hold the other party pleads an Extinguishment of Common because the Lord had inclosed Land lying in another field in which field and in the other field the Lord had Common by cause of vicinage and note that in Common for cause of vicinage if one inclose part it is an extinguishment of all the Common SHarp versus Emerson Mich. 12. Jacobi The Defendant makes avowry for Homage Fealty and Rent the Plaintiff prayes in aid and hath a Summmons in aid and at the return of the Summons the Prayee in aid was Essoined and after the Ession the Defendant moved the Court that the Homage might be put out of the Avowry which was entred with by consent of parties was raised out of the Will ARundell versus Blanchard and Jackson Pasch 13 Jacobi rotulo 2037. The taking in Replevin was supposed to be at Southwark and one of the Defendant pleads non cepit and the other Bailiff of the Governors of the possessions revenues and good of the Free-Grammar-School of c. for the Parishoners for the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark in the County of Surrey and the Advowry was made for damage fesant the Plaintiff prescribed for a way belonging to his house in the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark and the Venire facias was of Southwark in the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark and exception taken to that and held good because one Defendant had pleaded non cepit and another exception was because he had not shewed when the Corporation begun and held an idle exception for one need not shew when they were incorporated another exception was because the name of one of the Jury was mistaken because in the Return of the Venire it was to Lisney of Croydon and in the Pannell of the Habeas Corpus it was written to John Lisney of Croydon and because in sound it is all one and the Sheriff made oath that he was the man that was returned in the Venire facias the Return was amended in Court and Judgement given by the whole Court for the Plaintiff PAin versus Mascall Hill 12 Jacobi rotulo 3400. The Lord avows the taking of one Mare as for Rent behind so for the fourth part of a Releif and doth not expresse the same due for the releif and for the Rent the Plaintiff pleads tender and demurres for the Releif because he had not expressed the same and because he had distrained one thing for the Rent and Releif pretending that if one cause passe against him and another for the Avowant that he could not have a Return habend but the Court were of a contrary opinion but if two men shall distrain one and the same Mare for two severall causes and one hath Judgment for himselfe and the other for himselfe In this case no return habend can be made of the Mare BRown versus Goldsmith Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 607. A Court of Pipowders is incident to a Fine and a Court Baron to a Mannor And a Court Baron cannot be separated from a Mannor for it is a wealth to a Mannor the like of a Court of Pipowder to a Fair by the grant of a Mannor with cum pertinencijs the Court passes for it is an incident inseparable to the Mannor and a man cannot grant his Court but he may grant the profits of his Court. MAgistri socij Collegij Emanuel is in Cambridg The writ was adjudged naught in replevin because they had distrayned in their proper names for a Corporation as Maior and Comonalty cannot distrain in their own persons but by their Bayliff The Court held that the Sheriff could not take a Bond in replevin but must take pledges according to the old custome JVid versus Bungory Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 3059. The Defendant shews that one was seised of Land in fee and held it by Knights service of a Mannor and for the rent of two Cocks and two Hens and the Lord grants the third part of the Mannor to another who avows for the seruice and the Cocks and Hens and held he could not alone avow for that joynt service but the other should joyn with him WEnden versus Snigg Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 1137. In replevin the question was upon a Lease for life made to three to have and to hold to them the said A. B. and C. and every of them for the term of their lives and the longest liver of them successively one after another as they are writ in order And the question was whether this was a remainder or no and it was held to be a remainder upon the reading of the Record but if the grant had been only successively not saying as they are named in the writing it had been naught because he could not tell who should begin THorold versus Hadden Trin. 11. Jac rotulc 451. In replevin a Juror was returned by the name of Payly and in the distress the name was T. P. and in the Pannell he was written Baily and tryed by that name of Baily and moved in arrest of Judgment for the mistaking of the name And the Court held that if the right name was sworn yet notwithstanding the mistake it was good for if the name in venire was not mistaken all was good and the Sheriff ought to amend his misprision and the Court demanded if any one could swear that Paly was sworn and one then present in Court made oath that Paly was sworn and the Court ordered that it should be amended
Winch held that the Plaintiffe should not be barred for the Misnomer and for the second he held that his house was within the Statute of Chaunterys and so the interest in the King H. 6. And so the Lease made by the Master of the Hospitall void Dyer 246. 287. And Warburton held the Plaintiffe should be barred upon both points SWynerton versus Mills Hill 14 Jacobi rotulo 2049. In a Replevin the Defendant a vows for a rent charge reserved by a Copiholder who is seised in Fee and made a Lease by the license of the Lord reserving Rent at foure Feasts or within one and twenty days being lawfully demanded and afterwards the Copiholder surrendred one moity in Fee to a stranger and afterwards surrendred the reversion of the other moity to another to which the Termer atturned and so avowed for Rent The Plaintiffe pleaded in Barâ— that he was seised of a Close adjoyning to the place in which c. and put therein his Cattell and that they escaped by fault of inclosure and issue taken upon that And after a Verdict by default those exceptions were taken to the Avowry in Arrest of Judgement First because it appeared by the Advowry that the Copiholder had surrendred a Reversion which could not be because a Copiholder is a Tenant at will and so could not have a reversion for he cannot make a Lease for yeers without the license of the Lord but this exception was over-ruled by the Couâ—t Secondly because there was no Atturnment alledged in the first surrender And it was held no exception because the Rent for which he avowed was reserved by the Copiholder by the second surrender to which the Termer had atturned And also the Court said that an Atturnment is not necessary for a Copiholder because there is no time when the Terme should atturn For before the surrender he cannot atturn and after the surrender and admittance it is too late And the Copihold estate is like an estate raised by uses or devise in which an Atturnment is not necessary As also in an estate raised by Fine and the like an Atturnment is not necessarie for if the Termer will not atturn he is compellable by Law as by a Quid juris clamat but a Copiholder hath no means to make the Termer atturn if he refuse And thirdly in the conclusion of the Advowry he doth not say that the Rent was behind such a day and one and twenty dayes after at least and this exception was disallowed because the distresse is a sufficient demand of the Rent and it appears that the day of the taking of the distresse was one and twentie dayes after the Feast at which the Rent was due and Judgment was given for the Advowant and note that a Covenant to distrain is idle for a man may distrain of common right HOwell versus Sambay Mich. 13 Jacobi rotulo 2009. In Replevin the Defendant a vows for a Rent charge and a Nomine pene granted by Tenant in tail generall and one Fine levied afterwards and the use expressed the Plaintiffe replies and saies that the Grantor had only an interest for life and so makes inducement and traverses the use of the Fine The Defendant demurrs And held by the Court that the Grantee was not seised in tail nor to the use of the Fine And it was said that in this case that it was necessary for the Advowant to plead the Fine with the estate tail for if the Tenant in tail grant a Rent charge and dye no Fine being levied and the estate tail discends the issue in tail is not chargable with the Rent And note the Advowry was as well for the Rent as for the Nomine pene and no speciall demand was alledged in pleading the Rent and it was adjudged by the Court a naughty advowry as to the Nomine pene but good for the Rent as it hath been adjudged in one Mildmaies Case COtterell versus Harrington Pasch 6. Jacobi rotulo 545. In a Replevin the Defendant avows for an Annuity for 20 d. granted for yeers payable upon demand and alledges a demand the Plaintiffe demands either of the Deed and by the Deed it appeared that for a hundred and ten pound one Rent of twenty pound was granted for eight yeers and another for 20 l. for two yeers if E. R. and T. should so long live the Plaintiffe pleads the Statute of Usury and sets forth the Statute and a speciall usurious Contract If it had been layed to be upon a loan of Money then it was Usury but if it be a bargain an Annuity it is no usury But this was alledged to be upon a lending VVOod versus Moreton Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 1802. In Replevin the Defendant advows to have Common Appendant out to his house and Land the Plaintiffe saith that he had Common Appendant to his House and Land And the Defendant to avoid the Common saith that the Commoner sold to the Plaintiffe five Acres of the Land to which the Common is appendant pretending that he should not have Common for that Land being but parcell of the Land to which the Common was appendant Common Appurtenant cannot be to a House alone purchasing of part of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common otherwise it is of Common Appurtenant And it was pretended to be Common Appurtenant because it is to a House and Land whether by severance his Common is gone and held to be common Appendant and Judgment given for the Plaintiffe MOrse versus Well Replevin for Common of Pasture the casewas that the Father was seised of two yard Land with Appurtenances and had Common of Pasture for four rother Beasts three Horses and sixty Sheep and he demised part of the said two yard Lands in being And whether the Common should be apportioned and if it should be apportioned whether the Prescription failed because the issue was taken that he and all those c. had Common in the said two yard Land A Release of Common in one Acre is a Release of all If I have Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but otherwise it is of Common Appendant And note this Common was Common Appendant and the purchasing of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common and Judgment was given for the Commoner by the whole Court HVghes versus Crowther Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 2220. In a Replevin a Lease for years made to Charles H. and the said A. T. to have and to hold from c. for sixty years if they live so long Charles dyed in this case Judgment was given that the Lease was ended by the death of Charles but otherwise it had been if it had been for life BIcknall versus Tucker Trin. 9 Jacobi rotulo 3648. in a Replevin the case was whether a Fine with five years will bind the Copy-holder in remainder there was a Copy-hold granted to three for lives to have and to hold successively the
to have distrayned the Cattell of the Lord damage fesant and observe his BRaxall versus Thorold Trin. 8. Jac. In Replevin for the taking of 4 Oxen at Coringham in the County of Lincoln in a place called Dowgate leys Sept. 6. Jac. The Defendant says the place contained four acres in Coringham magna which was his Free-hold and justifies the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff in his bar to the Avowry that the place where c. lies in a place called Harrerart quarter parcell of a great Common Field called E. in Coringham aforesaid and that the Plaintiff the said time and long before was seized of one Messuage and of 14. acres of Land Medow and Pasture with the appurtenances to the said Messuage belonging and that the Plaintiff and all they whose estate the Plaintiff had in the Tenements ought to have common and so prescribed to have common for him his Farmers Tenants c. for all comunable cattell levant couchant upon the Tenements c. And upon issue taken upon the Common it was found for the Plaintif and alledged in arrest of Judgment that it did not appear by the Barre to the Avowry in what place the Messuage and Land to which the Common did appertain did lie to wit whether it did lie in Coringham or in any other place or County and thisof necessity ought to have been shewed in certain because the tenure ought to be both of the place where the House and Land did lye and of the place where the Land did lye in which the Common was claimed and therefore of necessity ought to have been shewed incertain and shall not of necessity be intended to be in Coringham where the Common is For a Common may be appendant or appurtenant to Land in another County And the trvall shall be of both Counties and Judgement was arrested by the whole Court TRuelock versus Riggsby Mich. 8. Jacobi In Replevin for the taking of six Kine in a place called Brisley hill in Radley in the County of Berks the Defendant as Bailiff of one Read makes Conisance that the place where c. contains fifty acres and is parcell of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where c. is parcell and showes that E. 6. was seised of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where is parcell and granted it by Letters Patents to R. Leigh and divers other Lands by the name of the Coxleyes c. and amongst other particulars in the Patent the King granted Brisley hill in Barton and deduces the Free-hold of the Mannor of which the place In which c. is parcell to Read and he as Bailiff to him took the Kine damage Fesant the Plaintiff replies and shows that one Hide was seised of a Messuage and divers Acres of Land in Radley and that he and those whose estate he hath for himself his Farmers and Tenants used to have Common in the said place called Brisley hill in Radley when the said Feild called Brisley hill in Radley was fresh and not sowed all that yeare with their Cattell Levant and Couchant and when the Field was sowne with Corne and when the Corne was carried away untill it was referred and so justifie the putting in of six Kine using his Common because the Feild was not sown with Corne at the time to which the Defendant pleads and saies that part of the Feild called Brisley Hill in the Avowry named was at that time sown with Corn c. and the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two reasons The first was because the Defendant in his Avowry referres the taking of the Cattell to another place then that set forth in the Avowry which is not in question and in which the Plaintiff claims no Common for the Plaintiff may claim Common in Brisley hill in Radley and the place named in the Defendants Avowry to which he referres his Plea is Brisley hill in Barton for Brisley hill in Radley is not named in the Avowry by any speciall name but onely by implication by this name the place in which c. and for that reason the rejoinder doth not answer the matter in the replication The second cause was because the Plaintiff claims Common when Brisley hill in Radley was unsown with Corn and the Defendant to that although his Plea should referre to the same Brisley yet hath he given no full answer for he saith that parcell of the said Feild was sowed with Corn and the Court held that sowing of parcell of the Feild shall not hinder the Plaintif from using his Common in the residue for that may be done by covin to deceive the Plaintiff of his Common for the Plaintif claiming his Common when the Field that is the whole Feild is sown shall be barred of his common by sowing of parcell of it notwithstanding that parcell be sowed the Plaintif shall have his common by the opinion of the whole court GOdfrey versus Bullein Mich. 8 Jacobi Bullein brought a Reple vin against Godfrey for the taking of six Beasts in such a place in Bale in the County of Norfolk the Defendant as Bailif of R. Godfrey makes conisance because before the time and at the time in which c. the said R. Geffrey was seised of a Court Leet in Baile of all the inhabitants and râ—â—dent within the Precinct of the Mannor of Baile to be holden within the Precinct of the Mannor as appertaining to his Mannor and shews how that he had used to have a Fine of ten shillings called a Leet Fine of all the cheif pledges of his Leet and if they failed to pay the Steward had used to amerce them that made default in payment shewed how that at a Court holden within the Mannor such a day it was presented that the Plaintif in the Replevin being an inhabitant in B. and resident within the Precinct of the Mannor made default in payment of the said Fine of ten shillings being then one of the cheif pledges of the Court by reason whereof he was amerced at five pounds which being not paid the Defendant took the Beasts and the Issue was whether Bullein at that court was a chief Pledge or no and the Venire to try his Issue was onely of the Mannor and found for the Plaintif and damages and costs to thirty pounds given against Geffrey upon which he brought a Writ of Error in the late Kings Bench and adjudged Error and the Judgement reversed for the Venire facias should have been both of Bail which was the Village as of the Mannor for although the Court be held within the Mannor yet the Leet it self is within the village of Baile and the Plaintiff was an inhabitant and resident within the village which village is within the Precinct of the Mannor and though Fleming cheif Justice held that nothing was in question but whether the Plaintiff was cheif pledge at the Court held within the Mannor or no and so nothing within the
c. and that the Plaintif was sued there by J. S. and that hee was summoned and upon a nihill returned a capias issued according to the Custome c. And that he being an Officer there did arrest and the Court ruled him to plead the Custome particularly for holding the Court and to prescribe c. And here it is shewn that the Maior is a Justice of Peace And it doth not appear whether he did it as a Justice of Peace or Maior as 14. H. 7 8. A Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one without a Warrant in writing in his absence And Popham chiefe Justice said That although the Judges knew the Authority of the Maior by which they arrested men yet because it did not appear to them judicially as Judges it must be pleaded And a Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one if not in his presence which was granted And Fennor Justice said that the servant is not an Officer to the Maior as he is a Justice of Peace but the Constable and Walker also added that the Plea was that the Maior commanded to imprison him presently without shewing any cause which was held naught for the maior ought to temper his Authority according to Law For the Judges cannot imprison without shewing cause but them and the Maior both may command an Officer to arrest a man without shewing the cause for else before he shall be examined he may invent and frame an excuse and the accessories will flye away And Williams Justice finds that it was incertain for the Plaintif by what authority he commanded it whether as Maior or Justice of Peace and his power as a Justice of Peace the Judges knew by common Law but his power as a Maior they knew not if it be not shewed by pleading and Judgement HVggins versus Butcher Trin. 4. Jac. The Plaintif declared that the Defendant such a day did assault and beat his Wife of which she dyed such a day following to his damage 100 l. And Serjeant Foster moved that the Declaration was not good because it was brought by the Plaintiff for a Battery done upon his Wife And this being a personall wrong done unto the woman is gone by her death And if the woman had been in life hee could not have brought it alone but the woman must have joyned in the Action for the damages must be given for the wrong offered to the body of the woman which was agreed And Tanfield said that if one beat the servant of J. S. so that he die of that beating the Master shall not have an Action against the other for the battery and loss of service because the servant dying of the extreamity of the beating it is now become an offence against the Crown and turned into Felony and this hath drowned the particular offence and prevails over the wrong done to the Mr. before And his action by that is gone which Fennor and Yelverton agreed to BRown versus Crowley Pasch 5. Jac. Action of Trespass brought against Croyley for wounding the Plaintif upon the hinder part of the left legge being rendred in Latin super posteriorem partem levis libaei and the Jury found for the Plaintiff And Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment for hee said that these words levis libaei made the Declaration vitious for the incertainty for he said that levis signified light and it was an improper word for left and that judgment ought to be respited for the incertainty And Yelverton argued that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for he said the Declaration was not vitious for if the Plaintiff had declared generally that he had wounded broken or evill intreated him and had omitted those other words it had been sufficient and then the adding of those words which were not materiall but for damages did not make the Declaration vitious and he said that levus leva levum was Latin for left And whereas he hath said that he strook him super posteriorem partem levis libaei where it should have been levis libaei it was but false Latin and the Declaration shall not be made naught for false Latin And Popham said that hee shewing upon which part of the body the wound was were laid only to incense damages for the Declaration had been sufficient though they had been omitted And Justice Fennor agreed to Popham and he said it had been judged that where a man brought an Action against another for calling him strong Theife and the Jury only found that he called him Theife but not strong Theif yet the Plaintiff recovered for this word strong was to no other purpose then to increase dammages and Judgement was given for the Plaintif VIccars versus Wharton Pasch 5. Jac. Viccars brought an action of false imprisonment against Wharton and others and shews that he was imprisoned two dayes and two nights without meat or drink The Defendants come and shew that King Edward the 1. by his Letters Patents did incorporate one Village in Nottingham-shire with Bailiffs and Burgesses and that the King did ordain and make those Burgesses Justices of the Peace there and that the Defendant was Bailiâ—â— and a Justice of Peace there and that the Plaintiff did speak divers opprobrious and contumelious words of the Defendant by reason whereof they imprisoned him And shews further that the Bailiffs have used from the time of the making their Patent to imprison the disturbers of the Peace and it was held a naughty plea for a custome could not be shewn in such a manner And Tanfield held in this case that a man could not prescribe to be a Justice of peace but Justice Williams held he might prescribe to be a conservator of the Peace And Tanfield held that the King might grant that all the Burgesses and their Heires should be Burgesses which Justice Williams denyed HAll versus White Pasch 5. Jac. An action of Trespass brought against the Defendant for impounding the Plaintiffs Cattel the Defendant justifies for Common And upon that they were at issue in Derby-shire and the Jurors being sworn the Bailiff found one Bagshaw one of the Jurors rending of a Letter concerning the said cause and shewed it to the Judg and a verdict given by the Jury And this matter moved in the then Kings Bench to quash the verdict but denyed by the whole Court because the Letter and the Cause was not certified by the Postea and made parcell of it for otherwise the examination of that at the Barre after the verdict shall never quash it And so it was adjudged between Vicary and Farthing 39. Eliz. where a Church Book was given in Evidence of which you shall never have remedy except it be entred and made parcell of the Record BVtler versus Duckmonton Trin. 5 Jacobi In Trespasse upon a speciall Verdict the Case was that no demised Land to a woman if she should live sole and unmarried
because he doth not shew from what place nor to what place the passage or way is for although a way be in grosse yet it ought to be bounded and circumscribed to some certain place especially when it appears to ly in usuage time out of mind for that ought to be in a place certain and not in one place to day and another to morrow but constant and perpetuall in one place Thirdly the Plea in Barr is not good because he doth not shew what manner of passage it was whether a Foot-way or Horse-way or Cart-way and therefore it is altogether incertain and Judgement given accordingly TRoughton against Gouge Mich. 7 Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for entring into the Plaintiffs Close called Wild Marsh and for mowing and cutting five Loads of hay to his damage of c. the Defendant saith that the Close aforesaid did contain twelve Acres whereof a long time before the Trespasse done and at the time the Mayor of c. of Lincoln were seised in Fee and being so seised Leased it to the Defendant for years before the Trespass committed by reason whereof he entred and was posaessed untill the Plaintiff claimed by Deed of the Maior c. for life whereas nothing passed and entered and the Defendant the time aforesaid re-entred as it was Lawfull for him to do the Plaintif replied that the Close in which the Trespass is supposed to be done contained one Acre and three Roods and abutts it East West North and South and one of the abutnals were upon the twelve Acres mentioned in the plea in Barr and concludes it is another Close the Close mentioned in the Plea in Barr containing twelve Acres whereupon the Defendant demurres and the Court were of opinion at the first opening the matter that the replication was not good because it answers not to the matter supposed in the Barr for when the Plaintiff in his Declaration gives the place a certain name as he hath and the Defendant by his Plea in Barr agrees the place as here he doth to wit that the Close aforesaid to wit Wild Marsh is the inheritance of the Mayor c. and he as Lessee to them for years makes a Title to himself the plaintiff ought to answer to the Title or avoid it which he doth not by his replication for the plaintiff by that indeavors to assign a new place which he cannot do when they are agreed of a place before and therefore he ought to have pleaded that there were two Closes called Wild Marsh the one containing twelve Acres as the Defendant had alledged and the other containing one Acre and three roods whereof the Plaintiff was seised and that the Close where the Plaintiff supposed the Trespass to be committed and the close called Wild Marsh contained one Acre and three roods which mark and see 21 E. 4. LEe against Atkinson and Brooks Hill 7. Jacobi An Action of Baâ—tery brought against the Defendants at London for assaulting the Plaintiff to wit in such a Parish and Ward and beate wounded and evill intreated him to his damage of an hundred pounds the Defendant as to the force pleads not guilty and as to the residue that Atkinson the time in which c. at Gravesend in the County of Kent was possessed of a Gelding and being so thereof possessed the Plaintiff the time in which c. at Gravesend c. came to the Defendant to hire the Gelding for foure shillings for two dayes in which the Plaintiff would ride from Gravesend aforesaid to Nettlebed in the same County and from thence to Gravesend within the sayd two dayes by reason whereof the Defendant for the consideration aforesayd the time in which c. lent the Gelding to the Plaintiff who had it and in a direct line rode for the space of a mile to Nettlebed aforesaid upon the Gelding untill the Plaintif the time when c. intending to deceive the Defendant of his sayd Gelding went forth of his way to N. and rode towards London by reason whereof Atkinson in his owne right and Brook as his servant came to the Plaintif and at the same time in which c. required the Plaintif then riding upon the sayd Gelding towards London to deliver the Gelding which he refused to doe by reason whereof Atkinson in his owne right and Brook as his servant and by his command the time in which c. to repossess himselfe of the sayd Gelding layd hands upon the Plaintif and took him from the Horse back and would have taken the Gelding from the Plaintif by reason whereof the Plaintif did by force and Armes assault the Defendant and by strong hand kept the Gelding by reason whereof the Defendant did defend the possession of the Horse against the Plaintif as it was lawfull for him to doe And further say that if any damage hapned to the Plaintif it was of his owne assault and in defence of the possession of the Gelding and Traverses that he was not guilty in London or any where else out of Kent c. and the Plaintif demurs and adjudged for the Plaintif for the Battery is confessed and did arise from the evill behaviour of the Defendant for it appeared by their owne Plea in barr that the Plaintif had hyred the Gelding for two dayes and that they within these two dayes disturbe the Plaintif of his possession of the Horse and thrust him off his back which was not lawfull for the Plaintif had a good speciall property for the two dayes against all the World and although the Defendant pretends that the Plaintif had misbehaved himselfe in riding to another place then was intended yet that was to be punished by an Action of the Case but not to seise the Horse Which observe KNieveton against Roylie Mich. 8. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought for breaking the Plaintifs Close called G. in Woodthorpe in the County of Derby to the damage of c. The Defendant pleads that the Close was known as well by the name of G. as by the name of D. And that it was and had been time out of minde parcell of the Wigenworth and pleads his freehold in the Mannour The Plaintif maintaines his Declaration and traverses that the place where c. was not parcell of the Mannor and upon this they are at Issue and a Venire facias awarded of Woodthorpe onely and moved in Arrest of Judgment by the Defendant the Verdict being for the Plaintif and urged that it was a mistryall for the Venire facias ought to have been as well of the Mannor as of Woodthorpe for although the parties be agreed that the place where the Trespass was committed lyes in Woodthorpe yet that being supposed indeed to be parcell of the Mannor of Wigenworth the Venu of the Mannor by intendment have a more perfect and better knowledge of it then the Villiage of Woodthorpe onely which was granted by the whole Court and a new Venire awarded to
try the Issue anew DOwglas against Kendall Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintif declared that the Defendant the 21. of January 6. Jac. by force and Arms thirty Loads of Thornes of the Plaintifs ready to be carryed in a place called the Common wast at Chipping-warden in the County of Norfolk did take and carry away to the Plaintifs damage of ten pounds the Defendant pleaded not guilty to all but to ten Loads and as to them that the place where c. contained one Acre of pasture and that one William Palmer was seised in fee of a Messuage and three quarters of a yard Land in C. aforesayd and that he and those whose estate he had in the sayd Messuage c. time out of minde were used to have for their farmers c. all the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture to their use to be imployed and spent upon the sayd Messuage c. as appurtenant thereunto and the sayd ten Loads were growing and unjustly cast downe by the Plaintif upon the sayd Acre of wast and being ready for them to carry the Defendant as servant to Palmer and by his command took them and carryed them away and imployed them upon the House as it was lawfull for him to doe the Plaintiff by protestation that Palmer and such c. time out of minde had not the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture parcell of the wast and that Sir Richard Saltonstall was seised of the Mannor of Chipping-warden whereof the common wast was parcell in fee and that he the 21. of January the sixth yeare of K. James granted license to the Plaintif to cut and carry away thirty Loads of Thornes mentioned in the Plea in barr growing upon the Wast by reason whereof they cut those ten Loads of Thornes growing upon the wasts and they were ready to be carryed by reason whereof they were possessed thereof untill the Defendants took them away and upon this Replication the Defendants demurred and adjudged against the Plaintif and there was a differance taken by the Court where a man claimes reasonable Estovers in anothers Soyle and where a man claimes all the Thornes in anothers Soyle for in the first case if the Owner of the Soyle shall cut downe the Thornâ—s first he that hath title to the Estovers cannot take them for the property and interest of all the Thornes continues in the Owner of the Soyle and the other hath onely Common there and if the Owner of the Soyle cut them downe all he that should have the Estovers shall have an Action upon the Case onely and not an Assise for when all the Wood is destroyed it cannot be put in seisin as the Abridgement of the Assise is fol. 21. And so it appeares by Sir Thomas Palmers Case Co. lib. 5. fol. 25. And if one grant an hundred Cords of Wood to be taken at the election of the Grantee and the Grantor or an Estranger cut downe the Wood the Grantee cannot take the Wood but must supply his Grant out of the residue for the Grantee hath but an especiall interest in part of the Wood and not in all but now in this Case the Defendant in right of Palmer claimes all the Thornes in the name of all the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture and if he hath all Sir Richard S. cannot have any and so by consequence cannot license the Plaintif to cut any and so the whole interest is in Palmer and it is not in the nature of Estovers for Estovers is but parcell of the Wood and that to be taken to a speciall purpose and in this case it was agreed that although the Defendant had alledged an imployment of the Estovers yet since the Defendant had claimed all the Thornes and Trees the imployment is not traversable for he that hath the generall interest and property in Trees by custome or prescription cannot be restrained but may use them at his pleasure And see 10 E. 4. 2. and adjudged accordingly MAssam against Hunt Mich. 6. Jacobi A Copi-holder of a Messuage and two Acres in fee. The Lord grants and confirms the Messuage and Lands with the appurtenances to the Copy-holder in fee and whether he to whom the confirmation was made shall have by the usage as a Copy-holder common in the wasts of the Lord was the question and adjudged he should not for the Copy-holder by that confirmation is extinct and infranchiz'd for the words with the appurtenances will not create a common for at first the Common was gained by custome and annexed to the customary estate and is lost and perished with that for Common of its own proper nature is incident to a Copy-hold Estate FArmer against Hunt Hilar. 8. Jacobi An Action of Trespasse brought for chasing the Plaintiffs Cattle in such a Close the Defendant justifies taking damage fesant in his Free-hold The Plaintiff replies and shewes one grant of Common in the place where c. by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and that afterwards the Defendant had erected a reek of Corn and the Plaintiff put in his Beasts to use his Common and the Defendant chased them But note that the Plaintiff in his replication in pleading the grant of the Common by Indenture did omit the bringing it into Court. And by all the Judges the chasing of the Cattell by the Defendant is not lawfull for by such means he may defeat his own grant for by the grant of common in such a place the Grantee may use the whole Common And then when the Grantor erects a Reek of Hay upon part of the Common he had granted he will diminish the Common and tend to the enfeebling of his Grant which ought not to be for the Beast ought to range over the whole place and eate the Hay without doing any wrong for the wrong did first begin in the Grantor who is the Defendant of which he shall never take advantage And whereas hee hath erected one Reek of Corn hee may erect twenty and so the Beasts shall have no liberty of pasture there but because the Plaintiff did not shew to the Court the Indenture of the Grant which is the ground of his title for that very cause judgment was given against the Plaintiff DVrant against Child Hillar 9. Jaco An Action of Trespasse brought for chasing the Cattell of the Plaintiff and shews what Cattell and that the Trespasse was done at B. to his damage of c. The Defendant justifies the chasing in one Close called M. in B. which is his Free-hold and that the Cattell were there damage fesant The Plaintiff replies and shews that one B. is seised of one Close called Catley in D. in fee and made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff for years and that the Defendant is seised of one Close called Fursey in Fee which lies next adjoyning to the Close called Catley and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate he hath in Fursey Close have used
time out of mind to repair the Fence and Hedges betweene Catley Close Fursey Close which Fursey Close doth next adjoyn to the Close called M. where the Cattel were chased and shews that the Plaintiff put his Cattell in Catley Close to feed the Grass there which by default of inclosure escaped into Fursey Close as above but he said that between Catley Close and Fursey Close there is a little Brook which Brook at the side of Catley close had a banck next adjoyning to it which banck the Lessor of the Plaintiff and those whose Estate they have c. have used time out of mind c. to repair And that the Brook at the side of Fursey Close had another Brook next adjoyning which the Defendant used to repair and shews because the Plaintiff had not repaired the banck on the side of Catley Close the Cattell did escape into Fursey Close and stayed in the Close called M. By reason whereof the Defendant chased them as it was lawfull for him to doe whereupon the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintif for the Defendant had pleaded a good Barre and the Plaintif had replyed a good replication and had removed the fault from himselfe and laid it upon the Defendant by his negligent inclosure between Catley and Fursey and the rejoynder doth not confess and avoid the replication but perplexes the matter by adding one point of prescription on the Plaintiffs part that he ought to repair one banck between Catley and Fursey upon which an issue could not be taken for then two prescriptions should be an issue together which cannot be no more then two affirmatives as the 5. H. 7. 12. And also the matter contained in the Records doth not answer the matter contained in the Replication but by way of Argument only And whether that be true is no matter in evidence against the Plaintiff who is bound to prove his Replication true For the Plaintiff saith that Catley and Fursey doe lye together that is without any space between them And the Defendant in his Rejoynder saith there is a banck between Catley and Fursey which if it be so they do not lye together but the Defendant ought to have traversed the prescription alledged by the Plaintiff which had made an end of all the matter which observe was by the opinion of the whole Court SVtcliffe against Constable Trin. 10. Jac. Ch. Constable 32. Eliz. was seised in fee of the Mannor of East-hatfield in the County of Yorke and by his Indenture infeoffes H. Remingham paying for certain Lands parcell of the Mannor 60 l. at two Feasts with a clause of Distresse if it be behind by the space of 14. days Ch. 43. Elizab. by Indenture bargains and sells the 60 l. Rent to the Plaintiff which was inrolled by reason whereof he was seised of the Rent for the life of Ch. and being so seised loses that part of the Identure sealed by Remingham which the said day to wit the 24. Novemb 44. Eliz. came to the hands of the Defendant who by Force and Armes teared the seale of the Indenture against the Peace c. to his damage of 400 l. The Defendant pleads that Ch. hath not granted the Mannor of E. to Remingham paying the rent c. in manner and form and the Plaintiff demurres upon this Plea And it was argued that the Bar was good which is a direct traverse to the title of the Plaintiff to destroy the ground of the Plaintiffs action for if no rent were granted then the Indenture concerning which the Plaintif complains did not belong to the Plaintiff for it passes not to the Plaintiff but as an incident to the second Grant of necessity to make good his title As the Lord Buckhursts Case Co. 1. 7. E. 4. 30. in assize of rent the Plaintiff made his title by deed of a rent charge it was a good plea to say that nothing passed by the grant because the issue is taken upon the speciall matter and not the generall but in an Assize brought of an Office it is no plea to say there is no such Office for that amounts to no more but that he hath not disseised him 45. E. 3. In trespass for taking away of writing it is no plea to say that he never had such a writing but must plead not guilty So in an Action of Trespass for Goods it is no Plea to say that the property of them was to an Estranger and not to the Plaintif because by that plea hee denies not but that the Plaintif was in posaession which is sufficient to maintain the Action 20. H. 8. 28. which books prove that the Plea in Bar is not good for the Defendant destroys the Plaintifs Action but by way of Argument And the rent by such Action is not demanded but damages for tearing the Indenture and so the Title of Rent is not in question and exceptions were taken to the Declaration First the Action was brought for tearing the Counter-part by which the Rent was not created And the Indenture is not expresly granted to the Plaintif but the rent of 60 l. only is bargained and sold and by that the counter-part that pertains to Remingham doth not pass to the Plaintif as an incident for it is not the Originall Deed by which at first the rent was reserved which was granted by all but the Cheife Justice for he said that the counter-part waited upon the interest and was good evidence for that Secondly the Plaintif had not averred that Ch. for whose life the Rent was granted was alive at the time of tearing the Indenture and if C. was dead the Indenture pertained to the Defendant of right as Heir of Ch. for so much appeared by the Plaintifs own shewing which was granted And thirdly the Plaintiff shewed not that ever hee was posaessed of the Deed but by way of Argument to wit that he casually lost it which is not sufficient for none shall have trespass but he who is in actuall posaession which was also granted by the Court. Fourhly the counter-part whereof the Plaintif complains by the Plaintifs own shewing contained as well a warranty as the rent reserved And therefore without a special gift made of that Deed by Ch. to the Plaintiff that Deed doth not pass by Law to the Plaintiff as it is adjudged in Lord Buckhursts Case Fifthly if Ch. the Father be dead then the writing hath lost his force as to the rent for by his death the rent is determined and therefore of necessity the Plaintiff ought to averre the life of Ch. For no Action lies for a Deed that is determined and for these reasons the Plaintiff did discontinue his Action An Action of Trespass was brought for entring into a mans House and continuing there divers dayes c. And after a Tryall and verdict for the Plaintiff Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgment and shewed for cause that the Plaintiff had declared with a continuando for breaking
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
observed with the feare of God And another Canon That custome of not Tything or of the manner of Tything if they paid lesse then the tenth part see Panormitan upon that seek of the Case between Vesey and Weeks in the Exchequer upon the Statute of 27. H. 8. for the dissolution of small Monasteries Also the Lord Darcy in quo warranto was discharged of purveyance by Patent granted by the King Edward 6. of such priviledges which such a one had and by the same reason the King shall be discharged of Tythes by the Act of Parliament also he remembred the Book of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. to be resolved in the point and also 18. Eliz. Dyer the Parson of Pekerks case 399. 16. upon the Statute of 31. H. 8. and so concluded and prayed judgment for the Plaintiffe and that the Prohibition should stand and it was adjourned Trinity 9. Jacobi Priddle against Napper UPon a speciall verdict the cause was The Prior of Mountague was seised of an Advowson and of divers acres of Land and the 20. of H. 8. the King licensed him to appropriate that and 21. H. 8. the Bishop which was Ordinary assented and after that the Church became void that the Prior might hold it appropriate and 27. H. 8. the Incumbent dyed so that the Appropriation took effect and was united to the possession of the Rectory Appropriate and also of the Land out of which Tythes were due to the said Prior in respect of the said Rectory and then the Priory is dissolved and the Impropriation and the Lands also given to the King by the Statute of 31. H. 8. which granted the Impropriation to one and the Lands to another And if the Patentee of the Land shall hold it discharged of the payment of Tythes in respect of that unity was the question And Harris Serjeant for the Defendant in the Prohibition that the unity ought to be perpetuall and lawfull as it was adjudged between Knightley and Spencer 2 Coke 47. a. cyted in the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case and for that unity by or by lease for years or for two or three years as in the case at the Barre shall not be sufficient to make discharge of the payment of Tithes and so it was adjudged Pasche 40. Eliz. Rot. 454. between Chyld and Knightley that is that the unity of the possession ought to be of time that the memory of man doth not run to the contrary And in the argument of this Case it was said by Popham cheif Justice that if no Tithes were paid after the Statute that then it shall be intended that no Tithes were paid before the Statute and so he concluded and prayed Consulation see 2 Coke 48. a. The Arch-bishop of Canterbury for the reason by which unity of possession is discharged of payment of Tithes that is for that that some houses of Religion were discharged by Buls of the Pope and many were founded before the Councell of Lateran and for that it shall be infinite and in a manner impossible to find by any searches the means by which they are discharged the unity is no discharge in respect of it selfe for the reasons aforesaid and none may know if Tithes were paid or not before the union And if Tithes be not paid in time of memory by a house of Religion and they lease of that for years and receive Tiths then the lease expiâ—es two yeares before the Dissolution of the same house the King shall not be discharged of the payment af Tithes by the Statute of 31. H. 8. by Coke and Walmesley against Warburton and Foster Dorwood against Brikinden UPon the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. a man libelled in the Spiritual Court for Wood cut and a Consultation was granted Yet the Defendant in the Court Christian might have a new Prohibition if it appeared the first Consultation was not duly granted So if a man libell for Tithes for divers years and Prohibition is granted for part of the years and after that a Consultation is awarded yet the Plaintiffe may have a new Prohibition for the residue of the time notwithstanding the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. and that it be upon one selfe same libel Admirall Court NOte that the Admirall cannot imprison for any offence but if the Court hath Jurisdiction of the Originall cause and sentence is there given this sentence may be executed upon the Land 19. H. 6. But no Ordinary may meddle out of his own Diocesse 8. H. 6. 3. 2. H. 4. The Parson of Salt-ashes Case That this Court tooke notice of Jurisdiction of all Ecclesiasticall Courts and Ordinaries for they write unto them for tryall of Bastardy and Matrimony And there are 3. Legates First a born Legate as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Yorke Remes and Pylazam Second a Latere as all Cardinalls The third a Lagate given as those which have their Authority by commission and Lynwood Provinc saith that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as Arch-Bishop cannot meddle out of his Diocesse of Canterbury and his Peculiars but as a Legate borne which is in respect of his Office he hath prerogative and if a man inhabit in one Diocesse and ought to pay tithes to another which inhabits in another Diocesse there the Ordinary ought to prefer the suit to the Metrapolitan but seek what Ordinary shall transfer it Trinity 9. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Jones against Boyer HEnry Jones Parson of Bishopton sued Bowen the Executor of Holland the last Incumbent in the Arches for Dilapidations upon which a Prohibition was prayed upon the statute of 23. H. 8. for that that it was sued out of his Diocesse which was Saint Davids but it appears that the Vicar generall of the same Ordinary hath made generall request to the Metropolitan to determine that without shewing any cause speciall and if the inferiour Ordinary may transmit any cause but only for the causes mentioned in the statute of 23. H. 8. And if the causes ought to be expressed in the Instrument was the question note that the generall words of the statute of 23 H. 8. chap. 9. Rastall Citation 2. are afterwards many particulars or in case that any Bishop or any inferiour Judge having under him Jurisdiction in his own right and title or by commission make request or instance to the Arch-Bishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge to take treat examine or determine the matter before him or his substitute And that to be done in case only where the Law civill or Canon doth affirm execution of such request or instance of Jurisdiction to be lawfull or tollerable and for the better discussing of this question the Judges had appointed to heare two Doctors of the Civill Law which at this day attended the Court the first Doctor Martin said that these generall words have reference to the Executor and not to the maker of the request and this request may be made for all causes but ought to be made to him which hath
proceedings there And it was granted in so much that the originall ground of the Suit that is the infamous words were pardoned by the generall pardon and for this all the proceedings were erroneous and their transmitting after And afterwards the Prohibition received willingly And for these causes Prohibition was granted to the Court of Requests Thomas Baxter against Thomas Hopes IN Prohibition the Plaintiff Suggests that within such a Town was such a custome that every Inhabitant which maintained a family and dairy for manuring his land and maintenance of his family have used of time out of memory c. to pay tythes of Corn growing upon his Farm in kind and by reason thereof have used to be discharged of after crop of the said land And also that they have used to pay tythe milk and tythe Calves in kind and by reason thereof have been discharged of tythe of yong and barren Beastes and the Plaintiff suggested further that he occupied a Farm and maintained a family and dairy for the manurance of that and maintenance of his family and hath paied his tythe Corn and milk and Calves in kinde And for that ought to be discharged of tythes for the after crop and for yong and barren Beastes and for the tenthes of which suit was begun in the Court Christian and upon demurrer joyned upon Prohibition the custome was debated whether it were good or no and it was moved first by Houghton Serjeant for the Defendant that the custome was not good insomuch that by that the Plaintiff was not to pay more then by the Law he ought for he ought to pay tythe Corne and milk and Calves in kind And this is no more then the Law compells him to do and this cannot be a consideration to discharge him of other things For all things which renue ought to pay tythes of Common Right as after pastute and barren Cattell and Corne and milk And all other things which renue if it be not good custome to the contrary which is grounded upon consideration and then to consider how much consideration shall be valuable in other Cases and what not And to that it appeares in 9. Ed. 4. 18. and 19 in Trespasse upon the Statute of 5. Rich. 2. The Defendant pleads accord that the Plaintiff entred into his land againe and agreed that that was not barr insomuch as agreement without satisfaction is not barr and entry into lands is no more then he might do without the agreement and for that it is not good for default of consideration so in 12. H. 7. 15. a. in trespass for goods taken the Defendant pleads arbitrement that is for that that the Defendant hath taken the goods of the Plaintiff and that he should deliver them to the Plaintiff in full satisfaction And agreed that this is no good award insomuch that this cannot be satisfaction for that that the goods were the proper goods of the Plaintiff And although that he hath his goods againe yet he is not satisfied for the taking But if the award had been that the Defendant should redeliver his goods and carry them to such a place certain at his own costs and charges then it had been good See 45. Ed. 3. accordingly So in an action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit made in consideration that the Plaintiff hath payd due debt is not good for this is no consideration and so in the principall Case the Prescription is not good insomuch that he hath not suggested more or other consideration which by the Law he ought to do But he agreed that if he had suggested that the Plaintiff had plowed and manured the land and disposed of the tythes of the Corn for the benefit of the Parson in other manner then the Law compelled him then the first prescription had been good and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff in the Prohibition seems the contrary and that the Suggestion and Prescription and Custome Contained in that are good And to the Objection that it is no consideration that the Custome may be founded he intended that this is a ground upon immunity subsequent to the Consideration as of things which are not tythable as in the generall Case of things which are for the maintenance of the family for Plowing and Manuring of the land shall not pay tythes as in a suit for tythes for herbage suggestion that they were depastured by labouring Cattell which Plowed and Manured the Land of which the Parson had tythes or small Wood which are cut or imployed for the fencing of a Farm or fuell spent in the Farme shall not pay tythes insomuch that without that the Farme cannot be Manured nor the Famaly sustained And so by consequence the Parson shall not have any tythe Corn insomuch that no Corn will grow without manuring and also the Parson by those hath the more tyth Corn and so he hath consideration in that for the better that the Farme is fenced and manured the more tythe the Parson shall have So the Farmer may be discharged of tythes for Rakeings insomuch that he Mowes and Cocks the tythes for the Parson at his own costs and this is sufficient consideration And also he insisted upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. Which provides that tythes shall be payd in the same manner as they were payd for 40. yeares before and he cited one Jessopps case to be adjudged in Prohibition Pasche 36. Eliz. Upon suit in Court Christian for flocks and locks of Wooll And the Custome was alleaged that the owner had woond the tythe for the Parson and in consideration of that ought to be discharged of tythes of locks and flocks if they be not made by Covin to defraud the Parson and these were demanded by the name of wooll dispersed and 18. Eliz it was adjudged that tythes shall not be made for Brick and in Prohibition the suggestion was grounded upon the generall immunity and insomuch that it was made of land for which no tythes are to be payd insomuch that it doth not renue that for this cause tythes ought not to be payd for the Brick which is made of that and so of Mynes and so Loppings and Toppings and bark of Trees shall pay no tythes But are within the Statute of 40. Eliz. 5. of wood to be falne as it is resolved in Soby and Molyns case in the Commentaries And he agreed that for herbage the tenth gate or proffit of that ought to be payd if there be not a custome to the contrary but in the Principall case he intended that that was payd in the Corn and in that the Parson hath recompence and consideration as before and so he concludes and praies Judgment for the Plaintiff Dodrigde Serjeant of the King argued that the Custome is not good as it is here suggested for the consideration is of some things which ought to pay tythes in kind and so upon the matter is no sideration at all
any private Prison And it seemes if any do against this Statute that an action of false Imprisonment lies For every one ought to be committed to the Common Goal to the intent that he may be dilivered at the next Goale delivery and also if any be committed to any of the Counters in London unlessthat it be for debt that an action of false Imprisonment lieth for that for these are private Prisons for the Sheriffes of London for Debt only Note in Debt for ten pound the Defendant confesseth five pound and for the other five pound pleades that he oweth nothing by the Law and at the day the Plaintiff would have been nonsuited And it was agreed by all that if he be nonsuited that he shall loose all as well the debt confessed as the other Note the yeare of the Reigne of the King was mistaken in the Record of nisi prius but the Record which remaines in the Court was very well and it was amended For insomuch that it was a sufficent and certaine Issue this was sufficent Authority to the Justices of nisi prius to proceed but nothing being mistaken but the yeare of the Reigne this shall be amended for it is only the misprision of the Clark see Dyer 260. 24 25. 9. Eliz. 11. H. 6. Note also if Tenant in Dower be disseised and the Disseisor makes a Feoffment the Tenant in dower shall recover aâ—l their dammages against the Feoffee for she is not within the Statute of Glocester chapter 1. By which every one shall answer for their time Hillary 8. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Reyner against Poell See Hillary 6. Jacobi fol IN second deliverance for copy-hold in Brampton in the County of Huntington the case was copy-hold Lands were surrendered to the use of a woman and the Heires of her Body and she took a Husband the Husband and the Wife have Issue 2. Sonnes and after Surrenders to themselves for their lives the remainder to the eldest Son and his Wife in fee the Husband and the Wife dye the eldest Son dies the youngest Son enters and Surrenders to the use of a stranger And the sole question upon which they relied if the Wife was Tenant in tayl or if she had fee simple conditionall and it was argued by Nicholls that the Wife was Tenant in tayl and to prove that he cited 2. cases in Littleton where it is expresly mentioned who may be Tenant in tayl see Sect. 73. 79. And who may have a Formedon see in the discender sect 76. And he grounded that upon reason for that that it cannot be denied But that fee simple might be of copy-hold according to the custome and as well as fee simple as well it may be an estate tayl for every greater containes his lesse and he said that this is grounded upon the reason of other cases as if the King grant to one to hold Plea in his Court of all actions of debt and other actions and then one action of debt is given in case where it lieth not at the common Law yet the Grantee may hold Plea of that But if a new action be framed which was not in experience at the time of the grant but is given after by Statute the grant shall not extend to that and to the Objection that copy-hold is no Tenement within the Statute of gifts c. As to that he saith that that shall be very well intended to be within the Statute as it is used and 4. H. 7. 10. A man makes a gift in tayl by deed the Donee hath an estate tayl in the deed as well as in the Land so Morgan and Maxells case Commentaries 26. And so of Office Honour Dignity and copy-hold also and Dyer 2 and 3. Phil And Mary 114. 61. It is found by speciall verdict that copy-hold Lands have been devisable by copy in tayl and so it is pleaded 2 and 3 Eliz. Dyer 192. b. And when a lesser estate is extracted out of a greater that shall be directed and ordered according to the course of the Common Law and for that the Wife shall have plaint in nature of a Cui in vita and 15. H 8. b. Title Tenement by copy of Court Roll it was said for Law that tayl may be of a copy-hold and that Formedon may well ly of that in descender by protestation to sue in nature of a Formedon in descender at the Common Law and good by all the Justices for though that Formedon in descender was not given but by Statute Yet now this Writ lieth at the Common Law and shall be intended that this hath been a custome time out of mind c. And the Demandant shall recover by advise of all the Justices and the like matter in Essex M. 28. H. 8. And Fitz. affirms that in the chamber of the Dutchy of Lancaster afterwards and also he saith that when custome hath created such Inheritances and that the Land shall be descendable then the Law shall direct the discent according to the Maximes and Rules of the Common Law as incident to every estate discendable and for that shall be possessio Fratris of a copy-hold estate 4. Coke 22. a. Brownes Case b. And there 28. a. Gravener and Tedd the custome of the Mannor of Allesley in the County of Warwick was that copy-hold lands might be granted to any one in fee simple and it was adjudged that a grant to one and the Heires of his Body is within the Custome for be that Estate Tayl or Fee simple conditionall that is within the Custome So he may grant for life or for yeares by the same Custome for Estate in Fee simple includes all and it is a Maxime in Law to him that may do the greater it cannot be but the lesse is lawfull and over he said that in all cases where a man was put to his reall action at the Common Law in all these cases a copy-holder may have plaint with protestation to prosecute in â—…re of the same action and to the objection that there cannot be an Estate tayl of copy-hold Land for that that the Tenant in tayl shall hold of him in revertion and shall not be Tenant to the Lord to that he said that this Estate may be created as well by Cepit extra manus Domini as by Surrender and then there is not any reversion or remainder but it is as if Rent be newly granted in tayl but he said there may be a reversion upon an Estate tayl as well as upon an Estate for life and he did not insist upon the Custome but upon this ground that if the Custome warrant the greater Estate which is the Fee simple the lesse shall be included in that And he did not argue but intended that it would be admitted that discent of copy-hold Land shall not take away entry nor Surrender of that nor shall make discontinuance so prayed Judgement and â—…rne Harris the youngest Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that it shall be
a Fee simple conditionall and not an Estate tayl and he said that the sole question was if the Statute of Westminster 2. conevrted and changed Fee simple conditionall of copy-hold into an Estate tayl for if it be not an Estate tayl within this Statute it shall not be an Estate tayl at all for Littleton saith before the making of the said Statute these Estates were Fee simple conditionall and for that cannot be by prescription also he said that copy-hold Estate was so base an Estate that at the Common Law a copy holder had no remedy but only in the Court of the Lord But as to Littleton who sayth that he may have a Formedon in discender to that he saith that the Heire which hath Fee simple conditionall may have it by the Common Law for this was at the Common Law before the making of that Statute of Westminster 2. As it appears by 4. Ed. 2. Formedon 50. 10. Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And by Bendlowes in the Lord Barkleys case in the Commentaries 239. b. by Benlose where it is said by him that a Formedon in discender was not at the Common Law but in a speciall case where an Assise of Mortdancester would not serve the Issue that is if a man had Issue a Sonn and his Wife died and after that he takes another Wife and Land was given to him and to his second Wife and to the Heires of their two Bodyes begoten and they have another Sonn and the Wife dies and after the Father dies and a stranger abates there he sayth that before the Statute the youngest Soon could not have an Assise of Mortdancester and for that he shall have a Formedon in discender which was no other but a writ founded upon his Case see 10 of Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And for that when Littleton speakes of an Estate tayl of copy-hold that ought to be understood of Fee taile which may be Fee simple conditionall and so Littleton may be reconciled 〈◊〉 will well agree with himself also it seems that Copy-hold is ouâ—â—f the intent and meaning of the Statute of Westminster 2. For at the common Law in ancient times this was base Estate and not more in reputation then villinage and also if such an Estate then might be created of that which shall be perpetuall and no means to barr it for surrender of that doth not make any discontinuance and Recovery was not known till 12. Ed. 4. and he saith that in ancient time the name of Copy-holder was not well known for in ancient time they were called Tenants in Villinage and Tenants by copy is but a new terme see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 12. b. and the old Tenures fol. 2. and Bracton lib. 2. charter 8. In gifts made to servants calleth them Villaines and Sokemen and in the old Tenures it is said that the Lords may expell them and upon this he inferred that if it be so baseâ— Tenure though it be of Lands and Tenements yet they shall not be intended to be within the intent of the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. and also by a second reason that is that it was not the intent of the makers of the Statute that this should extend to any Lands but only to those which are free Lands for the parties are called Donees and Feoffees and the will of the Giver should be observed according to the forme in the Charter of his gift manifestly expressed by which it appears that it ought to be of such Land of which a gift may be made and also the Statute provides that if the Donee levy a fine that in right it should be nothing by which also it appears as to him it seemed that it ought to be of such Land of which a fine may be levied And also for a third reason which was the great Inconvenience which would ensue upon it for then the Donees have no meanes to dispose of that nor give that for the advancement of his Wife nor her Issues and also the Lord shall loose his signiory for the Donee shall hold of him in Reversion and not of the Lord and it is resolved in Heydens Case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament alters the service Tenure Interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act shall not extend to Copy-holders see the opinion of Manwaod cheife Baron there and he agreed that admitting it shall be an Estate taile that then Surrender shall not make discontinuance and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiffe his Clyent see Hill and Vpchars Case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench and the principall case was adjourned untill the first Saturday of the next Tearme See Hillari 7. Jacobi in this Book in Replevin the Plaintiff was non-suited between the same parties See also Pasche 9. Jacobi 149. Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murray Clark IN a Quare impedit the case was Doctor Playford being Chaplaine of the King accepted a Benefice of presentation of a common person and after he accepted another of presentation of the King without any dispension both being above the value of eight pound per annum if the first Benefice was void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. or not was the question for if that were void by the acceptance of the second Benefice without dispensation then this remaines a long time voide so that the King was intituled to present by Laps and presented the Plaintiff the Statute of 21 H. 8. provides that he which is Chaplain to an Earle Bishop c. may purchase license or dispensation to receive have and keep two Benefices with cure provided that it shall be lawfull to the Kings Chaplaines to whom it shall please the King to give any benefices or promotions spirituall to what number soever it be to accept and receive the same without incurring the danger penalty and forfeiture in this Statute comprised upon which the question was if by this last Proviso Chaplaine of the King having a Benefice with cure above the value of eight pound per annum of the presentation of a common person might accept another Benefice with cure over the value of eight pound also of the presentation of the King without dispensation the words of the Statute by which the first Church is made void are and be it enacted that if any parson or parsons having one Benefice withcure of Soules being of the yearly value of eight pound or above accept and take any other with cure of Soules and be instituted and inducted in possession of the same that then and immediately after such possession had thereof the first Benefice shall be adjudged in the law to be void See Hollands case 4. Cooke 75. a. This case was not argued but the point only opened by Dodridge Serjeant
But in this case before Attornement the Grantee hath nothing and after Attornement the particuler Estate being granted it shall be drownd in the reversion Harris Serjeant the words of the devise are that his Feoffees and all other Persons which after his Death shall be seised shall be seised to the same uses before declared and of one Acre he hath not any Feoffees for of that the Feoffment was voyd and yet it was agreed that the devise was good as Lyngies Case was in 35. H. 8 cited by Anderson in Welden and Elkintons Case Commentaries 523 b. And he argued that though that when a conveyance may enure in severall courses yet it cannot enure for part in one course and part in another course and for that this devise enures as a devise of Land for one Acre and declaration of the use of the Feoffment foâ—…her Acre for it is agreed in Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. 〈…〉 a. 6. Coke 18. a. Sir Edward Cleeres Case and also in this 〈◊〉 the devisor hath made expresse declaration that the Land shall passe by the Feoffment and that the Will shall be but a declaration of the use of the Feoffment and for that nothing shall passe by the devise with which the Justices seemed to accord and cited a case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. where the Father gives and grants Lands to his Son his heires with warranty and makes a Letter of Attorney within the deed to make Livery and adjudged that that shall not enure as a Covenant to raise a use for that that it appeares by the Letter of Attorney that his intent was that that should enure as a Feoffment and not as any other manner of conveyance see 14 Eliz. Dyer 311. 83. Master Cromwells Case and so it was adjudged accordingly Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench Gargrave against Gargrave Katherine Gargrave was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir Richard Gargrave Knight and the case was this The Father of Sir Richard Gargrave was seised of divers Tenements called Lyngell Hall in Lyngell Hall and of a Moore called Kingstey Moore in another Town and the Tenants of the said Father of Sir Richard have used to have Common in the said Moore and the said Father so being of that seised demised the said Tenements to the said Katherine Gargrave for her Joynture by these words by the name of Hingell Hall and certaine Land Meadow and Pasture in certainty and with all â—ands Tenements and Hereditaments to that belonging or with that occupied and enjoyed now or late in the Tenure of one Nevill and Nevill was Tenant of the said premises and had Common in Kingsley Moore upon which the question was if the said Katherine by this demise shal have Common in the said Moore or not And Hutton Serjeant argued that the said Katherine shall have Common in the said Moore for he said that the said demise shall be expounded according to the intent of the partie 〈◊〉 as it is agreed in Hill and Granges Case Commentaries 270. b. Where a man makes a Lease for yeares of a house and all the Lands to that belonging and though it is there agreed that Land cannot be appurtenant to a house yet this word appurtenant shall be taken in the effect and sense of usually occupied with the Messuage or lying to the house by which it appeares that the words are transferred from the proper signification to another to satisfie the intent of the parties for it is the office of the Judges to take and expound the words which the common People use to expresse their intent according to their intent and for that shall be taken not according to the very definition insomuch that it doth not stand with the matter but in such manner as the party used them And for that this grant shall amount to a new grant of Common in the said Moor for as it seems common or feeding for Cattell may be granted and passe by the name of Tenements Hereditaments or at least shall be included and comprised within the words Tenements and Hereditaments and so shall be construed as a thing occupied and injoyed with the said Messuages see Hen. Finches Case 39. Coke And it was an expresse endorsment upon the demise that the said Katherine should not have Common in the said Moore but it was agreed by all that this was vaine and idle and nothing worth but he urged that this shall have a favorable construction for that it was for Joynture which shall have as favorable construction as Dower And so he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and of the other part Nicholls Serjeant argued that this shall not amount to a new grant for he said that they are not apt words to receive such construction for he said that this is no Tenement or Hereditament no Common but only a Feeding for the Cattell of the Lessee in the wast of the Lessor see 20. Edw. 2. Fitzherbert admeasurement and it cannot passe as a thing used with the said house for that was not in Esse at the time of the grant and there is not any apt word to make a new grant â—nd he cited 〈◊〉 Iudgement in Action of wast between Arden and Darcy where Ardon was seised of the Mannor of Curball and also of Parkhall and makes a conveyance of the Mannor of Curball to divers uses and at this time parcell of the Mannor of Curball was occupied with Parkhall as parcell of that and after made another conveyance of all his Lands in England except the Mannor of Curball And adjudged that the Parke which is used with Parkhall shall not be within the exception Coke saith that it was only feeding and not Hereditament for the Inheritance of both was in the Lessor but if it be granted of feeding it shall be intended the same like feeding that the Tenant hath as if the King grant such Liberties as the City of London hath and that shall be good and so it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cannige against Doctor Newman IN an Information upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. Of non-residency it was found by speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman was Incumbent invested in the Rectory of Staplehurst in the County of Kent and that hee was also seised of a house in Staplehurst aforesaid scituate within twenty yards of the said Rectory and that the mansion house of the said Rectory was in good repaire and that Doctor Newman held that in his hands and occupation with his one proper goods and did not let it to any other and that he inhabited in the said Messuage and not in the Parsonage the Statute of 21 H. 8 chapter 13. Provides that every Parson promoted to any Parsonage shall be personally resident and abiding in at and upon his said Benefice and in case any such spirituall Parson keep not residence at his Benefice as aforesaid but absent himself willfully by the space
of a month together or two Moneths to be accounted at severall times in any one year and makes his residence and abiding in any other places by such time that then he shall forfeit for every such default ten pounds the one halfe to the King and the other halfe to the Informer and if the said Doctor Newman was not resident and incurred the penalty of this Statute was the question and it was argued by Haughton that he had incurred the penalty of the Statute and was non-resident within the intent and he argued that to some intent all the Parish may be said the Benefice of the Parson for that that he hath benefit out of it and he is called Parlon of such a Town or Parish but this is not the Benefice that the Statute intends upon which he ought to be resident as in the 29. Assise 55. If a Corrody be granted out of an Abby it shall not be intended out of the seat of the Abby out of the Booke of 29. Assise 8. Where it is said that if a Rent be granted out of a Priory that all the possessions of the Priory are charged as to that he saith it was but it was said and not Judgment and also the said Bookes may be well reconciled for it is more proper that the seate of the Abby shall be charged with the Corrody and the possessions of the Priory with the Rent and also he said there were seven causes of making of the said Statute whereof but two are to our purpose the first is Hospitality second releife of the Poore and these are to be done in the Parsonage house for this is the free Almes of the Church and so it was adjudged 34 of Eliz. in the Kings Bench Broome and Hudson and in this Court also and in this Court also in the 40 of Eliz. in the Kings Bench betwixt Butler and Goodall 6 Coke 21 b. that he ought to be resident upon the Parsonage house and not other where and he allowed and agreed that imprisonment without deceit and sicknesse are good excuses but so it shall not be a prejudice for the Parsonage house is in good repaire And so concluded that judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff And for the Defendant Barker Serjeant argued that it appears by the speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman held the Parsonage house in his own hands and occupation and did not let it upon which he gathered that his servants were resident upon it and to the exposition of the Statute he saith that it appears by Heydons Case 3 Coke 7. a. That the better means to expound Statutes is to consider the mischeife which was at the common Law before the making of that and when it is intended to be reformed by that and this appears by the Preamble of that Statute also he saith that before the Councill of Lateran a man might pay his tithes to whom he would but by the same Councill all the Parish is made the Benefice of the Parson for he receives benefit by that and yet he said that before the said Statute every spirituall man was bound and compellable by the Ecclesiasticall Law to be resident yet if he were in the Kings Service or an Officer in the Chancery he should be excused as it appears in the Register fol. 58. b. Though that he were Dean the which Office meerly requires his personall residence as it is there said and also he saith that the Case between Butler and Goodall was that the Parson demised all the Parsonage house but only one Chamber and was not resident in that but in a Copy-hold within the Town and so prayed Judgment for the Defendant this case was compounded by the Lord Coke but he intended this was no residence within the Statute for this was not his Benefice but the Tenants part of that as he said hath been adjudged in the Exchequer Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In Banco Communi Crogat against Morris THE Case was A Commoner brought an Action upon the Case against a stranger for that his Beasts came in and fed upon the Common and by Coke Walmesley and Warburton it lieth very well Foster to the contrary for then every Commoner may have the same Action and then it would be infinite Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In Bonco Communi 〈◊〉 against the Lady Saint John Postea 269. SEE for the beginning of this in Michalemas tearme last and that case was argued again by Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant that the parcelling of reversion destroyed the Covenant it was agreed in Winters case in case of condition and he agreed that that Covenant is within the Statute of 31. H. 8. chapter 34. as well as condition and for that Grantee of part of the Reversion shall not have an Action of Covenant for then if there be twenty Grantees every one of them shall have severall Action and this was not the intent of the Statute and as to the Common Law before the Statute a thing which gives action cannot be divided and he urged that when the Reversion of Fee simple was first granted if he may by that have an action then when the Reversion of the tearm was granted he may have another action and so a man may have two severall actions for one thing see 29. Assise 23. Three Coparceners were and Rent of five pound was allotted to two of them equally to be divided that is fifty shillings to one and fifty shillings to another and they two joyned in an Action and it is doubted if the Writ shall abate or not and 44 Ed. 3. 34. b. The Abbot of Westminster◠Case the Abbot made a Lease of a Mannor except the Wood and after by another Deed he let the Wood and the Lessee made Wast in the Mannor and the Wood and he brought one Action of Wast and it is not good and he agreed that one Formedon yeth upon two discontinuances for there was but one discontinuance and that is the cause of the Action but a man cannot have a Writ of Warrantia Charte upon two Deeds no more in the◠principall case for the Plaintiff hath his Title by two Deeds and so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Harris Serjeant argued of the other part for the Plaintiff that an action of Covenant lieth very well for the originall Lease was but one intire Lease and the Covenant was also intire and for that the Grantee of the Reversion shall have advantage of that and he agreed that in reall actions which alwaies are grounded upon the title and for that if it be grounded upon two titles he ought to have 2. actions according to his title but in personall actions where the action is grounded upon the deed another matter which comes Ex post facto which is the wrong which is the cause of the action for which damages I shall be recovered as it is said in Blakes Case 44. 6 Coke and this is the reason that a man may
have an Action upon the Statute of Offenders in Parkes for hunting in two Parkes 13 H. 7â—12 and 8 Ed. 4. 〈◊〉 One Action of Trespasse for Trespasses made at severall times and so one Action of Debt for diverse Contracts 11 H. 6. 24. by Martin 3 H. 6. Trespas 3 H. 4. But he argued that in reall or mixt Actions as ravishment of Ward for severall Wards or one Quare impedit for severall Churches this shall not be good Fitz. Ward 52. 3. H. 6. 52. And also he said that the Statute of 32 H. 8. chapter 34. by expresse words gives the same remedy to Grantees of Reversions that the Grantors themselves had and the Grantor without question may have an Action if he have not granted the Reversion and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Sturgis against Dean see T. 65. A Man was bound to pay to the Plaintiff ten pound within ten dayes after his return from Jerusalem the Plaintiff proving that he had been there and the Plaintiff after ten dayes brought his Action upon the Obligation without making of any proofe that he had been there and if that were good or that he ought to make proofe of that before he brings his Action this was the question and also he ought to make proofe then what manner of proofe and it was moved by Haughton that when a thing is true and is not referred to any certain and particular manner of proof as before what shall be done or how the proofe shall be made the party may bring his Action and the other party may take his Issue upon the doing of the thing which ought to be proved the triall of that shall be proofe sufficient and in his count he need not to aver that he had been there see 10 Ed. 4. 11. b. c. 15 Ed. 4. 25. 7 R. 2. Barr 241. And here also the proofe if any should it ought to be made within ten dayes the which cannot be made by Jury in so short a time as it is said by Choke in 10 Ed. 4. 11. b. though that he agreed that when a man may speake of proofe generally that shall be intended proofe by Jury for that that this is the most high proofe as it is said in Gregories Case 6 Coke 20. a. and 10 Ed. 4. 11. b. But of the other part it was said by Sherley Serjeant that true it is that proofe ought to be made for the Defendant as the Case is in 10 Ed. 4. 11. That then such proofe should be sufficient for the Plaintiff may bring his Action before that the Defendant may by possibility bring his Action but where the Plaintiff ought to make the proofe there he ought to prove that before that he bring his Action and it shall be accounted his Folly that he would bring his action before he had proved that but all the Justices agreed that the Plaintiff need not to make any other proofe but only by the bringing of his Action but the Lord Coke took exception to the pleading for that that the Plaintiff hath not averred in his replication that he was at Hierusalem but generally that such a day he returned from thence and he said that a man might returne from a place when he was not at the same place as if he had been neere the place or in the skirts of Hierusalem and upon that it was adjourned see the beginning of that Trinity 8. Jacobi 462. a. Mich. 13. 200. and 204. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Wickenden against Thomas THe Case was this 2. Executors were joyntly made in a Will one of them releases a Debt due to the Testator and after before the Ordinary refuses to Administer and it was agreed by all the Justices that the release was Administration and for that he hath made his Election and then the Refusall comes too late and so is void Bedell against Bedell IN wast the case was this A Man seised of Lands makes his Will and of that makes two Executors and devises his Lands to his Executors for one and twenty yeares after his Death upon trust that they should permit A. To injoy that during and to take all the profits all the Terme if he so long lived and if he â—ied within the Terme then that B. should take the profits and so with others remained in the same manner with the remainder over to a stranger in tayl one of the Executors refuseth to prove the Will or Administer and also to accept the Terme the other executor proves the Will Administers the Goods and enters into the Land according to the Lease and that assignes to A. according to the trust reposed in him and after that he in reversion in tayl brings an Action of wast against the Executors which proved the Will and he proved all the matter aforesaid and that before the assignement and that before that no wast was made and it seemes to all the Judges that this was a good Plea for the waveing of one Executor is good and though that he might after Administer as the book of 21. Ed. 4. Is for that the Interest of his Companion preserves his Authority where are 2 or more But if there be but one Executor and he refuseth and the Ordinary grants Administration to another he cannot then Administer againe and Coke cheife Justice cited that one Rowles made the Lord Chancellor which then was the cheife Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls his Executors and died and they writ their Letters to the Ordinary witnessing that they were Imployed in great businesses and could not intend the performance of the said Will and that for that they desire to be free of that and that the Ordinary would committ the Administration of the goods of the said Testator to the next of blood and this sufficient refusall And upon that the Ordinary committed the Administration accordingly And to the pleading that no wast was made before the assignement they all agreed that this was good and so it was adjourned for this time A man sould his Land upon a condition and after took a Wife and died the Heire entred for the Condition broken yet the Wife shall not be endowed so if the Condition had been broken before the Death of the Husband if he had not entred for he had but title of entery Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. As yet Doctor Husseys Case MOore against Doctor Hussey and his Wife and many others in Ravishement of Ward The case was the Ward of Moore was placed at the University of Oxford to be instructed in the liberall Sciences and was married by the Wife of Doctor Hussey to the Daughter of the said Wife which she had by a former Husband And for that Moore brought this Writ against Doctor Hussey and his Wife and the Minister which married them and all
shall be said conclusion and agreement within the said Provision and for that as it seemes it is so uncertain as going about but admitting that it is good yet it shall be good but to some purpose but not to restraine the Daughter which was Tenant in taile to do lawfull Acts as to suffer a Recovery or to levy a Fine as it is resolved in Mildmayes case 6 Coke 40. By which it appears that she hath as well power to dispose that by Recovery as of Fee simple notwithstanding that the Reversion remaines in the Giver as it appears by 12 Ed. 4. 3. For all lawfull Acts made by Tenant in taile shall binde the Issue as 44 Ed. 3. Octavian Lumbards Case Grant of Rent for Release of right is good and shall binde the Issue for there are foure incidents to an Estate tayle First That he shall not be punished for Waste Secondly That his Wife shall be indowed Thirdly That the Husband of the Wife Tenant in Tayle shall be Tenant by the Courtisie Fourthly That Tenant in Tayle may suffer common recovery So that a Condition which restraines him so that he cannot suffer a common Recovery is void for it is incident to his act and it is a lawful Act and for the benefit of the Issue as it is intended in respect of the intended recompence and he said that a Feoffment to a woman covert or infant shall be conditionall that they shall not make a Feoffment during their disability is good for that the Law hath then made them disable to make a Feoffment so a Lease for life or years upon condition that he shall not alien is good in respect of the confidence that was reposed in them by the Lessor and so concluded that the Condition in this Case which restraines Tenant in Taile generally from alienation First was uncertain in respect of the words conclude and agree Secondly for that it was against Law so void and for that prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff he argued that the verball agreement of the Wife shall bind her notwithstanding the Coverture for that that this is for her benefit for in performance of the said agreement she suffers a recovery to the use of her selfe and her Heires and so Dockes the remainder and he agreed the cases put by the other part which concerne free-hold but he said in cases of Limitation of Estates as if Limitation be if a Ring be tendred by a woman that the Land shall remaine to her and she takes a Husband and after that she and the Husband tender the Ring this shall be sufficient tender and it shall be intended the Act of the wife and 10. H 7. 20. a. A man devises his Lands to a married woman to be sold she may sell them to her Husband And though that it be not any agreement of the Husband only yet here is an act done in a Precipe brought against the Wife and she vouches over for that is not only an agreement but an Act executed upon which the Estate Limited to the eldest Sister shall take effect and the 2. Coke the 27. a. Beckwiths Case If the Husband and the Wife joyne in a Fine of Land of the Wife the Wife only without the Husband may declare the use of that And he intended it was a Limitation and not a condition and so it might be well at this day in case of devise and then the Act shall be that the Estate is Limited to have beginning being made the Estate of the youngest Daughter which made the Act shall be destroyed and determined for if it be a condition then all the Daughters shall take advantage of that and this was not the intent of the Devisor for they are the parties which should be restrained by the devise from Alienation And also he cited Wenlocke and Hamonds Case cited in Bractons Case 3. Coke 20. b. Where a Copy-holder in fee of Lands devisable in Burrough English having three Sons and a Daughter deviseth his Lands to his eldest Son paying to his Daughter and to his other Sons forty shillings within two yeares after his death the Devisor maketh surrender according to the use of his Will and dieth the eldest Son admitted and doth not pay the money within the two yeares and adjudged that though the word paiment makes a condition yet in this case of devise the Law construes that to a Limitation and the reason is there given to be for that that is it shall be a condition then that shall discend upon the eldest Son and then it stands at his pleasure if the Brothers or Sister shall be paid or not and 29. Assis 17. cytes in Nourse and Scholasticas Case Commentaries 412. b. where a man seised of Lands in Fee devisable deviseth them to one for life and that he should be Chapleine and single for his Soule all his life so that after his decease the sayd tenements should remaine to the Commonalty of the same Towne to finde a Chapleine perpetuall for the same Tenements and dyed and adjudged that this shall not be a condition of which the heir shal take advantage but limitation upon which the remainder shall take effect and also he cyted S. E. Clâ—ers Case 6 Coke 18. a. b. 11 H. 7. 17. Pennants Case 3 Coke 65. a. That if a man makes a Lease for years upon a condition to cease that after the condition is broken grantee of reversion may take advantage of that so he said in the case at the Bar when the first Estate is determined and destroyed by the limitation then he to whom the Remainder is limited shall take advantage of that and not the Heire for as he intended an Estate of Inheritance may as well cease by limitation of devise as tearme as in 15 Ed. 4. Lands are given to one so long as he hath heires of his body the remainder over and if he dye without heires of his body the remainder over shall vest without entry and the Free-hold shall vest in him and 2 and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 127. and 56. Fisher and Warrens Case If a man devise Lands to one for life the remainder over upon condition that if he do such an act that his estate shal cease and he in remainder may immediately enter there he in remainder shall take advantage though he be a stranger for that that the Estate determines there without re-entry And he saith that the Case of Wellock and Hamond cyted in Barastons Case was a stronger Case then this for there the limitation was upon Fee-simple and here it is upon an Estate tayle and the Law hath favourable respect to devises as in Barastones Case is alteration of words for the better exposition of that for Shall is altered to Should and also see 16 Eliz. Dyer 335. 29. for the marshalling of absurd words in a Will for the expounding of that and 18 Eliz. Cheekes Case he cyted to be adjudged that
if a man devise his Lands to his Wife and after her death to his Son and the remainder to his sayd Wife in Fee-simple the Husband of the Wife having Issue shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for alwayes the Judges have made such favourable construction of Wills that if Estates devised by Will might be created by act executed in the life of the party then it should be good by devise and to the objection that conclusion and agreement is uncertaine and so for that shall be voyd he saith that it is not so uncertaine as going about or resolve and determine an attempt or procure as in Corbets Case first of Coke 83. b. or as attempt or endeavour as in Germins and Arscotts Case there cyted fol. 285. a. See 6 Coke 40. a. Mildmayes Case and also the words subsequent are repugnant that the Estate tayle shall cease as if the Tenant in tayle were dead and not otherwise which is absurd and repugnant for the Estate tayle doth not determine by his death if he doe not dye without Issue And also he sayd that it is more reasonable that the perpetuity in Scholasticas Case for here the limitation depends upon agreement which is a thing certaine upon which the Issue may be joyned and also the condition doth stand with the nature of the Estate tayle and for the preservation of it and Recovery is against the nature of it for this destroyes the Estate tayle and is onely a consequent of it and not parcell of the nature of the Estate and this is the reason that Littleton saith That an Estate tayle upon condition that he should not alien is good for that preserves the Estate and also preserves Formedon for him in reversion if there be a discontinuance and with that agreed 13 H. 7. 23. 24. and he sayd that there was a Judgement in the point for his Clyent for another part of the Land and he cyted 31 Edw. 5. Fitz. Feoffment placito the last and Fitzherberts Natura brevium Ex gravi querela last Case and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff and this Case was argued againe by Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant and he intended that the agreement is voyd to the Wife and shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely for a marryed Wife cannot countermand Livery 21 Assis 25. and if a Woman makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff upon request made by her and she takes a Husband she cannot make request after coverture 35 Assisarum So that he intended that this shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely and not of the Wife and yet he argued that Declaration of a use by a marryed Wife shall be good according to Beckwiths Case But he sayd That the reason of that is for that that she is party to the Recovery which is a matter of Record and as long as the Record remaines in force so long the Declaration of the use shall be good and also he argued that if the condition being that if the Wife conclude or agree to any act to make discontinuance that then c. that that shall be intended unlawfull acts and Recovery is no unlawfull act and for that shall not be within the restraint of the Condition as the Earl of Arundels Case 17 Eliz. Dyer 343. and admitting that it is a limitation yet it shall be of the same nature as a condition and as well as a condition that Tenant in tayle shall not suffer Recovery is voyd So also is such Limitation void and so it was intended before the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus and it appeares by the pleading that the parties did not intend to take advantage of the agreement for it is pleaded that at the time of the Recovery suffered the youngest Daughter was seised of an estate tayl the which could not be if her estate were determined and destroyed by the agreement and conclusion so that the last words make the Forfeyture for the first are not unlawfull and before the execution of the Recovery the estate tayl is determined and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Barker Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff It shall be intended a Limitation and not a condition for a Will shall have favorable construction according to the intent of the Devisor for a Joyntenant may devise to his Companion 49. Ed. 3. and Fitz. Na. Bre. Ex gravi querela last case A man devises Land to his Wife for life upon condition that if he marry that it should remain over to his Son in tayl and the Wife marries and the Son in remainder sues Ex Gravi querela by which it appeares that it was a Limitation and not a condition and 34 Ed. 3. devise was to one for life upon condition that if his Sonn disturbed him that then it should remaine over in taile upon disturbance he in Remainder in tail brings Formedon by which it appears it was a Limitation and with that agrees all the Justices in 29 Assisarum 17. And Wellock and Hamonds Case cited in Barastons Case before and 18. Eliz. Dyer If Land be limited to no third person by the Devise then the Heir shall enter for breaking the condition and also he said that it appears by Littleton and 13 H. 7 23. and 24 and 20 H. 7. and 17 Eliz. 343. the Earle of Arundells case which conditioneth that Tenant in taile shall not alien standeth with his Estate but not with Fee simple and so it is adjudged in Nowes and Scholasticas Case which is adjudged in the point which as he saith cannot be answered and the Words of the Condition are not that her Estate taile shall cease as if shee had been dead but as if she had not been named which is not so repugnant or absurd as the other and this compared to 34 Ed 3. Where the Estate was limited till it was disturbed And he also argued that the agreement of the Wife shall be a forfeiture notwithstanding the coverture for when the Estate is granted upon such condition he which hath the estate shall take it subject to the condition as if two Lessees are and one Seals the Counterpart onely yet the other shall be bound by the Covenants contained in it and 33 H. 6. 31. a Woman disavows to be Executor notwithstanding that shee was marryed and if Precipe had been brought against the Husband and Wife the default of the Husband shall binde the Wife and so she shall be punished for waste made during the coverture and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Foster Justice that an Estate of Free-hold shall not cease by agreement or conclusion without entry for it is a matter of Inheritance and Free-hold and it is not like to 33 H. 6. 31. which concerns Chattels and Goods and Walmesley Justice accorded with him Warburton Justice it hath been adjudged in Scholasticas Case that the condition was good and therefore he would not deliver his
opinion without argument Coke cheif Justice that the agreement is void to a Woman married for then she was married to a Husband whom in her life she could not contradict and a Devise upon Condition that if she conclude or agree as this Case is is void for it is a bare communication upon which the Inheritance doth not depend and so he said it hath been twice adjudged 6 in Corbets Case and Germins Case and Arscots Case and Richells Case in Littleton it was upon condition that he should not alien and this was adjudged to be void but yet if the condition were if he alien and not if go about or intend or conclude or agree as in the case at the Bar for there is no such case in all our Bookes as this Secondly For that that the Words are if they do any act that then the Estate shall cease and this is repugnant for when the Act is done then the Estate tayle is Barred and cannot cease but if it had been but a Feoffment then the right had remained and he said that such a condition had been void before the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus when it was but Fee simple Conditionall be it a Condition or a Limitation and he said that Scholasticas Case is of Fine which is only discontinuance till the Proclamations are past and if dead before may be avoided by Remitter in Germins and Arscotts Case the Condition was that if he go about or indeavour and this was adjudged to be void though that it be in devise in respect of the uncertainty and he said that the agreement or conclusion is so uncertain and may be well compared to that for here the Estate shall cease by the agreement as well as it may cease by the going about also he seemed that the Freehold cannot cease without entry for if use cannot cease without entry as he intends much lesse a Free-hold cannot though it be by Devise and he seemed that it shall be no limitation but a Condition and Judgment accordingly if cause be not shewed the next Tearm and in Trinity Tearme then next insuing this Case was argued againe by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiff and he said that there are three questions to be disputed First If it be a good limitation Secondly If the recovery be a breach of that Thirdly Admitting that it may be broken if the agreement of the Husband and the wife shall be said to breake it and to the first he seemed that it is a limitation and not a condition and such a Limitation that well might be with the Law and that it is a Limitation it is agreed in Scholasticas Case Commentaries and the reason of the Judgment there is that if the intent of the Devisor appears that another shall take benefit of that and not the Heire that then it shall be but a limitation and not a Condition and he in remainder shall take benefit of that and for that in the principall case Mary the Eldest Daughter to whom the Remainder was limited shall take benefit of that and with this agrees the case of Fitz. Na. Bre. Ex gravi querela last case that if a man devises Lands to his Wife for life upon condition that if she marry that the Land shall remain over and after she marryes and he in Remainder sues by Gravi querela by which it appears that it is a limitation and not a condition and with this agrees 2. and 3. P. and M. 127. Dyer Jasper Warrens Case where a man devises land to his Wife for life upon condition to bring up his Sonn Remainder over and agreed to be a limitation and not a condition and so he concluded this first point that it is a limitation and not a condition Secondly that it is a lawfull limitation for there is not any repugnancy in that as it is in Corebts before cited for there are no words of going about for he agreed that this is absolutely uncertain and void and so is Germin Arscots case where ther is not only a going about but repugnant going about for he ought to go about and before discontinuance and then his Estate shall be void from the time of the going about and before discontinuance but here it is upon conclude and agree plainly and apparently and conclude and agree is issuable and a Jury may try that and it will not invegle any man but the Law will not suffer Issue upon such uncertainty as going about or purposing but Attornements and Surrenders are but agreements and yet are Issuable And so in the principall case and in Mildmayes Case 6 Coke it is agreed that a condition that a Tenant in taile shall not suffer a Recovery is void for Recovery is not restrained by the Statute of Westminster 2. but here it is not so but in generall that he shall not conclude or agree to alien or discontinue but that which cannot be a condition good in the particular may be good in the generall as Littletons Case gift in taile upon condition that he should not alien is good otherwise of Fee simple with which 10 H. 7. 11. and 13 H. 7. 23. 24. accordingly Thirdly That it is a breach of the limitation Condition that alienation and discontinuance be by Recovery which is a lawfull act and it is a priviledge incident to the Estate taile and though that the agreement was made by the Husband and the Wife during the Coverture and so should be if the Husband and the Wife had levied a Fine see 10 H. 7 13. Condition that if the condition had been expressed that they should not levy a Fine had been void and here this verball agreement betwixt the Husband and the Wife and the third person shall be for Forfeiture of their Estates for this is the agreement of the Wife as well as of the Husband as it appears by Becwithes Case 2. Coke before cited where the Husband and the Wife agree to levy a Fine and that the Fine shall be to the use of the Connusee this is good declaration of the use though that it be of the Land of the Wife and during the Coverture and cannot be avoided by the Wife after the death of her Husband for it was the agreement of the Wife though it be not by any Indenture to declare the use of the Fine so many acts in the Country made by the Husband and the Wife shall be intended the act of the Wife as well as of the Husband as in the 17 Ed. 3. 9. The Abbot of Peterboroughs Case the Husband and Wife granted Rent for equality of partition and this shall binde the Wife after the death of the Husband for it is her act as well as the act of the Husband and shall be intended for her benefit and so here by the Recovery the Wife shall be Tenant in Fee simple which was Tenant in taile before and 34 Ed. 3. 42. feoffment to a married Wife upon
condition to re-enfeoff and she with her Husband makes the re-enfeoffment it is good so a Woman being Lessee for Life and with her Husband attorn upon a Grant of Reversion is good and shall binde the Wife after the Death of the Husband 3 Ed. 3. 42. 4 Ed. 3. Attornment 12. 15 Ed. 3. Attornment also this Estate was made to the Wife when she was sole and for that it shall be accounted her folly that she would take such a Husband that would forfeit her Estate but with that agreed the reason of the Booke of 20 H. 6. 28. Where a woman Tenant was bound by the ceasing of her Husband and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and so it was adjourned see another argument of this case in Michaelmas Tearm 9. Jacobi 1611. by Haughton and Nicholls Serjeants Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Pitts against Dowse IN an Ejectione firme upon not guilty pleaded The Case was this A man makes his Will by these words I bequeath all my Lands to my Son Richard except my Chauntery Lands And I devise all my Chauntery Lands to be devided amongst all my Children men and women alike except my Son Richard And if Richard die without Issue the remainder to A. My second Son the remainder to B. My third Son the remainder to C. My fourth Son the remainder to my next of blood and so from Heire to Heire And so likewise I would to be done upon my Chauntery Lands and Tenements in case all my aforesaid Children die without Issue Then I would the one halfe of my Chauntery Lands to remaine to the next of kin and the other half to the Hospitall of M. And the question was what estate the Heire of the eldest Son shall have in the Chauntery Lands and it was argued by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Heire of the eldest Son shall have estate tayl in the Chauntery Lands the Devisor devises no estate to Richard his eldest Son in the Chauntery Lands nor limitts any estate of that in certaine and for that he seemed that the youngest Sons and Daughters shall be Tenants in Common for life and by this manner of Interpretation every part of the Will shall be for first he excludes Richard himselfe so that he shall have nothing in that and then by the Limitation to the younger Children to be equally divided between them makes them Tenants in Common see 28. H. 8. 25. Dyer 155. And he cited Lewin and Coxes Case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 41. and 42. of Eliz. Pasche 42. Eliz. Rot. 207. Where a man devises Lands to his two Sons to be equally divided and adjudged that they are Tenants in Common so devise to two part and part like and equally divided and equally to be divided is all one and for that there is no other words to make an estate of Inheritance it shall be an estate for life and the remainder shall be directed according to the estates limited of the other Land And he seemed that the words in the last sentence all my aforesaid Children shall extend to Richard his eldest Son as well as to the others and so all the Will shall stand in his force which may be Objected that Richard the eldest Son shall be excluded out of the Possession and for that see 6. Eliz. Dyer 333. 29. Chapmans Case and also he cited one case to be adjudged Trinity 37. Eliz. Rot. 632. betweene Bedford and Vernam where a man deviseth all his lands in Alworth and afterwards purchaseth other Lands in the same Town and afterwards one comes to him to take a Lease of this Land newly purchased which the Testator refused to Let. And said that these Lands newly purchased should goe as his other Lands And upon his Death bed adds a Codycell to his Will but saith nothing of his purchased Lands and adjudged that the purchased Lands shall passe and so concluded and praied Judgement Harris Serjeant that it is a new Sentence and Richard is excluded and it shall be a good Estate tayl to the youngest Children and foresayd Children shall be intended them to which the Chauntery Lands are limited see Ratcliffes case 3. of Coke adjudged that they shall be Tenants in Common by the devise to he equally divided and thall not be surviving but every youngest Children shall have his part in tayl though that the first words do not containe words of Inheritance yet the last words in case all my Children die without Issue declares his intent that they should have an estate tayl see the 16. of Eliz. Dyer 339. 20. Claches Case that when he hath disposed of part devised to Richard then disposeth of the residue and the sentence begins with And so likewise and that shall be intended in the same manner as he had disposed of the Lands devised to Richard for he hath devised the remainder otherwise that is to an Hospitall and so concludes and praies Judgement accordingly Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged between Coke and Petwiches 29. Eliz. that if a man devise a house to his eldest Son in tayl and another house to his second Son in tayl and the third house to the third Son in tayl and if any of them die without Issue the remainder to the other two equally this shall be but for life for this enures to the quantity of the Land and not to the quality of the Estate And he said that Richard is excepted without question for it is but a Will and every of the youngest Sons therein shall have the Chauntery Land one after another and Richard shall have no part and the Chauntery shall have nothing till they all are dead and he likened that to Frenchams Case where Lands were given to one and to his Heires Males and if he died without Issue the remainder over the Issues Females shall not take though that it be if they die without Issue for expresse it makes to cease only and so it was adjourned Petoes Case PEto suffers a common Recovery to the use of himselfe for life the remainder to his eldest Son in tayl with diverse remainders over to the intent that such Annuities should be paid as he by his last Will or by grant declares so that they did not exceed the summ of sixty pound and if any of the said Rents be behind then to the use of him to whom the Rent shall be behind till the Rent be satisfied with clause of distresse Rent of twenty pound was granted to his youngest Son for his life the grantee distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes the Plaintiffe replâ—es that by the non-paiment the use riseth to the youngest Son by which it was objected that the Rent shall be suspended Quere if without demand or if the distresse shall be demanded or that the use shall not rise till after the distresse and to the distresse well taken and agreed by all that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by
his Writ and that the eldest Brother hath nothing in the Land Judgement was had against a Defendant in Debt and Capias to satisfie awarded and Non est inventus returned and Scire facias awarded against the Bayl and upon the first Scire facias the principall Defendant yeelds his Body in execution and it was very good for before that the Bayl had no day in Court and in the Kings Bench if the Defendant yeelds his Body upon the second Scire facias it shall be accepted And if a man be Bayl upon a Writ of Error if the Judgement shall not be reversed he shall be in execution againe It was objected by Hutton Serjeant that the Scire facias is against the Bayl to know why the execution shall not be awarded against the Bayl and that ought to be delivered to the Sheiriff before the day of the returne or otherwise it shall be Erroniously awarded and then the party may yeeld his Body to Prison at any time and discharge his Bayl and agreed that Bayl in this Court may be released Accompt doth not lie for any sum certaine Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611 in the Common Bench. John Reyner against Powell See Hillary 8. Jacobi 136. HAughton Serjeant argued that there shall be a good Estate tayl of a Copy-hold and that by the custome after the making of the Statute of Westminster 2. And he agreed that at the Common Law all estates were Fee simple absolute or conditionall and that the estates tayl were created by the Statute of Westminster 2. And do not exclude customary estates as it appeares by Littleton who saith that Tenant at will by copy of Court Roll by custome may be in Fee simple and so of estate tayl and with this agrees many other Authors 15 H. 8. b. Tenant by Copy-hold of Court Roll resolved in the point and that a Formedon in the discender lieth for that and as the Statute of Westminster 2. divides estate tayl and Fee simple So may custome of a Mannor as well as custome make an estate at will which is personall and determines by the death of any of the parties to discend and as well as the custome of London of not moving things fixed is created by custome as well may Formedon be created by Custome and also the Statute is that gives Cui in vita extends to a Copy-hold so the Statute of Limitation as it appeares by Brooke Limitation 5 Ed. 6. And with this agrees also Heydons Case and though that the words are Voluntas Donatoris in the Charter c. Yet the estate tayl may be created by devise So that the Statute shall not have such literall construction and as well as a Lease for a hundred yeares may be within the Statute of 11. H. 7. Which speakes only of discontinuances as it appeares by Sir George Brownes Case 3. Coke So may a Copy-hold estate which is but an estate at will be within the Statute of Westminster 2. and it is confest by the other part by pleading that he was seised in tayl according to the custome of the Mannor and it is not pleaded that he had Issue at the time of the Alienation and the other party claimed by the Alienation the which was not good if he had no Issue at the time of that if he had but Fee simple conditionall and so concluded and praied Judgement c. Dodridge Serjeant of the king saith that the reputation of the estate consists upon two parts first the name secondly the nature of the estate tayl and for both the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. bad no intention that this should extend to Copy-hold and first for the name which gives the being he cited Fitz. Natura Brevium 12. C. where it is sayd that Copy-Tenants or Copy-holders or Tenants by copy is but a new Terme found for of auncient times they were called Tenants in Villenage or of base tenure as this also appeares by the old Tenures by which it appeares that then they were called and named Tenants which held in Villenage or of base tenure and Bracton booke 2. chap. 8. in the end speakes of that and calls them Villaines Sokemaines and that if such a Tenant will transfer his Tenement let it be delivered into the hand of the Lord or his Steward and he wrote immediately before the Statute of Westminster 2. and agreed with Fitz. Na. Bre. And also Bracton booke 4. fol. 209. Saith that such Tenants have used to Plow the Demesnes of the Lord and calls and names them as before and 4. Ed. 1. He is called Customarius So that Custome doth not make the certainty of his estate if he hath any and he said that 42. Ed. 3. 25. is the first in Law in which is any mention of these Lands and there they are called Neists Lands and 14 H. 4. 323. a. they are called Sokemaines by base Tenure and Lambert calles it Folkland by which and severall names he saith that the basenesse of the Estate appeares And to the estate he saith that originally it was but at the will of the Lord though that it be according to the Custome of the Mannor So that the Lord cannot put him out if he performe the services And the Register doth not respect him for he hath not framed any Originall for him to give him remedy by the Common Law but only in the Court of the Lord though that erronious Judgement be given Also he cannot prescribe but in the name of the Lord as it appeares by 18. Ed. 3. Fitz. prescription that such estates which are incident to Fee simple as Dower not Tenants by the Curtisie cannot be derived out of this without Custome nor that warranted So that his reputation appeares by his name and also by his nature Also he intended that the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2 did not intend that the Statute should extend to this for it is Oppositum in Objecto for Custome is without time of memory And the Statute of Westminster 2. was made 13. Ed. 1. the beginning of which every one knowes Also the Statute of Westminster 2. doth not extend to any Lands but those which the Tenant might have aliened before the Statute But the Copy-holder had not any power to alien for the Lord ought to be his Instrument and hand as Bracton saith to alien transfer he cannot but by the hands of the Lord and it must be restored to the Lord the words of the Statute are The will of the giver in the Charter c. So that the Statute intends such Lands which may passe by Deed and Fine and devise his Deeds and the Deed extends to them for a Fine is Chirograph and devise to be made by copy of Court Roll is not so for that is only of Acts made in the Court of the Lord it cannot be within the Statute for Copy-hold ought to be held of the Lord and Tenant in tayl shall hold of the giver and so
cannot a Copy-holder which hath so base an estate And if this shall be so these mischeifes will insue That is that this base estate should be of better security then any estate at the Common Law for Fine shall not be a Barr of that for it cannot be levied of that also Recovery cannot be suffered of that for there cannot be a Recovery in value neither of Lands at the Common Law neither of Customary Lands for they cannot be transferred but by the hands of the Lord. And to Littleton he agreed and also 4 Ed. 2. which agrees with this where it is said that at Stebenâ—eath a Surrender was of Copy-hold Lands to one and the Heires of his Body but he said that that shall not be an Estate taile for then the Estate hath such operation that this setles a Reversion and Tenure betwixt the Giver and him to whom it is given but this cannot be of Copy-hold Land for this cannot be held of any but only of the Lord and to the others this Estate doth not lye in Tenure and yet he agreed that of some things which did not lye in Tenure Estate Tail may be but Land may be intailed but Copy-hold Estate is so base that an Estate tail cannot be derived out of it so that though that custome may make an Estate to one and the Heires of his Body yet this cannot be an Estate taile but Fee-simple conditionall and also he agreed that they might have Formedon in Discender but it is the same Formedon which was before the Statute as if Tenant in Fee-simple conditionall before the Statute would alien before issue but it was no Estate taile with the priviledges of an Estate taile before the Statute and to the other matter of Surrender that is the admittance of the parties which is an Estate taile that doth not conclude the Court as it appears by the Lord Barkleys Case in the Commentaries where the Estate pleaded severally by the parties is not traversed by any of them and so concludes and prayes Judgment c. And this case was argued again in Trinity Tearme next ensuing by Montague the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant and he said that there are three questions in the case First If Copy-hold land may be intailed Secondly Admitting that it may be intailed if Surrender makes discontinuance Thirdly If it shall be Remitter and to the first he seemed that it might be intailed and that it shall be within the Statute of Westminster 2. And first for the Antiquity of that he said that Littleton placed that amongst his Estates of Free-hold and hath been time out of minde and is a primitive Estate and not derived out of the Estate of the Lord and the Lord is not the Creator of that but the means to convey that after that it is cerated and what is created then shall have all the priviledges and Benefits which are incident to it and shall be nursed by the custome and is time out of minde and the Law alwaies takes notice of it and he cited 24 H. 4. 323. by Hankf Bracton Fitz. Na. Bre. 12 C. and Brownes Case 4. Coke which is not simply an Estate at the will of the Lord but at the VVill of the Lord according to the custome of the Mannor and when it hath gained the reputation of Free-hold then it shall be dircted according to the rules of the Common Law and 2. and 3. P. and Ma. Dier 114. 60. allow Copy-hold Estate to be intailed and he saith That no Statute hath more liberall exposition then the Statute of Westminster 2. 45. Ed. 3. Incumbrance shall not charge the Issue intaile also a Copy-holder shall have a Cui in vita also a Copy-hold is within the Statute of Limitation and so upon the Statute of buying of pretenced rights And it is alway intended when a Statute speakes of Lands and Tenements that Copy-hold Lands shall be within that And he saith That all the Objections which have been made of the contrary part are answered in Heydons Case but he relyed upon that that every reall Inheritance is within the Statute of Westminster 2. 4 Ed. 2. Formedon lyeth of Copy-hold Land 25 Ed. 3. 46. Estate tayle is of a Corrody and office which proves that Copy-hold is a reall Inheritance and for that shall be within the Statute 46 Ed. 3. 21. Gavelkinde Land may be intailed 6 Rich. 2. Avowry 2. 8. Rich. 2. 26. Copy-holder shall be charged with Fees of a Knight at Parliament 22 and 23. Eliz. Dier 373. 13. Lands in ancient Demesne were intayled and he said that the reason is that for that it is Inheritance and time hath applyed them to an Estate and so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that Copy-hold Lands cannot be intailed for that is but a customary Estate and the Law doth not take any notice of it but onely according to Custome for there were no Estates tayle before the Statute for then all were Fee simple absolute or conditionall that is either implyed or by limitation which cannot be of an Estate tayle which is not within the Statute of Westminster 2. for no Actions are maintainable by that but those which are by the Custome and a Writ of false Judgment See Fitzherberts Natura brevium 12. 13 Ed. 3. F. Prescription 29. that it hath no Incidents which are incident to Estates at the Common Law without Custome as Dower See Revetts Case and so is Tenancy by the Curtesie and there shall be no discent of that to take away Entry and so of other derivatives And he seemed that it is not within the Statute for three reasons apparent within the Statute First That it is hard that Givers shall be barred of their reversions but in case of Copy-holds the Giver hath no remedy to compell the Lord to admit him after the Estate tayle spent but onely Subpena and in this Case the Lord may releive himselfe for the losse of his services for that the Statute provides no remedy for him Secondly That the Statute doth not intend any Lands but those of which there is actuall reversion or remainder and those which passe by Deed so that the will of the Giver expressed in the Charter may be observed and of which there may be a subdivision as Lord Mesne and Tenant for there shall be alwayes a reversion of the Estate tayle and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of the Lord. Also it seems that the Statute doth not intend to provide for any but those for whom the VVrit in the Formedon ordained by the Statute lyes and agreed that for Offices and such like Formedon lyeth if the party will admit Estate tayle to be discontinued Also the Statute intends those things of which a Fine may be levyed for the Statute provides that the Fine in his owne right should be nothing but by Copy-holder Fine cannot be levied and for that he shall not be within the
brings an action of Trespasse and the first Nonsuit pleaded in Barr and adjudged a good Barr 12 Edw. 4. accordingly Foster Walmesley and Warburton agreed without any doubt but they sayd that if the first execution had been had by Covin then it should have been otherwise In Debt upon buying of diverse severall things the Defendant confesseth part and for the residue the action being brought by an Executor in the Detinet onely the Defendant pleads he oweth him nothing and upon this Tryall was had and Verdict for the Plaintiff and after Verdict it was moved that this misjoyning of Issue was ayded by the Statute of Jeofailes but it was resolved by all the Justices that it was not ayded for it was no misjoyning of the Issue but no Issue at all but if there had been Issue joyned though that it were not upon the direct matter yet this shall be ayded and at the end the Plaintiff remitted the part that the Issue was joyned and prayed Judgment for the residue and this was granted but if the Plaintiff had been nonsuited that would go to all Administrators during the minority had Judgment in debt and before execution sued the Executor came to his age of seventeen yeares and how this execution shall be sued comes the question for the power of the Administrator was determined by the attaining of age of 17. yeares by the Executor and the Executor was not party to the Record and for that he could not sue execution but it seems that the Executor may sue speciall Scire facias upon the Record and so sue execution in his owne name See 27 H. 8. 7. a. Action upon the Case for these words He hath stolne forty Staure of Lead meaning Lead in Stauce from the Minster and resolved by all that action doth not lye for it shall be intended that the Lead was parcell of the Minster and the Innuendo shall not helpe that Pasche 9. Jacobi 1611. In Common Bench Crane against Colepit THomas Crane Plaintiff in Replevin against Bartholemew Colepit the only question was if Tenant by discent of the age of twenty years and more ought under one and twenty yeares to attorn to a Grant of the signiory or not and it was adjudged that the Attornement is good for three reasons First For that he gives no Interest and for that it cannot be upon condition for it is but a bare assent Secondly His Ancestors held the same Land by the payment of the Rent and making of their Services and it is reason that the Rent should be payd and the Services performed and for that though that he shall have his age for the Land yet for the Rent he shall not have his age and though that it is agreed in 32 Ed. 3. That he shall have his age In per que servitia yet after his full age the Grantee shall distraine for all the arrerages due from the first so that the Attornement is no prejudice for this Infant and he is in the number of those which shall be compellable to attorn see 41 Ed. 3. age 23. 26 Ed 3. 32. 32 Ed. 3. and 31 Ed. 3. Per que servitia 9 Ed. 3. 38. 32 Ed. 3. Infant of the age of three years attorned and good and 3 Ed. 3. 42. Husband attornes and that shall bind the Wife 12 Ed. 4. 4. 18 H. 6. Attornement of an Infant is good to binde him for that it is a lawfull act Thirdly The Attornement is a perfect thing of which the Law requires the finishing that is the grant of the signiory which is not perfect till the Tenant attorn and Foster Justice said that so it had been adjudged in this Court in the time of the Reigne of Elizabeth in which Judgment all the Justices agreed with one voyce without any contradiction See 26. Ed. 3. 62. Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. As yet Rowles against Mason see the beginning Michaelmas 8. Jacobi DOdridge Serjeant of the King argued for the Plaintiff he saith that there are two Copies first that a Copy-holder for life under a 100. l. may nominate his Successor Secondly That such Copy-holder after such nomination may cut down all the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold and sell them and he saith that it hath been adjudged that the custome that Copy-holder for life may sell the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold is void between Popham and Hill Hillary 45 Eliz. in this Court so if the first custome doth not make difference by the nomination the second is resolved to be void and it seemes to him that the first custome doth not make difference and to the objection that the first custome hath been adjudged to be good between Bale and Crab he saith that the custome adjudged and this custome as it is found differs in many points First It was found that every Copy-holder for life solely seised without Remainder but here is sole Tenant in possession and this may be where there is a Remainder so that uncertainty in this makes the custome void as in 6 Ed. 3. custome that an Infant at the age of discretion may alien is void for uncertainty also in the case here it is found that the Copy-holder may name who shall be next Tenant to the Lord and doth not say to whom the nomination shall be made but in the first case the custome is found to be that the nomination ought to be to the Lord in the presence of two Copy-holders also in the first it is found that if they cannot agree of the Fine that the Homage shall assess it but in this custome here found there is not any mention of that he ought to seek to be admitted and doth not say at what court the which ought to be shewed in certain as it is resolved in Penimans Case 5 Coke 84. Where custome that a Feoffment ought to be inrolled is expressed shall be inrolled at the next court also in the first case to be found that after the Fine is payd or offered he which is named shall be admitted and here is not any mention of that so that he concluded that this is a new custome and not the same custome which was in question between Bayle and Colepit also it is found that the trees were cut immediately after nomination of a new Tenant and before any admittance or Fine payd for him so that insomuch that the Benefit was not equall as well as to the Lord as to the Tenant as in 2 Ed. 4. 28. and 22 Ed. 4. 80. For plowing and turning upon the Land of another for that the custome shall be void And to the second custome also it seems that that is voyd and unreasonable First for that when any is alledged in the custome that is inconvenient though that it be not mischeivous yet the custome shall be void as in 4. Assisarum 27. in Assise brought against an Abbot which pleads custome that all the houses of the South side of
the street shall be devisable and he claimes by force of a Devise made according to that custome and adjudged that the custome is not good for it is inconvenient that in one self same ancient Town one house shall be devisable and another not and upon that the Plea was amended so here custome that a Copy-holder may sell all the Trees is inconvenient for it doth not appeare that this Custome extended to any other but to him Secondly this Custome is against the Common Wealth for every Custome ought to have preservation and maintenance and that shall not be here for when one Copy-holder hath sold all the Trees the Successor shall not have any Boots nor Fire and so by the same reason he may pull down the house And so this tends to destruction and rests in the will of a man if he will distroy or not And this is inconvenient that such power should be given to one which hath but an estate for life as in 14. Ed. 3. Barr 277. Copy-holder pleads Custome of a Mannor that that Copy-holder which comes first after a windfall falne shall have it and resolved to be void Custome for that it rests in the will of a man if he will finde that or not So in 5. H. 7. 9. Custome that if one find Beasts doing Dammage that he may distraine them and have foure pence for his Dammages and adjudged void Custome for the Dammages are nncertaine and for that it is no reason that the Fine shall be certaine and 19. Eliz. Dyer 358. 46. Custome that all Devises and Leases granted for more then six yeares are meerly void forthwith is a void Custome because contrary to common reason and the liberty of one which hath Fee simple So 2 Hen. 4. 24. Custome that the Tenants of the Mannor shall not use their Common till the Lord put in his Beasts is void for it should not depend on the Will of the Lord So in the principall case the Lord cannot grant Copy-hold Estate in reversion for it depends upon the Nomination of his Tenant and for that the Custome shall be void Thirdly The Copy-holder hath prescribed to do a thing which is contrary to his Estate and doth not cohere with his Estate that is that Lessee for life shall cut the Trees for he hath but a speciall property in that and not the â—bsolute property and it is like to a Case in 19 Ed 3. Feoffments 68. and 19 Assise 9. Where Commander of an Hospitall prescribes that he and his Predecessors which have had the same office have used to make Leases for lives and in an Action brought by the Prior it was adjudged that the custome is void and so by consequence the Lease was void for the Commander hath no Estate to make it so in Forsâ— and Hemlings Case 4. Coke and 3 Ed. 3. F. Dat. Custome that a married Wife may make a Will is void for it doth not stand with the quality of her person so here it is not with the quality of the Estate but it may be objected that it is a greater Estate then an Estate for life for it is perpetuall Free-hold to that it may be answered in this case it is no greater Estate then for life for the Copy-holder hath only made nomination but he which was nominated was not admitted so that the Tenant hath no greater Estate nor the Lord hath granted greater Estate then for life but admit that he be Tenant for life with a Remainder for life to him to whom the nomination is made yet he cannot do such an act and for that the cutting down of the Trees shall be a forfeiture of his Estate by custome by which the Estate is created and copy-hold Lands are not as other Lands which if they were let for Life at the common Law the Tenant were dispunishable for wast till the Statute of Glocester for it was the Folly of the Lessor to make a Lease to such a person which would make wast and for that as the benefit and Priviledge of the copy-holder remaines so the benefit of the Lord shall not be abridged and so he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Haughton Serjeant seemeth the contrary for the Defendant and he agreed that Customes ought to be reasonable and if they be generally inconvenient they cannot be reasonable and to the first exception to prove that it is a new Custome that is that it is found that he is onely Tenant in possession without saying Without Remainder as it was in the first Case to that he thought if it were true that the Copy-holder hath such priviledge that he might nominate his Successor it is not materiall and to the lessening of the Fine that is found very certaine for he that is nominated at the first requires admittance and if the Lord refuse that he shall be admitted for such a Fine that the Homage Assess and so it is found and that is very certaine and the rather for that that this is a speciall Verdict Also he agreed as before That Custome ought to be reasonable and if it be generally inconvenient though it be not mischeivous yet it shall not be good and to the Case of 40 Assis 37. Custome to devise the Tenements on the South side of the Street is not good for that that Custome cannot be in one particular place certaine and also he agreed the Case of Windfall for that tended to charge the Lord 3 Eliz. Dyer 299. 57. 58. Custome to have Herriot the best Beast and if that be put out of the way before seisure then the Lord may seise and take the Beast of any other mans there arising and lying downe to his owne proper use and the custome held voyd and unreasonable So the custome in 20 H. 7. to have so much for every Pound-breach is voyd but this custome is meerly between the Lord and Tenant and the custome hath made that discendable Inheritance and also may have reasonable beginning and the Lord hath benefit for that that is his Fine for the admittance of him which is nominated and custome hath created other Estates as Grant to him and his is good by the custome and so the Cases of 21 Ed. 4. and 22 Ed. 4. before cyted for the turning of Plough upon the Land of his Neighbour So the custome if the Lord feed the Beasts of his Tenant that he may Fold them and so he concluded that the first custome to make nomination is good and to the second custome he agreed that bare Copy-holder for life could not Prescribe to cut and sell all the Trees no more then custome that Tenant for life may devise as 35 H. 6. But here the Tenant hath perpetuity in his Estate and may nominate his Successor and as well as the Common Law allows Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct to make waste so may custome allow Tenant for life with such nomination power to cut and sell the Trees Also he intended admitting the custome not good
that yet the Copy-holder hath nor forfeited his Estate for the Trees and the Mannor are granted by severall Grants and for that though that they are by one selfe same Deed yet by that the Trees are severed from the Mannor and the Trees are the cause of the forfeiture and they are no parcell of the Mannor as in 31 Edw. 3. Assis 441. by sale of a Castle the services are extinct So here the forfeiture cannot accrue to the Mannor when that commeth by reason of Trees which are severed by reason of severall Grants and he thought that the Grant shall be taken more strong against him which made it as if a man in the Premises give Fee-simple to have in tayl the Estate tayl shall be precedent and the Fee-simple depending upon that so if a man have the next avoydance of a Church and the Church becomes voyd and after he purchase the Advowson yet the Presentation remaines as it was before for that is the best thing and so it is resolved in Herlackendens Case 4 Coke 63. b. That if a man makes a Lease for yeares of Land except the Trees and after grants the Trees to the Lessee that the Trees are not reunited to the Land and so he concluded that it shall be no forfeiture and prayed Judgment for the Defendant and this Case was argued againe Michaelmas 9 Jacobi by Shirley for the Plaintiff that the first custome was voyd insomuch that he claimed to doe a greater thing then his Estate would warrant as in 35 H. 6. Custome that if one Pawne the Goods of another that he which hath them Pawned may keep them whosoever they were is not good as Custome that the Tenant in tayle may devise is voyd for his Estate will not warrant it and it is prejudice to the Tenant in reversion So Custome that Copy-holder shall have Common and another Custome that none shall put in his Beasts till the Lord put in his 2. H. 4. 24. Also there is no Fine Limited to be tendred by the Tenant or to be demanded by the Lord And if a Copy-holder refuse to pay his Fine it is a Forfeyture and if the Custome do not provide for the Fine of the Lord as for the Copy-holder the Custome shall be void Also here cannot be admittance for Littleton saith that the sole meanes to transfer Copy-hold is by Surrender And here if the Custome should be good the copy-hold should be transferred by Nomination only and so the Lord should be Defeated of his Fine and it seemes also that the second Custome is void for it is contrary to the Estate of a copy-holder to sell all the Trees but he agreed that he might have Estovers for houseboote and hedgboote as it was adjudged in Swayne and Becketts Case and he cited the 19. assis Where a Commoner made a Lease for life and void for that that the Estate would not support it 9. H. 6. 56. and 11. H. 6. 40. Prescription to sell Estovers is void for Estovers are appropriate to a house And also it was adjudged in this Court between Poltocke and Powell that a copy-holder for life cannot prescribe to sell the Trees for it is contrary to his Estate as if a Custome be that if a Feoffor die his Heire within age that he shall be in Ward as 8. H. 6. And he thought that the Nomination was no alteration for he to whom the Nomination is made hath only an Estate for life when the Nomination is made and that doth not warrant the sale of the Trees and to the third it seemes that the Lord of the Mannor bargaine and sells the Trees and after lets the Mannor to the bargainee for years and then copy-holder makes wast he thought that the Trees were not severed from the Mannor as in 33. H. 8. 48. Dyer 2. if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and after in the same Deed makes a bargaine and sale of an Advowson appendant this remaines appendant So if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and also the Trees do not passe till Livery be made of the Mannor So if Lessee for yeares gives and grants the Land and makes a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the tearme passes without Livery and then it is a Forfeyture And here the Lessee shall have the benefit of Shade and Burrough and the Trees themselves during the Tearme as parcell of the Land and then when the copy-holder hath done more then his Estate will warrant this is a forfeyture and the Lessee shall take the advantage of it and so he praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris for the Defendant that the Customes are good but admitting that so yet the Plaintiff shall not take advantage of it and he argued that Custome ought to have two properties first reasonable secondly ought to have time to make that perfect and then shall be good as it appears by the examples of Littleton f. 37. of Burrough English and Gavelkind and custome may be against common right but not against common reason which is the common Law 8 Ed. 4. 18. 21 Ed. 3. 4. And he intended here that the second custome is good if the first be good for then it is perpetuall Free-hold and Copy-hold Estate of Inheritance is but an Estate at will at the Common Law and yet such Copy-holder may dispose the Trees as well as custome may create the Estate as well may it give such priviledge as custome may warrant the taking of Toll for passing over the soile of another 22 Assise 58. And so custome to have the Foldage of the Beasts which feeds upon his soil is good but custome for paying the Goods of another is not good for there is not any recompence but fishing in the Sea and to dig the soile adjoyning for landing of his Nets is good for this is for the publick good 8 Ed. 4. 23. So the custome for turning upon head-land of another is good and is for the preservation of Tilling and also it is between Lord an Tenant and shall be intended to have a reasonable beginning for consideration c. That this continues for he hath Fines and other Services and yet 3 Eliz. 199. Dyer If the Lord claim Harriot of his Tenant and if it be Esloyned alledge custome that he may take the Beasts that he found upon the Land in Withernam and this was adjudged unreasonable custome so 20 H. 7. 13. Custome to have three shillings of a stranger for pound-breach is void but of a Tenant is otherwise for it shall be intended to be a lawfull beginning 11 H. 7. 40. So here the beginning shal be intended to be lawfull and for valuable consideration and for this it shall be good and to the second custome it follows by consequence to be a good custome if the first should be good and then to the third he agreed that Copyholder cannot make wast and if he do it shall be a forefeiture of his Estate as it is said
the question was demanded of the Plaintiff and in 22 Rich. 2. Damages 130. Hankford demanded the question if the Jury ought to inquire if the Defendants were sufficient or not and it was resolved that they need not and in 34 H. 8. Trinity Rot. 347. there is a President accordingly where the Husband and the Wife were found guilty and the Action was founded upon the Statute and Capias awarded against them both and to the fayling of the Record it is reason that the Wife should not be imprisoned for the Pleas are the Pleas of the Husband and his acts and in the 11 H. 4 51. and 21 Assis 4 in Assise the Wife was received and voucheth a Record and failed and no judgment upon that against the Husband and the Wife was imprisoned and so upon Allegation of Joyntenancy the Wife was imprisoned and so he concluded and prayed judgment for the Plaintiff and at another day the Case was argued againe by Montague the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant that a marryed Wife was not within the Statute of Westminster 2. Chap. 35. And he sayd that the true course for understanding the Statute is to consider three things First the Common Law before the making of that Statute Secondly the mischeife that the Statute intended to remedy Thirdly against what persons the Statute intended to remedy such mischeifes And to the first he intended that at the Common Law before the making of the Statute the Remedy for Ravishment of Ward was an Action of Trespasse as it appeares by Fitz. Na. Bre. And then it was questioned if the Plaintiff should recover the Body without Dammages or Dammages only without the Body See 9. Ed. 4. 48. Ed. 3. 20. 27. H. 6. And then there was no greater punishment nor other remedy for the taking of the Ward then of other goods and for the remedy of that the Statute of Westminster 2. chap. 35. was made by which it is provided that if the Ravisher restore the Ward unmarried then the Plaintiff shall recover only Dammages for the Ravishment and not the value of the Ward But if the Ward be married then the Guardian shall recover the value of the marriage and if he shall not satisfie then he shall abjure the Kiugdome or have perpetuall Imprisonment and the punishments inflicted by the Statute being so penall Then the persons which are within the Statute are considerable for in all penall Lawes the persons and the penallties are the things to be considered and to the persons this Statute saith that one for anothers Fault is not to be punished and he said this is referred to Dammages as well as to Imprisonment and it is not a lost case and the Plaintiff without remedy for Action of Trespasse lies against the Husband at the Common Law for for all Trespasses at the Common Law done by a married Wife the Husband shall be punished by payment of the Dammages and costs which are recovered See 14. H. 8. and 9. Ed. 4. But to the Statutes which are penall and inflict corporall punishment there otherwise and as the Statute of 23. Eliz. made against Recusants for not resorting to Church should forfeit twenty pounds for every moneth and resolved that this shall extend to a marryed Wife and for that the Husband shall be lyable to action But by the third of Jacobi there is speciall provision that the Woman shall not be subject to twenty pounds a moneth but other punishmrnt provided for her and he supposed that where a statute gives Imprisonment and Dammages and a marryed Wife offends the statute and shall be imprisoned but the Husband shall not pay the Damages as in 8 H. 8. 18. Upon the statute of Westminster a Woman was Imprisoned for false appeale for the death of her Husband who was brought into the Court and living and in the 11 H. 4. 54. It is marvell that the statute of Westminster 2. gives the action to the Heire insomuch that Interest appears to the Executor And for that Hill saith That the statute was not made by those which were skilled in the Law but he spake ill saith the Reporter Also the words of the statute If the Ravisher cannot satisfie he shall abjure the Realme or have perpetuall Imprisonment and the Wife cannot by any possibility make satisfaction for she cannot have any Goods so as this Case is the statute would make perpetuall separation either by abjuration or perpetuall Imprisonment if this shall extend to a marryed Wife as in 6 H. 7. was the question whether a marryed Wife shall be Attached for that and she had no Goods as it is 48 Ed. 3. 2. the Sheriff returnes Nihil against a Monk for that that he had no Goods for all his Goods are the Goods of the Abbot and it is impossible that a marryed Wife should have any Goods and the Law doth not compell to impossible things See 3 Ed. 4. 4 H. 6. Also the Statute saith That if the Ravisher dye hanging the Writ let the Law proceed against hiâ— Executors by resummons and a marryed Woman cannot make Executors and to the like cases he thought that a marryed Wife was not within the Statute of Offenders in Parks and this gives the same punishment that the Statute gives as it is resolved 13 Assis So if a marryed Wife fayle of a Record in Assise she shall not be imprisoned and the Husband is joyned onely for conformity and for no other cause and to the President of 34 H. 5. which hath been cyted here against the Husband and Wife and Judgement by default against both and upon this Capiatur is awarded against them both but this is onely for the Imprisonment but not for the Damages and also this Case differs from that for here the Husband is found Not guilty Also it seems that the Book of Entrys 366. 15. lyes against Husband and Wife and there they both plead but if the Wife onely be condemned the Husband shall not pay the Damages recovered against her 44 Ed. 3. 25. As a Lease is made to the Husband and Wife the Husband makes waste and an Action of waste is brought against them both and the Husband dyes and the Writ abates for the wrong dyes with him and the Wife shall not be punished and so prayed that the judgment might stay and Doctor Hussey not punished Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff prayed that the Judgment might be entred and first â—ee considered the Common Law and after that the Statute and at the Common Law hee agreed that a Trespasse lyes against the Husband and the Wife for Ravishment made by the Wife and in this hee should recover Damages against the Husband and the Wife and the Husband shall be charged with the Damages though it be but for words proceeding from her tongue or any other Trespasse and if the Husband make default his body shall be imprisoned so that it appears that there was remedy at the common Law by action of trespasse and
is no parcell of the Bill and for that it need not to be contained in the Count 9 H. 6. 15 16. A thing which doth not intitle the Plaintiff to action need not to be contained in the Count 36 H. 6. 6. If the condition be indorced or subscribed it need not to be contained in the Count but if it be contained before the in witnesse then it ought to be contained in the Count 21 Ed. 4. 36. If a man be bound to pay ten pounds when the Obligee carries two hundred load of Hay to his House there the condition is precedent and it ought to be contained in the Count 22 Ed. 4. 42. accordingly so here the matter is subsequent to the in witnesse and there is not any other matter upon which the action is founded nor contained in the body of the Bill nor to be performed by the Obligee and for that he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the sealing is immediately after the Proviso and is adjoyning to the Bill in writing and for that be it to be performed of the part of the Plaintiff or Defendant it ought to be mentioned in the Count for this intitles the Plaintiff to his Action of the case in 36 H. 6. 6. It is a condition subsequent and there need not to be shewed but if the condition be precedent and contained in the writing before the insealing there it ought to be mentioned in the Count and in this principall case this is either a condition Precedent or nothing for it is that he shall not be compelled to pay the sayd ten pounds untill he had recovered thirty pound and if he never recover he never shall pay the ten pound and it is a condition of the part of the Defendant and it is adjudged in Vssards case that where a condition is precedent there it ought to be contained in the Count but where it is subsequent otherwise it is So 15 H. 7. 1. Grant that when the Grantor is promoted to a Benefice that he ought to give to the Grantee ten pound this is precedent but in the principall case it is a Condition or Covenant and though that it be subsequent yet it may stay the Suit as well as an acquittance which is to be an acquittance if he be vexed otherwise not but a condition that he shall not sue the Bill is void for it is contrary to that and barrs him of all the fruit of that and precedent condition may be placed after the in Witnesse as well as before so he prayed Judgment for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice said that this which is after in witnesse is not part of the Deed but may be a Condition or Defeasance but if it be not in witnesse in the Deed then it shall be parcell of the Bill but though that this be put after the in witnesse yet it shall have his force as Defeasance but it need not to be contained in the Count for in Bonds and personall things there need not such strict words as in other Deeds and for that this shall be a good Condition or Defeasance but then the Defendant ought to have that so pleaded and not demurr for this makes the Bill conditionall VVarberton and Foster agreed VValmesley did not gainsay it and for that it was adjudged for the Plaintiff if the Defendant did not shew cause to the contrary by such a day which was not done Note It was adjudged by all the Justices that fealty gives seisin of all annuall services sufficient to make seisin in avowry but not in Assise but of accidentall services this gives seisin in Assise and a man cannot take excessiive distresse for that for this is more sacred service as Littleton saith of Homage the most honourable See 42 Ed. 3. 26. 11 H. 4. 2. Note Two retaine an Attorney both dye the Executor or Administrator of the survivor shall be onely charged and not the Executors of them both for a personall contract survives of both parties otherwise of reall contracts as warranty See 16 H. 7. 13. a. 3 Coke Sir William Harberts Case 30 Ed. 3. 40. 17 Ed. 3. 8. The Attorney brought an Action of Debt against both and the Executors of both the parties which retained him for his Fees and both pleaded joyntly that they detained nothing and it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in arrest of Judgement the Judgement was stayed insomuch that the Executor of the survivor was onely chargeable notwithstanding the pleading and admission of the Parties Note That it was agreed by all the Justices that by the Law of Merchants if two Merchants joyne in Trade that of the increase of that if one dye the other shall not have the benefit by survivor See Fitzherberts Natura brevium Accompt 38 Ed. 3. And so of two Joynt Shop-keepers for they are Merchants for as Coke saith there are foure sorts of Merchants that is Merchant Adventurers Merchants dormants Merchants travelling and Merchants residents and amongst them all there shall be no benefit by survivor Jus accrescendi inter Mercatores locam non habet Note That Arbitrators awarded that every of the parties should pay onely five shillings for writing the award to the Clark and agreed that the award was voyd to that part and good for the residue for they cannot award a thing to be made to a stranger Action upon the Case was brought for these words He is a Cozening Rogue and hath cozened Richard Wood of thirty pound and goeth about to doe the like by me and agreed that the action doth not lye So for Rogue or Cozener for it is without aspersion and gentle and words shall be taken in the gentlest sense Devise that Executors shall sell Land with the assent of J. S. if J. S. dyes before that he assents the Executors shall not sell notwithstanding the death of J. S. was the act of God and in the life time of J. S. they could not sell without his consent and so it was agreed in the Case concerning Salisbury Schoole where the under Schoole-Master was to be placed by the head Schoole-Master with the assent of two cheife Bailiffs and it seems the head Schoole-Master cannot place without their consents Note it was said to be adjudged that the Inhabitants of a Town cannot be incorporated without the consent of the major part of them and incorporation without their consent is void In action upon the case the case was this The Brother of the Defendant spoke these words to the Plaintiff that is Thou Theif thou Goale whelpe thou hast stolne a peice of Silver from my Master Hocken and the Defendant sayd as insued that is That which my Brother spake is true I will justifie it and spend a hundred pounds in proofe thereof and it seems to the Court that the Action doth not lye against the Defendant insomuch that it doth not appeare by the Court that
to certaine times as the statute of Westminster 2. chapt 11. Which gives power to Auditors which finde accountants in Arrerages to commit them to prison but it ought not to be forthwith and this for the favour of the Defendants and this is the reason also of the Judgment in Fogassas Case by the statute of Agreements that every agreement shall be taken within the statute and so the Statute of 23 H. 6. Provides that the Sheriff shall not let out his County and 20 H. 7. 21. It is agreed that the letting out of a Hundred is not within the Statute and it is also agreed in Partridges case Com. 87. that the statute of 32 H. 8. of buying of Tithes shall not be taken by Equity and the reason is there given insomuch that it is a penall Law and if it be so that the statute shall not be taken by Equity he considered if it be within the words and to that he intended that it is not Corne which is bought for it is changed into another thing and also it is not dead Victuall for it is not Victuall till another thing is made of it also the same thing that was bought ought to be sold again or otherwise it shall not be within the Words of the statute and by consequence out of the penalty as if a man buy Corn and make that into Meale Bread or Puddings this is not within the statute so the buying of Apples and selling of them again it is no victualls within the statute so Butcher which buyes Cattell and those kill and sells again is not within the statute and he sayes that Starch is good Food when it is dry again which proves that this is another thing then the Meale which was bought and so out of the Letter of the statute and to the Proviso which excepts Barley that is bought and made in Malt and Oates made in Oate-Meale and sold again it seems that this is an idle Proviso and surplusage as in Porters Case 1 Coke 24. 6. in the statute of 27 H. 8. Proviso to except good uses out of the statute inables men to devise to such uses and so the statute of 5 Ed. 6. chapter 16. the Body of which extends only to Offices Covenant Administration of Justice or the Revenue of the King as Receiver Controller c. And yet a Keeper of a Park is excepted out of this more for the satisfaction of the ignorant Burgesses then for any necessity and so he concluded and prayed judgment for the Defendant Montague Serjeant of the King for the King and for the Informer argued to the contrary that as to the objection that Costermongers are not within the statute he sayth that that is a thing of Delicacy and not victualls within the statute but he sayth it was adjudged in the Exchequer that the buying of Meale and the selling of that again was within this statute and in this case the Information is that the Defendant had bought Meale and sold the same again by the name of Starch which is confessed by the Demurrer and for the exposition of the statute he considered the mischeife before the making of that the remedy which is provided by the statute and the Office of a good Judge that is to advance the remedy and suppresse the mischeife and he intended that this was punishable by the Common Law in another forme as Waste notwithstanding as Action doth not ly yet Prohibition lyes at the Common Law and by the statute of 27 Ed. 3. Justices in Oyre ought to inquire of all greivances and oppressions to the People and there cannot be greater greivance or oppression then that is which deprives them of their food and for that he is called the Oppresser of the Poore and Fleta calls him Woolfe which ought to be hunted from place to place and 43 Assise was punished by Fine and Ransome and yet then the offence was uncertain but now it is made certain by defining it by this statute so that this is a statute of Definition only and the statute of 31. Ed. 1. infâ—icts the punishment and to the objection that it is not the same thing which is sold which was bought he said it is the same in intent for it produceth the same mischeife Secondly It is the same substance and the same forme that is the formall substance which gives the being but not an accedentall forme and he saith that if a man have Corne and another by wrong takes it from him and doth convert it into Meale he may take that back again otherwise of Iron made into an Anvill but trees made into Timber and plate altered in fashion may be taken back again otherwise if it be converted into Coyne and so upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. If a Servant sells the Goods of his Master and steal the Money that is out of the Statute but if the Servant carry Corne to the Mill and this is converted into Meale and then the Servant steales it this is within the statute for this is the same thing 28 H. 8. A man pleads he appearing seised to the same use it shall not be intended the same but such uses and Browning and Beestons case in the Com. A man is bound to pay twenty pound at Michaelmas and also afterwards to pay twenty pound at the same Feast and that was intended the same Feast in another year and not in the same year so that the word same shall not be so precisely taken but as Patent of the King for making of a thing of which a man hath made new invention is good if it be limited for certain time only as Hastings hath a Patent for making of Frisado only as a thing newly invented by him but insomuch that this varyes only in the form of making of that and not in substance the Patent was adjudged voyd so a Patent made to a Cutler for Gilding insomuch that this varies only in forme this was not allowed to be a new invention so a Patent made to Johnson for new casting of Lead insomuch that that varies only in forme and not in substance this agreed with the ancient this was also void and if the starch made be another thing then the Meale which was bought then it ought to be another in nature and quality but this is not for starch is used for Victuall in Spayne and other Countries as Ryce is used see 46 Assise 8. 27. and he intended that the Proviso made that cleer and without question for there cannot be a difference made between that and Malt and if Malt had not been within the Body of the Act this would not be exempted by speciall Proviso and so the statute of 25 H. 8. chapter 2. for transportation of Victuall in Ireland except Meale which proves also that Meale is included within the words dead Victualls and which hath been within the Body of the statute if it had not been excepted and to the Objection that it
21 H. 8. grants administration to one which is next of Blood that he cannot repeale it but Coke cheife Justice seemed the contrary and that he incurred the penalty of the statute only And if an Administration be granted to one which is next of Blood upon which the first Administrator brings an action of debt hanging that upon suggestion that the first Administration is void another Administration is granted and it seems that this second Administration granted upon this suggestion shall be repealed from the first though it be generall and without any recitall of it But if the second be declared by sentence to be void from the beginning then the first remains good Action upon the Case was brought for these words that is thou hast killed I. S. And it seems that the action doth not lye for a man may kill another in execution and as Minister of Justice or in Warr in which things killing is justifiable Michaelmasse 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench George Barney against Thomas Hardingham IN Trespasse for breaking the House and taking of a Cowe the Defendant pleades that the King and all those whose Estates he hath in the hundred have had Turne and at the Court held such a day it was presented that the Plaintiff hath incroached upon the high Way for which he was amerced and the amercement was affirmed by two Justices of peace according to the Custome of the Turne aforesaid And that he being Bayliff of the hundred by vertue of a Warrant to him in due manner made and directed hath entred the said house and taken the said Cowe for distresse for the said amercement and carrying it away which is the same Trespasse and so demands Judgement upon which Plea the Plaintiff Demurred And by Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff the Plea in Barr is not good and first he conceived that it was not good insomuch that the King hath made his Prescription by whose Estate and he intended that he could not make his Prescription by whose Estate insomuch that this lies in grant as it is 12. H. 7. 15. where it is agreed that by nothing which lieth in grant a man may Prescribe by whose Estate Also the Plea is that the King was seised in his Demesne as of Fee where it ought to be in Fee only insomuch that it is a thing only in Jurisdiction or Signiory and not Manurable as in 8. H. 7. 7. H. 4. 30. assis In an Action of Debt upon Reservation made upon Lease of a Mannor and hundred it is agreed that the hundred is not in Demesne nor Manurable Also the Plea is not good insomuch that it is not Pleaded before whom the Turne shall be held And allwaies when a man claimes a Court by Patent he ought to shew before whom his Court shall be held otherwise it shall not be good so of Conusance of Pleas otherwise it is if it be in a Turne for that shall be intended a certaine ancient Court See 44. Ed 5. 17. 1. H. 4. 6. 6. H. 4. 1. Also the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 35. requires that it should be held in the accustomed place and so it ought to be alledged or otherwise it is against the Statute and for that it shall not be good for it is of the nature of Sheriffs Turne and derived out of that See the book of Entries in Replevin 2. Also the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 14. appoints that the officers shall be the Sheriffe and this is not pleaded but generally by two Justices of Peace upon their Oath And also it is not pleaded to what Sum the amercement was made Also it is pleaded that he being a Bayliffe of the Hundred by vertue of a Warrant to him in due manner directed and made hath taken the distresse and doth not plead the Warrant certainly nor the place where it was made And for that the Plea is not good Also he pleades that he took and led away the Cowe in name of distresse and he ought to say that he took it and impounded it for that he tooke it and carried it away imports that he tooke it to his owne use 9. Ed. 4. 2. 20. Ed. 4. 6. And so he concluded that the Barr is not good and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff And Barker Serjeant for the Defendant conceived that the Prescription for the Hundred by which the Estate was very good and for that See 12. H. 7. 17. a. 8. H. 7. 13. H. 7. Also he intended that the title to the Court is very good notwithstanding that it is expressed before that it shall be held insomuch that the Law takes notice of the Turne of the Sheriffe and that he is Judge of that and that the Affirance is very good insomuch that this is according to the Custome of the Turne aforesaid And the Warrant of the Baylifâ—e is very well pleaded and more is pleaded then need for it is the duty and appertaineth to his office to gather the amercements and he might do that without Warrant by force of his office But if it be upon plaint between party and party otherwise it is and for that see the book of Entries 553. And also the charge in the Action is for that that he took and carried away and of that he made Justification and he cannot Plead otherwise and to the whose Estate c. That a man cannot Prescribe to have a thing by whose Estate which lieth meerely in grant without shewing of a Deed yet when that is appurtenant to another thing as here the Court is to a Hundred it may very well that do and 33. H. 8. B. Leete when the penalty is Presented by the Jury it selfe there needs not any affirance And so he concluded that the Plea in Barr is very good and praied Judgement upon that for the Defendant And Coke cheife Justice said that Turne of the Sheriffe is derived of Turner which signifies to ride a Circuit and so of that is derived Turner and of that the Turne of the Sheriffe and of this is derived the Hundred and from this the Leete And it seems to him that he ought to plead before that the Court shall be held insomuch that it is against Right and so it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Hill against Upchurch NOTE that Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged in 27. of Eliz. For the Mannor of Northhall in the County of Essex that admitting that a Copy-hold may be Intailed by the Statute that then Custome that a surrender shall be a Barr or discontinuance of such Estate tayl is good for as well as the Estate may be created by Custome as well it may be Barred or discontinued by Surrender by Custome Brandons Case NOTE if a Mannor or other signiory be extended upon a Statute and a Ward falls which is a sufficient value to make satisfaction of the Extent yet this shall not be
ancient Demesne that this shall not alter the tenure insomuch that it is meerly personall and the damages are the principall which are to be recovered and in 21 Edw. 4. 10. b. the difference is shewed between ejectione firme and quare ejecit infra terminum for one lyes against the Lessor or other Ejector immediately and the other lyes against the Feoffee of the other immediate Ejector and the first is by force of armes and the other not and it alwayes lyes against him that is in by Title and the first against him which is the wrong doer and hee intended that the agreement with one of these Defendants is good for it is satisfaction and discharges the action as release the which every one which hath it may plead and here it is pleaded with satisfaction that is obligation upon which the Plaintiff may have action and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendants Wynch Justice argued this case notwithstanding that hee had not heard any argument at the Barr this being the first case that he argued after he was made Justice of this Court and he delivered his opinion that the agreement was a good Barre and he said that the difference is where the thing to be recovered is in the Realty and where it is in the Personalty as it is agreed in Blakes Case 6 Coke 43. b. So that here the only question is if this action be in the Realty or in the Personalty and it seems to him that it is in the Personalty and that it is of the nature of Trespass and the tearm is not anciently to be recovered as it is 6. R. 2. Fitz. Na. Bre. and it is within the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action to Executors for goods carryed away in the life time of the Testator as it is 7 H. 4. 6. b. And to objection that ancient Demesne is a good plea and for that is in the Realty and hee said and so it is in Accompt and Accompt is not in the Realty and the reason why it shall not be a Barr in Assise is in so much that there the Free-hold shall be recovered but this fails here so in Waste also this toucheth the Inheritance but here the Inheritance doth not come in question but the tearm only and it doth not appeare to the Court that it concerns Inheritance for it may be betwixt the Lessor or another which claims under him and the Lessee And if a Husband which hath a tearm in right of his Wife submits himself to Arbitrement this shall not bind the Wife but shall bind the Husband and shall be a Barr if the Wife hath not Interest and so he concluded that Judgment shall be given for the Defendants and that the agreement is a good Barr. Foster Justice intended that the agreement is a good Barr in an Ejectione firme c. And it seems that it is no question but that the action is personall and yet hee agreed that ancient Demesne is a good plea. So in debt receipt of part hanging the Writ abates all the Writ And 21 Ed. 4. 10. b. Two Tenants in Common were of a Tearm and 7 H. 4. 6. b. Executors shall have an action upon Entry made in the time of their Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. and in this the Plaintiff shall recover his Tearm but he denyed that the reversion is reduced by the recovery nor revested in the Lessor till the Lessee enter And to the Objection that the Realty and Inheritance may come in question in this that is not to the purpose for so it may in an action of Trespasse And he intended there is no difference between agreement and Arbitrement and agreed that none of those is a plea where the Inheritance or Free-hold comes in question And he conceived that Arbitrement for free-hold is not good unlesse the submission be by Deed indented for by Obligation with Condition is not sufficient 11 H. 4. 44. b. and it is not in difference 14 H. 4. that in ravishment of ward submission may be without Deed insomuch as it is in the personalty and he intended that there is no difference between that and Ravishment of Ward and Ward is but Chattâ—ll so is tearm which may be sold by word as well â—s the possession may be sold by word so may the right of that be extinct by word And as if a may be bound to pay a certain summe of money at a certaine day and the Obligee accept parcell in satisfaction before the day and that is very good So in this case acceptance of a summe of lesse value may be a satisfaction of such personall thing 4 H. 8. Dyer 1. 8 Edw. 6. Dyer 19 H. 6. 9 H. 7. And so he concluded that for that nothing is to be recovered but Chattell that for that the agreement shall be good plea. Warburton Justice agreed that the agreement should be good in Ejectione Firme insomuch that this is meerely personall And he argued that it is no Plea in assise insomuch that this is reall and there the Free-hold is to be recovered and this is the reason that waging of Law lieth in Debt upon arbitrement insomuch that the seale of the Arbitrators is not annexed unto it and for that to him it is but only matter in Deed 13. Ed. 4. And he intended that agreement with satisfaction is as much as Arbitrement for a personall thing cannot be satisfaction for a reall thing and that is the cause that it cannot be a Barr in Debt upon arrerages of accompt insomuch that that is founded upon Record and is a thing certaine And in wast it is no Plea insomuch that this is a mixt Action if it be against a Lessee for life otherwise if it be against a Lessee for yeares for a Tearme is taken in 7. H. 4. 6. b. to be within the word Goods and an Executor may have an Action upon that of goods carried a way in the life of the Testator And though that the Entry abate the Writ yet this doth not prove that it is more then a Tearme and though that the Tearme determine hanging the Writ this shall not abate the Action but the Plaintiff shall recover Dammages and in Ravishment of Ward Summons and Severance lies and the Body of the Heire shall be recovered and so in Quare Impedit Summons and Severance lies and the presentment shall be recovered and Dammages and yet the principall is but presentmemt which is but a Chattell and for that agreement shall be a Barr and so he concluded that Judgement shall be given for the Defendant and that the agreement is a good Plea Coke cheife Justice agreed that the agreement is a good Plea he thought that that savered of Realty for that that the Tearme is to be recovered and of the personalty in respect of the Dammages which are to be recovered and that in all Actions where money or Dammages
against the surviving Donee of houses and Lands to him demised and agreed that the Writ was good but it was a question if the Count shall be generall or of a halfe only notwithstanding that both the parties were Tenants in Common of the reversion Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Ralph Bagnall against John Tucker after 83. TRINITY 9. or Micaelmasse 8. Jacobi Rot 3648. The Case was Copy-holder for life remainder for life purchaseth the Frehold and levies a Fine with Proclamations made five yeares-passe and then he died if the remainder were bound by the Fine or not was the question and it seemes that it shall not be Barr for he is not turned out of possession in right So if a man hath a Lease for remainder for yeares and the first Lessee for yeares purchase the free-hold and levie a Fine with Proclamations and five yeares passe this shall not barr the remainder for yeares insomuch that this was Interest of a Tearme and remaines an Interest as it was without any alteration and it was not turned to a Right And yet it was agreed that the Statute of buying of pretenced rights extends to Copy-holds See Lessures Case 5. Coke 125. See Pasche 1612. for the Judgement Note if an Attorney of this Court be sued here by Bill of Priviledge he ought not to find Bayle But if he be sued by Originall and comes in by Capias then he ought to find Bayle In covenant upon a Lease made by the Dean of Norwich Predecessor to the Dean that now is and the then Chapter of the Foundation of Ed. 6. King for injoying of Land devised to the Plaintiff for three Lives discharged of all incumbrances and also to accept surrender of the same Lease and to make a new and for breaking of covenant the same Dean and Chapter in such a yeare of the Raine of H. 8 had made a lease for years not determined by which the lands devised were incumbred upon which the Defendant demurred And Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Lease was by the Statute of 13 of Eliz. as to the successor of the Dean which made it for that it was a Lease for years in being at the time of the making of that as it is resolved in Elmers Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for life is void to the Successor and so it is in the case of Dean and Chapter and though that the words of the Statute are generally that such a Lease shall be void to all intents purposes and Constructions yet he intended that it shall not be voyd against the Bishop himselfe as it was resolved in the case of the next Advowson by the Bishop in Singletons Case cyted in Lincolne Colledge Case 3. Coke 59. b. And he intended if the Lease be voyd against the Successors that then the covenants also are void as it is agreed in the 28 H. 8. 28. Dyer 189. 190. and he cited one Mills case to be adjudged in the 29 and 30. Eliz. in the Kings Bench that if a Parson make Lease and avoid by non-Residence the Covenants also are void as well as the Lease and also he intended that the Lease for life was void insomuch that it was to be executed by a Letter of Attorney and the Attorney had not made livery till after two Rent dayes were past and for that the Livery was not good for when a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent with Letter of Attorney to make livery here is an implyed condition that Livery shall be made before any day of payment be incurred and it is as much as if a man had made a Lease for life without any Letter of Attorney to make Livery before such a day there if the Attorney do not make Livery before the day but after the Livery is void insomuch as it is contrary to the Condition so in the case here for if Livery made be after a Rent day it may be made after twenty and so immediately before the end of the Tearme and if the Rent be void for this cause the Covenants also are void and if a man bargain and sell his Mannor and the Trees growing upon it the Trees do not passe without Inrollment insomuch that it was the intent of the parties that it should so passe and for that they do not passe without the Mannor also he intended that the Count is repugnant insomuch that that containes that the last Lease for life was made in the time of Ed. 6. and after by the Dean and Chapter of the foundation of Ed. 6. and after that containes that the same Dean and Chapter have made a former Lease in the time of H. 8. Which cannot be if the Dean and Chapter were of the Foundation of Ed. 6. and for that the Count ought to have contained the alteration of the foundation as in case of prescription as in Tringhams case 4. Coke 38. Wyat Wilds Case 8 Coke 79. 2. and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 124. A good Case and he intended that a declaration ought to have precise certainty as in 8. and 9. Eliz. 254. Dyer for a thing which cannot be presumed shall not be intended as it is agreed in Pigotts Case 5 Coke 29. a. otherwise of Plea in Barr for that is sufficient if it be good to common intent also he intended that there is variance between the Count and the Covenant for the declaration is that the Dean and Chapter covenanted with the Plaintiffs the Covenant is generall that is that the Dean and Chapter covenant and doth not say with who and for that the Count also shall not be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff intended that the Covenants shall not be voyd notwithstanding that the Lease it self be voyd he intended that a lease made by a Parson shal be good against himself but it shall be voyd by his death to the Successor but a Lease made by a Dean and Chapter shall be void to the Dean himself and the Covenant shall be in force notwithstanding that the Lease be void insomuch that the Covenants are collaterall and have not any dependance upon the Lease but to the inherent Covenants which depend upon the Lease and the Estate as for Reparations and such like shall be voyd by the avoidance of the Lease but he intended that Covenant to discharge the Land from incumbrances doth not depend upon the Interest but it is meerly collaterall and for that it shall not be void and with this difference he agreed all the Cases put of the other part as in 45 Ed. 3. 3. Lease was made to the Husband and Wife the Husband dies the wife accepts the Land and shall not be charged with collaterall Covenants notwithstanding that shee agrees to the Estate insomuch that they do not depend
upon the Estate and to the Livery made after two Rent dayes incurred he intended that Livery is good that notwithstanding for the deferring of the Execution of a letter of Attorney shall not defeat the Lease or other meane act which amounts to a Command for the Lessâ—r takes the profits in the mean time and it is not like to Littletons case that if a man devise his land to his Executors to be sold and they take the profits and do not make Sale that the Heir may enter insomuch that the Executors have not performed the Condition and it was not the intent of the Devisor that they should take the profits in the Interim to their own use and he intended that the declaration was not repugnant for it is of the aforesaid Church and not of the Dean and Chapter aforesayd and also there need not such congruity as it were the Foundation of the Action insomuch that this is only Allegation of the truth of the matter see 1 H. 7. 18. For variance upon shewing in Deed and 17 Ed. 3. 33. b. and here the aforesaid shew that it is the same in substance though it vary in words and though that the name is altered yet are the same persons in substance and the same Body and though that it be as it is intended to be of another part yet it is but name and the Foundation then is not Issuable as if the King H. 8. had been the Founder and made speciall provision in the Foundation that after the Time of Ed. 6. it shall be said to be the Foundation of Ed. 6. this shall be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff see after adjudged Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. The Bishop of Ely THE Bishop of Ely granted an Office with the Fee for the exercising of that if it be an ancient office it is a good grant and if the Fee be newly increased yet Foster Justice thought that the Grant shall be good for the Office and for so much of the Fee as hath been anciently granted with the Office Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Holcroft against George French IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit if the consideration be Executory then the Declaration ought to contain the time and place where it was made and after it ought ro be averred In Facto when it was performed or executed accordingly but if it be by way of Reciprocall agreement then the Plaintiff may count that in consideration that he hath promised for the Defendant the Defendant hath promised to do another thing for him there he need not that the Declaration contain time or place for the consideration or otherwise that it is performed and executed But if in the first case where it is executory that is also an averment that it is executed there if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit generally and do not plead the speciall matter he cannot after take exception to that Count for the Default aforesayd where he pleads specially to that as in an action of Trover the Conversion ought to be averred to be in a certain place and so in submission and Arbitrement they are contained in the declaration it need not to expresse any time or place certain but if the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no award or that the parties have not submitted themselves to their award there the Plaintiff may reply that the Arbitrement or Submission was made at such a place and this was agreed by all the Justices Michaelmasse 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench Sir Edward Puncheon against Thomas Legate IT was adjudged in the Kings Bench and affirmed upon a Writ of Errour in the Kings Bench that an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit made by the Testator is very well maintainable against the Executor and this was for Money borrowed and so the Count speciall but not upon generall Indebitatus Assumpsit but is good without any averment that the Executors have assets over the payment of Debts due by specialty and Legacies and he sayd that the Record of the Case of 22 H. 8. with this agrees and that the book in this is misprinted and so Coke cheife Justice who publickly reported this Judgment in the Common place sayd which was adjudged in the 11 H. 8. in this Court Note that Land of which a Writ of Right Close lyeth shall be assetts in a Formedon and it is a Free-hold and not a Copy-hold and so are all Lands in ancient Demesne 3 Ed. 3. 14 H. 4. It is no matter what is known to the Judge if it be not in the form of Judgment Pasche 1611. fol. 50. HAughton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the entry of him in Remainder is not lawfull insomuch that he intended it is not any forfeiture of the Estate tayle and first he argued that the condition is not good but repugnant to Law and for that voyd and yet he agreed that Tenant in tayl may be distrayned from making unlawfull Acts but here the condition tends to restraine him from doing of things which are lawfull as if a man makes a Gift in tayl upon condition that the Wife of the Donee shall not be indowed or that the Husband of the Donee shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie or that a Feoffee shall not take the profits of the Land though that the profits may be severed from the Land as in 16 Ed. 3. Formedon was brought of the profits of a Mill yet the condition is voyd insomuch that it is against the nature of an Estate tayl or in Fee-simple to be in such manner abridged so if a man makes a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee shall not make waste the condition is void for the making of wast is a priviledge which is incident to an Estate tayle and for that the condition restraynes the Tenant in tayle of a thing which the Law inables him to do the condition is yoyd so a Donee in tayle upon condition that he shal not make a Deed of Feoffment or Lease for his own life as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case so here when the condition restraynes Tenant in tayl of concluding and agreeing the which in him is not any wrong no more then if a man should make a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee should not bargaine and sell the Land this is voyd insomuch that he doth not make any wrong or discontinuance So in the case here for the thing which is restrayned that is concluding agreeing is in it self a lawfull act and also this is only the affections and qualities of the minde that they cannot make an Estate conditionall if an open act be not annexed unto it but he agreed that if a man make a gift in tayle or a Lease for life of white acres upon condition that the Donee or Lessee shall not take the profits of Black acre this is
so these words of the Writ are not answered and so no Tenant is returned at all And it is not like to the Case in 2 H. 4. for there the Return was according to the Exigent of the Writ but here it is not so And to the first matter he intended and agreed that an Executor of an Executor may sue execution had by the first Executor insomuch that hee comes in in privity But he said that so it is not in this case and that there is no difference betwixt this case and the case cyted in Shelleys case that is that Administrator of Administrator shall not sue execution insomuch that he comes in peramount Administrator and accords with this Case 2 Eliz. in the Lord Dyer If two Joynt-Tenants are and one makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and dyes the Survivor shall not have the Rent insomuch that hee commeth in peramount him and to the other he intended that the speciall non-tenure is a good plea as well in Scire facias to have execution of damages as of Free-hold as in 24 Edw. 3. 31. and 5 H. 5. 1. and 9. H. 5. 11. It is resolved that in Scire facias speciall non-tenure is a good Plea and the books of 8 H. 6. 31. cyted before there is Joynt-tenancy pleaded to one part and speciall non-tenure to the other part by Lease for years and the question is if it might be pleaded a part And in 8 Edw. 4. 14. Is Scire facias upon Recovery by Writ of Right Patent in base Court and that the Defendant cannot plead release of the Lessor and so the joyning of the Mise may be forfeiture of his Estate And he said that it was adjudged in 16 Edw. 3. Scire facias 5. that scire facias to have execution of a Fyne shall not be sued against a Lessee for years but against him which hath the Free-hold but where Debt or Damages are to be recovered there it may be sued against him which hath only Lease for years insomuch that the possession is to be charged and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendants and it is adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Crogate against Morris THe case was this Copy-holder prescribes to have common in the Waste of the Lord and brings action of Trespasse against a stranger for his Beasts depasturing upon the Common there and Harris Serjeant argued that this action is not maintainable for two causes First insomuch that he is a Commoner for as it is said by Brook Justice 12. H. 8. 2. a. Commoner cannot have an action of Trespasse for the Common is not Common but after the Commoner hath taken that and then before that he hath taken that he hath no wrong nor damage but the damage is to the Tenant of the Land As if a Lessee for years be outed and he in reversion recovers in Assise hee shall not have damage insomuch that the damage was made to the Lessee and the 22 Assis 48. 15 H. 7. i 2. b. agreed that Commoner cannot maintain action of Trespas nor no other but the owner of the Soil but 13 H. 8. 15. by Norwich 15 H. 7. 6. 5 H. 7. 2. 24 Edw. 3. 42. Commoner may distrain and avow for doing damage 2. He intended that this action is not maintainable insomuch that every other Commoner may also have the action of Trespasse for if it be wrong to one it is wrong to every one of them and so the stranger shall be infinitely punished as in Williams Case 5 Coke 72. b. where it was adjudged an action of the Case doth not lye for the Lord of the Mannor to prescribe that a Vicar ought to administer the Sacraments in his private Chappell to him his Men-servants and Tenants within the Precincts of the said Mannor and adjudged that it doth not lye insomuch that then every of his Tenants might also have action and so the Vicar shall be alwayes punished So in 27 H. 7. 27. a. A man shall not have an action upon the Case for nusance made in the high way so it is 5 Ed. 4. 2. for trenching in the high way see 33 H. 6. 26. a. accordingly and so he concluded that the action is not maintainable and prayed Judgement for the Defendant Dodridge the Kings Serjeant to the exception which hath been made by the other party that the Plaintiff ought to averr that he hath Beasts which ought to Common there and that his Beasts have lost their Common that need not to be averred but it shall be pleaded by the other party for if he have distrayned the Beasts of a stranger doing damage he need to averr no more in this action and to the other matter and the two Objections which have been made by the other part First that the Commoner hath no right to the Common till he have taken it by the mouth of his Beasts to that he said that the Commoner hath right to that before that it be taken by such mouths of his Beasts and notwithstanding that it seems by the time of Ed. 1. That Commoner cannot grant his Common till he have Seisin of that yet 12 H. 8. is otherwise and that a Commoner may have an action the name implyes for he hath Common with others and a stranger which is no Commoner cannot do wrong but this is damage to him and he cyted Bracton 430. that there are two forms of Writs 1. Cursitory Writs 2. Commanding Writs The first of those which are formed and are of course and the others such of which there is no form but are to be formed by the Masters of the Chancery according to every particular Case So that there is not any Case but that the Law affords a Writ and remedy for that as in 28 Edw. 4. 23. Action upon the Case was framed against an Officer which gave priviledge to one as his servant which was not his servant and it is not like to the Case in 11 H. 4. 47. a. where a School-master brings an action upon the Case against another for erecting of a School in the same Towne to his damage but this was damage without Injury But here the Commoner hath received wrong and damage but yet he agreed that the Commoner could not have action of Trespass why he broke his Close for that is proper for the owner of the Soile But it hath been agreed to him that he might distrain them doing damage and the reason of that is insomuch that he hath received damage and amends may be tendered unto him in recompence of his damages without any regard to other Commoners as it is agreed in 24 Edw. 3. 42. And to the Objection that if one Commoner may have action then every Commoner may have the action and so the stranger shall be infinitely punished And to that he said it is a Publique losse and private and when the publique wrong includes private damage to any man there he
shall be barred And the second those which have Right title or interest accrued after the Fine levied by reason of any matter which preceded the Fine and in both cases the Estate which is barred ought to be turned into a right or otherwise it shall not be barred the which cannot be here for the estate is given by the Custome and it is to have his beginning after the Death of the first Tenant and though that the first Tenant commit Forfeiture yet he in remainder cannot enter for his time is not yet come as in 45 Ed. 3. is a collaterall Lease with warranty to the Tenant for life in possession this shall not be a barr insomuch that it is made to him which hath possession so if a man make a Feoffment upon condition and the Feoffee levy a Fine with proclamations and five yeares passe and the condition is broken the Feoffee may enter at any time otherwise if the Fine had been levied after the condition broken and so if the Lord be intituâ—ed to have Cessavit and Fine is levied by the Tenant and five yeares passe he shall be barred and this was the cause of the Judgment in Saffins case insomuch as the Lessee had present interest to enter and this was altered into a Right by the Feoffment and then the Fine was a Barr but here he in Remainder hath no right till after the Death of him which was the first Tenant and then his right to the possession begins and then if a Fine had been levied with proclamation this shall be a Barr and so he concluded that Judgment should be entered for the Plaintiffe Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he agreed also that the sole question is if by acceptance of a Bargaine and sale by the first Tenant for life the Remainder be turned into a right and he sayd that right sometimes sleepeth but it never dyes but this shall be intended the right of the Law and not right of Land for that may be barred by Writ of Right at the Common Law and he intended that Copy-holdes are within the Statutes of Fines be they Copy-hold for life yeares in tayl or in fee for the third part of the Realme is in Copy-holdes and two parts in Lease for yeares and if these shall not be within the Statute then this doth not extend to three parts of the Realme and it is agreed in Heydons case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament doth not alter the Tenure Service Interest of Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act of Parliament shall extend to Copy-holds and also it is resolved to be within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Maintenance and also it is within the expresse Letter of this which containes the word Interest and Copy-holder hath interest and so also of Tenant by Statute Merchant then the question will be if the acceptance of a Bargaine and sale turnes that to a right and he intended that his Estate for life remaines though that it is only passive in acceptance of Bargain and sale and for that it shall not be prejudice more then if Tenant at will accepts a Bargaine and Sale for his Estate at will this notwithstanding remaines but if Lessee for years or life accepts a Fine upon conusance of right this is a forfeiture insomuch that it is a matter of record and it shall be an estoppel to say that he did not take Fee by that doth not admit the Reversion to be in another also insomuch that the Bargain and sale was executed by the Statute for this cause it shall not be prejudice as it was adjudged in the Lady Greshams case in the Exchequer 28 Eliz. Where two severall conveyances were made with power of Revocation upon tender of ten pound and adjudged by act of Parliament that a revocation was good and also that no license of alienation shall be made insomuch that it was by act of Parliament which doth no wrong and it is for the Trespasse for which the party ought to have license and if it be not Trespasse there need no license before hand nor pardon afterwards So if a man makes a Lease for yeares remainder for yeares the first Lessee accepts Bargaine and Sale this shall not turn these in remainder to prejudice Thirdly it seemes to him also that notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargain and Sale the first Copy-hold Estate for life remains in Esse and is not determined For this differs from an Estate of Land for it shall not be subject to a Rent granted by the Lord the first Estate remaines till all the remainders are determined for the first tenant for life cannot surrender to the Lord also it is customary estate for by the Common Law this being granted to three successively this shall be determined and extinct for the third part for they three take into possession and the word successively shal be taken as void but here the Custome appoints that the remainder shall not have his beginning till the death of the first-Tenant and that they should take by succession and for that there is a difference between this customary Estate and other Estates at the Common Law and other surrenders for if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for life nothing passeth but for life only the Lord hath not any remainder by this Surrender and if this Tenant for life commits forfeiture he in reversion shall not take advantage of that and if at the Common Law Tenant for life remainder for life or in fee be and the first Tenant for life makes a Feoffment and after levies a Fine and resolved that he in reversion should not be bound till 5 years are incurred after the death of the 1. Tenant for life for then his title of Entry first accrues in apparancy and before that is in secrecy of which he in remainder is not held to take notice and so in this case he in remainder shall not be bound till five yeares are incurred after the death of the first Tenant and the rather insomuch as the first Estate remaines for that that the first Tenant was only passive and not active and so he concluded that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff insomuch that the Fine was no Bar and upon this concordance of all the three Justices in opinion no other Justices being present this Tearm Judgment was entered accordingly Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Danyell Waters against the Deane and chapter of Norwich IN covenant The case was this in 37 H. 8. the then Deane and Chapter of Norwich made a Lease to one Twaits for fifty yeares which ended 35 Eliz. in time of Ed. 6. The then Dean and Chapter surrendred all their possessions to the King which those newly endowed and incorporated by the name of Deane and Chapter of the foundation
of Ed. 6. and in the 8. Eliz. Salisbury then Deane and the then Chapter made a Lease to Thimblethorpe for 99. yeares to begin after the said Lease for fifty yeares made to Twaits And it doth not appeare by the pleading that Thimblethorpe entred But the succeeding Deane and Chapter in the 42. Eliz. made another Lease to Waters the Plaintiff for three lives rendring the ancient Rent quarterly with warrant of Attorney to make livery and it was not executed till after the end of three quarters of a yeare after the Sealing of it and when the time of three rent daies were Incurred And in this Lease the Deane and Chapter covenanted with Waters to acquit and save harmelesse the Lessee and the premises during the Tearme c. By reason of any Lease made by them or any of their Predecessors or by the Bishop And then the Plaintiff in his Court conveys the Lease made by Thimblethorpe to Doylye and that he intered and disturbed the Plaintiff and so assigned breach of covenant upon which this Action was founded upon which the Defendants demurr in Law And this was agreed by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendants First that the Lease made to Waters was void and then the Covenants do not extend to charge the Defendants And he supposed the Lease to be void insomuch that the Attorney did not make Livery untill three Rent daies were incurred and the Lease was made as well for the benefit of the Lessor as for the Lessee for if the Lessee is to have the profits and the Lessor is to have the Rent And insomuch that the Livery was not made before a Rent incurred this tends to the prejudice of the Lessor and for that the Authority is countermanded and the Livery made after void for when a man hath a Letter of Attorney to make Livery he ought to make that in such manner as the Feoffer himselfe would make it and the Lessor cannot make that after a rent incurred for then he should loose that Rent Also Authority ought to be strictly pursued as in 36. H. 8. Dyer 62. 24. Letter of Attorney was made to three joyntly and severally to make Livery and reâ—…ved that two cannot do it see 11. H. 4. For it ought to be made joyntly or severally so here the Attorney ought to make the Livery as his Master will and that ought to be made before any Rent incurred And for this cause he intended the Lease to be void And then as to a Collaterall Covenant which is in effect no other but that the Plaintiff shall injoy the Land during the Tearme which is of an Estate which is nothing for if the Lease be void the Estate is nothing and the Lessee hath not any Tearme or Estate in the Land And he agreed that in the Record of Chedingtons Case 1 Coke 153. b. And in the Commentaries Wrotsleys Case 198. And 2. Eliz. Dyer 178. There is a difference betweene Tirminum Annorum and the time or space of yeares or the life of such a man but there is not any difference between a Tearme and an Estate Also he supposed that the words of the Covenant extend only to save the Plaintiff harmelesse of Leases made by these Defendants or any of their predecessors and this Lease was made to Twaits in time of H 8. Which was before their Corporation for they have been but named a Corporation in the time of Edward 6. and not before And then a Lease made in the time of H. 8. is not made by them nor by their Predecessors and so the Covenant doth not extend to that as it appeares by 8. Ed. 4. in case of prescription if Corporation be changed in manner and forme and the substance of their name remaine yet they ought to make speciall prescription then a fortiori in this case where the substance is changed and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendants Nichols Serjeant for the first argued that the Livrey was well made for these Defendants shall be intended Occupiers and to have the profits of the Land till the Lessee entred or they waved the possession and so no prejudice and the Lessee shall not be charged with Rent till he enters or the Lessor wave the posaession as it was resolved in Bracebridges Case Com. 423. b. and in the Deane and Chapter of Canterburies Case there cited And for that the Livery shall be good and the Lessor not prejudiced by the deferring of it and then to the second that is the Covenant he agreed that if the Estate be created and Covenant in Law annexed to it if the Estate cease the Covenant also shall cease But if expresse Covenant be annexed then the Covenantor ought to have regard to performe it or otherwise an Action of Covenant lies against him notwithstanding that the Estate be avoided But here he intends it against him notwithstanding that the Estate be void But here he intends the Estate continues till Thimblethorp entred But admitting that he had entred yet the covenant shall bind the Covenantor as in 12. H. 4. 5. a. Parson makes a Lease for yeares and after is removed an Action of covenant lies against him and 47. Ed. 3. and 3. Ed. 3. If Tenant in 〈…〉 makes a Lease with expresse covenant and dies and the Issue outs the Lessee the Lessee shall have an Action of Covenant against the Executors of the Tenant in tayl and 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. Tenant for life the Remainder over in Fee by Indenture makes a Lease without any expresse covenant and dies Lessee cannot have an Action of covenant against his Executors otherwise if there had been an expresse covenant See the booke and many Authorities there cited to this purpose and also he cited one Rawlinsons Case to be here adjudged that if a man which hath nothing in land makes a Lease and an expresse covenant for the injoying of that if he which hath right enters by which the covenant is broken Action of covenant lies upon the expresse covenant So that admitting that the Lease is void yet the covenant is good and shall bind the successors and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff and this case was argued at another day by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant by speciall appointment of the Judges and now he supposed that the Count containes that the same Dean Chapter which made the lease to Twaits in 37 H. 8. also made the Lease to Thimblethorp in the 18 El. w ch cannot be insomuch that the corporation was changed in the time of E. 6. for that cannot be the same Deane and Chapter for if a Prior Covent be translated into a Dean and Chapter and the Dean and Chapter will make prescription they ought to make that in speciall manner and not generally as Deane and Chapter as it is resolved 39. H. 6. 14. 15. and in 7. Ed. 4. 32. In Trespasse against the Abbot of Bermondsey it is
agreed that the Prior was not Predecessor to the Abbot as it appeares by 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer 280. 11 12 13. That the Deane and Chapter of Norwich made a surrender in the time of Ed. 6. and then newly incorporate So that he which made to Twaits in the 37. H. 8. could not be Predecessor to the Deane and Chapter which made to Thimblethorp in 18. of Eliz. for he could not then be any Predecessor and for that the Lease to Thimblethorp void and then there is no Eviction but wrong to the Plaintiff for which he may have an Action of Trespasse and then he cannot have an Action of covenant as it appeares by 22. H. 6. against the Lessor But admitting that the Lease to Thimblethorp were good then this hath his beginning in the 38. of Eliz. and makes the Lease for three lives to the Plaintiff void by the Statute of 13. Eliz. insomuch that the aforesaid Lease for yeares was then in beginning and the Statute is expresly that it shall be void as the grant of next avoidance of a Church in the case of the Bishop of Lichfeild and Coventry against Sale cited in Lincolne Colledge Case 3. Coke as if a Parson makes a Lease for yeares and is Non-resident the Lease is void by the Statute against the Parson himselfe and then if the Estate be void all covenants which depend upon that are also void Also he supposed that there is not any good conveyance of the estate of Thimblethorp to Doyley which is intended to be the disturber to make the Covenant to be broken and then when Doyley entered without title the Covenant cannot be broken and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendants Nichols Serjeant for the Plaintiff agreed that if there be an alteration of Corporation and title is to be made by prescription it ought to be so specially shewed as it hath been said of the other part by Dodridg But here it is not so for the same Dean and Chapter which made the Lease to the Plaintiff made the Lease to Thimblethorp and this appears by the pleading and the Lease made to Twaits is not mentioned but only to shew the beginning of the Lease to Thimblethorp And then the Deane and Chapter which made the Lease in 18 of Eliz. to Thimblethorp were the same Deane and Chapter which made the Lease in 42. Eliz. to VValters And hee supposed the Covenant being expressed this remains otherwise if it had been a Covenant created only by the Law as it appears by the Books of 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. and 32 H. 6. 32. And also when a Covenant is created by Law the Covenantee cannot have Covenant if he be not outed by one which hath title 26 H. 8. 36. otherwise of expresse Covenant as it is agreed in the 12 H. 4. 5. So in 47. Edw. 3. Covenant lies against Executors and 38 Edw. 3. Covenant lyes against Heir being made by Tenant in tayl if the Lessee be outed after his death and so hee concluded and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiffe Wynch Justice supposed that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff and that he had good cause of action and he intended that the Livery and Seisin by the Attorney after Rent incurred was good Secondly That the Covenant shall extend to the Lease made to Thimblethorp for it doth not appeare but that it is the same Deane and Chapter which was in time of H. 8. For it is not pleaded that it was founded by Ed. 6. but had his name by him And also it is confessed by the Demurrer that it is the same Deane and Chapter but admitting that it is not yet it may be answered as it hath been by Nichols before that is that the Deane and Chapter which made the Lease in 8 of Eliz. to Thimblethorp is the Deane and Chapter which made the Lease to the Plaintiff in the 42 of Eliz. are all one and the Lease to Twaits is shewed only to shew the beginning of the Lease made to Thimblethorp Also he supposed the conveyance of Thimblethorps Estate to Doyley to be good and it doth not appear but that the Deane and Chapter were in possession at the time of the making of the Lease for 3 lives So that this hath a good beginning and continued till it was avoyded by the Entry of the succeeding Dean for this remains good against the Deane that made it But Thimblethorp also may avoid it during his Tearm and now here is eviction by the Assignee of Thimblethorpe before that the Lâ—ase be avoyded by the succeeding Deane and Chapter where the Deane himselfe could not avoid it for he is the party which made it Also here is expresse warranty against the Lease made to Thimblethorp and for that also action of Covenant lyes otherwise if it had been only warranty in Law as if Lessee for life had made a lease for years and dyed Upon the covenant in Law action doth not lye for the Law doth not constrain to Impossibilities as in the 40. Ed. 3. Covenant that the wind shall not peirce nor break the Trees and 2 Ed. 4. 12 Ed. 4. Action of Covenant lies upon express Covenant though that a stranger enters without title and he cyted one Dormans case to be adjudged that where a man borrows money upon a usurious contract and the principall gives security to the Surety that was bound with him by collaterall Obligation and the Surety being arrested takes advantage of the Counterbond notwithstanding that the principall Obligation was void by the Statute of Usury So here notwithstanding that the estate was void and that is the principall Yet the Covenant being expressed and collaterall shall bind the Lessor and so he concluded that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice to the contrary and yet he agreed that the livery was good notwithstanding that it was made by the Attorney after three Rent dayes incurred and he seemed that it might be made at any time during the tearm and the lives of the parties And also he agreed that the Corporation shall be intended the same Corporation and yet Corporation had no Predecessor nor Successor but the Statutes say Predecessors Antecessors and Progenitors of the King as 39 H. 6. 7 Ed. 4. 2 H. 6. But he did not insist upon that but agreed that But the matter upon which he insisted was that the Lease to the Plaintiff was void against the succeeding Deane and Chapter insomuch that the lease to Thimblethorp was in Esse at the time of the making of that and this by the Statute of 13 Eliz. And it appears that the Deane which made the Lease to the Plaintiff is dead for he is named in the Count the late Deane and then when the Covenants depend upon the estate be they expressed or in Law these determin and end with the estate as in Lemons case 28 H. 8. Dyer 28. 189. resolved that where the statute of 21
H. 8. makes Leases being in the hands of Spirituall persons void this avoids these Covenants also which depend upon the Lease So if a Parson make a Lease and Covenant that he will not be non-resident and binds himselfe for the performance of that if the Covenants be released the Obligation also is released So if the Lease be avoyded the Covenants also are avoyded And as an action of Covenant doth not lye for the not injoying of Land after a surrender so Covenant doth not lye after the estate is avoyded see 4 H. 7. And to the case put by Wynch of counter-bond where the Principall was void by the staiute of Usury he said that there the Obligation was not void but voidable by plea. But here it is the estate is made void by the express words of the statute and he intended that this difference between expresse Covenant and Covenant in Law but that the one determines with the estate as well as the other and yet he agreed that express Covenant shall extend to charge the Covenanter upon Entry by a stranger which hath no title but yet this doth not charge the Lessor after the estate determined and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Coke cheif Justice accorded with Wynch that Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff And he supposed that the livery was well executed by the Attorney after the 3 Rent dayes incurred and yet he agreed that it had been a probable objection made against that But he supposed that the Lessor was not prejudiced insomuch that the Law intends that they had the possession and the profits of the Land till livery made and the Attorney is only as a servant to the Lessor And he said that this is not like to Cromwels and Andrews Case of grant of a Mannor upon Condition to re-grant Advowson or Rent in which cases the Advowson or Rent ought to be re-granted before that the Church becommeth void or the Rent day be incurred insomuch that they are followers of the thing granted notwithstanding that the Feoffee hath time during his life to make the re-grant if it be not hastned upon Request 2. He supposed that the express Covenant shall bind the Lessor though it be referred to the tearm for tearm includes Estate and Interest but this is when it is Tearm but when it is no Estate then it shall be intended during the continuance of the years as it appears by the Rector of Chedingtons Case and this he held clear and so of promise also as if a man makes a Lease for years and before that the Lessee enters makes a lease to another and promises that the second Lessee shall enjoy during the tearm if the first Lessee enter the second Lessee may have an action upon the promise and he said that it was adjudged in the Kings Bench Hill 35 Eliz. between Foster and Wilson Plaintiffs and Mayes Defendant where the case was A man made a Lease of a Rectory for years and covenanted with the Lessee to save him harmlesse against one Blunt Parson of Dole which entered and outed the Lessee which brought Covenant against the Lessor and resolved that it lyes notwithstanding that it doth not appear whether he had Interest or no So that be the Lease good or void yet when there is an Eviction Covenant lyes though the Lease be originally void yet till it be avoided it shall be intended a good Lease And if a Covenant of Dean and Chapter doe not bind them none will take Lease of them so they shall be compellable to plow the Land themselves and also he supposed that the Lease was good against the succeeding Dean and Chapter till it be avoyded by Entry as it was adjudged Trin. 30 Eliz. between Elmer and Page where a Bishop made a Lease for years and dyes the Successor makes a Lease for 3 lives the Lease for years not determined And it was resolved that the Lease for 3 lives was void notwithstanding that the Bishop might make a concurrant Lease for years which is not made void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. insomuch that the Statute is in the definitive that is Leases for 3 lives or 21 years and so they cannot make both for then the Lessee for life should have the Rent reserved upon the Lease for years which is setled in the Lessee for 3 lives by the regress of the Lessee for years and so he said also notwithstanding that the statute of 18 Eliz. made void all Leases made by Deane and Chapters where there are more then 3 years in being he agreed that a Lease for years where there are so many years in being is good but if there be but two years in being that makes the Lease for life void And he agreed that notwithstanding the statute yet any Lease shall be good against the Deane himselfe insomuch that he is party to that and hath a negative voyce in the making of that And he seemed that the Proviso in the statute of 18 Eliz did not extend to Leases in possession but to Leases in reversion which are dormant of which a stranger cannot take notice insomuch that they are invisible and for that if a Dean and Chapter procure surrenders of them and within 3 years that shall make another Lease good and so they shall save their Covenant and for that the Lease here made to the Plaintiff had been good if the Defendants had procured the Lease made to Thimblethorp to be surrendred within 3 years after the taking of that Also he cyted the Case betwixt the Bishop of Lychfield and Coventry and Sale to be adjudged Michaelmass 32. and 33. Eliz. That a grant of the next avoydance is good against a Bishop himself that granted it and not made void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. as to him but to all Successors only And so in this case he said they all agreed that the Lease was not void which is made to Waters against the Deane himself which made it but only against the Successor And he said also Covenant in Law extends to lawfull Evictions and to estates in being and not where an estate is determined as if Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and dyes the Lessee shall not have an action of Covenant upon Covenant in Law as it is agreed in 9 Eliz. Dyer and 38 H. 6. before cyted So also he supposed to express reall Covenants which extends to Free-hold or Inheritance as Warrant and Defend upon which a man cannot have an action if he be not outed by one which hath title and as in 3 Edw. 3. 7. and 21. A man makes a Feoffment with warranty nonfeoffavit is a good Plea for if the Feoffment be avoided the Warranty also is avoided for that depends upon the Feoffment But if a man makes a Lease for years and covenants that he will warrant and defend the Land to the Lessee if the Lessee be outed by one which hath title or
Ed. 2. Counter Plea of voucher 111. 21. Ed. 4. 71. Then he supposed here was generall warranty which is executed and also another warranty which remaines notwithstanding any thing which appears to the Court for he hath not demanded any binding 10. Ed. 3. 15. a. b. Also the warranty in the Fine is the warranty of all the Conusees and the warranty upon which the voucher is is only the warranty of Sir Robert Osborne which cannot be intended the same warranty which is contained in the Fine which is by two as it is resolved in 10. Ed. 3. 52. But admitting that it agrees in all that is the voucher and the warranty in the Fine that is in number of persons and quantity of land and all other circumstances yet it shall be no Barr for the Common Recovery is only as further assurance for it is for forfeiture if it be suffered by Tenant for life as it is resolved in Pelhams Case 1. Coke Also he supposed that notwithstanding that the Fine was levied hanging the Writ of entry and â—o Sir Henry Rowles made Tenant yet this is good being by purchase but not if it be by discent or by recovery upon elder Title And he supposed that if the recovery and the warranty might be together by any possible meanes they shall not be distroied insomuch that this is the common case of assurance and for that shall be taken as in Pattenhams Case 4. and 5. Phil. and Mary Dyer 157. and 2. Coke Cromwells Case 77. b. where a man makes a Feoffment upon condition rendring Rent and after suffers common recovery and yet this notwithstanding the condition and Rent remaines And so it seemes that in this case the warranty remaines notwithstanding the Recovery and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Nicholls Serjeant for the Defendant and he seemed that the warranty is destroied first insomuch that the Recovery was to other uses and the Fine was when proved that there was no further assurance also he supposed that insomuch that it doth not appeare to what use the Recovery was for the Mannor of Kelmersh that for that it shall be intended to the use of Sir Robert Osborne himselfe and then for that also the warranty is distroied insomuch that part of the Land is re-assured to Sir Robert Osborne as in 40. Ed. 3. 13. The Father enfeoffes the Son with warranty which re-enfeoffes the Father this destroies the warranty So if they make partition by their owne Act as it is agreed in the 34. Ed. 3. Also he supposed that the Tenancy in Sir Henry Rowles is distroied before that the Fine was Levied insomuch that this was Executed by voucher and so he did not purchase hanging the Writ for this is also conveied from him by the Recovery in the value before that the Fine is levied and it is all one with the case where a man recovers upon good Title hanging a Writ and he agreed that the recovery had been for further assurance that then it shall be as it hath been objected by the other party and the warranty had remained but this he supposeth it was not insomuch it was to other uses then the Fine was and he intended that if the Estate to which the warranty is annexed be distroied the warranty also shall be distroied 19. H. 6. 59. 21. H. 6. 45. 22. H. 6. 22. and 27. So if the Estate be avoided the warranty is distroied if it be by the Act of the parties named also he supposed that the warranty is executed and that it shall be intended the same tye upon which the warranty is created as it is 10. Ed. 3. 51. Mauxells case Com if he demand no tye but enter generally into the warranty there shall be execution of all warranties and shall bind all his rights for otherwise all the Estates tayl cannot be bound by that But where the Lieu is demanded as where there are three severall Estates tayl limited to one man and upon voucher he enters generally into the warranty all the tayles shall be bound but if he demand the Lieu's which he hath to bind him to warranty there shall be a Barr of that only upon which the voucher is and the remedy is that if he be impleaded by the party that hath made the warranty he shall be rebutted by his owne warranty But if he be Impleaded by a stranger he shall vouche him that warranted that and if warranty be once executed by voucher and Recovery in value though that the Land recoverd in value be a defeasable Title yet the party shall not voucheat another time by the same warranty as it is 5. Ed. 3. Fitz. voucher 249. and 4. Ed. 3. 36. And for that in this case insomuch that the warranty was once executed he shall not vouche againe upon the same warranty Also it is not alledged in the Count that the Plaintiff was Impleaded by Writ of Entry in the Post but in the Per in which he might have vouched and so shall not have this Action where he might have vouched And also he supposed that Sir Henry Rowles shall not have benefit by this warranty without praying aid of those in remainder insomuch that he is but Tenant for life but he supposed that it was no Remainder but reversion for otherwise they are but as an Estate and he may have advantage of the warranty as it seemes without aid praying But not where there is Tenant for life with the reversion expectant And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant And he cited one Barons Case where Tenant in tayl levies a Fine with warranty and after suffers Recovery And it was agreed by all the Justices that yet the Recovery shall be a Barr to the Remainder notwithstanding that the Estate tayl be altogether barred and extinct by the Fine but Coke cheife Justice said that Wrayâ— cheife Justice would not suffer that to be argued insomuch that it was of so great consequence being the common course of assurances But it seemes that the Recovery shall not be a Barâ— for the Remainders for the causes aforesaid and he said that he was of councell in Bartons Case and thought this Objection to be unanswerable and of this opinion continued Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Richard Lampitt against Margeret Starkey EJECTIONE Firme upon speciall verdict the case was this Lessee for five hundred yeares devised that to his Father for life the remainder and residue of that after the death of his Father to his Sister the Devisor dies the Sister which hath a remainder takes a Husband the Husband at the request of the Father grants release and surrenders all his Right Tearme and Intrest to the Father which had the Possession And the question was if by that the remainder of the Tearme should be extinct or not And it was argued by Dodridge for the Plaintiff that the remainder remaines that notwithstanding insomuch that this is
a possibility only which cannot be granted surrendred or released and yet he agreed that if Lessee for life grant or demise the land all his Estate passeth without making of any particuler mention of it as it is agreed in 10. Eliz. Dyer And for that when the Lessee hath devised the Lands to his Father for his life that which remaines is only a possibility for it doth not appeare for what yeares the Sister shall have it and for that meerely uncertaine 7. Eliz. Dyer 244. The King Ed. 6. appropriated a Church to the Bishop to take effect after the death of the present Incumbent the Bishop after that makes a Lease for yeares to begin after the death of the Incumbent and void for the uncertainty for the Bishop hath no perfit Estate but future Interest which is meerely impossibility and with that agreed Locrofts Case in the Rector of Cheddingtons Case 1. Coke where Lessee for yeares makes assignement of so many of the yeares as shall be to come at the time of his death and void for the uncertainty insomuch that it is meerely possibility for that which may be granted or surrendred ought to be Interesse Termini at least And he supposed it could not be released insomuch that he to whom the release is made hath all the Tearme if he lived so long and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the first devisee had two Titles one as Executor and another as a Legatee and before entry and after that he had entred also the Law doth adjudge him in as a Legatee and before that he enter he may that grant over notwithstanding that he hath not determined his Election for the Law vests the property and possession of that in him before any entry but to make an election there ought to be some open Act done as it is agreed in Welden Eltingtons Case where that the first devisee which was Executor also made expresse claime to have the Tearm as Legatee and not as Executor and so vested the remainder also see Com. 519. b. And so in Paramore and Yardlies Case Lessee for years devises his Tearme to his Executor during his life to educate his Issues the which the Executor doth accordingly and this open act was resolved to be a good election and in Mannings case 8 Coke 94. b. The Executor which hath the 1. Estate devised to him saith that he to whom the Remainder was limited shall have it after his Death and this resolved to be a good Execution and election and it is there resolved that such Election made by the particular Devisee is a good Execution for him in remainder but here is not this Election to have this as Legatee nor Executor for there is not any overt Act made by which this may be done Secondly he conceived that this is no remainder but Executory devise as it is agreed in Mannings Case and that this may be done by Devise which cannot be done by the party by act Executed and for that he conceived that there is no possibility but an Estate Executed and vested in him which is Executor though there be no election made nor Execution of the Legacy and admitting that it is but a possibility yet he conceived that it is Propinqua possibilitas insomuch that the Tearme is longer then it may be intended that any man might live insomuch that Adam lived but 950. yeares and this is five thousand yeares which is longer then any man in the world ever lived and he said that it is agreed in Fullwoods Case that possibility may be released to a possession and with this agreed the opinion of Strange in the 9 H. 6. 64. And so warranty may be released which is meerly in contingency as it is agreed in Littleton and power of revocation may be extinct by release of him that hath the possession of the Land and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff conceived that the Remainder is in Esse and not determined by the Release And first he conceived that the Remainder was executed insomuch that the Release was made at the Request of the Father which was the first Devisee for this shewes his assent and implies that he took notice of his Remainder and assented to it and he sayd it was adjudged in Doctor Lawrences Case that the speaking of these words by the Executors that is that they were glad of the Devise was a good Execution and assent of the Legacy Secondly He conceived that it is only possibility and for that cannot be released or granted and he saith that the Law hath great respect of possibilities that Estates may revert and for that it is adjudged in the 13 of Richard 2. Dower 55. If Tenant for life grants his Estate to him in remainder in tayl for his owne life the Tenant enters takes a Wife and dies she shall not be Indowed but the Tenant for life shall have it againe and it shall be as it had been let to a stranger and to this purpose also he cited 18. Ed. 3. 8. Counter-Plea of voucher 8. And it was adjudged in Middletons Case 5. Coke 28. a. that an Executor before probate of the Will may release a Debt but not an Administrator before Administration granted see Com. 277 278. Fox and Greisbrookes Case and in 6. Ed. 3. Lessee for anothers life rendring Rent the Rent was behind and the Lessor releases to the Lessee all Debts he For whose life dies and there the Release determines and discharges the arrerages for it is a duty and Debitum is Latine as well for Debt as for duty also release bars the Lord and Writ of deceit for reverser of a Fine levied of land in ancient Demesne as it is 7. H. 4 and yet Littleton saith that release of a futrue thing shall not be a barr and for that if Conusee of Statute Merchant release all his Right in the land yet he may extend the Statute 15. assis And so if a mad man release and after come to his wits and dies Quere if the Heire may have a Writ of non compos mentis And he said that it was adjudged in the 25. of Eliz. If an Infant levie a Fine and after he levies another Fine this shall be a Barr in a Writ of error for the reversing of the first otherwise of a release And here to the principall case to a release made by the Son in the life time of his Father without warranty And so upon all these cases he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the acceptance of Release by the first Devisee shall not be execution of the Devise as it was adjudged in Barramores and Yardleys case by the Education of the Issue or a Devise upon condition to pay money and the Executor pays it this is a good execution
concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiffs Wynch Justice that the Count is not good for the Plaintiffs have not alledged that they have used time out of mind c. To maintaine Ferrey but only that they have used to make Constitutions Secondly it is not alleadged that they onely have used to maintaine Ferrey and if they cannot prescribe in the sole using of that and to exclude others then others may use that as well as they being for the publick good for how shall they be punished if that they do not use and maintaine at the Common Law the Inhabitants of a Towne shall be punished for not repairing of a Bridge or high Way the which may be maintained by the Inhabitants together and if they do not do it then others may do it as well as others may repaire high Waies or Bridges as those which have used to repaire them as a common Host shall be punished in Eyre if he refuse to lodge any man and yet he which he refused to lodge may have an Action upon the Case for the refusall Also the Patent gives the forfeyture to the Port-reeve but the By-Law doth not make any mention who shall have it and he conceives that it shall not be as upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. Which gives penalty for not setting forth of Tythes but doth not appoint who shall have them and this was adjudged to be to him which ought to have the Tythes but this cannot be so here insomuch that it is against the Grant and agreed that a stranger shall be bound by By-Law where it is for the publick good but not otherwise and also the custome that these Bardge-men shall have the preheminence may be good as well as custome that the poore of such a Parish shall have common in such a place till such a day and then the others and so in this case and so he concluded that Judgement shall be Arrested Warburton Justice conceived that the Count is good and that the Inhabitants may prescribe very well as 47. Assis foure Townes were charged for the repaire of a High way and so may the two Townes for the Ferrey that he intended to be high way upon the water and also he conceived that this is inquirable in Eyre and also by the Justices of the Kings Bench and now by the Justices of Assises by Indictment by the name of Inhabitants The which may be as good an Action upon the Statute of Winton against the Inhabitants of the Hundred and so he conceived that in this case the Inhabitants of Milton and Gravesed may be punished by Indictment if they do not repaire the Ferrey and that the King there this day may erect a Ferrey in place where it is necessary for the King may erect office which is for the benefit of the Common Wealth but not to charge the Common Wealth And that if any will passe in his owne Ferrey without carrying of another this is no breaking of the By-Law and so he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiffs Coke cheife Justice seemed the contrary for he conceived it is not shewed in the Count to whom the Ferrey belongs for the owners of that are not mentioned the which it ought And yet he agreed that a Ferrey may be without owner as it is agreed 12. Ed. 4 8. Insomuch as this is locall and need not any Agent but out of Leete and Ferrey otherwaies it is for there ought to be Agent or otherwise the Ferrey should be of no use and for that there ought to be an owner Secondly it is alledged that Infra Easterne Townes there is such a custome that the Inhabitants may make constitutions and that the Inhabitants shall maintaine a Ferrey but not that there was a Ferrey but that he conceived it might be good insomuch that it is not traversable Thirdly what Action the Inhabitants may have if they be disturbed of it for this is no easement and they have no Estate of Inheritance and for that the Prescription by the name of Inhabitants is not good for they cannot have Estate and to the Satute of 6. H. 6. chapter 7. Which saith it is a laudable custome and usage that a Bardge shall be maintained but not that Inhabitants shall maintaine that nor those incorporate so that the Statute doth not make them capable of such a thing for which a Writ of right and assise by the Statute of Westminster 2. lies Fourthly That the custome and the Patent are repugnant for by the custome the Bardge hath not any preheminence nor precedence but equall liberty was to all water-men to carry what passengers that they could and with that also agreed the Statute of 6. H. 6. And then if the custome were not so this cannot be made by the grant of the Queene nor by the By-Law for this is the liberty of the Subject the which cannot be abridged nor restrained by them for if the King may grant such prehâ—minence here so may he do in all other Ferreis and places and also in the practise of the Law to have preaudience in this Court and in all other Courts of Justice And so should it be also of Butchers and Bakers and all others which used buying and selling And he said that the King hath preemtion of time in some places but this is not by his prerogative but by the custome of the place And he agreed that custome in subject may have preemption but not by the Kings grant for the King cannot grant that to another that he himselfe hath not by his prerogative and perchance he which hath such grant will not come to Market till all the Market be ended and he conceived that the River of Thames is so publick that the King cannot restraine that by his grant no more then he can grant preheminence to a Coachman to carry people into the Streets of London The which is adjudged upon the matter in the 50. of Ed. 3. Toll 2. Where the King grants Toll for every one which passeth by a Common way And agreed that it was not good if it be in a Common Way or in a Common River for as it is resolved in the 22. assis 93. Every common River is as high Street and Common Waies and the passengers Way as the water increases and the Thames is a branch of the Sea and a common Street as it appears by Bracton fol. 8. 5. The Plaintiffs have brought their Action by the name of Corporation of Port-reeve Jurats and Inhabitants of Milton and Gravesend and they are incorporate by the name of Port-reeve Jurates and Inhabitants of Gravesend possessors of Ships the which words are left out in the name by which the Action is brought so that the By-Law is not made by the same name by which they are incorporate nor the Action brought by the same name And yet he agreed that they might make a By-Law according to the grant without calling all the
H. 6. 14. b. Also he conceived that the Feoffment in consideration of marriage naturall love to his Son and that the Wife of the Sonne shall be Indowed and that the Son should redemise that to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that the Father should pay the Rent to the Lord these he intended to be good considerations and for that should be within the said Proviso of the Statute of 13. Eliz. otherwise if it had been to defraud Creditors But if it had been to such intent that is to defraud Creditors this shall not be extended to other intent that is to defraud the Lord of his Harriot And in the 28. of Eliz. it was adjudged in the Kings Bench if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himselfe for life remainder to his Son in tayl with divers Remainders over with power of Revocation and after bargaines and sells to a stranger upon condition and after performes the Condition that yet the first conveiance remaines fraudulent as it was at the time of the making of it But this is only as to the purchasor and not as to any other And in Goodhers Case 3. Coke 60. a. In debt against Heire which pleads nothing by discent day of the Writ purchased the other joynes Issue and gives in Evidence fraudulent conveiance and upon speciall Verdict adjudged that it was very good See also 4. Coke 4. b. c. Vernâ—ns Case the Collusion to have Dower and Joynture also And so he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice agreed that the fraud shall not be intended if it be not found no more then if a man grant an Annuity to another Quam diu se bene gesserit in Annuity for that he need not to averr that he hath behaved himselfe well for this shall be intended if the contrary be not shewed of the other party So here insomuch that it is not found to be fraudulent it shall be intended to be Bona fide And he agreed that if it had been fraudulent at the first If the Son had made a Feoffment over in the life of the Father as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33 H. 6. 14. that then the fraud is determined So here when the Son hath made a Lease to his Father this determines the fraud if any be and so he concluded that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff Wynch Justice agreed insomuch that it is expresse consideration found by the Verdict and for that other consideration shall not be intended and also that it shall not be intended that the Conveyance was made to defraud or to deceive the Lord of such a Peccadell as Harriot is which is of small consequence but if it be a fraud within the Statute of 27 Eliz. apparent that is if it containe power of revocation which is declared to be apparent fraud by the Statute the Court may take notice of that without any averrment And he saith That in the 2. and 3. Eliz. Dyer Wainsfords Case 193. a. and 9 Eliz. Dyer 267 268. there is no averrment of fraud but expresse Issue joyned upon the Fraud and for that he need not any other averrment And so he concluded also that judgement should be given for the Plaintiffe and so it was Ruled accordingly if the Defendant did not shew other matter to the contrary at such a day which was not done Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Strobridge against Fortescue and Barret IN a Replevin the case was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devises Rent out of it with clause of Distress and dies his Son and Heire enters and dyes the Rent is behind the Son of the Son dyes and his Son enters and makes a Feoffment to the Plaintiff and the Devisee of the Rent releases all Actions Debts and Demands to the Feoffor and after distraynes the Beasts of the Feoffee for the Rent behinde before the Feoffment and it seemes the Release is not good insomuch that the Devisee had no cause of Action at the time of the Release made against him to whom the Release is made nor Demand against him otherwise if the Release had been made to the Feoffee for he was subject to the distress and this is a demand Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612 In the Common Bench. Case of Cinque Ports NOTE that Coke said that it hath been adjudged by three Judges against one in a Case of Cinque Ports that the Cinque Ports cannot prescribe to take the Body of a Freeman in Withernam as they use for another for this is against the Statute of Magna Charta Quod nullus liber homo Imprisonetâ—r nisi per Legate Judicium and also against the liberty of a Subject but they more inclined that they might take the Goods of one in Withernam when another is arrested and them retain and this seemes the more reasonable Custome and Prescription The Case was Tenant for life the Remainder for life with warranty the first Tenant for life was impleaded and he vouches him in Reversion but he first prays in aid of him in Remainder and if this aid prayer shall be granted this was the question And it seemes by Nicholls Serjeant that it shall not be granted see 11 H. 4. 63. Where it is agreed that if a man makes a Lease for life Remainder for life Remainder in fee and the first Tenant for life hath ayd of him in remainder for life and he in Fee joyntly and 44 Edw. 3. 20. in Trespasse against a Miller which takes Toll where he ought to grind Toll-free the Defendant saith that J. had the Mill for life and that he is his Deputy the reversion to W. in Fee and prays ayde of the Tenant for life and of the Tenant in reversion and had it of the Tenant for life and not of him in reversion and this for default of Privity as it seems to Brooke Ayde 30. Haughton conceived that it should be granted for Tenant for life notwithstanding that he may plead any Plea yet he doth not know what Plea to plead without him in reversion but by the ayde praying al the Estate shall be reduced into one and the warranty shall come and for that he conceived that the first Tenant for life shall have ayde of him in remainder for life Wynch Justice conceived that ayde shall not be granted against the first Tenant for life against him in remainder for life for he conceived that ayde is alwaies to be granted when the defects of him and his Estate which prays it are to be supplyed by him which is prayed that this is the reason that he may have ayde of his Wife and where there are many remainders the first Tenant may have ayde of them all otherwise where he is Tenant for life the remainder for liâ—e and the reversion expectant for the Tenant for life cannot supply his
name So by Custome as the Custome that if a Copy-holder will sell his Copy-hold Estate that he which is next of blood to him shall have the refusall and if none of his blood then he which Inhabits in the neerest part of the part of the ground shall have it before a stranger giving for that as much as a stranger would and the Lord shall have him for his Tenant whether he will or no for it shall be intended that so it was agreed at the first and it is reasonable and if it had not been ruled and adjudged before yet he conceived it might now be a rule and adjudged insomuch that it is so reasonable and good and for the second custome that is for the custome of cutting of Trees by such Copy-holder which hath such priviledge he conceived also that it was good But he agreed that a bare Tenant for life cannot be warranted by custome to do such an Act as it was here adjudged between Powell and Peacock But here he had a greater Estate then for life for he hath power to make another Estate for life and shall have as great priviledge as Tenant after possibility c. which is in respect of Inheritance which once was in him and he may do it for the possibility which he hath to give to another Estate as it is agreed in 2. Ed. 4. that a Lease fo a hundred yeares is Mortmain in respect of the continuance of it so here for the Estate may continue by such power of nomination for many lives in perpetuity and that as when at the Common Law they have in reputation and opinion of Law a greater Estate may cut and sell Trees so here insomuch that the Estate comes so neere to Inheritance he conceived that he might cut the Trees by the custome and that the Custome is good and so he concluded that Judgement should be given that the Plaintiff should be barred in respect of Customes and then to the third that is when a man lets Land and by the same Deed grants the Trees to be cut at the will and pleasure of the grantee there the Lessee hath distinct Interest But if the Lessor by one selfe same clause had demised the Land and the Trees there the Intendment is But notwithstanding that there are severall clauses and that he hath distinct Interests yet he conceiveth that the Trees remaine parcell of the Inheritance and free-hold till they are cut and are severed only in Interest that is that may be felled and devided by the Axe for Tythes shall not be paid for them if they exceed the growth of twenty yeares not it shall not be Felony for to cut those and burn them And it is not like to an Advowson for that may be severed and for that he conceived that if the Custome had not warranted the Cutting and Selling that the Copy-holder had forfeited his Estate and that the Lord might very well have taken advantage of it and 29. assis 29. A man sells Trees to be cut at Michaelmasse insuing and before Michaelmasse Haukes breed in them the seller shall have them by which it appeares that the property is not altered So that though they are not parcell of the Mannor yet they are parcell of the Free-hold insomuch that they are not severed in Facto And he agreed that Lessee for yeares of a Mannor shall take advantage of Forfeiture and need not any presentment by the Homage and Littleton fol. 15 saith that the Lord may enter as in a thing Forfeited unto him and so for attainder of Felony And if a Copy-holder makes a Lease for yeares by which he forfeits his Copy-hold Estate And after the Lord grants the Mannor for yeares the Lessee of the Mannor shal take advantage of this Forfeiture made before he had any Estate in the Mannor without any presentment by the Homage But here in this case the Custome warrants the cutting of the Trees by the Copy-holder and for that he concluded all the matter as above that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ Coke cheife Justice agreed and he said that Fortescue and Littleton and all others agreed that the Common Law consists of three parts First Common Law Secondly Statute Law which corrects abridges and exp'aines the Common Law The third Custome which takes away the Common Law But the Common Law Corrects Allows and Disallows both Statute Law and Custome for if there be repugnancy in Statute or unreasonablenesse in Custome the Common Law Disallowes and rejects it as it appeares by Doctor Bonhams Case and 8 Coke 27. H. 6 Annuity And he conceived that there are five differences between Prescription and a Custome And all those as pertenent to this cause First in the beginning Pugnant ex Diametro for nothing may be good by prescription but that which may have beginning by grant and also prescription is incident to the Person and Custome to some place and holds place in many Cases which cannot be by grant as in 11 H. 4. Lands may be devised by Custome and so discent to all the Sons as in Gavelkind and to the youngest Son in Eurrough English and others like which cannot have their beginning by Grant but prescription and Custome are Brothers and ought to have the same age and reason ought to be the Father and Congruence the Mother and use the Nurse and time out of memory to Fortifie them both Secondly they vary in quality for prescription is for one man only and Custome is for many if all but one be not dead Thirdly they vary in extent and latitude for prescription extends to Fee-simple only but Custome extends to all Interests and Estates whatsoever as appeares by pleading for Tenant in tayl for life or yeares cannot prescribe in what Estate nor against the Lord in his Demesnes but they ought to alledge the Custome and against a stranger they ought to prescribe in the name of the Lord and for that prescription b. Copy-holder of Inheritance may sell the Trees is not good but such Custome is good and 5. Ed. 3. 24. And the old Reports 196. One Tenant being a Free-holder prescribes to have Windfalls and all Trees-which are withered in the Top and if the Lord makes them in Cole to have so much in money And so if they sell and this for Sale and this was not-good insomuch that it is alledged in the person as prescription but if it had been alledged as Custome and to be burnt in his house then it shall be good as appendant and 14. Ed. 3. Barr 227. Wilby saith to be adjudged that prescription to have Turbary to be burnt in his house is good but not to sell and 11. H. 6. 17. accordingly by which it appeares that this may be very well by Custome and cannot be by prescription Thirdly he conceived that where a man may create an Estate without nomination there he may create that by nomination And also that which may be done by the
doth not pass till Livery and Seisin be made Also the intent of the parties is not that they shall pass together for if the intent were otherwise the Law would not devide them as it was adjudged Hillary 15. Eliz. in the Lord Cromwells case where Tenant in Tayl was of a Mannor with the Reversion to his right Heirs and he by his Deed gives and grants the Mannor and the Reversion of that and includes Letter of Attorney within the Deed to make Livery but Livery was not made and yet the Reversion doth not pass for his intent appeares that it should pass by Livery and Seisin and not by grant and also in Androwes case the Advowson appendant to a Mannor shall not pass without inrolment of Bargaine and Sale yet there were words there that that might passe by Grant for this was against their intent otherwise if a man makes a Lease for life or years of a Mannor and grants the Inheritance of the Advowson by the same Deed and so of the case of 23 Eliz. Dyer 374. Lessor deviseth Grants and to farm lets the Mannor and the Trees and they passe joyntly and the Reason is insomuch that it is but a Joynt sentence and not severall as it is here also he intended that the life of the Lessee for life is not averred and for that he shall be intended to be dead and for that it is a severall grant of the Trees of the Free-hold for the Interest of them is setled in his Executors for if he had made Sale of them before that the Copy-holder had cut them down then that had not been forfeiture see 5. H. 7. 15 Ed. 4. 14 Eliz. Dyer And then the Case is this Tenant for anothers life of a Mannor makes a Lease for yeares of the Free-hold of which an Estranger hath a Copy-hold Estate for life in Esse Lessee dies and he conceived that the Copy-holder shall not be an occupant for it ought to be Vacua Possessio and this was the reason of the judgment in Adams Case in 18 Eliz. Where a man makes a long Lease for years and after intending to avoyd this Lease makes a Lease to another old man for anothers life to the intent that the Lessee for yeares should be occupant when the old Lessee died and so drowned his Tearm and after the Lessee died and resolved that the Lessee for years shall not be an occupant insomuch that there was not Vacua Possessio and for this it seems to him that if Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease for years and dyes that the Lessee for yeares shall not be an occupant notwithstanding that he made speciall claim and that for the reason aforesaid but he agreed that a Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease at will and dies there the Lessee at Will shall be an Occupant insomuch that his Estate is determined and yet there is not Vacua Possessio according to 38 H. 6. 27. But he did not say there should be an occupant in these cases but cyted Bracton fol. 8. that if the Sea leave an Island in the midst of that the King shall have it and not Occupanti conceditur and so he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred and that Judgment shall be entred for the Defendant which was done accordingly and it was afterwards agreed upon motion in this case whether it would not make difference if the Trees were cut by the Copy-holder before that he hath made his nomination or not notwithstanding it was objected that when he hath made his nomination then he was only bare Tenant for life and the Priviledge executed and he in Remainder was also Tenant for life only for he cannot nominate till he comes to be Tenant in possession but this notwithstanding insomuch that they had power to make nomination that is the first Tenant again if the second died in his life time and the second if the first died in his life time and so the Peiviledge continues all the Justices continued of their opinions and according to that Judgment was entred for the Defendant and that the Plaintiff should be barred and should take nothing by his Writ Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Kings Bench. The Lord Rich against Franke. THE Lord Rich brought an action of Debt against Franke Administrator of one Franke and this was for a rent reserved upon a Lease for yeares made to the Intestate and the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet for rent due in the time of the Administrator and verdict for the Plaintiff and after moved in Arrest of Judgement by the Councell of the Defendant that this Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only and not in the Debet and Detinet and Chibborn of Lincolnes Inne conceived that the Action was well brought in the Debet and Detinet and to that he sayd that Hargraves case 5 Coke is so reported to be adjudged but he saith that he hath heard the councell of the other part insisted upon that that this Judgment was reversed and for that he would under favour of the Court speake to that And hee conceived that the Action so brought is well brought for three Reasons The first shall be drawn from the nature of the Duty and to that the Case rests upon this doubt that is if the Administrator is now charged for this Rent as upon his own duty or as Administrator and it seems to him not as Administrator but as upon his own duty for he saith that it is not Debt nor duty till the day of payment as Littleton takes the diversity in his Chapter of Release between Debt upon an obligation and a Rent and the day not being incurred in time of the Intestate this cannot be his duty therefore that ought to be duty in the Administrator and to the cases of 19 H. 8. 8. Where the Executor of a Lessee for twenty years which had made a Lease for ten years rendring Rent brought action of Debt against the Lessee for ten years for rent incurred in the time of the Executor and this is in the Detinet only and the Case of 20 H. 6. 4. Where an Executor brings an action of Debt upon Arrerages of Account of an Assignement of Auditors by themselves in the Detinet only and he sayd that in these Actions the Executors were Plaintiffs and in all actions brought by Executors where they are Plaintiffs and the thing recovered shall be Asset the Action shall be brought in the Detinet but in our case they are Defendants and so the diversity and to the Objection that may be made to this Contract out of which this duty grows and arises it was made by the Intestate and not by the Administrator himself and so this is a duty upon the first Privity of the contract he answered that there is great difference when a thing comes due by the Contract of the Testator alone and ought to be payed in his time in
if a Copy-holder be of twenty Acres and the Lord grants Rent out of those twenty Acres in the tenure and occupation of the sayd Copy-holder and name him There if this Copy hold Escheat and be granted againe the Copy-holder shall hold it charged for this is now charged by expresse words Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Goodyer and Ince GOodyer was Plaintiff in a Writ of Error against Ince and the Case was this Ince brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation in the Common Bench against Goodyer and had Judgment to recover and by his execution prayed an Elegit to the Sheriff of London and another to the Sheriff of Lancaster and his request was granted and entred upon the Roll after which went out an Elegit to the Sheriff of Lancaster upon a Testatum supposing that an Elegit issued out to the Sheriff of London which returned Nulla bona and Quod Testatum sit c. That the Defendant hath c. in your County c. upon which Elegit upon this Testatum the Sheriff of Lancaster extended a forme of the Defendants in a grosse sum of a hundred pounds and delivered this to the party himselfe which sold that to another and now the Defendants brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that this Elegit issued upon a Testatum where no Writ of Elegit was directed to the Sheriff of London and so this Writ issued upon a false supposall and upon that two points were moved in the Case First As this Case is if this were Error in the Execution or not Secondly Admit that it were Error if the Plaintiff shall be restored to the tearme againe or if to the value in Money and it was moved by Davenport of Grayes Inne that this was no Error and to that he took this difference That true it is when a man brings an Action of Debt in London and hath Judgment that without request of the Plaintiff he is to have his Elegit to the Sheriffs of London where originally the Action was brought and in such Case he cannot have Elegit to the Sheriff of another County without surmise made upon the returne of the first Elegit and the surmise ought to be true or otherwise it is Error but where upon the request the Elegit is granted to both Counties at the first and so entred upon the Roll It seems to him that insomuch that he may have both together that if the surmise be false that this is but a fault of the Clarke which shall be amended and shall be no Error and to that he cyted the Case of 44 Edw. 3. 10. Where an Elegit issued upon a Recognizance of a hundred Markes and the Writ of Extent was a hundred pounds and the Sheriff extended accordingly of the Land of the Defendant and he came and shewed this to the Court and praied that the Writ should abate and a new Writ to the Sheriff that he might have restitution of his Tearme and Thorp said this is but a misprison of the Clark and the Roll is good and he shall have the Land but till the hundred markes are Levied and after this you shall have restitution of the Land which case proves as he conceives that if the Roll warrant a writ in one manner and the Clark makes it in another manner that this shall not be Error and so in this case the Roll warrants an Elegit originally to the Sheriff of Lancaster and though that this is made upon a Testatum this shall not be Error because warranted by the Roll And to the second point he would not speake for if that were no Error the second point doth not come in question Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Kings Bench. Marsam against Hunter IN Trespasse the case was this Copy-holder of a Mannor within which Mannor the custome was that the Copy-holders should have Common in the wast of the Lord The Lord by Deed confirmes to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heires with the appurtenances and the point was insomuch that his Copy-hold was now distroied whether he shall have his Common or not And Davyes of Linclones Inne argued the Common is extinct and his reason was that this Common was in respect of his Tenure and the Tenure is distroid Ergo the Common and he cited the case of 5 Ed. 4. fol. ult Where the office of the King of Herraulds was granted to Garter with the Fees and profits Ab Antiquo and also ten pound for the office and there it is resolved if the office be determined the Annuity is determined also and the case in 7. Ed. 4. 22. b. Where an Annuity was granted to John Clark of the Crown and for Tearme of life and after he was discharged of the office and the oppinion of the Justices then was that the annuity was determined and in 19. Ed. 3. Assis 83. 12 Assis 22. A man gives Land to his Daughter and I. S. within the years of marrying in frank-marriage the Husband sues Divorce the marriage being dissolved the Wife from whom the Land first moved shall have the Land againe so in the principall case insomuch that this common was in respect of Tenure the Tenure being distroied the common is gone and this was all his argument and he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and another day Brautingham of Grayes Inne seemed that the common remaines for three reasons First of the nature of a prescription and to that there are three manner of prescriptions First personall prescription and in that Inhabitants may prescribe as for a way or matter of ease as it is said in 7. Ed. 4. 15. Ed. 4. and 18. Ed. 4. and 6. Coke Gatwoods case Secondly reall prescription and this is Inherent to the Estate and this is where a man prescribeth that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Thirdly locall prescriptions an that is where a man prescribes to have a thing appendant or appurtenant to his Mannor and this is so fixed to the Land that whether soever the Land goes the prescription is concommitant unto it and it seemes to him that this common is annexed to the Land by prescription and so locall and cannot be seperated but alwaies shall go with the Land into who soever hands that comes but Dixit non Probant And for this he supposed that the custome of Copy-hold is that the Copy-hold shall discend to the youngest Son if the Copy holder purchase the Free-hold and the Fee-simple of the Copy-hold so that this is made Free-hold this shall discend to the youngest Son so if a Copy-holder by custome is discharged of payment of Tythes in kind so the office of the master of the Rolles hath many liberties pertaining to it and this is granted but Durante placito yet if the King grant that in Fee as he may yet he shall have all the Fees and Priviledges annexed to that and so it seemes to him that
Grant his Intent was cleerly to pass all but Williams if he had sayd Totum Molendinum suum or all his Estate in the Mill there paradventure it should haue been otherwise and so a difference where he saith he grants the Mill and all his Estate in that and where he grants all his Estate in the Mill for in the first case all passes by the Grant of the Mill and these words which are after are but words explanatory as â—rooke sayd and it was adjourned And after in Easter Tearm next insuing Hitcham the Queens Attorney came again and prayed that the Judgment be affirmed and Yelverton of Grayes Inne sayd that he hath considered of Nokes Case 4. Coke and this was all one with this case for the case was thus A man lets a House in London by these words demise Grant c. That the Lessee should injoy the House during the Tearm without eviction by the Lessor or any claiming from or under him and the Lessor was bound to peform all Covenants Grants Articles and Agreements as our case is and there by the whole Court that the sayd express Covenant qualifies the generalty of the Covenants by the Words Demise and Grant which is all one with our case for first he granted Totum Molendinum and after covenant that he should injoy c. against himself and all which claime in by from or under him and after binds himself to perform all Grants Covenants Articles and Agreements and so it seems to him that it is au expresse Covenant in this Case as well as in other and qualifies the generall Covenant implyed by the word Grant and then the Grantee being outed by a title Paramount no Action of Debt upon such Obligation and prayed that the Judgment be reversed and the Justices sayd they would consider Nokes Case and the next day their opinions were prayed again and the cheife Justice sayd that he had seen Nokes case and said that there is but a small difference between the cases but he sayd that some diflemay be collected For first in our case is a Recitall of the Estate of the Grantor that is that all belongs to him as Survivor and for that this was a manner of Inducement of the Grantee to be more willing and forward to accept of the Grant and to give the more greater consideration for it but in Nokes case there is no recitall and so this may be the diversity Secondly In Nokes Case the Tearm past all in Interest at the first and the Grantee or Lessee had once the effect of this Lease in Interest of the Lessor but in this case when two Tenants in Common and one grants Totum molendinum there passes but a half at the first and so the grant is not supplyed for the other halfe and then if the speciall Covenant shall qualify the generall c. The Grantee shall not have any remedy for a half at all and this may be the other diversity but admitting that none of these will make any difference then he sayd that all the Court agreed that this point in Nokes Case was not adjudged but this was a matter spoken collaterally in the case and the case was adjudged against the Plaintiff for other reasons for that that he did not shew that he which evicted this Tearm had title Paramount for otherwise the Covenant in Law was not broken and for this reason Judgment was given against the Plaintiff and not upon the other matter and so the whole Court against Nokes Case And the cheif Justice sayd that to that which is sayd in Nokes case that otherwise the speciall Covenant shall be of no effect if it cannot qualify the generalty of the Covenant in Law he sayd that this serves well to this purpose that is that if the Lessor dyes and any under the Testator claim the Estate that the Action of Covenant in this case lies against his Executors which remedy otherwise he cannot have for if a man makes a Lease by these words Devise and Grant and dyes Action of Covenant doth notly against his Executors as it is sayd in the 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. But otherwise upon expresse Covenant and then this expresse speciall Covenant shall be to this purpose And also it seems to him that if a man devise and grant his Land for years and there are other Covenants in the Deed that in this case if the Lessor binds himself to perform all Covenants that he is not bound by his Bond to perform Covenants in Law and he cited that to this purpose the Books of 22 H. 6. and 6 Ed. 6. B. Tender that if a man makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent this is Covenant in Law as it is sayd 15 H. 8. Dyer and a man shall have Debt or Covenant for that and yet if a man binds himself in a Bond to perform all Covenants where there are other Covenants in the Deed and after doth not pay the Rent no action of Debt lyeth upon this Obligation nor the nature of the Debt altered by that and he sayd that the Munday next they would pronounce Judgment in the Writ of Errour accordingly if nothing shall be sayd to the contrary and nothing was sayd Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Bartons Case THE Case was this A man was taxed by the Parish for Reparations of the Church and the Wardens of the Church sued for this Taxation in the spirituall Court and hanging this Suit one of the Wardens released to the Defendant all Actions Suits and Demands and the other sued forward and upon this the Defendant there procured a Prohibition upon which matter shewed in the Prohibition was a Demurre joyned and Davenport of Grayes Inne moved the Court for a Consultation and upon all the matter as he sayd the point was but this If two Wardens of a Church are and they sue in the Court Christian for Taxation and one Release if that shal barr his Companion or not And it seems to him that this Release shall not be any Barr to his Companion or Impediment to sue for he sayd that the Wardens of a Church are not parties interested in Goods of the Church but are a speciall Corporation to the Benefit of the Church and for that he cited the Case in 8 Ed. 4. 6. The Wardens of the Church brought Trespass for goods of the Church taken out of their possession and they counted Ad damnum Parochianorum and not to their proper damage and the 11 H. 4. 12. 12 H. 7. 27. 43 H. 7. 9. Where it is sayd expresly that the Wardens of the Church are a corporation only for the Benefit of the Church and not for the disadvantage of that but this Release sounds to disadvantage of the Church and for that seems to him no Barr also this Corporation consists of two persons and the Release of one is nothing worth for he was but one Corps and the moyity of the Corps could not release
of the Lessor But he agreed the case of Littleton that an Assignee of an Estate may perform a condition in preservation of an Estate otherwise of an Assignee of a Reversion in destruction of an Estate so at the Common Law it is clear that the Feoffee cannot perform the condition and by him it is cleerly out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for this Statute doth not extend to a collaterall condition as it appears by Spencers case 5. Coke and so hath been many times after this adjudged and this is a collaterall condition Ergo c. And so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nicholls Serjeant to the contrary and that this Disseisin hath not suspended the condition but that he may pay the Money and make the Estate to cease notwithstanding the Disseisin for-that that the condition is collaterall like to the 20 of Ed. 4. and 20 H. 7. That where a Feoffee upon a collaterall condition takes back an Estate for years yet this shall not suspend the condition but it may be performed or broken notwithstanding the Lease for that that it is collaterall so in our case for suppose that the condition had been if he marry Mistris Holbeam that then his Estate shall cease and as well it shall be upon the Tender of the Money here and he said that this case was late in the Common Bench. This feoffment was made to the use of the Feoffor for life Remainder to another for life the Remainder to the third in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor in fee with power of Revocation and after the Feoffor lets for years and during the Tearm he revokes the mesne Remainders and it seems to the Justices that well he may for that that the Lease for years goes only out of the Estate for life as he sayd and for that the power of Revocation as to the Mesne Remainders was not suspended Quere of the truth of this case in the common Bench for perchance it is not truly collected but so entred and so he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Flemming cheife Justice sayd that the point of the principall case would be if by the wrong of the Lessor the Estate of the Lessee shall be prevented to accrue then he might perform the condition to determine the ancient Estate that is the Lease for years and it is adjourned Pasch 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Earle of Shrewsbury against the Earle of Rutland IN a Writ of Errour the Earle of Rutland brought an Assise of Novel Disseisin against the Earle of Shrewsbury and four others and the Plaint was of the office of the keeping of the Park of Clepson and of the vailes and fees of the sayd Parke and of the Herbage and Paunage of the same and the Demandant made his title and alledged that the Queen Eliz. was seised of Clepsam Park in fee in right of her Crown and that she being so seised by her Letters Patents under the great Seal granted unto one Markham the keeping of the Park of Clepson with the vailes and fees and the Herbage and Paunage of the same Park for his life after the Queen Eliz. reciting the Grant made to Markham and that Markham was alive gave and granted by her Letters Patents to the Earl of Rutland the Office of the keeping of the sayd Clepson Parke with the Fees and Wages to that appertaining to have and to hold to him for his life after the death of Markham or after the surrender or forfeiture of his Letters Patents and further granted the Herbage and Paunage to the sayd Earle of Rutland for his life and doth not say when this shall begin after which the Queen Eliz. died and the Eee-simple discended to our Lord the King which-now is as lawfull Heir to the Crown of England which granted that to the Earle of Shrewsbury after which Markham dyed and the Earle of Rutland entered and was seised till the Earle of Shewsbury with four others entered upon him and dissersed him and to that the Tenants alledged no wrong no disseisin and when the Assise was to be taken in the Country the Array was challenged by the Tenants for that that one of the Tenants in the Assise had an Action of Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff and this challenge was not allowed and the Assise being perused at large for the Herbage and Paunage they found that the said Queen Eliz. was seised of Clepson Park as aforesaid and by her Letters Patents as afore is rehearsed granted the Keeping of this to Markham for his life and further by the same Letters Patents granted to him the Fees and Wages to that belonging and further granted by Letters Patents and doth not say Easdem to him the Herbage and Paunage of the sayd Park and that the Queen after the reciting the Grant made to Markham and that Markham was alive granted to the Earle of Rutland the keeping of the sayd Park and vailes and fees to have and to hold after the death surrender or forfeiture of the Letters Patents of Markham for his life And further by the sayd Letters Patents shee granted the Herbage and Paunage of the same Park to him for his life as more fully appears by the Letters Patents and it was not expressed as to the Herbage and Paunage when that began and they found the death of Markham and that the Earle of Rutland put two Horses into the sayd Park to take seisin of the sayd Herbage and Paunage and they found further the grant of the King to the Earle of Shrewsbury of the fee-simple and of that prayed the advise of the Court and to the keeping of the Park they found the seisin and disseisin of that and of the fees and wages to the Dammages c. And this being adjourned into the Common Bench was remanded into the Country and there Judgment was given for all for the Demandant and after this it came into the Kings Bench by Writ of errour and the Errours assigned by the councell of the Tenants and argued at the Barr were foure The first was that the Earle of Rutland himself between the verdict and the Judgment hunted in the Park and kild a Buck and took a shoulder of that for his fee and so he hath abated his Assise and so the Judgment was given upon a Writ abated and therefore they cannot plead that in abatement insomuch that it was mesne betwixt the Judgment and the verdict they assigned that for errour The second was because the principall challenge was not allowed where that ought to have beene allowed and the challenge was that one of the Tenants had an Action or Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff before the Assise The third was Because the Jury have found the Letters Patents made to Markham and that the Queen granted to him by her Letters Patents the custody of the Parke of Clepson in Clepson And further by the same Letters Patents granted the vailes
and fees c. And further granted the Herbage and Paunage and have not found that this was granted by the same Letters Patents and then if this be not granted by the same Letters Patents then there is not any grant of this to the Earle of Rutland because there is no receitall of the Patent by which the Herbage and Paunage was granted to Markham The fourth errour was that they have erred in point of Law and to that the point is but this the King grants the Herbage and Paunage of a Park to one for life and after reciting that grant and that the Patentee is alive grants that to another and doth not say when that shall begin and it seems to them that the Argument for the Plaintiffes in the Writ of errour that this was a voyd grant and so the Judgment erronious but I have not the Report of the Arguments of the Conncellors at the Barr but only of the Judges which moved two other errours in the case not moved by the councell at the Barr and Crooke Justice rehearsed the case as before And to the first errour he conceived that this is no errour and that for two reasons First He tooke a difference betweene a thing which abates the Writ by Plea as if a man brings an Assise against another and mesne between verdict and Judgment the Plaintiff dies this matter shall abate the Writ without Plea and for that if Judgment be given upon such verdict the Judgment is erronious but in our case an entry doth not abate the Writ without pleading that and now as this case is this cannot be pleaded being between Verdict and Judgment and for that it shall not be assigned for Errour see 19 Assise 8 Where this difference is taken and agreed Secondly Admit that this entry might have abated the Writ in Facto without Plea yet there is no such entry alledged which might abate the Writ in Facto without Plea for the entry is alledged that the Earl of Rutland entred to hunt and kild a Buck and took a shoulder of that for his fee and it seems that this is no such entry that shall abate the writ for he hath now entred to another purpose to hunt the which he could not do but the entry ought to have been alledged that he entred to keep for in every entry the intent of the Entry is to be regarded and to this purpose he cited the case of Assise of Freshforce Com. 92. and 93. Where entring into the Seller hanging the Assise of that to see the Antiquity of the House there was no Entry to abate the Writ and the case of 26 Assise 42. where the Disseisee hanging the Assise comes and sets his foot upon the Land but takes no profits and adjudged that he should recover notwithstanding so in this case the intent is not shewed that is that he entred to keep possession but to hunt nor was it such entry which should abate the writ and to that which is sayd that he kild a Buck and took the shoulder of that for his fee this doth not help for if that had been a Buck which he might to have kild by vertue of his Office he ought to have shewed his warrant for otherwise a Parker cannot kill a Buck if not that it be for his fee and then he shall have the Buck and not a shoulder only also it is alledged that he took a shoulder and doth not say the best shoulder or the right shoulder and this ought to be shewed in certain And so for he first Errour he couceived that this is no cause to reverse the Judgment and to the challenge he sayd that he would speake to that at the last and for that he now spake to the errours supposed in the grant And first to Markhams Grant where the Jury found the Queen Eliz. granted to him the keeping of the Park and by the same Letters Patents grant the fees and Wages and further granted by her Letters Patents and doth not say Easdem the Herbage and Paunage it seems to him that this is very well for two reasons First insomuch that there is a copulative which is this word Et and also a Relative which is this word Vlterius and this word conjoynes the matter precedent with the subsequent and the word Vlterius hath necessary relation to the same Letters Patents and so Ex precedentibus subsequentibus the Iury hath well found the matter Secondly these words are supplied in the second Patent for there the Jury have found that the Queene hath granted that to Marham by the same Letters Patents and so for these two reasons he concluded that this is no Error to reverse the Judgement And to the Patent made to the Earle of Rutland it seemes to him also that this is very good and all that he said in effect was that in construction of the Patents of the King such exposition is to be made that if any reasonable meaning may be conceived they shall not be defeated but shall stand good And so he said in our case that it is necessarily intended that this was also to begin after the Estate of Markham determined and for that good And he said that a man ought not to make a curious and captious interpretation of the Kings Patents for Talis Interpretatio injure Reprobatur And to the challenge that seemed unto him a principall challenge and this not being allowed where it ought to be allowed this is an error as it is said 8. of Assises 23. and for this error it seemes to him that the Judgement shall be reversed and to that he said he relied much upon the book of 11 H. 4. 25. which takes a difference between Debt and Trespasse for battery for the booke saith that a man may demand his Debt without giving occasion of any malice But Battery is an evill Action and there the book is resolved that it shall be a principall challenge and so he saith in Trespasse this being with force and Armes that c. And in 8. H. 5. in a Assise the Tenant challenges the array because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff And there the array was affirmed because it appeares that the Defendant had brought this Action by Covin against the Sheriff which case proves as he said that if there be not any Covin this is a principall challenge and 38 H. 6. 7. accordingly and the case 28. Assise 11. where the Defendant in Assise challenged a Juror because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against him and was outed by award and in 21. Ed. 4. 12. it is said where there is an apparent favour or apparent displeasure there shall be principall challenge and certainly though the Law may intend that a man may lawfully demand his right and without malice yet it appeares that the nature of men is perverse and froward and few Actions are begun without apparent displeasure especially
cited the book of 24 Ed. 3. Where a Tales was returned by the Sheriff of Middlesex and the party challenged the Jury because he sued the Sheriff for the death of his Servant and this was a principall challenge for in such case his life was in question the same Law in case of Maintenance and Champerty for the Law hath inflicted great punishment upon such Offences so these matters tend to utter subversion of his Estate and life but otherwise in Actions of Trespasse and so he concluded no principall challenge To the abatement of the Writ it seemes no Error First he conceived that there is no entry and for the reason that Crooke had given before that is because he entred to hunt and not to keep possession and hath not shewed any Warrant to kill the Buck and he cited the book of the 5. of Ed. 4. fol. 60. Where Babington brought an Assise of the house of the Fleete and hanging the Assise Babington came to the Jury within the house when they had the View with his Councell to shew Evidence for the view and this was not any entry to abate the Writ and so the entry to hunt is an entry for another purpose then an entry to keep possession not being by warrant as it is not found and for that no entry to abate the Writ But admitting that this had been an entry to abate the Writ yet being a thing which doth not abate the Writ without Plea and that cannot be pleaded as the case is he conceived was no Error but if it had been a thing which abated the Writ in Facto without Plea then to give Judgement upon a Writ abated is Error As if the party die hanging the Writ or if a woman sole brings an Assise and takes a Husband hanging the Assise or if the Plaintiff in a Assise be made Judge of Assise as the 15. of Assise in all these cases the Writ is abated in Facto without Plea But entry shall not abate the Writ without Plea and so it seemes to him no error But he conceived that there were two other errors for which he reversed the Judgement The first was that this Assise was de Libero Tenemento in Clepson and the plaint was of the keeping of the Park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and Paunage of the Parke aforesaid called Clepsom and made his Title for Herbage and Paunage of the Park of Clepsom and so he conceived that there is variance between the Plaint and the Title and Park of Clepsom and Clepsom cannot be intended one without speciall averment and for that he conceived it to be errour And to that he cited the case of twelve Assises two Where in attaint the first originall was of the Mannor of Austy and the Attaint was of the Mannor of Auesty and yet for that that the Attaint is founded upon the Record and not upon the Originall and the Record was of the Mannor of Auesty this was very good but the Booke saith that this variance between the Originall and the Record was sufficient to reverse the Record for errour and the case in 42 of Ed. 3. Where Scire facias was brought of Tenements in Eastgrave and the Fine was of Tenements in Deepgrave and for the variance the Writ abated and in the case of 5 Coke 46. Formedon was brought of the Mannor of Isfeild and the Tenant pleads in barr a recovery of the Mannor of Iffeild and this shall not be amended unlesse it appear that this is a misprision of the Clark or by other averment he cited also the case of 3 H. 4. 8. Scire facias upon garnishment in a Writ of Detinue of writings the Originall name John Scripstead and the Scire facias was made Iohn Shiplow and therefore agreed that he shall sue a new Scire facias so he said in the Principal case the Plaint being of Herbage and Paunage of Clepson Parke aad the title being at Clepsom Parke these shall not be intended to be the same Parke without averment and there in no averment in our case and for that such variance is such errour that shall reverse the Judgment The second errour for which he reversed the Judgment was that which was moved by Justice Crook that the Jury have not found any seisin of the Paunage for it seemed to him that a Horse could not take Seisin of paunage and for that he defined paunage and he sayd that Linwood title-Tithes saith the Paunagium est pastus Porcorum as of Nuts and Akornes of trees in the wood and Crompton saith that this is Pastus Porcorum and he saith that Paunagium is either used for Paunage or the Paunage it self and the Statute of Charta de Foresta saith that every Freeman may drive his Hoggs into our royall Wood and shall have there Paunage but he doth not say Horses or other Beasts but he conceived that if the Earle of Rutland had right in the Park that this had been sufficient seisin of Herbage and Paunage also for Hoggs will feed upon grass as well as upon Akornes and he cited the Book of 37 H. 6. saith that Seisin to maintain an Assise ought not to be of a contrary nature to the thing of which seisin is intended to be given but in one case only and that is where the Sheriff gives seisin of a Rent by a Twig or by a Clod of Earth and this is in case of necessity for the Sheriff cannot take the Money out of the purse of the Tenant of the Land and deliver seisin of that and for that he cited the case in 45 Ed. 3. Where Commoner comes to the Land where he ought to have Common and enters into the Land and the Lord of the Waste or the Grantor of the Common outs him he cannot have an Assise of his Common upon this outing for this was not any seisin of the Common so it is in this case the Horses cannot take Seisin of the Paunage and so there is no seisin or disseisin found by the Jury and then no Assise and this being after Judgment no abridgment may be of the Plaint and so for these last reasons he reversed the Judgment And at another day the case was rehearsed again and argued by Yelverton and Fenner Justices but I did not hear their Arguments insomuch that they spake so low but their opinions were declared by the cheife Justice and Yelverton affirmed the Judgment in all First he held that this entry shall not abate the writ Secondly admit that it is abated yet being between Verdict and Judgment shall not be assigned for errour Thirdly he held that no principall challenge Fourthly he held both the grants good Fifthly that Clepsam and Clipsam are all one and not such variance that shall make Errour And lastly that a Horse may well take Seisin of Paunage and Fenner agreed in all but he held that this was a principall challenge and not being allowed this
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
Lessee for years or life surrender before the performance of the condition the Fee doth never increase as it is 14. H. 8. 20. and the Lord Chandois Case 6 Coke But the Estate tayl remaines after the condition performed and then hath the Fee dependant upon the Estate tayl and that there is a necessity that there shall be an office as it was in Nicholls Case in the Com because of the right and that after the condition performed then the Fee shall vest Ab Initio and this corporates together partly by the Letters Patents and partly by the performance of the condition and so it is in Butler and Bakers case that it is not a Grant in futuro but one immediate Grant to take effect In futuro see 2. H. 7. for the execution of Chantrey and Grendons Case in the Com. and 2. H. 7. If the King grant Land to J. S. for life the remainder to the right Heires of J. R. which is in life the remainder is good as well as in case of a common person and so he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Walmesley Justice agreed that it shall be remainder and not reversion as if Lands begin to the Husband and the Wife and to the Heires of the Body of the Husband the Husband dies this is a remainder in the Heires Males and not a reversion for it cannot grow higher and it was not in the King as one distinct Estate before the Grant and Formedon in remainder lieth for it and though it be misrecited yet it shall be good and ayded by the Statute of Misrecitalls and grant of a thousand is suffered to convey the reversion of a thousand by the common Law and if the recitall were that it was a reversion depending upon the Estate tayl it was good without question and the King may grant five hundred reversions if he will and that the last Damus is ex certa scientia et mêre motu nostris Damus et concedimus that if the Patentee pay twenty shillings Tunc sciatis quod nos de ampliori gracia ea certa scientia et mero motu nostris concedimus c. and that the word Volumus will amount to a Covenant or a Release as 32. H. 6. The King by his Patent by these words Nolent that he shall be impleaded and this amounts to a release and so words which intends expresly words of Covenant may be pleaded as a Grant in case of the King as it is 25 Ed. 4 So is a common person license another to occupy his Land this amounts to a Lease of Land if the time be expressed so if a man grants to another that he shall have and injoy his Land to him and his Heires that by that Fee passeth And if the King grant reversion to begin at Michaelmasse the Grant is void for that it is to begin totally at Michaelmasse and doth not looke back to any precedent thing But if it relate to any precedent Act then that shall be good by relation and shall passe ab Initio see Com. Walsinghams Case 553. b. that in such case the performance of the condition divests the Estate out of the King and there is no difference in this case betwixt the King and a common person and agreed in the case of Littleton Where a man makes a Lease for yeares upon condition to have Fee that the Fee shall not passe till the condition be performed and with this agrees 2. R. 2. But if a man makes a Charter of Feoffment upon condition that if the Feoffee injoy the Land peaceably for fifteen years that the Feoffment shall be void In this case the Fee-simple determineth by the performance of the Condition and in this case the Fee passeth ab Initio by the Livery as in 10. Assise 18. Assise 1. 44. Assise 49 Assise And he agreed that the words Habeat et Teneat the Reversion passes and this is good Fee-simple and this refers to the first Damus et Concedimus and so concluded that he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he conceived that there are two questions upon the substance of the Grant And to the first objection that hath been made that is that reversion was granted and increase of an Estate cannot be of a reversion and in all these cases which have been put they are of an Estate in possession and so is the case of Littleton also and he agreed that it shall not be good if it be not good ab Initio that though there be not other words then Reversionem predictam That it shall be good And to the second point upon the former He conceived that the Grant is but a Grant and that the condition is but precedent Limitation when the Estate of Fee-simple shall begin and so it is said by Montague in Colthurst and Brinskins Case in the Com. And further he saith that there are four things necessary for increasing an Estate First that it ought to be an Estate upon which the increasing Estate may increase Secondly the particular Estate ought to continue for otherwise it is grant of a reversion in Futuro Thirdly That the Estate which is to increase ought to vest by the performance of the Condition for if there be disturbance that it cannot then vest then it can never vest Foutthly that both the Estates as well the particular Estate as the Estate which is to increase ought to have their beginning by one self same Deed or by diverse Deeds delivered at one self same time And to the first and to prove that he cyted 44 Ed. 3. Attaint 22. Lessee for yeares upon condition to have Fee granes his Estate the Fee doth not increase upon the performance of the condition for then it shall passe as a Reversion and so the particular Tenant surrenders his Estate as it is sayd 14. H. 8. For if the Privity be destroyed the Fee will never increase but there is no such â—ycity but that if the substance of the Estate remains though it doth not remain in such form as it was at the first Reversion the Estate may well increase as if Lands be given to the Husband and wife and to the Heirs of the Husband upon the Body of the Wife to be begotten the Wife dies and the Husband is Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct yet he may well perform the condition for the Estate remaines in substance and with this agrees 20 H. 6. Ayd and so it is if a Lease be made to two for years upon condition to have fee one dies the other may perform the Condition and shall have Fee-simple as it is agreed by 12. Assise 5. the reason is that the privity remaines and the Estate also in substance Thirdly As to that also it seems that it ought to vest upon the performance of the condition which is the time limited for the beginning of the Estate and if it do not vest
then it shall never vest and if it do not vest without Office in this case it shal never vest at all but it is for the Honour of the King that his grant shall have his effect and 49 Ed. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheaps case she devised her Lands to her Executors to be sold and dyes without Heir the King hath that by Escheat yet the Executors may sell it and for that divest the Estate out of the King and so was the Lord Lâ—vells Case and the reason is for the necessity for the Prerogative of the King shall do no wrong and there need no continuance of the Estate of the part of the Lessor but of the part of the Lessee and for that if the Feoffor make a Feoffment or grant his Estate this shall not make prejudice or alteration of the Estate and for that if the King refuse to receive the Money yet if it be tendered the Fee-simple shall vest in the Patentee and the simple upon that shall shall increase see 31 Ed. 1. Feoffments and Deeds B. 32. Quid Iuris Clamat be And to the fourth it seems also that both the Estates ought to be created and granted by one self same Deed or by divers delivered at one time Quia quae in continenti fiunt pro uno habeantur reputentur as if a man makes a Lease for years upon Condition to have in tayl upon condition to have in Fee this second condition is void for it ought to be all one Crant and cannot be intire upon the privity of the first grant and it is not material though that the first Estate be drowned upon the performance of the condition as if the King makes a Lease for life the Remainder in tayl upon condition that if the Tenant for life pay twenty shillings that he shall have Fee this shall be a good Grant and the Fee well vested by the performance of the condition though that the particular Estate for life shall not be drowned And to the second point that is that the Grant of the King shall not be good for that that it is by the words Reversion aforesaid he agreed that if the King makes a Grant to one intent that shall not enure to another intent But this shall enure to the intent for which it is made Vt res magis vale et quam periat and it is for the dishonor of the King to make an unconscionable Grant And to the Objection which is made that the King is not understanding of Law to that he answered that the King is Caput Legis and for that shall not be intended to be ignorant of it and for that if a grant may have two intendments one to make the Grant good the other to make the Grant voyd it shall be intended and expounded in the better sense that is to make the Grant Good and not to make the Grant voyd for this was Iniquae expositio and also he sayd that the Grant shall be good for the first word Concedo though it had not been subsequent also as if a man grant a Rent charge and if it be behinde that the Grantee may distrain for the first Grant and the Grant is not of a Reversion In futuro but grant that if the condition be performed that then the Fee doth pass In futuro and it seemed to him that it was a good devise to prevent that the Estate tayl should not be discontinued by Fine nor otherwise untill the Condition were performed and so of recovery also for if the King grant an Estate tayl and after grants the Reversion in tayl this second intayl is within the intent of the Statute and when the Issue of the first Tenant in tayl shall not be barred the Estate of the Tenant in tayl in Remainder shall not be barred see the Lord Barkleys case in the Com. fol and 7 Ed. 4. and as to the pleading he sayd that when the Issue is offered which depends upon matter in Law there is no necessity to take travers upon the matter in Law for it doth not belong to lay men to decide the matter in Law and for that he concludes that the Grant in substance is good and in form exquesite and that the Issue in tayl in Reversion shall not be barred for Quod non in principio valet non valebit in accessario and that Judgment ought to be for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly IN Ejectione firme against Gallop after Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff a Writ of Habere facias Possessionem was awarded and executed and returned and fyled and after the same Defendant re-entred and outed the Plaintiff and Attachment was awarded and it seems that if the Writ had not been returned that then a new Writ shall be awarded and the Attachment was awarded upon Affidavit IN Action upon the case against Trotman the words were Thou sayest thou art an Attorney but I think thou art no Attorney but an Attorneys Clark in some Office but if thou be an Attorney I will have thee pickt over the Barr the next Tearme and thy Eares nailed to the Pillory and it seems that these words are not Actionable IN waging of Law of Summons in Dower In petit Cape there ought to be two summons only and if it be Grand Cape then there ought to be two Summoners and two Veiwers and Summons upon the Land is sufficient to give notice of the Demandant of the thing demanded and the day in Court That in Waging Law the Lord Coke sayd that the Defendant himself ought to swear De fidelitate and elevâ—n others which are named in the Statute of Magna Charta chapter Testes fideles ought to swear De credulitate IF Tenant for life be the Remainder in tayl to another the Remainder in Fee to the Tenant for life and the Tenant for life releases to the Tenant in Tayl the Release is good to passe the Remainder in Fee to the Tenant in Tayl for to this purpose the Tenant in tayl hath sufficient possession upon which the Release may enure but it shall not be good to pass the Estate for life and 19 H. 6. and 9 H. 7. If Tenant in Tayl in Remainder Disseise Tenant for life he doth not gain Fee-simple by Fulthorp but if there be Grand-Father Father and Sonn and the Father makes a Feoffment the Grand-Father dies the Father dies the Sonn is barred so if the Sonn had levied a Fine being Tenant in tayl 33 and 39 H. 6. 43. a. 21 Ed. 4. Discontinuance Pasch 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Warbrooke and Griffin BEtween Warbrooke and Griffin a Guest brought a Horse into an Inne in London to be kept the which stayed there so long till he had eaten out his Worth and then the Inn-Keeper caused the said Horse to be prysed and then sold him according to the custome of London and it seems well he might do it and that the Sale was
admittance for two things are necessary to Phisitians that is learning and experience and upon that there is the proverb Experto credo Roberto And the Statute intends that none shall practise here but those which are most learned and expert more then ordinary And for that the Statute provides that none shall practise here without allowance and examination by the Bishop of London and the Deane of Pauls and four learned Doctors But in other places the examination is referred only to the Bishop of the Diocesse and the reason of the difference is for that that London is the hart of the Kingdome And here the King and his Court the Magistrates and Judges of the Law and other Magistrates are resident and with this agreed the government of other well governed Cities in Italy and other Nations as it appeares by the preamble of the said Letters Patents and it appeares by the Statute that this was not intended to extend to Imposters only for that that the word Imposter is not mentioned in the Statute And the Statute provides that they shall be punished as well for doing and using as for ill using And also it is provided that the Statute of 1. Marie 1. Parliament chap. 9. That the Gardians Goalers or Keepers of the Wardes Goales and Prisons within the City and precinct of that shall receive into his Prison all such person and persons so offending which are sent or committed to them and those safely shall keep without Bayl till the party so committed shall be discharged by the said President or other person by the said Colledge to that authorised by which it appeares that the Goalers Keepers of Prisons have power to retain such which are committed That then the President shall have power to commit for things Implyed are as strong as things Expressed as it appeares by the Com. Stradlinge and Morgans Case And also in the Earle of Leicesters Case where it is agreed that Joynture before Coverture cannot be waved and this is implyed within the Statute of 27. H. 8. And so the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. Provides that after seven yeares Tythes shall be payd by which it is Collected by Implycation that during seven yeares Tythes shall not be payd and so he prayed Judgement for the Defendants Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiff said that the Statute of 24 H. 8. chap. 5. and the Letters Patents gives power to four Censors to punish for ill executing doing and using the faculty of a Phisitian and the Plaintiff was not charged for ill executing of it doing or using But it is averred where Revera the Plaintiff was nothing sufficient to exercise the said Art and being examined lesse apt to answer and thereupon they forbade him and being sent for and not appearing was amerced five pound and order that he should be Arrested and being Arrested upon his appearance being examined if he would submit himselfe to the said Colledge he answered and confessed that he had practised within the said City being a Doctor of physick as aforesaid as wel to him it was lawfull and that he would practise here againe for which he was committed to Prison So that he was amerced for his contempt in the using of the said Art and committed to Prison for his answer upon his examination And he conceived that there are two questions considerable First if the Colledge may restraine a Doctor of phisick of his practise in London Secondly admitting that they may then if these are the causes for which they may commit by their Letters Patents the first reason is drawn from the Letters Patents and the said Statutes in which he said that the intent of the King was the end of his work And this intent shall be expounded for three reasons apparent in the words contained in the Grant First Intempestive Conatibus occurrere Secondly Improborum Hominum qui medicinam Magis avaritiae suae causa quam ullius bonae Conscientiae fiducia profitebantur audaciam Compescere Thirdly which would invite learned men to practise here and for that would quod Collegium prefectum Doctorum et graviorum virorum qui medicinarent in urbe nostra Londino et suburbibus infra septem millia passium in urbe quaqâ—â— versus publice Exerceant institui volumus et imparamus And further he said that there are three sorts of men which meddle with the Body of a man First is the learned man which reades all Bookes extant and his knowledge is speculative and by that he knew the nature of all simples And the second is practive the knowledge of which is only his experience he may give Probatum est But the ignorance of the cause of the disease and the nature of the things which he applies for the cure of that And the third is an Imposter which takes upon him the knowledg which he hath not and every of them the Colledge may punish for Male utenda faciendo vel exequendo by what way they will And this was not the first care which was had for in the 9. H. 5. was a private Act made for Phisitians by which there is great regard to them which are learned and educated in the University And for that the Act provides that they shall not be prejudicall to any of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and with this agrees 3. H. 8. 11. and the priviledges of them and the Docti et graves homines mentioned in the Letters Patents are the learned men mentioned in the Act for the Statute provides that they shall punish according to these Statutes and late edicts And by the former Lawes the Universities that their priviledges were excepted and by their former Statutes the Letters Patents ought to be directed for it is referred to them Also the Statutes of this Realme have alwaies had great respect to the Gradiats of the Universities and it is not without cause for Sudavit et Alsit and hath no other reward but this degree which is Doctor and for that the Statute of 21 H. 8. prefers Graduates and provides that Doctors of Divinity or Batchelors shall be capable of two Benefices with Cure without dispensation And so 13. Eliz. provides that none shall be presented to a Benefice above the value of thirty pound per annum if he be not a Doctor or Bachelor of Divinity And to the objection that none shall practise in London or seven miles circute of it without licence that this clause shall be expounded according to the matter and to that he agreed for the other branches of the Statute are made to cherish grave and learned men and for that it shall not be intended that this branch was made for the punishment of those but of others which the Statute intended to punish And to the second objection that every Doctor is not the learned and grave man intended within the Statute for the knowledge of many of them is only speculative without practise to that he answered that
all their Study is practise and that if they have no practise of themselves then they attend upon others which practise and apply themselves to know the nature of Simples And to third objection that in London ought to be choyce men for the Statute appoints that they shall be examined by the Bishop and Deane and four others at least and for that there is a more strict course for them then in other places to that it is agreed But he said that in the University there is a more strict course then this for here he ought to be publickly approved by many after that he hath been examined and answered in the Schooles to diverse questions and allowed by the Congregation house And 35. H. 6. 55. Doctor is no addition but a degree quia gradatim et progressâ—one Doctrine provenit to that and that Doctor is teacher and that he was first taught by others as Scholers afterwards he is Master and Doctor dicetur a docendo quia docere permittitur and they are called Masters of their faculty and that the Originall of Doctor came of the Sinagogue of Jewes where there were Doctors of Law and it appeares that they had their ceremonies in time of H. 1. And when a man brings with him the Ensigne of Doctrine there is no reason that he should be examined againe for then if they will not allow of him he shall not be allowed though he be a learned and grave man and it was not the intent of the King to make a Monopoly of this practise And to the second point that he propounded it seemes that the Justification is not good which is Quia non comperuit upon Summons he was amerced and ordered that he shall be arrested and being arrested being examined if he would submit himself to the Colledge he answered that he was a Doctor and had practised and would practise within the sayd City as he conceived he might lawfully do and for that shewing of this case he was committed to prison and he conceived two things upon the Charter First That it doth not inhibit a Doctor to practise but punisheth him for ill using exercising and making and may imprison the Emperick and Imposter and so prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and after in Hillary Tearm in the same year this case was argued by all the Justices of the Common Bench and at two severall dayes and the first day it was argued by Foster Daniell and Warburton Justices at whose Arguments I was not present but Foster argued against the Plaintiff and Daniell and Warburton with him and that the Action of false imprisonment was well maintainable And the second day the same case was argued again by Walmesley Justice and Coke cheife Justice and Walmesley argued as followeth that is that the Statute of 3. H. 8. was in the negative that no person within the City of London or seven Miles of that take upon him to exercise or occupy as Physitian or Chirurgion c. And he doth not know in any case where the words of the Statute are negative that they admit any Interpretation against that but one only and that is the Statute of Marlebridge chapter 4. Which provides that no Lord shall distrain in one County and the beasts distrayned drive into another County in which case though that the words are uegative yet if the Lord distrain in one County he may drive the Beasts to his Mannor in another County of which the Lands in which the distresse was taken were held but it is equity and reason in this case that the Statute should admit such exception for it is not of malice but for that that the Beasts may remain within his Fee but in the principall case there is not the like reason nor Equity And also the King H. 8. in his Letters Patents recites as followeth that is Cum Regij officij nostri munus arbitremur ditionis nostri hominum felicitati omni ratione consulere id autem vel imprimis fore si Improborum conatibus tempestive occurremus apprime necessarium duximus improborum quoque hominum qui medicinant magis avaritiae sue causa quam ullius bonae conscientiâ— fiducia profitebantur c. By which it appears that it is the Office of a King to survey his Subjects and he is as a Phisitian to cure their Maladies and to remove Leprosies amongst them and also to remove all fumes and smells which may offend or be prejudiciall to their health as it appears by the severall Writs in these severall cases provided and so if a man be not right in his Wits the King is to have the Protection and Government of him least he being infirme wast or consume his Lands or Goods and it is not sufficient for him that his Subjects live but that they should live happyly and discharges not his Office if his Subjects live a life but if they live and flourish and he hath care as well of their Bodyes as of their Lands and Goods for Health for the Body is as necessary as vertue to the minde and the King H. 8. to express his extraordinary care of his Subjects made the said Act in the third year of his Reigne which was the beginning of his Essence to that purpose and by the Common Law any Phisitian which was allowed by the University might practise and exercise the sayd faculty within any place within England without any dispensation examination or approbation of any but after the making of the sayd Act made in the third year of King H. 8. none may practise exercise or occupy as Phisitian or Surgion within theCity of London and seven miles of that if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of London and the Dean of Paules for the time being calling to them foure Doctors of Phisick or Chirurgions c. And that no practiser may occupy or exercise the sayd faculty out of the sayd Precincts if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of the Diocess or in his absence by his Vicar generall every of them calling unto him such expert persons in the said faculty as their discretions thinks convenient and the reason of this difference as he conceived was for that that in this City and the sayd Precincts the King and all his Councell and all the Judges and Sages of the Law and divers other men of quality and condition live and continue and also the place is more subject unto Infection and the Heir more pestiferous and for that there is more necessity that greater Care diligence and examination be made of those which practised here in London and the precincts aforesayd then of those which practise in other places of the Realm for in other places the People have better aire and use more exercise and are not so subject to Infection and for that there is no cause that such care should be used for them for they are not in such danger and
Subject may do it but till he be delivered by due course of Law for the commitment is not absolute but the cause of that is traversable and for that ought to justifie for speciall cause for if the Bishop returnes that he refuses a Clark for that he is Schismaticus Inveteratus this is not good but they ought to returne the particuler matter So that the Court may adjudge of that Though it be a matter of Divinity and out of their Science yet they by conference may be informed of it and so of physick And they cannot make any new Laws but such only which are for the better government of the old and also he said plainly that it appeares by the Statute of 1. Marie That the former Statutes shall not be taken by equity for by these the President and Commons have power to commit a Delinquent to Prison and this shall be intended if they shall be taken by equity that every Goaler ought to receive him which is so committed But when it is provided by 1. Marie specially that every Goaler shall receive such offenders That by this appeares that the former statute shall not be taken by equity And so he concluded that Judgement shall be entred for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. IN Debt upon escape brought by John Guy an Attorney of the Common Bench by an Attachment of priviledge against Sir George Reynell Kt. Deputy Marshall of the Prison of the Kings Bench the Defendant pleads his priviledge that is that he was Deputy Marshall and he ought not to be sued in other Court then in the Kings Bench according to the ancient Custome and Jurisdiction of the sayd Court upon which the Plaintiff demurred and upon argument of both parties it was adjudged that the Defendant should not have his Priviledge and the principall reason was for that the Plaintiff was an Attorney and ought to have his priviledge in the Common Bench and for that that this Court was first possessed of the Suit it shall not be stayed because of the Priviledge of the Defendant in another Court see 9 Ed. 4. 53. the last case where it is agreed that one of the Courts may send Supersedeas to another for there it is agreed that if an Accountant in the Exchequer be sued in the Common Bench he shall send Supersedeas to them to surcease and if he be sued in the Kings Bench these of the Exchequer will shew the Record that he is accountable for they cannot make Supersedeas to the King and the Plea is there held Coram Rege c. And he shall be dismissed for he may be sued in the Exchequer and also 10 Ed. 4. 4. b. It appears that if one which hath cause to have priviledge in the Common Bench sue an Attachment as our case is against a Clark of the Kings Bench such Writ shall not be allowed for that that the Common Bench was first seised of the Plea by their Plea and the Priviledge of the common Bench is as ancient as the Priviledge of the Kings Bench and one Court is as ancient as the other for every of them is before time of memory and it is by prescription Walmesley sayd that the Possessory shall be preferred Quia melior est conditio possidentis but he agreed that if the priviledge of one Court be not so ancient as the other then the most ancient shall be preferred and it was agreed that though there be Difference in respect of parties or though that the attendance of one be of more necessity then the other as it was objected in this Case that the Defendant ought to attend otherwise he shall loose his office to that it was answered and resolved that the cause of the Suit in the Common Bench was voluntary and the attendance of the Attorney or Clark more necessary then of the Defendant for hee may exercise his Office by a Deputy but a Clark or an Attorney cannot for their office is Opus Laboris But the Office of the Defendant is only Opus Labrum and he is to deal with Gyves and Irons and such like so that in this Case the Office and place of a Clark or Attorney is to be preferred before the Office of Marshall but admitting that one Inferiour Officer of the Common Bench which is to have his priviledge sue a superiour Officer of the Kings Bench which is also to have his Priviledge there this shall not make any difference And so was the opinion of all the Court and upon this Judgment was given that the Defendant should answer over Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Common Bench. IN Assise between William Parson alias Chester Plaintiff against Thomas Knight alias Rouge Cross tenant for the office of one of the Heraulds called Chester the Recognitors of the Assise had view at a Funerall at Westminster where the Officer ought to attend and it was objected that this was no good view for it was not in any place certain where the Recognitors may put the Demandant in Possession and the Disseisin was alledged to be at Westminster at the sayd Funerall and it seems that the view was good but admitting that it were not good It seemes to Coke cheif Justice that the Assise in this case well lies without view for the Office is universall as the Office of the Clark of the Market and an Assise for Tithes and the Office of the Tennis Court these are universall and not annexed to any place and for that an Assise wel lies for them without view but for an Office in the Common Bench view may well be made in the Court for the Court is alwaies held in a certain place but for an Office in the Kings Bench Quere Inquit Coke for this ought to follow the Court of the King by the Statute of Articuli Cleri Chapter 3. But Walmesley Justice that this Court cannot be sitting in Clouds but in some place or other and for that the view ought to be here made and then Coke sayd by the same reason the Office of the Herauld cannot be exercised in the Clouds but at Funeralls and by this the view ought to be made there also but the Opinion of all the Court was that the view was well made the Tenant in Assise also challenged diverse of the Recognitors for that they were of a former Jury upon the same question and this was agreed to be a principall cause of challenge but the Court would not allow of that without shewing the Record but allowed that to be a cause of challenge for favour and for that they were tryed by their Companions being sworn to speak the Truth and they were found to be indifferent and for Seisin for the Demandant in the Assise it was shewed that diverse Fees were due to the sayd Office as seven pound for every day that he attended upon the Kings person and for the Dubbing of
only an Action hanging but that which is cause of an Action And Judgement was given for the Plaintiff Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the common Bench. Flemming and Jales ACTIONE upon the Case for these words Thou hast stolen my Goods and I will have thy neck and maintainable Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Ayres Case ACTION upon the Case for these words Ayer is an arrant Theife and hath stolen divers Apple Tres out of J. S. Garden and the Action well maintainable otherwise if he had said for he hath stolen c. for then it should not be Fellony to steale Trees and the word For shewes the reason why he called him Theife but the word And not Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Bryan Chamberlaines Case against Goldsmith IN Debt upon an Obligation in which the under Sheriff was bound to the Sheriff for the performing of diverse Covenants contained in an Indenture made between them for the exercising of the said Office and the Plaintiff assigned breach of Cevenant by which the under Sheriff hath Covenanted that he would not execute any processe of execution without speciall warrant and assent of the Sheriff himselfe And the sole question was if this Covenant be a good and lawfull Covenant or not and it was argued by Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant that counted that the Sheriff is a publick Officer and may execute the office by himselfe yet when he hath made an under Sheriff he hath absolute authority also and it is not like to private authority but it is as if a man make an Executor provided that he shall not administer his debts above the value of forty pound And as if an Obligation with Condition that if an Obligor shall keep the Obligee without damages for four Beefes taken in Withernam that the Obligation shall be void or as if a man takes an Obligation of his Prentise with Condition that he shal not use his Trade within five yeares or within ten miles of such a place or as a Steward takes an Obligation of another man with Condition that he shall not sue in other place but where he is Steward or in the Common Bench this abridges the subject of his right and that the under Sheriff is a publick officer and mentioned in many Statutes though he shall not be an Attorney the same yeare in which he is under Sheriff And the Statute of 23. H. 8. restraines the under Sheriff that he shall not let any prisoners to Bayl but in the same manner as is contained in the Statute and further he said that all Obligations which have Impossible conditions are good and the Condition void but if the Condition be against Law the Obligation and Condition also is void And so he concluded that the under Sheriff is a publick Officer and that his office cannot be apportioned and that the Condition was performing of a Covenant which was against Law and void and so by consequence the Obligation void And so praied Judgement for the Defendant And for the Plaintiff is was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King that the Obligation is good and not void And he said that there are two Officers to all the Courts of the King which are to execute all Writs and that these Officers are Sheriff and Bishop and the Law doth not take any notice of under Sheriff or Warden of spirituallties for the Sheriff himselfe shall be amerced and not the under Sheriff which is but his substitute and it appeares by 3. H. 7. 2. b. That all Writs shall be directed to the Coroner and by him ought to be executed and 10. H. 4. 42. The Sheriff was merced for an Arrest made by a Bayliff of a franchise and and though that the Warden of Westminster Hall is an Officer to the Kings Courts to some purpose yet no Writ shall be directed to him as it appeares by 8 Ed. 4. 6. Also he agreed that the power of the Sheriff is double that is Ministeriall and Juditiall and some times he executes both together as in Redisseisin for of that he is Judge and also is Minister to the Court of the King and yet he is but one man for the Law doth not take any notice of under Sheriff nor intends that he shall supply any of these Offices for the under Sheriff is but servant to the Sheriff and to execute his Ministeriall power only and if it be so he may limit his Authority at his pleasure And if the Sheriff make a false returne or otherwise retard or make an uncertain returne he himselfe shall be punished by Action for the Law requires knowledge and intelligence of the Sheriff and the ancient Statutes made in the old time make mention of Sergeants at Mace and yet they make not any mention of under Sheriff which is but servant And he agreed that an Obligation taken with Condition against Law is void but he said that this is not against Law for the under Sheriff is a person of whom the Court doth not take any notice for he is but servant of the Sheriff and for this case and removeable at his pleasure and he may exercise his office by himselfe when he pleases and also he argued that the authority which may be totally countermanded may be countermanded in part and that the under Sheriff hath Derivata potestas quae semper talis est qualis committitur And by 35. H. 6. A man may make two Executors one for his Goods in Middlesex and the other to administer the Goods in London and this is good between them But not against a stranger for he ought to sue them both and he shall not be prejudiced by that and so 32 H 8. Brook Executor 155. A man made two Executors Proviso that one should not administer in the life of the other and 36 H. 8. 61. Feoffment and Letter of Attorney to make Livery to three or to any of them Livery cannot be made to two and also he said that there is no difference between power derived from a private person and power derived from the publick when this power comes to execution And admitting that the Sheriff may limit the authority of his under Sheriff for a time as it seemes that he may then of this it followes that he may allwaies abridge and apportion his authority And he agreed that when an under Sheriff is made diverse Statutes have been made to punish him if he offend But the Sheriff is not compellable to make under Sheriff And as to the Obligation that if an execution be delivered to the under Sheriff against one which is in his presence that he ought to execute it he saith that the Law is not so for the party ought to deliver the execution to the Sheriff himselfe for it doth not appeare that he hath an under Sheriff if he have received a Writ of discharge or not And also the Office of the Sheriff is of
charge to the King and to the Common Wealth and the execution of Writs may be prejudicall and penall to the Sheriff himselfe And for that he may well provide that he shall have notice of every execution which are most Penall And also in all the Indenture now made he doth not constitute him to be his under Sheriff but only for to execute the Office and for these reasons he seemed the Obligation is good and demands Judgement for the Plaintiff But it seemes to all the Court that the Covenant is void and so by consequence the Obligation as to the performance of that void but good to the performance of all other Covenants And Coke cheif Justice said that the Sheriff at the Common Law was elligible as the Coronor is and then by the death of the King his Office was not determined and also it is an intire Office and though the King may countermand his Grant of that intirely yet he cannot that countermand by parcells and also that the under Sheriff hath Office which is intire and cannot be granted by parcells and this Covenant will be a meanes to nourish bribery and extortion for the Sheriff himselfe shall have all the benefit and the under Sheriff all the payn for he is visible the under Sheriff and all the Subjects of the King will repaire to him and the private contracts between the Sheriff and him are invisible of which none can have knowledge but themselves And Warburton sayd that in debt upon escape c. are against the Sheriff of Notingham he pleaded Nihil debet and gives in evidence that the Bayliff which made the Arrest was made upon condition that he should not meddle with such executions without speciall warrant of the Sheriff himselfe and his consent but it was resolved this notwithstanding that the Sheriff shall be charged in and in the principall case Judgement was given accordingly that is that the Covenant is void Note that the Sheriff of the County of Barkes was commited to the Fleete for taking twenty shillings for making of a warrant upon a generall Capias utlagatum for all the Justices were of opinion that the Sheriff shall not take any Fees for making of a warrant or execution of that Writ but only twenty shillings and foure pence the which is given by the Statute of 23. H. 6. for it is at the Suit of the King But upon Capias utlagatum unde convictus est which is after Judgement it seemes it is otherwise A man grants a Rent to one for his life and halfe a yeare after to be paid at the Feasts of the Anunciation of our Lady and Michaell the Archangell by equall portions and Covenants with the Grantee for the payment of that accordingly the Grantee dies 2. Februarâ—… and for twenty pound which was a moyity of the Rent and to be payd at the anunciation after the Executors of the Grantee brings an Action of Covenant and it seems it is well maintainable And Coke cheife Justice sayd That if a man grants Rent for anothers life the Remainder to the Executors of the Grantee and Covenant to pay the Rent during the Tearm aforesayd this is good Collective and shall serve for both the Estates and if the Grantee of the Rent grant to the Tenant of the Land the Rent and that he should distrain for the sayd Rent this shall not be intended the same rent which is extinct but so much in quantity and agreed that when a Rent is granted and by the same Deed the Grantor covenants to pay that the Grantee may have annuity or Writ of Covenant at his Election Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Waggoner against Fish Chamberlain of London JAMES Waggoner was arrested in London upon a Plaint entered in the Court of the Maior in Debt at the suit of Cornelius Fish Chamberlain of the sayd City and the Defendant brought a Writ of Priviledge returnable here in the Common Pleas and upon the return it appears that in the City of London there is a custome that no forrainer shal keep any shop nor use any Trade in London and also there is another Custome that the Maior Aldermen and Commonalty if any custome be defective may supply remidy for that and if any new thing happen that they may provide apt remedy for that so if it be congruae bonâ— fidei consuetudo rationi consentiae pro communi utilitate Regis civium omnium aliorum ibidem confluentium and by Act of Parliament made 7 R. 2. All their customes were confirmed and 8 Ed. 3. The King by his Letters Patents granted that they might make By-Laws and that these Letters Patents were also confirmed by Act of Parliament and for the usage certified that in 3 Ed. 4. and 17. H. 8. were severall acts of Common Councell made for inhibiting Forrayners to hold any open shop or shops or Lettice and penalty imposed for that and that after and shewed the day in certain was an Act of Common counsell made by the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty And for that it was enacted that no Forrayner should use any Trade Mistery or occupation within the said City nor keep any Shop there for retayling upon payn of five pound and gives power to the Chamberlain of London for the time being to sue for that by Action c. in the Court of the Mayor in which no Essoyn nor wager of Law shall be allowed and the said penalty shall be the one halfe to the use of the said Chamberlain and the other half to the poor of Saint Bartholomewes Hospitall And that the Defendant held a shop and used the Mistery of making of candles the seventh day of October last and for that the Plaintiff the ninth day of the same month then next insuing levied the said plaint And upon this the Defendant was Arrested and this was the cause of the taking and detaining c. And upon argument at the Bar by Serjeant Harris the younger for the Defendant and Hutton for the Plaintiff and upon sollemne arguments by all the Justices Coke Walmesley Warburton Danyell and Foster it was agreed That the Defendant shall be delivered and not remanded And the case was devided in to five parts The first the custome Secondly the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Thirdly the grant of the King and the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Fourthly the usage and making of Acts of common councell according to this Fiftly the Act of common councell upon which the Action is brought and upon which the Defendant was Arrested And to the first which is the custome it was also said that this consists upon three parts That is first if any custome be difficult Secondly if it be defective Thirdly if Aliquid de novo emergit The Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty Possunt opponere remedium and that there are foure incidents to that remedy First it ought to be Congruum Retione
Secondly 〈◊〉 one fidei consonum Thirdly consentaneum rationi Fourthly Pro communi utillitate regis civium comodum aliorum ibidem confluentium But all the question was upon the remedy for it was agreed that the custome shall be good But it was doubted by Foster and Danyell that there was no good returne for it was but as recyted and it was not averred and positively said that there was such a custome and to prove that the case of 28 H. 6. was cited where in debt upon an Obligation the Defendant demands Oyer and upon the view saith that it appeares by the said Obligation that two others were joyntly bound with him not named Judgement of the Writ and 24. Ed. 4. Where it was pleaded as it appeares by the Letters Patents of one King and in 11. H. 4. in returne of a Sheriff But Coke answered and took a difference between returne upon a Writ of priviledge and upon which no Issue may be joyned nor demurrer and that it is but for an Informer of the Court and other pleads And for this it seemes to him that it is good as to that and he conceived that by the Grant of the King the custome is destroied for the King by his Grant cannot add nor diminish any thing of the custome no more then of Prescription and exceptance of Grant shall be extinguishment of one as well as of the other as it appeares by 8. H. 4 25. H. 7. 5. 38. H. 8. B. Prescription 7 R 2. But to this the Lord Coke gave no answer and for that it seemes they were no Grants but confirmation rather of customes and they further denied that the customes are confirmed by the Statute of 7. R. 2. for this is only for the confirmation of Magna Charta and of all former Statutes and of Charta de Foresta and the liliberties of the holy Church and there is not any mention of the customes of London but to this the Lord Coke answered that they ought to credit their returne and for that it seemes that it is a private Act and they ought to adjudge of that as it is made as 7. H. 6. 6. And if it be false the party greived may have an Action upon the case so it was agreed that the custome that no forrainer shall hold any shop nor sell in any shop by retayl and that they may make By-Lawes for the ordering of their ancient customes are good customes without any confirmation by Act of Parliament or Grant of the King or otherwise And if any thing happen De novo that they can apponere remedium with the restrictions aforesaid for the Lord Coke saith that London is Antiqua civitas and was of great fame and reckoning amongst the most ancient Cities for it was said by Anianus Marcellinus which wrote 1200. yeares past that London was then Opidum vetustum and Cornelius Tacitus in vita Neronis saith that then there was under the Romans Government there was here Negotiorum copia commercia maximorum celebris and he well knew for he was here seven years and married the Daughter of Agricola who was ancient Guilda Mercatoria and for that it was well governed and continued in good Order for Vbi non est ordo ibi est infirmium sempiternus Horror confusio and Gilda is a Saxon word and is the same for Fraternitas and Northfolk and diverse other places in the Country the name continued but this is another sence for Gyld fignisies to pay and for that it is sometime demanded if a man inhabite in a place gildable or within Franchise and the Place gildable is subject to scot and Lot and all other charges but the Franchises are places exempt but no person which is of a Gyld or fraternity may be exempted not by the Grant of the King nor otherwise but shall be subject to all the charges of the Gyld and Fraternity and the King cannot make any man free of their Guyld when that is created for there are but three waies to make a man free of that First by Birth which is the most eldest Secondly by Service which is of merits Thirdly By redemption which is power which only remaines in the Maior and the Court of Aldermen in this case in London and such Gyld can never have beginning but by Grant but by prescription as the custome of Gavelkinde that a man may devise his Lands or that the Land shall discend to the youngest Son and that the King cannot make any stranger free of such Gyld or Fraternity appears in Rotulo patentium 32 Ed. 3. Where the King by his Letters patents granted to one Iohn Faulchon that he should be frank and free of the City of London and that he should keep an Apothecaries shop there but the Patentee could not have his Freedome by this grant and for that the King wrote his Letters to the Maior and Aldermen and requested them to make the sayd Faulchon free of the sayd City and upon that it was done accordingly but not upon the Grant and so it was adjudged in Darcies case 44. Eliz. Trinity that if the King grant to one the sole making of Cards in England and that none shall bring any Cards into England to be sold but the patentee and it was adjudged that though none may may have Park or Warren and such other matters of Pleasure without the Kings Grant and though that playing with Cardes be but a matter of Pleasure yet the making of them is a matter of profit and the bringing of them into England is a matter of Trade and the inhibition of that is hinderance of Trade and makes a Monopoly that the Grant was voyd and 3 Ed. 3. 3. Iohn of Sudfords Case where the Case was a Free-holder levied a fold upon his Soyl and Freehold of his own and the Defendant spoyled it and broke it aed upon that the Plaintif brings a Writ of Trespass the Defendant justifies that he was Lord of the Town and there had been a usage there and had been of time out of memory c. That no man of the same Town ought to levy a fold without the agreement and leave of the Lord And for that that the Plaintif had done it the Defendant pulled it down as wel to him it was lawfull and it seems a good custome and with this agrees 5 Ed. 3. Iohn de Hayes case and 10 and 11 Eliz. Dyer 279. 10. prescription by the Maior Sherif and Citizens of York Goods forraine bought and forrain sold shall be forfeited and that he may seise them it was adjuged a good prescription but the King by his Letters Patents cannot give such power to them And Coke was cleerly of opinion that the case was not within the Statute of 9 Ed. 3. chapt 2. 25 Ed. 3. 11 27 Ed. 3. 11. And it was agreed by them all that a Merchant or any other man may sell Goods in grosse as he may sell a hundred tun of
by the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case 2. Coke where the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. by which diverse Chantryes were granted to the King it shall be intended a Grant within the Statute of 31. H. 8. of Monastries which was before But further he said that the matter is insufficient to raise a duty to the King for in vain is the property of any thing in one man if another man may charge it And in this case the King cannot grant these Clothes and for that he cannot charge them and the Letters Patents of the King are not sufficient only to charge the Goods of any man see the case of 11. H. 4. But he agreed that if the King grant a Ferrey and that every passenger shall pay for his passage four pence this is good for every man may chose whether he will passe by that or not And none shall be constrained to passe by that but Grant of the King to one that none shall bring in any Cards into England but the Patentee only is vord and it was adjudged in Nicholls Case in 18. Eliz. That if any man offend in not repayring of a Bridge the King cannot pardon it for the Subjects of the King have Interest in that and further he saith that the Grant was against an expresse Statute made in 7. Ed. 4. 1. for this appoints that the Alneger shall not take any Fee by which the Grant of the sayd Office shall be without Fee and this Grant is with a Fee that is so much for every Cloth he agreed that this is an affirmitive Law and for that it shall not bind the King generally but when it is for determination of right or wrong the King shall be bound by that and the Patent is grounded upon the Statute of 27. Eliz. or 47. Ed. 3. 1. which are made for the breadth of Clothes and here the Patent hath not any respect to it for if the peece be but of the breadth of a foote if it be in length according to the Statute so much shall be payd for that as if it were a broad Cloth and for that there is not any equity in it that the Statute seemes to intend for the charge ought to be correspendent to the quantity of the Cloth as 41. Ed. 3. 16. Avowry for distresse of sixteen Oxen for nine pence Rent and adjudged that it was found outragious and therefore he was amerced for taking of an excessive distresse and so he demanded Judgement for the Plaintiff Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the question is if the Alneger may meddle with this new kind of Drapery and shall take Fee for that and it seemes to him that he may meddle with all things which consists in Measure Waying and Searching And may exercise his Office in this for necessity of Merchandise for Common Wealth cannot consist without commerce and Pecunia est rerum mensura and provides to make recompence in value for every thing as it is said by Keble 12. H. 7. 24. b. and then to reduce all other things in certain for it is the certain value of money is known to be a direct meanes to know the quantity of all other things and that is by waight and measure c. And for this for the necessity of commerce there ought to be a publick Officer which shall have the care and charge that such things shall be well and duly made for the profit and benefit of the Common Wealth and this Officer is as ancient as there hath been any commerce within this Realme and he made illustration thereof by diverse Rolls of the Exchequer in time of 2 H. 4. By which it appears that then there were Marts for cloth And that then was an Officer to search measure and see the said clothes opened for then was an Officer made of purpose to measure and search the clothes which were sold in a Faire at Worcester by which Rolls also it appeares that there was an Assise of breadth and length of clothes before any Statute for that purpose by the Statute of Magna Charta made 9. H. 3. chap. 25. It is provided that una mensura and una latitudo pannorum tinctorum russatorum Haubergettarum that is Duo ulne infra list as per totum Regnum Anglie and 1 Ed. 1. amongst the Rolls of the Patents in the Tower it appears that the Office of Alneger was granted De omnibus pannis tam ultra mare quam infra mare And 1. R 2. was another Grant of the Office of Alneger and 14. R. 2. the King granted the Office of Alneger in Ireland and by the Statute of 5. Ed. 2. it is provided that the estretes by the Warden of the Alnage should be delivered into the Exchequer to the Treasurer of the Exchequer and 17. Ed 2. the Office of Alneger was granted to one J. Griffin of all the clothes made beyond Sea till the 1. of Ed. 3. by which the use appeares in the time of the Raigne of King Ed. 3. upon which records he observed that the Office of an Alneger is an ancient Office and that he hath power to see search and measure omnies pannas tam ultra marinas quam infra marinas without any exception and for that it cannot be denied but that he ought to meddle with wollen clothes and he ought to meddle with all for one selfe same end and purpose that is to fasten a Seale to them Secondly That the Law depends upon the Art and invention of Artists then no Law shall prevent more mischeifes for there is no end of Art and Invention And thirdly and that in this Individuo for there is not any Invention made of Worsteds till the time of Ed. 2. for it was a new commodity and then first Invented and after it was first invented there was immediately an Officer made for that and for this it appears that 1 Ed. 3. Nicholas Shoverler was made generall Alneger for that and after that came Wadlowes and Sayes and also an Alneger was immediately made for them by which it appears that so soon as new stuff was invented by the Artist that there was a new Officer to search and see that and prevent that deceit should not be used in it and then for the Fee of the Alneger that is grounded upon a just Law which is the Law of Retrebution for Dignus est operarius mercede and though it doth not appear by their Patents that they had taken any Fee for the exercising of their sayd Office yet it appears by their Accounts that they have had a Fee for it and if they have no Fee of the King then it follows that they ought to have a Fee of the Subject by Common Law the Office being for the publick good and the Patent is upon which the Duke shall have the sayd Office as hitherto they have had it and it appears by the 11 of H. 4. 58. and the 12 of H. 4. That the King may grant and
to viewers and searchers this doth not abridge the power of the Alneger for this is but an addition of greater care and diligence and by the statute of 39. and 43. Eliz. If upon a search they find any forfeyture they shall have it but if they do not find the Alneger may find it and then the King shall have it And to the Second he answered that true it is for every 64. of clothes the Alneger ought to have foure pence for his Fee and though that some peeces of cloth are more broade then others yet the lobour of the Alneger to measure them is all one So he concluded and demanded Judgement for the plaintiff Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Rutlage against Clarke IN Account the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant hath received of his money by the hands of a stranger to give an account The Defendant pleades in Bar that he received to deliver over to a stranger the which he hath done accordingly without that that he received it to make any of account otherwise then in this manner and it was resolved that the Plea in Bar was good without traverse for when he received the money he is to deliver it over or to give an account of it to the Plaintiff so that he is accountable Conditionally but the traverse is repungnant to the Plea though it be otherwise or another way against the Book of 9. Ed. 4. 15 See 41. Ed. 3. 7. 1. Ed. 5. 22. H. 6. 49 21 Ed. 4. 4. 66 1. Ed. 5. 2. that it is a good Bar without traverse But Brooke in abridging the case of 21. Ed. 4. 66 in Title of account saith that it seemes that the traverse ought to be without that that he was his receiver in other manner and there and in the Book at large are that Justices that is Coke Nele and Vavasor against Bryan that it ought to be traversed But here in the principall case it was adjudged that the traverse made the Plea ill Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Dunmole against Glyles THE case was this Grand-Father Father and Son the Grand-Father was possessed of a Tearme for two and twenty yeares to come devised to the Son the Land for one and twenty yeares and that the Father should have it during the Mynority of the Son and makes the Son his Executor and dies the Son being within the age of one and twenty yeares the Father enters into the Land and makes a Lease for seven yeares by Indenture untill the Son came to full age the Father makes his Son his Executor and dies The Son enters by force of the devise made by the Grand-Father And the question was if the Son shall avoid the Lease made by his Father and it was agreed that he might in proofe of which a Judgement was cyted which was in the Kings Bench Mich. 5. of Eliz. Rot. 459. or 499. In the Prioresse of Ankoresse Case where a Tearme was devised to one and if he died within the Tearme then to such of the Daughters of the Devisor which then should not be preferred the Devisor dieth the Tearme was extended for the Debt of the first Devisee and then he died the extent was avoided by the Daughters not preferred and they grounded their Judgement upon the former Judgements in Weltden and Eltingtons case and Paramores and Yardleys case in the Comment and for that the Law intends that a Devisor is Inops consillij and for that his devise shall have favourable construction according to his intent appearing within the devise and it was said by Coke that in many cases a man may make such an Estate by devise that he cannot make by an Act executed in his life time as it was adjudged in Graveners case where a man devises his Lands to his Executors for payment of his Debts that there the Executors have Interest that there the Executor of Executors shal have that and such Estate cannot be executed by Act in the life of the Devisor and so it was concluded by them all that the Son shall avoid the Lease made by the Father for the Devise was Executory and doth not vest till the full age of the Son and then Executor and shall avoid all Acts made by the Father by which Judgement was given accordingly Freeman against Baspoule See 9. Coke 97. b. THE case was this A. was indebted to B. and they both died the Heire of A. for good consideration assumed to the Administrator of B. that he would pay to the said Administrator the said Debt and for the not payment of that according to the Assumption the Administrator after brought an Action and then the said Heire and the Administrator submitted themselves to the award and arbitrement of C. and became bound one to the other to stand to the award accordingly so that the said Arbitrator makes his award of all the matters and controversies between them before such a day C. the Arbitrator before the day recyted the Assumpsit and the debt as aforesaid and agreed that the Heire should pay the Administrator so much money and that published according to their submission And in Action upon the case Nullum fecit Arbitrium was pleaded and upon demurrer it was objected that the award was void First For that it was for one party only and nothing was arbitrated of the other and to prove this the Book of 7. H. 6. 6. was cited and 39. H. 6. 9. see 2 R. 3. 18. b. And this also appeares by the pleading of an award for he which pleades it that he hath performed all things which are to be performed of his part And that the other pleades performance of all thing which are to be performed of his part by which it appeares that there ought to be performance of both parts and by consequence one award to both parties according to 22. H. 6. 52. Secondly that the award was void for that that the submission was of all controversies so that the Arbitrator delivered his award of all controversies c. And there was no award of the said Suit between the parties and for that he hath not made an Arbitrement of all controversies and by that the award was void and to prove that the Bookes in 4 Eliz. Dyer 216. Pumfreies award and 19. Eliz. Dyer 356. 39. and 39. H. 6. 9. Where it is said that if the submission were of all things and the Arbitrement of one only that is a void Arbitrement Thirdly For that it was not limited within the award at what day nor at what place the money should be paid by the Heire to the Administrator and for this cause also it shall be void for it ought to be payd immediatly and if the Heire cannot find the Administrator he forthwith hath forfeyted his Obligation and for that in this point it is uncertain and for that shall be void as it is in Samons case 5. Coke 77. b. Where
against peter THis Case was argued this Tearme by Harris youngest Serjeant for the Defendants and by Haughton for the Plaintiffs And Serjeant Harris conceived that Sir Francis Barrington was within the Intent of the Act of 22. Ed. 4. chap. 17. For he hath grant of Trees of Inheritance and this was all the profit which rise upon the Soyl and for that it shall be intended of the Soyl it selfe And to prove that he cyted Parromor and Yardlyes Case in the Com. 542. and 543. 2. H. 8. 159. Crooke 11. Eliz. Dyer 285. Where it is agreed by three Justices that the Patentee or Grantee of Herbage in a Forrest shall have Trespasse against any which consumes and distroies the Grasse but not the Trees nor of the fruit of that and the Trespasse of that shall be Quare clausum fregit as well as iâ— it were of Land And may inclose the Forrest by such Grant See 17. Ed. 4. 6. a. by Littleton that Vestura terrae doth not pass without Livery Also admitting that he is not owner of the Ground within the Statute yet it seemes by the Statutes that they are It shall be lawfull for the same Subjects Owners c. And to such other persons to whom such VVood shall happen to be sold Immediatly after the VVood so cut to fence and inclose the same Ground with sufficient Hedges able to keep out c. Upon which words he inferrd that S. Francis Barrington is such a Person to whom the VVood is sold and for that may inclose And also he conceived that the Statute is generall and concernes all persons in generall and also all Forrests and Chases whatsoever And for that it is not like to the Cases put in Hollands Case 4. Coke upon the Statute of 13. Eliz. VVhich concernes all Ecclesiasticall persons in generall that this is a generall Act and yet concernes but one Genus in particuler But the Statute of 1. Eliz. Is otherwise which concernes the Bishop which is but a species of this Genus as it is resolved in Elmers Case 5. of Coke And also he conceived that it shall be releeved by the Statute of 35. H. 8. And so prayed Judgement for the Defendant And Haughton conceived that the words of the Statute intend such a person to whom VVood is sold for one turne only And not he which hath Inheritance of Wood that there is no word in the statute to exclude Commoner and such a Vendee is not without remedy for he is within the statute of 35. H. 8. If he pursue his remedy according to the statute and so prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff And at another day Foster Justice argued that the Plaintiff in the Replegiare shall recover and said that the cause consists of three parts First the Arbitrement Secondly the assurance Thirdly the private Act of Parliament of 27. H. 8. And to those the Arbitrement and the assurance shall tye only those which are parties to it and no others and the Commoner is not party to that nor shall not be bound and the private Act confirmes the assurance saving the Right of all strangers by which the Commoner is exempted and also the statute is made only as confirmation of the Grant and for that it shall not extend to any other thing nor to other parties but those only which are parties to the Grant as if the Queen had made a voydable Patent and after had made a Lease for yeares and after by the statute of 18. Eliz. All Letters Patents made within such a time were confirmed this makes the Letters Patents good against the Queen but against the Lessee And also all the Covenants in the Grant extend only to the Lord Rich and his Heires and these which claim under him And for that it shall not extend to the Commoner and also the private Act saves the Right of all strangers by which the Right of the Commoner was saved And he conceived that the Commoner shal not be excluded by the statute of 22. Ed. 4. chap. 7. which recites that if any Subjects have any Woods growing in his own Ground within any Forrest Chase c. Shall cut the same VVood by lycense of the King or his Heires in Forrest Chases c. Or without lycense in the Forrest Chase c. of any other person or make any Sale of the same VVoods It shall be lawfull to the same Owners of the same Ground whereupon the VVood so cut did grow and to other such persons to whom the said Wood shall happen to be sold Immediatly c. to cut and inclose the same Ground with sufficient hedges able to hold out all manner of Cattell and Beasts and to continue the same by the space of seven yeares without suing of any other Lycense of him or of his Heires or of any other persons or of any their Officers of the same Forrest Chases c. By which words it appeares that the statute doth not extend to any Wood of the King but only to the Wood of the subject lying in Forrest of the King or of other person owner of the Forrest or Chase And if it be in the Kings case and he hath lycense from the King to cut the Wood then may he cut it without other lycense according to the perclose of the Act And the statute doth not give lycense to Inclose without the assent of the Commoner but without other lycense of other Officers of the Forrest And by this Statute the Owner of the Ground may first cut the Wood and then Inclose But by the Statute of 35. H. 8. Otherwise it is for by this he may first inclose and then cut within four Moneths and that Sir Francis Barrington hath no interest in the Soyle and that this Statute of 22. Ed. 4. is a private Statute and ought to be pleaded for it concernes only forrests and Chases and it is no other then if it had been of al Woods in Parks and resembled that to the statute of 1. Eliza. of the Bishop which concerns only the Bishop and it is resolved in Elmers case to be private and the same Judges shal not take notice of that without pleading and it is not like the statute of 13 Eliz. which concerns al manner of spiritual persons in general and also that this statute is repealed by the statute of 35. H. 8. which is a negative Law and Leges posteriores priores contrarius abrogant and it is agreed in Porters case 1. Coke and so he concluded that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice to the contrary and yet he agreed that neither the Arbitrement nor the conveyance nor the private act excludes the Commoners for these reasons which have been urged by Foster but he relyed only upon the statute of 22 Ed. 4. and to that he sayd that the statute gives power to the owner of Ground to inclose and it should be frivilous for him to inclose if the
Commoner shal not be by that excluded and he said that the persons mentioned in the statute are two The first is the owner of the ground and such person he agreed Sir Francis Barrington is not The second is such person to whom such wood shal happen to be sold and such Person it seems is Sir Francis Barrington and yet he agreed that he hath an Inheritance in the Trees and the Owner of the soyl cannot cut them nor dig the soyl from the Roots of the Trees for then the Grant could not take effect and he sayd there is no difference between sales of Wood though that the statute speaks of the Person to whom Wood shall be sold and another person to whom it shal be given without consideration and to that he resembled the statute Westminster 2. Chap. Si quis alienavit terram uxoris suae non deferratur c. sed expectet emptor c. though that the statute mention buyer only yet Donee without any consideration shal be intended in it and that the statute doth not intend within it and that the Statute doth not intend sale Vinca vice tantum but rather sale of Inheritance for such Vendee may rather intend the preservation of the wood then the other And he inferred upon these words of the statute to inclose the same Grounds with hedges sufficient to keep out al manner of Cattel and beasts out of the same Grounds and these words expound themselves for they shal not be intended Deer but Cattel which belong to Commoners and so is the statute of West 2. Chap. If Infant suffer Usurpation this shal not bind him but this shal be intended where he hath Advowson by discent and not by purchase and this appears by the words of the statute which are Cum aliquis vis presentandi non habens presentavit ad aliquam ecclesiam cujus presentatus sit admissus ipse qui verus est patronus per nullum aliud breve recuperare potuit advocationem quam per breve de recto quod debet perminare per duellum vel per magnam assisam per quod heredes infra etatem existentes per fraudem negligentiam custodis multities ex heriditatem patiebantur c. By which words it appears that there ought to be presentation which passeth by fraud and negligence of the Guardian which the Statute remedies and that is presentation which he had by discent and not by purchase and in the Time of Ed. 1. Fitz. trespas 239. It is said the Law of the Chase that none may inclose his own Wood without the view of the Forrester and if the statute of 22 Ed 4. Gives license to inclose and that notwithstanding the Commoner may put in his Beasts then is the statute made in vain and it is resolved in the 30 of Ed. 3. Fitz. trespas that if a man hunt in a Park or Chase that this is not within the statute of VVestminster 1. Chap. 21 Ed. 1. So the statute of 22 Ed. 4 Extends to the Kings Deere and also to other Beasts which shal be intended â—he Cattel of the Commoners and it is not repealed by the statute 35. H. 8. For these statutes are made for several purposes and consist upon several grounds and if the statute of 22 Edw. 4. be repealed then there cannot be inclosure in forrest or Chase at al And which is general Law and the Justices ought to take notice of that without pleading and that al Lawes to some respects may be intended to be special as the statute of 13 Eliz. Concerns only spiritual men and so Charta de foresta concerns only forrests and the statutè of 3 H. 7. Chapt. 1. Gives appeale to the Wife for the death of her Husband and though that al these statutes concern one thing only and for that to some intent may be said to be special yet they are al generall Laws and so he concluded that Judgment shal be given for the Defendant VValmesley agreed with Foster in al that is that Sir Francis Barrington hath nothing but profit In alieno solo and for this cause was not within the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Which might inclose and the Common Law doth not exclude the Commoner for the Lord Rich granted the Wood and this Transit cum onere to Sir Thomas Barington and sayd that it was in vain to dispute if the statute of 22 Ed. 4. was private Law or if it were repealed which makes nothing in the Case and so he breifly concluded that Judgment shal be given for the Commoner which is the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice agreed that Judgment shal be given for the Plaintiff and did agree that the Arbitrement the Convaiance nor the private Act made nothing in the Case for by these the Commoner cannot be barred of his Common but for the statute of 22 Ed. 4. He would first consider how the Law was before the making of that and as to that it appears by the statute of Charta de foresta that by the Common Law no man which was Owner of Wood in which another had Common that they could not inclose but Assise of Common or action upon the case lyeth as it requires and if it be several Wood within the Kings Forrest in which none hath interest of Common then may he inclose by the view of the Forresters and this hold inclosed by the space of three years as it appears by the Preamble of the Statute of 22. Ed. 4. Cum parvo fossato bassahaia that is a Little Ditch and Low Hedge for that the Kings Deare are not shut out and this appears in the Register in the Writ of Ad quod damnum Fitz. Na. Bre. 226. f. And then comes the statute of 22 Ed. 4. and gives power to inclose with such sufficient Hedges able to keep out al manner of Beasts and Cattel And then considered between what persons the statute is made And to that he conceived it is made between the King and his Successors of one part and Subjects having woods growing upon their owne Grounds and such persons unto whom such woods shal happen to be sold of the other part and a Commoner is not named in the statute and also the Body of the statute is not general but there are some words in one sentence and this is but a sentence and cannot be divided the words are First The sayd Hedges so made may keep c. Secondly And repaire and maintain them as often as need shal be within seven years Thirdly without suing any other License of him that is the King or his Heirs or other persons that is which have forrests or Chases or any of their Officers and here the sentence concludes and there is no period before them so that this statute being made between the King and owners of forrests and Chases of one part and Owners of woods in their own soyl and other persons to whom such woods should be sold other
Office by Deputy without special words of Deputation in the Patent for he conceived that it is not meerly an Office of trust for he hath not the keeping of any Records for the Courts of which he was steward were not Courts of Record and yet that all the Books are that ancient grants of Office of stewardship contain that the Patentee may exrecise Per se vel per sufficientem deputatum suum though they are not of Courts in which the steward is Judge but the suitors but if a Grant be of such an Office of Inheritance then there needs words of Deputatum for here it is apparent that there was not special trust reposed in the Patentee And he also agreed that if it be not an Office of profit the Grantor may enter and out the Patentee but the fee shal remain as it appears by the 31 H. 8. Brookes Novell Case and 18 Ed 4. And it was not the intent of the Queen that the Earl of Rutland should execute the Office in person for that should be an undervaluing of him the which he sayd was proved by Sir Robert VVrothes Case in the Commentaries where an Officer to the Prince was discharged of his attendance by alteration of quality of the Prince and making of him King and yet the Fee remained And to the second it seems that the patent hath expresse words of Deputation And the third Grant which hath a reference to the Grant precedent and al the words being put together make a perfect Grant and this such construction hath been alwaies made of Grants of the King as it appears by Sir John Mullyns Case 6 Coke 56. And Justice VVindhams case 5 Coke 7. a. So if the King makes a Lease of a Mannor except a Grove next to the Mannor this shal be intended next to the Mannor House for otherwise it shal be out of the Mannor and so the exeption voyde but Coke and Foster doubted of that And to the third point that the Action was maintainable Vi armis for when the Deputy of the Earl of Rutland proclaimed the Court as Deputy of the Earle of Rutland and these Defendants proclaimed that as stewards of the Earl of Shrewsbury and after adjourned that and after held all the Courts and received the profits it seemed to him that for this outing and disturbance which is disseisin action upon the case lies Quare vi armis as wel as in the Book of Entries 15. two men had Warrens adjoyning and one of them puts Cats and other vermine into the Warren of the other to destroy it and the Action of trespasse Vi et armis lyes and so for menace action of trespas Vi armis lies as it appears by 3 H. 4. and this disturbance is sufficient to maintain an Assise and upon that he concluded that the Plaintiff in the Action ought to recover and to have Judgment And Harris the younger Serjeant argued that the Grant is not good for default of certainty as to this Grant of Stewarship for the Grant is of the Office of Stewardship of the Mannor of Mansfeild and doth not shew where the Mannor is nor in what County and it appears and is put for a Rule by Hussey cheife Justice in the 25. of H. 7. 60. b. That when a man wil have advantage of Letters Patents of the King it behooveth that they extend certainly to things of which he wil have advantage see 2. R. 3. 7. a. By Hussey 44. Ed. 3. 17. 5 Ed. 4. Garters Case 17 Ed. 3. 15. and Doddingtons Case which is Hill and Pext 2 Coke 1. 31. b. If the Town be misnamed it is good if there be another certainty but if it be not named at all otherwise it is And to the Point moved by Hutton he concived that this Office of Stewardship could not be exercised by a Deputy as it appears by Littleton in his Chapter of Estates upon condition where he saith that there are Estates upon condition in Law of which Stewardship is one fol. 89. Sect. 379. That cannot make Deputy without speciall Grants and with this agreed Sir Henry Nevills Case Com. 379. and Long 5. Ed. 4. 26. b. and by 21 E. 4. 20. and Sir Henry Nevills Case before he could not grant over his office but if he do not attend to the Execution of that it is forfeiture 11 Ed. 4. so if he wants skill 29 H. 6. 42. Per totam curiam He conceived that the Law doth not make any difference between the person of an Earl and another to the executing of this Office and that the words of the Patent do not contain words of deputation for in the Grant the words are Habendum Officium predictum breifly written Cum omnibus vadis feodis eidem Officio sue ratione ejusdem c. The which last words are expository of the first that is that it shal be intended that the Office is contained in the last Grant and shal not be referred to a Grant precedent in which the Stewardship is contained and also he conceived that this Action upon the case doth not ly Quare vi armis as it appears by Fitzherberts Naturabrevium 86. H. Where it is sayd that in trespass upon the case these words Vi armis are contained in the Writ shal be sufficient cause to abate the Writ see 11 Assise 25. He which councels to make Disseisin shal not be a Disseisor with force for he ought to do some manual Act either to the person or to the possession see 41 Ed. 4. 24. a. and 44. Ed. 3. 20. b. And so he concluded that this Action is not maintainable and that Judgment ought to be given for the Defendant for the causes aforesayd This Case was argued again by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendants to the same intent and it was urged by Dodridge that the Patent containes three several expresse Grants which are distinct Grants in themselves as there be three distinct severall Patents though they have but one Parchment and one Seale and if the King grant the Office of parkship of two parks by one self same Grant if the Patentee be disseised of them he may have several Assises though that it be but one self-same grant And he agreed that the words officium predictum in the 3. grant shall be intended officium predictum and so supply the defect in the second grant if it were not limitation of the estate in the second grant but for that that the second grant was perfect in it self there need not of necessity any such construction and that these words shall be referred to the last words appeares by the last words of the habendum that is cum vadis feodis eidem officio aut ratione ejusdem officij and these Relatives are exposition accordingly And to the objection of the clause of Assistance in the end of the Patent he answered that if the grant were ill
22 Assise 24. 48 Ed. 3. 8. Register 47. And in case that one common person hath any Office which he cannot exercise by a Deputy yet if he be imployed in the Kings service as if he be made Ambassador out of the Realm or other such imployment he may during his absence make a Deputy and this shal not be forfeiture of his Office and an Earl in ancient time was not only a Councellour of the King but by his Degree was Prefectus sive prepositus commitatus as it appears by Cambden 106 107. Comes prefectus Satrapas which is Prepositus comitatus and was in place of the Sherif at this day and when that he was Sherif though that he had the custody of the county committed unto him which was a great trust yet then by the Common Law he might make an under Sherif which was but a Deputy the like Holinsheads Chronicle 463. Amongst the customes of the Exchequer he called the under Sheriff Senescallus which agreed with the Definition before for he held the place of Sherif himself and by the statute of Westminster 8. chapt 39. It is sayd that Vice comes est viccarius commitatus and if a Barony discend upon the Sheriff yet he shall continue Sheriff 13. Eliz Dyer and Britton 43. If a Rybaud strike a Baron or a Knight he shall loose his Land And Tenant by Knights service may execute it by Deputy 7. Ed. 3. Littleton And if it be so in the case of a Sheriff which hath the County committed to him that he may make a Deputy by the Common Law upon that he inferred that the Steward which hath but the Mannors of the King committed to him that he may make a Deputy And also he said that the words in the last clause that is Volentes precipentes that the Officers and the Subjects should be attendant expoundes and declares the intent of the Queen for the words are Omnibus premisses and the Grant of the Office of the Stewardship is one of the premisses and so he concluded upon these reasons that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff and that the Grant was good and the Action wel maintainable And oâ— this opinion were Warburton and Foster Justices And Judgement was given accordingly this Trinity Tearm 8. Jacobi And Coke cheife Justice remembred a Report made by him and Popham cheife Justice of England upon reference made to them that this Patent was good and that the Earle of Rutland might exercise this Office by Deputation and he conceived that there were other words in the Patent which were found by the Jury that the said Earle should have the said Office Cum omnibus Juribus Jurisdictionibus c. as full c. as any other Patent hath been had and withall the Appurtenances and it seemed that a former Patentee had power by expresse words to execute that by a Deputy and he conceived though these words Adeo plene c do not inlarge the Estate yet this inlargeth the Jurisdiction of the Officer as in 43. Ed. 3. 22. Grant is made by the King of a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant Adeo plene tam amplis modo forma c. And these words past the advowson without naming that and he said it was adjudged Hillary 40. Eliz. in Ameridithes case where the case was the Queen granted a Mannor Adeo plene intigre in tam amplis modo forma as the Countesse of Shrewshury or any other had the same Manno r and Queen Kathrin had the same Mannor and diverse liberties with it of great value during her life and adjudged that these liberties should passe also by this Patent by these words and so in the principall case if the former Patent had been found also by the Jury and so was the opinion of Popham and him and was certified accordingly FINIS A Table of the Second Part. ARch-Bishops Jurisdiction 1 2. 28. Admiralties Jurisdiction 10 11. 13 16 17. 26. 29. 31. 37. Arbitrement satisfaction what 31. 131. Assumpsit 40 41. 273. Arrianisme one committed for it 41. Assets 47. Almony 36. Apurtenant what shall be said 53 Action sur Case by a Commoner for words 55. 84. 100. 119. 122. Avowry the whole plea 62 63. 102 Agreement what 72 Account 76 Audita Querela 81. 83. 168 Atturnment good by one under age where and why 84 Award void 100 Age not allowed in Dower 118 Administration repealable 119 Accord with satisfaction good plea where where not 131 Attorney ought to finde Baile in an Originall not Bill 134 Action sur Assumpsit 137 Assuâ—psit against an Executor where maintainable 138 Assets in Formedon what 138 Attachment 144. 168 Assent to a Legatee 173 Ayd prayer 191 Attachment for contempt of the Court 216 Accessary null unlesse there is Principall 220 Assignment of an estate suspended 225 Assise of novel Disseisin 229 Abatment of brief per entry 231 232 Abatement de facto and by plea differ in what 235 Agreement and Arbitrement good pleas where 132 Agreement by word to keepe backe tythes 17 Admiralls Commission for measuring of Corne 29 Administration during minority of c. 83 Atturney brings Debt for Trees 99. Arbitrement 130. 131. Arrest of Judgment 167. Acts what to make an Executor de seu tort 184. Attachment of Priviledge for an Estate against the Marshall c. 266. Assise where it may lye sans view 268. Assise the Recognitors challenged ibid Ajournment of the Tearm 278. Annuity or Writ of Covenant where 273. Arbitrement submission and revocation 290. Approvement of Common 297. Account 308. Award submission 309. Arbitrement 310 Arbitrement who it binds 323. Assise del Office 328. B BIshop not displaceable 7. Baron alone cannot sue for not setting forth Tithes without the feme proprietory 9 Ballast granted to Trinity House a Monopoly 13. Baron and Feme joyn where 66. Baron Judgment against an Executor 83 Baron how chargeable pur sa feme 92. 93. 95. Bar in trespass 121. By-Laws whom they bind 180. To what extended 258. Baron and feme take by intirity where 226. Barwick whether part of England or Scotland 270. Bayle 293 Banckrupt actionable 299. C CHase an action not to be divided 56 Cui in vita of Copy-hold 79. Custome for pound breach 90. Common Recovery 16. Copiholder shall hold charged where 208. Confirmation to a copiholder destroys common 209 210. Consultation after it no Prohibition grantable upon the same Libell 247. Cape grand Petit 253 Cause of a commitment traversable 266. Count in trespass after the teste del Breife 273. Covenant to pay Rent 273 Continuance Ibidem Chellenge 275 Customes of London argued by the Justices 284. 285. 286. Certiorari 312. Capias ad satisfaciendum no satisfactory execution 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. Copy-hold at common Law 44. Creditor may sue both heireand Executor 97. Court of Equity not proper after Judgment 97. Copyhold intayled 121. Covenants direct and collaterall how they differ 136.
which was Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum adjudged to be joint and severall at the Plaintiffs Election Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award and the breach assigned for exhibiting a chancery Bill and adiudged no Breach Action of Debt for Tithes the Defendants time ended before the Coâ—n carried yet held good for the Plaintiff An Action will lie against a stranger that shall carry away the Corn before the Severance Dower may be brought against the Heir or Committee of the Ward Nota. He in Reversion received after Default made by Tenant for Life Return of the Sheriff adjudged insufficient being too general No Writ of Error lies untill the value be inquired upon Implication not good in a Surrender though it be in a Will Challenge because the Sheriff married the Daughter of the Lessors Wife and held no cause Nota. How to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many mens hands Originall against four and count against 3. without a Simulcum and held naught The intent of a will must be certain and agreeable to Law Nota. How to execute a Lease by Letter of Atturney A Venire facias of the Parish adjudged good A mistake of the Cursitor in the Originall amended after Triall Nota. Though the Defendants Plea be naught yet the Plaintiff shall not recover because he shewed not any Title by his replication The question is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8 upon Feoffements made by Husbands during the coverture A verbal averment shall not overthrow a will The mistaking of the Town not hurtfull in a Will Property of Goods cannot be in obayance Difference between Prescription and Custome Copihold Land cannot be demised for three years without license or custome Record of Nisi prius amended by the Roll. Concord with satisfaction a good Plea in Eiectment Misconveyance of process what it is and helped by the Statute A feme covert cannot make a Letter of Atturney to deliver a Lease upon the Land When a demand shall be made to the person and when upon the Land A Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remaine to the survivor of them for ninety yeares a good interest in the survivor A precise Verdict makes the Declaration good which otherwise is naught A demand of Rent to avoid a Lease upon a condition ought to be in the most open place After an Imparlance cannot plead in abatement 22 H. 6. 6. Foxlies Case 5 Rep. 111. The day of a Copihold of Court roll traversed and adjudged naught Houses in London passe by the delivery of a bargain and sale without inrolment An Ejectment will not lye de aquae cursu A Servant is a sufficient Ejector if he dwell with the pretended owner He that is a Purchaser of Copihold hath nothing in it nor can he surrender to another before admittance How an Abatement shall be traversed 1 E. 4. acr 1 E. 4. 9. acr The Bill amended after a Writ of Error brought and before the Record was removed Where the Prenomen destroyesthe quantity inthe declation Where words in a Declaration shall be voyd rather then the Declaration shal be voyd Nonage shall be tryed where it is alleadged and not where the Landlyes Essoin lies in a writ brought by Journes account although he was essoined upon the first Writ By Deed an implicationbe intended Nota. By the Name of a Mannour the Land in all the Villiages will pass Nota. Action brought by the Servant in his own name part of the Goods being his Masters Nota. Nota. The Record of Nisi prius amended upon motion The Process in Partition Error in Partition upon the first Judgement Defendant pleads he had brought a Writ for the same land and adjudged no plea. Process in a Quare Impedit Exception taken to the Venire and over-ruled Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall men Admittance of a Resignation by fraud takes not away the Kings Title The state is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail A presentment by words good Nota. A subsequent debt to the Qu. related to award an assurance made upon good consideration The King hath lost his presentation by the Clerks death Defendant pleads another writ depending against the said Bishop good The Bishopsplea shall not prejudice the Incumbent Nota. Liberty to make Leases A devise for years in confidence the condition must goe to the estate and not to the use The scisin of rent reserved upon a Feosment within the time of limitation not to be traversed Nota. The beast of a stranger shall not be distreined for rent except they have been upon the land some time Demand not necessary in a Replevin for rent Nota. Exctâ—tion to the advowry too late after judgment entred Replevin not within the statute of 3. Iac. Iudgment arrested for that the plea was naught Nota. Nota. The Plea naught for want of amendment Amends made to the Bailiff not good If one inclose part it is an Extinguishment of Common for cause of vicinage Avowry amended after Entry by consent One of the Juroâ—s names mistaken in the Pannell of the Return and amended upon the Sheriffes Oath that he was the same man If two men distrain one Mare and both have Judgement no Return Court Baron in order to the Mannor Nota. Nota. A lease for life to three to hold successively naught The pannell of the Habeas Corpus amended upon Oath Nota. Atturnment not necessary for a Copy-holder Demand necessary for a Nomine pene Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but not if Appendant Nota. Nota. Demand of Rent service upon the Land sufficient Nota. A Commoner may take the cattell of the Lord damage fesant Judgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lye to which the Common did belong Common when the field and acres unsown the sowing of parcell shal not debar him of his common in the residue When a Deed is perfected and delivered as a Deed one agreement after pleaded in defeasance thereof and when the agreement is parcell of the Original contract it may be pleaded The Defendant in his Demurrer â—nswers not the whole Declaration and Judgement reversed The mistake of the day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudiciall A confession after an issue joyned refused A Constable cannot detaine one but for Felony Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea in debt except both are of the Houshold Judgment before a wrong Officer erroneous The Court could not mitigate damages in trespass which was locall The Defendant justifies the imprisonment by the command of the Maior of London and naught Just of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest in his absence without warrant in writing If a servant be beaten dye the Mr. shall not have an action for the losse of his service Declaration shall not abate for false Latin A man cannot prescribe to be a Justice of the Peace If
Venire facias and upon the Habeas Corpus onely twenty and three were returned and the Jury did not appear full and a Tales was awarded and tried for the Plaintiffe and good because the Venire Facias was returned full PIgott versus Pigott Mich 20 Jacobi In Replevin Avowry that Ellen Enderby was seised in Fee of three Acres in Dale and took to Husband S. Pigott and had Issue Tho Ellen dyed and the husband was in by the Curtesie the Husband and Tho the Heir granted a Rent of 10. 〈◊〉 issuing out of the three Acres to the Avowant and avows for so much behind the Plaintiffe in barrsayes that before Ellen had any estate one Fisher was seised in Fee and gave it to John E. in tayl Jo had issue Ellen who after the death of her Father entred and was seised in tayl and took a Husband as is before declared And had Issue Tho and that Tho. Tenant by the Curtesie living grants the Rent as above without this that Ellen was seised in Fee of three Acres and issue was joyned thereupon and found for the Avowant And in arrest of Judgment it was objected that in effect there was no issue joyned For the traverse of the sesin of Ellen E. was idle for no title of the Rent is derived from her but they ought to have traversed the seisin of Thomas the grantor and then the Issue had been of such a nature that it had made an end of the matter in question which was not in this case no more then if the Tenant in Formulen should plead not guilty but the Court held that though an apter issue might have been taken and that the traverse is not good yet it was helped by the statute of Jeofailes For the estate of Ellen H. was in a sort by circumstance materiall For if she were seised in tayl and that estate tayl discended to Thomas the grantor then by his death the Rent is determined after the Fee discended to Tho from Ellen there the estate was of that nature that he might grant a sufficient rent charge And although it might well be presumed that Thomas after the Fee discended to him from Ellen had altred such estate tayl yet by Popham the Courts shal not now intend that because the parties doubted nothing but whether Ellen was seised in Fee or not when he dyed And that doubt is resolved by the Verdict as if a Defendant should plead a Dâ—ed of J. S to A. and B. and that it dyed and B. survived and infeoffed the Defendant if the Plaintiffe should say that J. S. did not infeoffe A. and that they should be at issue upon that and should be found against him although this be no apt issue yet it is helped by the statute because the parties doubted of nothing but of the manner of the feoffment of J. S. whether it was made to A or not and of the same opinion was Fennor Yelverton and Williams but not Gandy CRate versus Moore Mich. 3. Jacobi In Replevin of Cattell taken in D. the Defendant avowes as Bayliffe of H. Finch And the case was thus the Lady Finch Mother of H. Finch granted a Rent charge to H. issuing out of her Mannor of N. and out of all her Lands in D. E. and is in the County of Kent belonging or appeartaining to the said Mannor And the Plaintiffe to barr the Defendant pleads an abatement in H. Finch into the Lands in D. And upon the Defendant demurrs for the Lands in D. were not belonging or appertaining to the Mannor of N. and adjudged for the Defendant For no Land can be charged by that grant if it be not belonging to the Mannor And that for two Reasons the first is because by the word aut alibi it appears that it is all but one sentence and the Aut conjoynes the words proceeding to wit all the Lands in D. S. and to put in the County of Kent in these words following to wit alibi in the said County to the said Mannor appertaining and the sentence is not perfect untill you come to the last words to the said Mannor appertaining for if the Rent be issuing out of the Land in D. c. which is not appertaining to the Mannor then the sentence must be perfect and these words County of Kent and these aut alibi must begin a new sentence which was never seen that they should make the beginning of a sentence And therefore this case is not like the case between Bacon and Baker second of King James in the prohibition where Queen Eliz. grants all her â—ith Hay c. within the liberty and precincts of St. Edmonds Bury belonging and appertaining to the said Monastery and which were lately collected by the Almoner of the said Monastery for there the latter sentence is perfect and compleat And these words in the County of Suffolke and the nec non that ensues are a new sentence And therefore the last clause And which by the Almoner c. goe only to the Tiths following the nec non and not to the Tiths contained in the first clause but it had been otherwise if the nec non had been unacum as in truth the patent was but it was mispleaded for then the unacum would have reinjoyned all and made it but one sentence The second reason was in respect of the nature of the thing granted which was but a rent And therefore if rent be granted out of a Mannor to be perceived and taken out of one acre this shall be good and nothing shall be charged but that one acre only 17. Ass but otherwise it is of Land for a Feofment of a Mannor To have c. one acre it is a void habend For here it appears that the intent of the Lady Finch was only to charge the Mannor and such Land only which were appertaining to the Mannor But Popham held the contrary for he conceived that D. S. and W. in the County of Kent were particularly named and bounded in by the name of the place and County and therefore they should be charged although they were not appertaining to the Mannor As if a man grants all his Lands in D. R. and V. in the County of M. and in Darn in the same County which he hath by discent it should only extend to Darn but denyed by the Court but he was strongly of that opinion And he held that by the first of the charge out of the Mannor all the Lands parcell or appertaining to the Mannor are charged and therefore the subsequent words if they should be limited as is above-said would be idle and frivolous And Yelverton said that the words before belonging or appertaining shall be taken to extend to the Land occupied in the Mannor although it is not parcell of it and Fenwood and Willams granted and Judgment was given that the Defendant should have a return habend TOtt versus Ingram Trin. 4. Jac. In a replevin brought by T. against I.