in purchasing the Inheritance by which the Terme is extinct shall bar the possibility which Reynald the Son hath to come upon the womans marriage 3. That a Lessee for years being in possession may take a Feoffment although it be by Deed and may take Livery after the delivery of the Deed and shall be deemed to be in by force of the Feoffment as in this case is pleaded although that the Lessee may take the Deed by way of confirmation and then the Livery is but Surplusage and void 4. It was resolved that this possibility which was in Reynald the Son to have the residue of the terme upon the inter-marriage which at the time of the Feoffment and of the Fine was but Dormant shall be accounted a former charge and before the Covenant because of the will which was before the Covenant and shall awake and have relation before the marriage As if Tenant in tail of a Rent purchaseth the Land out of which the Rent issueth and makes a Feoffment and covenants that the Land at that time is discharged of all former charges although this charge is not in esse but is in suspence as it is said 3 H. 7.12 yet if the Tenant in tail dye his Issue may distrain for this Rent and then is the Covenant broke for now it shall be accounted a former charge before the Feoffment Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Bretts Case Debt on â— Bond. BRett brought an action of Debt on a Bond against Averden and the Condition of the Bond was to stand to the Arbitrement of J.S. who did award that the Defendant should pay ten pounds to Brett and no time was limited to pay it The Defendant confest the Arbitrement but pleaded in Bar that the Plaintiff hath not required him to pay the money And the Plaintiff hereupon demurred Adjudged by the Court that it is no good plea for the Defendant at his perill ought to pay the money and the Plaintiff need not make any request wherfore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 29 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Bucknells Case Action for Robbery on the Statute of Winchestster BUcknell was robbed in a Hundred within the County of Bucks and thereupon brought his Action upon the Statute of Winchester because the Theeves were not taken And Not guilty being pleaded by the Inhabitants the Iury gave this speciall Verdict viz. That he was robbed the same day alleadged in the Declaration but in another place and within another Parish then that he hath alledged in the Declaration but that both the Parishes were within the said Hundred Vpon which they prayed the Iudgment of the Court whether the Inhabitants were guilty Adjudged by the Court for the Plaintiff for it is not materiall in what Parish he was robbed so it were within the same Hundred Hil. 30 Eliz. in Com. Banc. Rot. 904. Spittles Case Replevin SPittle brought a Replevin against Davis the Case was this Turk being seised of Land in Fee did devise parcell thereof to his youngest Son Proviso and it is his intent that if any of his Sons or any of their Issues shall alien or demise any of the said Lands devised before they shall attain the age of thirty years that then the other shall have the Estate and does not limit any Estate And then the eldest Son made a Lease before his age of thirty years and the youngest Son enters and afterwards and before the age of thirty years he aliens the Land he entred into by reason of the limitation the elder Brother re-enters and demised to Spittle the Plaintiff for three years who put a Horse into the ground and Davis by the commandment of the younger brother entred and took the Horse Damage-feasant and Spittle brought a Replevin And upon the whose matter there was a Remainder It was resolved 1. That this is a limitation and that the Estate shall be to such use as by the Will is directed untill there be an Alienation and upon Alienation the Land shall go to the other Brother 2. When the youngest Brother hath once entred for the Alienation then is the Land discharged of all Limitations for otherwise the Land shall go and come to one and the other upon every Alienation ad infinitum wherefore all the Iudges agreed that after the one Brother hath entred by reason of the limitation the Land is then for ever discharged of the Limitation made by the Will And Iudgment was given accordingly Michaells Case Debt on a Bond THomas Michaell brought an Action of Debt on a Bond against Stockworth and Andrews the Iury gave this speciall Verdict That the said Stockworth and Andrews did seale a Bond and delivered it to the Plaintiff as their Deed and after Issue joyned and before the Nisi prius the Seale of Andrews was taken from the Bond. Shuttleworth The Plaintiff shall be barred for it is one entire Deed and the Seale of one is wanting And admit in case it goes against us the Iudgment be reversed by Writ of Error the Plaintiff can have no Action on such Bond But it was adjudged to be a good Bond and Iudgment for the Plaintiff See the like case in Dyer Trin. 36 H. 8.59 A. Hillari 33 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Rot. 1315. Richmonds Case Debt for rent RIchmond brought an Action of Debt against Butcher the case was A man makes a Lease for years reserving Rent to him and his Executors and Assignes and during the terme the Lessor dies and his Heire who hath the Reversion brings an Action of Debt And it was urged that the Rent was incident to the Reversion and the Heire having the Reversion shall have the Rent also as incident to it as the case is in the 27 H. 8.16 If H. makes a Lease for years rendring Rent without saying any more words the Heire shall have this part because it shall go along with the Reversion So in the fifth of Edw. 4.4 If two Ioynt-tenants make a Lease for years rendring Rent to one of them yet the other shall have the Rent also although no mention were made of him so in the 7 H. 4.223 By the Court If I make a Feoffment in Fee rendring a Rent to me my Heires may distraine And if I grant over this Rent my Assignees in this case may distraine and avow so in this case an Action will lye for the Heire although he be not mentioned But adjudged to the contrary by the Court for when H. passeth Lands from himself the Law gives him liverty to passe them in such way and manner as he himself will and this liberty ought to take effect according to the expresse words for the Law will not extend the words further for the intent shall appeare by the words and then it cannot be here intended that his will was that his Heire shall have the Rent because the words are not sufficient to give it to his Heirs And therefore note a diversity when
5 H. 7.9 And afterwards vide Mich. 37 38 Eliz. It was adjudged that this was good enough in an Ejectione firmae for there the damages are the principall but otherwise in a Precipe for there ought to be a certainty but in an Assise of Novel Disseisin it is good enough but afterwards Mich. 38 39 Eliz. the case was debated in the Exchequer Chamber by Writ of Error and the Iudgment was reversed Hil. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 34. Walters Case LOve brought an Action of Debt against Wotton who pleaded the Statute of Vsury in Bar and by reason of Mispleader it was awarded by the Court that the parties should plead De novo and this Award was entred in this manner viz. Et quia placitum illud in modo forma placitat est sufficiens in lege the Court awarded that the parties should replead and hereupon they pleaded and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber which was certified accordingly And there Gawdy moved that the Record in this point might be amended and to have the Record certified de novo into the Exchequer Chamber for that the first Award is repugnant in it self for it is awarded that they shall replead because the Plea est sufficiens whereas it ought to be that they shall replead because est minus sufficiens as the paper books are and the opinion of the Court was that it could not be amended because that the fault is in the Iudgement it self which is the act of the Court and therefore cannot be amended Glanvill It is no Error in the Iudgment for the Iudgment is only that they shall replead but the Error is in the Iudgment to the Iudgment and may be well amended and of the same opinion was Popham Mich. 36 and 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 579. Bartwrights Case BArtwright brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Harris the Condition was that if the Defendant did acquit discharge and save harmlesse the Plaintiff against an Obligation in which he and the Defendant were bound to I.S. in 601 l. that then the Obligation should be void The Defendant said that Bartwright was sued on this Obligation by I. S. and upon default I.S. had Iudgment to recover and that the Defendant before execution did deliver to the Plaintiff the 601 l. and hereupon the Plaintiff demurred Humbert It is no plea for he confesseth that the Plaintiff was not yet taken in execution yet inasmuch as he may be taken therefore his body goods and lands are liable to the execution and he hath not acquitted nor saved him harmlesse against the Bond of I.S. vide Dyer 186. And the Plaintiff had Iudgment c. Mich. 36 and 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 25. Greyes Case GRey brought an action of Trespasse against Bartholmew the Case was A man did purchase divers Fishes viz. Carpes Tenches Trouts c. and put them into his Pond for store and then died The question was whether the Heire or the Executors should have the Fish Popham The Heire shall have the Deer in the Park and by the same reason the Fish Clench If the Fish be stolne it is Felony so that it appears there is a property in them vide 18 Ed. 4. 10 Ed. 4.14 22 Ass 98. that stealing of Tench out of a Pool is Felony by which it seems they are but Chattels Popham the Book is so and so is the Law but that is of stealing Fish out of a Trunk or some narrow place where they are put to be taken at will and pleasure but otherwise it is where they are put into a Pond Fenner He which hath the water shall have the Fish And Popham ex assensu curiae gave Iudgment for the Heire And in the principall case the Executors did take the Fish with Nets and the Heire brought a Trespasse and adjudged maintainable See what Chattels Executors shall have and what not in 21 H. 7.26 10 H. 7.6 30. an account will lye for Fish in a Fish-pond so in the 5 R. 2. Waste 97. an Action of waste did lye against Guardian in Chivalry for taking Fish out of a Pool by the Statute of Magna Charta but quaere if it lies against a Termor or Guardian in Soâ—age upon an Account for Fish 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 767. Leighs Case LEigh brought an Ejectione firmae for a Chamber against Shaw the Case was A Lease was made of the Rectory of Chingford in Essex and of the Glebe excepting the Parsonage house saving and allowing to the Lessee a Chamber over the Parlor next the Church It was adjudged that the Lease of the Chamber was good for as well as a man by his exception may except part of a thing so as it shall be intended that it was never let or granted so in this case when he saies except the Parsonage house saving and allowing to the Lessee a Chamber this saving makes the Chamber as it were excepted out of it as if it had been leased so a saving out of a saving is as much as there had been no saving at all and then this Chamber not being excepted out of the Lease shall passe clearly by the Lease of the Rectory And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 242. Wrights Case WRight brought a Writ of Error against the Mayor and Comminalty of Wickombe to reverse a Fine levied by his Ancestor of twenty acres of Land the Defendants in abatement of the Writ of Error did plead that the Plaintiff after the death of his Ancestor did disseise the Defendants of the Land and made a Feoffment to a stranger Iudgment c. The Plaintiff replied that they did re-enter upon him without that that he did enfeoff a stranger modo forma The Iury found that there was a Fine of twenty acres and that the Plaintiff being Disseisor of all made a Feoffment of six of the acres to a stranger Et si supra totam materiam c. And it was objected that the Record was intire and the Error is a Chose in Action and not a Chose in Droit and therefore cannot be divided but if it were a Chose in Droit it is otherwise as if a Disseisee of twenty acres releaseth all his right in five acres this doth extinguish all his right in the five acres so upon a Feoffment of parcell yet the right remaineth as to the remnant But of a Chose in Action which is meerly entire no apportionment can be as in the 31 Eliz. in the Kings Bench between Charnock and Wrothesley the case was Husband and Wife levied a Fine of the Wives Land and after because the Wife was within age they sued a Writ of Error to reverse the Fine The question was If this should be reversed as to the Wise onely or against the Husband according to the opinion of Belknap in the 50 Ed. 3. And after long debate it was resolved
that it should be against both for it is intire and cannot be affirmed in part and disaffirmed in another part And the Lord Norris case is very agreeable to this where Tenant for life did levy an erroneous Fine and then was attaint by Parliament and all the right which he had to any Land was given to the Queen and it was adjudged that there is no title of Error nor was it given to the Queen by this word Right and then if it be so the Title of Error is not of any right in the land but onely to the Suit and if it be a Suit it is a Suit intire for he cannot have severall Suits as is agreed in Sir Richard Knightleys case A man had judgment to recover 150 l. and did release 20 l. of it and after sued execution and the other brought an Audita querela upon the Releases and defeated all the execution But it is otherwise where such apportionment of such Suit is done by act in Law as in 7 Ed. 4. fol. ultimo The Sheriff levied parcell of the debt by Fieri facias yet shall he have an Action of Debt for the Residue upon the Record But in this case it is the act of the party himself that destroies his Suit for part of the Land for which it shall destroy the other suit for the Error is intire as to all the land and cannot be divided as in the 38 Ed. 3. and 12 H 6. if a false Verdict be found and the party greived does make a Feoffment of parcell he shall not have an attaint for any part So in the 19 H. 6. and the 39 Ass If he who hath cause to bring a Writ of Error or Attaint does take a Lease for years of parcell he doth suspend his Action and if he takes in fee it is quite gone But it was resolved by the Court that the Feoffment does not destroy the Title of the Writ of Dower for more then so much as a Feoffment was made of and thereupon they first took a difference between suspension and extinguishment of an Action for peradventure if he suspend his Action as to any part for any time this is a suspension unto all but extinguishment of part is a Bar to that part onely and Gawdy cited the case in 9 H. 6. where Iudgment was reverst for part only and it is not unusuall to have a Fine reversed for part as if a fine be levied of lands in ancient Demesne 47 Ed. 3.9 a. there by Parsley If there be Error in Law as to one parcell and Error in Fact as to another parcell the Iudgment as touching the matter of Law may be reversed Fenner He who hath Title to reverse a Fine or recovery by Writ of Error hath right in the Land and if he release all his right in the land the Error is extinct and the reason of the Lord Norris Case was not that the Title to the Error was an Action in privity annexed to the party to the Record and his Heires and cannot be transferred over to another no more then a Writ of partition between Coparceners or a Nuper obiit Popham He who hath Title to have the Writ of Error hath no Title to the Land although that thereby he be to be restored to the Lande for if the Land discend to one who hath Title to have the Writ of Error without doubt it shall not be accounted a remitter But as to the matter now in question he said that if two men bring a Writ of Error in the Realty and the Tenant plead the release of one this is a good Bar against both because the Error in the Record is released But if one who hath Title to a Writ of Error does make a Release of all his Right in one acre this is a Bar but for so much inasmuch as the Release is a Bar but as to the Restitution of the Land onely and no Release of Errors in the Record for by the Reversall of a Fine or Recovery the party may annihilate the Record and have Restitution of that which the Record before took from him and therefore it shall bar the Plaintiff And the opinion of all the Court was that the Fine should be reversed for that part of the Land onely whereof no Feoffment was made but for some defects in the Writ of Error Iudgment was stayed Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. in B. R. Barnards Case SMith brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Barnard the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was outlawed and a day was given him to bring in the Record at which day he made default Daniel moved that the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in this case should be that the Defendant should answer for that the plea of Outlawry was but a dilatory Plea and no Plea in Bar as appears 21 Ed. 4 15. but this difference was taken by the Court. In an Action of Debt upon a Bond Vtlary of the Plaintiff is a Plea in Bar and the reason is because all the Debts in specialties are forfeited to the Queen by reason of the Outlawry and because the Queen is to have them it is a good Plea in Bar But in a Trespasse or Debt upon a Contract the Outlawry is but to the abatement of the Writ and the Queen shall not have Debts upon simple Contracts but after the Outlawry pardoned the Plaintiff may have an Action for them again And because he failed to bring the Record at his day appointed the Plaintiff recovered vide Dyer 6 Eliz. 227 228. Hil. 32 Eliz. in C. B. Lord Dacres Case GRegory Lord Dacres was summoned to answer Richard Gawton in a Plea of Debt for 26 l. 14 s. and did declare that the Defendant did retain the Plaintiff to be his Bayliff of his Mannor of Moreford c. and to receive the Defendants money for a certain time and to do other businesses for the Defendant and to render an account and afterwards before one Launcelot Love the Auditor assigned by the Defendant the Plaintiff did account Super quo computo praefatus Richardus pro diversis costagiis expensis quae idem Richardus circa prosecutionem executionem negotiorum praefati Gregorii in surplusagiis in praedict 26 l. 14. s. erga ipsum Gregorium ultra omnes denariorum summas per ipsum Richardum ad ipsum dicti Gregorii recept permansisset And thereupon he brought his Action and the Defendant pleaded Nil debet and it was found for the Plaintiff and yet he had not Iudgment First because the Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiff was not in Surplusage to the Defendant but the Defendant to the Plaintiff and so are all the Presidents directly and he ought to alledge he was in Service and that he had received Goods whereof no mention is made Secondly Because neither day nor place is alledged where the Auditor was assigned Pasch 33 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 409. Owseleys Case ROger Owsely brought a
that the Action might be against the Husband onely because that the woman could not convert them to his own use during the Coverture but onely to the Husbands use And the opinion of the Court was that the Writ was good against them both and that the conversion was in nature of a Trespasse and so the Action would well lye Mich. 32. and 33 Eliz. Kent against Wichall IN a Trespasse Quare clausum fregit herbam conculcavit the Defendant pleaded that he tendied sufficient amends to the Plaintiff and he refused the same and demanded Iudgment c. And upon a Demurrer the opinion of the Court was that this is no plea in Trespasse but in a Replevin it is a good plea Sed non dierunt causam diversitatis 21 H. 7.30.9 H. 7.22 F.N.B. 69. G. 31 H. 4.17 Drew demanded of the Court that whereas Edmund Leusage had bound himself in an Obligation by the name of Edward Leusage if this was good or not and it seemed to the Court Quod non est factum and Anderson and Walmesley said expresly that it was void 34 H. 6.19 6. Dyer 279 21 H. 7.8 Sir John Arrundell and his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Glocester and others who pleaded in Bar that William Sturton was seised of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant and bound himself in a Statute-merchant of two hundred pounds to one Long and the Statute was extended and conveyed the interest of the Statute to one of the Defendants and then the Church became void And by the Court the Advowson may be extended and if it become void during the Conusees Estate the Conusee may present Note it was said by the Iustices of the Common Pleas that if a man promise another that he shall have a Lease in his land for eight years or it is agreed amongst themselves that one shall have a Lease of the others land for eight yeares that is no lease of the land but onely a Contract and Agreement but if one promise another that he shall have his land for eight years or openly agree that one shall have the others land for eight years this is a good lease for eight years by force of the agreement A. came before the Major of Lincolne and acknowledged a Statute-merchant and the Seal of the Major was not put to it and it was adjudged that the Statute was not good but a man may sue upon it as an Obligation because the Seal of the party is to it Pasch 36 Eliz. IN a Waste the Case was that a Lessee for yeares purchased Trees growing upon the land and had liberty to cut them within eighty yeares and after the said Lessee purchased the inheritance of the land and devised it to his Wife for life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in see and made his Wife Executrix and died who after married with the Defendant who cuts the Trees whereupon the Action is brought And by opinion of all the Court the Action was maintainable for although the Trees were once Chattels yet by the purchase of the Inheritance they were united to the land and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly Pasch 36 Eliz. UPon an Exigent the Sheriff returned that after Divine Service he made proclamation and did not say that there was no Sermon and therefore the Iudges held that the return was not good for by the Statute if there be a Sermon in the Church the Sheriff shall make his proclamations after the Sermon and if there be no Sermon then after Divine Service and because it did not appeare whether there were any Sermon or not the opinion of the Court was ut supra It was said that a man shall not aver against a Postea in the Kings Bench or the Common Pleas to say that it was contrary to the Verdict nor shall he be received to say that the Iudges gave a Iudgment and the Clarks have entred it contrary to their Iudgment but otherwise is it in Court Barons or other base Courts not Courts of Record 10 Ed. 3.40 35 and 36 Eliz. Newman against Beaumond IF the Ordinary grants the Administration of the Goods of B. to A. and after grants the Administration to R. this second Grant is an appeale of the first without any further sentence of repeale for the Administrator is but a servant to the Ordinary whom he may charge at any time In an Action of Debt on a Bond bearing date the nineth of July the Defendant pleaed a Release of all Actions the same day usque diem dati ejusdem scripti and it was adjudged that the Obligation was not discharged because the Release does exclude the nineth day on which it was made Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. Rot. 211. Holman against Collins HOlman brought a Writ of Error against Collins upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Plymmouth in the County of Devon the case was Collins was possessed of a peece of Ordnance and in Consideration that he would tender this to Holman for to put into his Ship which was then going to Sea and that Collins would stand to the hazard of losing it The said Holman did assume upon himself and did promise to give Collins certain Goods which he should gain by the Voyage and after the said Ship did return laden with certain Goods and for non-satisfaction the said Collins brought his Action on the Assumpsit and had Judgment to recover And Crook assigned these Errors 1. That the Stile of the Court was not good for it was Curia Dominae Reginae Burgi praedict tent coram Majori de Plymmouth without saying secundum consuetudinem villae praedict and he who is Iudge of the Court ought to be either by Patent or Prescription and then for not expressing the stile of the Court nor by what authority they held their Court it is error and he cited the case in the Lord Dyer 262. and a Iudgment 30 Eliz. Rot. 32. given in the very point Another Error was that no day was prefixed for the Defendant to appear but generally ad proximam curiam which is Error although it be held every munday And for these Errors Iudgment was reversed Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 948. Mercer against Sparks MErcer had Iudgment to recover against Sparks in the Common Pleas upon an Action of the Case for words and Sparks brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error that the Plaintiff did not expresse in the Declaration that the Defendant spake the words malitiose but it was adjudged that it was no Error because the words themselves were malicious and slanderous wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Savacres Case IT was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if a Baron or others mentioned in the Statute of 21 H 8. take divers Chaplaines which have many benefices and after they discharge their Chaplaines from their Service they shall retain their Benefices during their lives and if the Baron takes others to be his
maneriis de Badmanshall and the question was If the Vitar by this Indowment shall have the third part of the Tythes growing upon the â—and of the Freeholders within the Mannor or not And it was said by the Court that a Mannor cannot be without Freeholders and inasmuch as they are to be charged with the payment of Tythes one and the other together shall be said to be the Tythes of the Mannor and so it was adjudged that the Vicar should have Tythes of the third part of the land of the Freeholders as well of the Demesnes and Copyholders Trin. 37 Eliz. Rot. 438. Willoughby against Gray A Venire facias did beare Teste out of the Terme and also there was no place mentioned in the Writ here the Visne should be impaunelled and after the Writ said Coram Justiciariis and did not say apud Westmonasterium and a tryall was had hereupon and Iudgment given which was prayed might be reversed for these causes But it seemed to the Court that notwithstanding all that was alledged it was good enough for although the Venirefacias was not good yet if the Distringas had a certain return and place therein And the Iury appeared and gave their Verdict so that a Verdict was had the Statute will aide the other defects as in the case adjudged between Marsh and Bulford where the Venire bore Teste out of the Term. But Fenner said that the Teste was in the Term but on the Sabboth day which was not Dies Juridicus Trin. 38 Eliz. Rot. 622. KInton brought an Appeal of Mayhem against Hopton Flam and Williams Hopton pleaded not guilty Flam pleaded that he was mis-named and demanded Iudgment c. Et quoad feloniam mahemium not guiltâ— de hoc ponit se super patriam praedict Kinton similiter And Williams pleaded no such man in rerum natura as Flam and demanded Iudgment of the Writ and as to the Mayhem and Felony not guilty Et de hoc ponit se super patriam c. And as to the other two pleas to the Writ Kinton demurred prayed that the Writ might be awarded him and a Venire facias to try the issue For Tanfeild urged that by pleading over to the felony he waved the plea to the Writ for there was a diversity between an appeal of Murther and of Mayhem for in Murther as it is 7 Ed. 4. and 3 Ed. 6. although he plead to the Writ of appeal yet of necessity he must plead over to the Murther because it is in favorem vitae or else if he will joyne in Demurrer upon the plea to the Writ he doth confesse thereupon the Felony and therefore he must plead over not guilty But in Mayhem it is otherwise for although the Declaration was for Felony yet is a Mayhem but a Trespasse onely and all are pruâ—cipalls and the life of the Defendant is not questioned but he shall onely render damages and therefore it he plead over to the Felony that is a waver of the plea and so a Venire faciaâ— ought to issue out to try if he be culpable or not and of this opinion were Popham Fenner and Gawdy clearly and agreed to the diversity between the appeal of Mayhem and Murther Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. King against Braine A Man sells Sheep and warrants that the yare sound and that they shall be sound for the space of a year upon which Warrant an Action of the Case was brought and it was moved that the Action did not lye because the Warranty is impossible to be performed by the party because it is onely the act of God to make them sound for a year But Clench and Fenner on the contrary for it is not impossible no more then if I warrant that such a Ship shall return safe to Bruges and it is the usuall course between Merchants to warrant the safe return of their Ships Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. Wentworth and Savell against Russell IN a Writ of Parco fracto the Plaintiffs declared that they were Tenants pro indiviso of a Mannor in Yorkshire and that the Defendant held of them certain lands as of their Mannor rendring Rent which Rent was behind and for which they distrained and impounded the Distresse and the Defendant broke the Pound and rescued the distresse and thereupon they brought this Action and the Defendant demurred on the Declaration because the Plaintiffs did not shew how they were Tenants pro indiviso or Tenants in Common or Coparceners But the Court ruled the Declaration to be good And Gawdy said that a Tenant in Common alone without his companion may have an Action De parco fracto And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 39 Eliz. POphamsaid that in Lancashire there is a Parish called Standish within which are many Townes and one of the Townes is called Standish And if a man seised of lands in the Town of Standish and also of land in the other Townes do let all his land in Standish onely his land within the Town of Standish doth passe and not all his land within the Parish of Standish in the other Townes For where a man speaks of Standish or of Dale it shal be intended to be a Town and not a Parish unlesse there be expresse mention of the Parish of Standish or of Dale Gawdy and Fenner on the contrary for the Grant of every man shall be taken strongest against himself and therefore all the land as well within the Parish of Standish as within the Town of Standish shall passe And Fenner said that when Dale is mentioned in any Precipe it shall be intended the Town of Dale because Towns are noted at the Common Law and not Parishes for Parishes were ordained by the Councell of Lyons but notwithstanding in Grants there shall be no such intendment but the intendment shall be according to the common usage and understanding of the Country and Country-men in favour of the Grantee and when a man speake of Standish or any such place it shall as well be intended to be a Parish as a Town Hil. 29 Eliz. Clarentius against Dethick CLarentius brought an Action of the Case against Dethick by the name of Dethick alias Garter The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ for the Queen by her Letters Patents had created him King at Armes Et quod nuncuparetur Garter principalis Rex armorum and that he should sue and be sued by such name and because he was not sued according to his creation he demanded Iudgment c. Tanfeild prayed that the Writ might abate for this case had been here in the Court in question before where Dethick was indided by the name of Dithick onely and because he was not named according to his creation he pleaded that matter and the Indictment was quashed Gawdy I remember the case very well and it was adjudged at my first coming to this Court and in truth the Iudgment passed against my opinion which then and still is
that when he is sued as King at armes in such case wherein his Office or other thing belonging to his Office comes in question then he ought to be named according to his Patent but when he is sued as I.S. then it is sufficient to name him by his proper name Popham Vpon the creation of any Deanery which is ordained and granted by Patent of the King the Dean shall sue and be sued by the name of Dean of such a place yet if such Dean doth sue or is sued about any matter concerning his naturall capacity it is not necessary to name him Dean Fenner But this is a name of dignity and by his installation is made parcell of his name and if a man be made a Knight in all Actions he shall be so named wherefore it seemed to him that the Writ ought to abate Et Adjournetur Hil. 37 Eliz. Hugo against Paine HUgo brought a Writ of Error against Paine upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas upon a Verdict the Error assigned was That one Tippet was returned in the Venire facias but in the Habeas Corpus and the Distringas he was named Tipper and so another person then was named in the Venire tryed the issue Curia Examine what person was sworne and what was his true name to which it was answered that his name was Tippet according to the Venire facias and that he was summoned to appeare to be of the Iury and he inhabits in the same place where Tipper was named and that no such man as Tipper inhabited there and therefore it was awarded by the Court that the Habeas Corpus and Distringas should be amended and his true name put in and Iudgment was affirmed c. Hil. 38 Eliz. Rot. 944. Rainer against Grimston RAiner brought an Action of the case against Grimston in the Kings Bench for these words He was perjured and I will prove him so by two Witnesses without speaking in what Court he was perjured and the Plaintiff had Iudgment and upon Error brought by the Defendant it was moved that the words were not actionable But in the Exchequer Chamber the first Iudgment was affirmed Hil. 39 Eliz. Rot. 859. Chandler against Grills IN a Trespasse the parties were at issue and a Venire facias was awarded on the Roll returnable Octabis Trinitat and the Venire was made six daies after the day of Octabis returnable at a day out of the terme and the Distringas was made and the Iury Impanelled and a Verdict and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in a Writ of Error brought this matter was assigned And the first Iudgment affirmed for this is aided by the Statute being it is the default of the Clark and the case was cited between Thorne and Fulshaw in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 38 39 Eliz. where the Roll being viewed and the Venire not good it was mended and made according to the Roll being that which warrants it and is the act of the Court and the other matter but the mistake of the Clarks But if the Roll were naught then it is erroneous because the Venire is without warrant and no Record to uphold it and so was it held in the case of Water Hungerford and Besie Hil. 39 Eliz. During against Kettle DUring brought an Action against Kettle after a Tryall by Verdict in London and in Arrest of Iudgment it was alledged that the Venire facias is Regina vicecomit London salut praecipimus tibi quod c. where it should be praecipimus vobis c. But ruled by the Court that this Venire being as it were a Iudiciall Writ that ought to ensue the other proceedings it was holden to be amendable and so it was accordingly Pasch 39 Eliz. East against Harding IT was moved Whether if a Lord of a Mannor makes a Lease for years after a Copyholder commits a Forfeiture the Lessee for years shall take advantage hereof and it was said by Popham that the Feoffee or Lessee shall have advantage of all Forfeitures belonging to Land as in case of Feoffment and the like but on the contrary for not doing of Fealty Mich. 39 Eliz. Collins against Willes THe Father makes a promise to Willes that if he would marry his Daughter to pay him 80 l. for her portion but Willes demanded a 100 l. or else did refuse to marry her wherupon the daughter prayed her Father to pay the 100 l. and in consideration therof she did assure him to pay him 20 l. back again The 100 l. is paid and the marriage took effect And the Father brought his Action on the case against the Husband and Wife for the 20 l. Gawdy and Fenner said that the Action would lye but Popham held the consideration void Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. Penn against Merivall IN an Ejectment the Case was If a Copyholder makes a Lease for years which is a forfeiture at the Common Law and after the Lord of a Mannor makes a Feoffment or a Lease for years of the Freehold of this Copyhold to another if the Feoffee or Lessee shall take advantage hereof was the question Popham He shall not for the lease of the Freehold made by the Lord before entry is an assent that the Lessee of the Copyholder shall continue his Estate and so is in nature of an affirmance and confirmation of the Lease to which Clench and Fenner agreed and therefore upon motion made by Yelverton Serjeant and Speaker of the Parliament Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil caplat per Billam Mich. 6 Eliz. ONe enters a plaint in a base Court to pursue in the nature of a writ of entry in the Post and had Summons against the party untill such a day at which time and after Sun-set the Steward came and held the Court and the Summons was returned served and the party made default and Iudgment given the question was If the Iudgment was good Dyer Welch and Benlowes held the Iudgment good although the Court was held at night and Dyer said that if it were erroneous he could have no remedy by Writ of false Iudgment nor otherwise but onely by way of petition to the Lord and he ought in such case to do right according to conscience for he hath power as a Chancellor within his own Court Lane against Coups IN an Ejectment by John Lane against Coup and the Plaintiff declared on a Lease made by William Humpheston the Case was William Humpheston being seised of land in see suffered a common recovery to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder Seniori puero de corpore Gulielmi Humpheston and to the Heirs Males of the body dicti senioris pueri Plowden One point is that when a remainder is limitted Seniori puero in tail if Puer shall be intended a Son or a Daughter also and methinks it shall be intended a Son onely for so are the words in common and usuall speech and words in Deeds ought to be
the 32 H. 8. And the Court held that an Assignee of part of the reversion might take advantage of the condition or covenants so that he hath part of the reversion of all the thing demised And Cook Chief Iustice said that the opinion of Mourson 14 Eliz. 309. a. is good Law Pasch 36 Eliz. Butler against Archer IF two Ioyntenants be of land holden by Herriot service and one dies the other shall not pay Herriot service for there is no change of the tenant but the survivor continues tenant of the whole land But if a man seised of land in Fee makes a feofment to the use of himself and his wife and the heires of their two bodyes begotten the remainder to the right heires of the husband and the husband dyes a Herriot shall be paid for the ancient use of the reversion was never out of the husband Michaelm 29 30 Elizab. Stephens Case in C. B. IN an Ejectment the Case was Sir William Beale made a Lease by Indenture to William Pile and Philip his wife et primogenito proli Habendum to them and the longer liver of them successively during their lives and then the husband and wife had issue a daughter And it was holden by three of the Iustices that the daughter had no estate for that she was not in esse at the time of the grant Michaelm 30 31. Eliz. Lewin against Mandy in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for 20 l. Rent which was pleaded to be granted by Lovelace and Rutland by Fine to Stukeley and his heires who being seized thereof did recite that he with 7 others were Plaintiffs in a Writ of Covenant against Lovelace and Rutland upon which a Fine was levyed by which Fine the said Lovelace and Rutland amongst other things did grant a rent of 20 l. out of the Mannor of D. and other Lands to the said Stukely who granted it to Hoveden under whom the Defendant claymes in Taile The Question was if this were a good grant because there are many misrecitalls in the Indenture for whereas he recited that in the Writ of Covenant for the fine Lovelace and Rutland were Defendants in truth they were Plaintiffs and Stukely and the others Defendants and whereas he recited that the said grant was made to him it was made to him and his heires also he said that the said Rent Charge amongst other things was granted whereas nothing but the 20 l. Rent was granted and that only out of the Mannor of D. and not out of other Lands Anderson If a man recites that he hath a Rent of 10 l. of the grant of J.S. whereas he hath this of the grant of J.D. yet is the grant good And at last it was adjudged that the grant was good Note that Fenner at this time said that it had been resolved by Anderson and Gawdy and other Iustices very lately That if the Kings Tenant dies his heir within age yet the heir at full age before livery sued may bargain and sell by Deed inrolled or make a Lease for years and it is good but if he makes a feofment or leavie a fine â—ur conusance de droit come ceo c. this is voyd because it cannot be without intrusion upon the King Trinit 39 Eliz. Oldfeild against VVilmore in C. B Rot. 2715. IN Debt upon a Bond to performe the award of J.S. who did award that the Defendant should pay 10 l. or cause two strangers to be bound for the payment thereof the Defendant pleaded performance the Plaintiff replyed that he had not payed the money and the Defendant demurred Walmesley for the Plaintiff For although the award be in the disjunctive yet forasmuch as it is voyd as to one part now upon the matter it is single and on the non payment of the ten pound is forfeit 17 Ed. 4.5 Windham and Rhodes held that the Plaintiff should have pleaded so much of the award as was for it is a thing intire and the Law will adjudge that one is only to be done because the other is contrary to the Law Anderson and Peryam The plea is good for a man shall not be compelled to shew a voyd matter and although the Defendant had caused the two strangers to be bound the obligation is broken for as to this arbitrement it is meerely voyd and at another day the Plaintiff had judgment Goodridge against VVarburton IN an Ejectment The Iury gave a speciall verdict that Francis was seised of the land in Tayle and suffered a Recovery to the use of him and his heirs and afterwards did devise the same lands to his wife Margery untill his daughter Prudence came to the age of 19. years and then that Prudence should have the Land to her and the heirs of her body upon condition to pay twelve pound per annum to the said Margaret during her life in recompence of her dower and if she failed of payment then Margaret should enter and hold the Land during her life and afterwards it shall go to Prudence as before And after this John Francis the heire did reverse this recovery by a Writ of Errour and entred upon Margaret and she brought her Writ of Dower and was indowed of the third part and then she levyed a Fine of that third part to the said John Francis and he infeoft Tyndall who made the Lease to Goldsing and then Margaret marryed Warburton and Prudence came to the age of 19. years the Rent of twelve pound is not payd and Warburton and his wife entred and Goldsing brought this action VValmesley By the recovery of the third part in the Writ of Dower the Rent of twelve pound which was in recompence thereof is gone For at the Common Law if a woman recover in Dower she hath waived that which was assigned to her in lien of her Dower as in case of Dower ad ostium Ecclesiae and 10 Edw. 4. If the husband discontinues the Land of his wise and she brings a Writ of Dower she is concluded to have a Cui in vita Shuttleworth cont By this recovery the estate taile is revived yet as this case it is is not materiall for because he entred without a sult he is a Disseisor and that was agreed by all at the Bar and the Bench. And he cited 26 H. 8. 3d. 4th H. 7.11 And I conceive that the Dower will not conclude her of the twelve pound per annum for it is not a Rent and the title to have the Land for her Ioynture for non-payment the Rent was not in esse at the time of the recovery of her Dower but afterwards as if a Lease he made to a woman who marries the Lessor who dies within the terme and the wise enters this shall not conclude her Dower after the Lease is expired by the eleventh of H. 4. Also the twelve pound is not appointed to be issuing out of the Land and so it cannot be a Ioynture and therefore
a Report 34 Eliz. between Badinton and Hawle in the Kings Bench adjudged that if the Queens Copyholder be outed and a Lease be made for years by the Intrudor this Lessee shall not have an Ejectment if he be outed but he shall have an Action of Trespasse against any stranger The second exception was taken to the pleading because the Defendant pleaded in que estate del Lessee del Abbe without shewing how he came to the Estate And by the Court a good exception for he shall be compelled to shew how he came to an Estate in the terme inasmuch as it cannot be by loyall means vide 1. 2 Eliz. Dyer 171. that a Que Estate of a particular Estate of a terme is not good and 7 Eliz. Dyer 238. where the Plea was of a que Estate of a Termor and exception taken to it and the difference between it and a Freehold so in the 7 H. 6.440 it was agreed that H. could not convey an Interest by a que Estate of a particular Estate as Intail for life or years without shewing how he came by the Estate be it on the part of the Plaintiff or the Defendant The third exception was that the Defendant pleaded a Lease made by the Abbot and Covent by Indenture as it ought to be without saying Hic in curia prolat which exception was also clearly allowed by the Court for he is privy to it and therefore he ought to shew it And for these two exceptions but especially for the former Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 36 and 37 Eliz. in C. B. Palmers Case Action on the case for words PAlmer an utter Barrester of Lincolns-Inn brought an Action on the Case against Boyer for these words Palmer being Steward to I.S. the Defendant in discourse had with I.S. said I marvail you will have such a paltry Lawyer for your Steward for he hath as much Law as a Jack a Napes And the Plaintiff shewed all the matter in the Declaration and that by reason of such words he was displaced of his Office Williams Serjeant did move in that the words were not That he hath no more Law then c. for then those words were actionable but that he hath as much Law as c. for which words no Action will lye But resolved by the Court that the Action will lye for the words are standerous and prejudiciall to his credit and by reason of them he was discharged of his Stewardship also an Action will lye for saying That he hath as much Law as a Jack an Apes or my Horse because they are unreasonable creatures but if he had said that he hath no more Law then I.S. that is not actionable although I.S. be no Lawyer And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 35 Eliz. in B. R. Audleys Case A Man brought an Action of Debt on an Obligation made by the Father of the Defendant in which Writ the Defendant was named Son and Heir apparent of the Obligor Iudgment was given against the Defendant whereupon he brought a Writ of Error for the Writ does imply that his Father was living for he is his Heire in truth and in fact if his Father be dead and not apparent To which was answered that that was but Surplusage which shall not abate the Writ as appeares by the Book of the 10 Edw. 3. But the Court held that Iudgment should be reverst for he ought to be named Heire as in debt against Executors he shall be named Executor And Iudgment was reverst Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Downinghams Case Ejectment THe Defendant in an Ejectione firmae pleaded that the Lord of the Mannor did enter into the Land of a Copyholder by reason of forfeiture for Waste committed in suffering the houses to be uncovered by which the timber is become rotten and did not alledge in facto that the Custome of the Mannor is that such Waste is a forfeiture for it was said that although other Waste by the Common Law is a forfeiture yet this permissive Waste is not Sed non allocatur for all Waste done by a Coppholder is forfeitable 2. It was resolved that if a Coppholder made a Lease for yeares which is not according to the Custome of the Mannor yet this Lease is good so that the Lessee may maintain an Ejectione firmoe for between the Lessor and the Lessee and all other except the Lord of the Mannor the Lease is good and so hath it been severall times adjudged in this Court Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Wisdomes Case Action on the case for words STich brought an Action on the Case for slanderous words against Wisdome the words were There is many a truer and honester man hanged and that there was a Robbery committed whereof he thought him to be one and that he thought him to be a Horse-stealer And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words were not actionable for it is not said in facto that he was in the Robbery or that he was a a horse-stealer in fact but onely by imagination that he thought he was such a one but Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 815. Palmers Case CHristopher Palmer brought an Ejectione firmae against John Humphrey and declared that one George Hanger the eighteenth day of May in the six and thirtieth year of Eliz. by his Indenture did demise unto him a certain peece of Land called the great Ashbroke and other peece of Land called Stocking and also divers other peeces of Land naming the peeces and of one Garden called Muchins Gardein and of another peece of Meadow called Michins Meade and of seven acres of arable Land for the terme of two years by vertue whereof the said Christopher entred untill the Defendant by force and armes c. did eject him and did set forth in his Declaration that the Defendant ejected him out of the said peeces of Land and yet did not expresse the contents thereof in certainty And upon not-guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and for the seven arable acres of Land and the Garden the Court gave their Iudgment that it was certain enough but as to the other peeces of land the Court was divided For Popham Gawdy held that it was certain enough being in an Ejectione firmae which is but in the nature of an Action of Trespasse and the damages are the principall and a man may bring an Action of Trespasse for a peece of land without any other certainty But Clench and Fenner were on the contrary for he ought to set forth his terme in the land and then to shew the contents thereof as well in an Ejectment as in a Precipe quod reddat by which land is demanded and a man shall have an Ejectione firmae de una visgata terrae but shall not have a Precipe quod reddat of one portion of land by Skeene and Hill 7 H. 4.40 9 H. 6.3
Replevin against Edmund Brach and others the Defendant made Conulance as Baily to John Levison and said that long time before the taking c. one William Coup was seised of a house and eight acres of Meadow c. whereof the place is parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and did demise the same to Richard Coup for one and twenty years reserving Rent and the Lessee died and the Land came to his Wife as his Executrix who married Roger Owseley and that William Coup did levy a Fine of the Premisses to Stephen Noke and others to the use of Stephen and his Heires and after Stephen entred and outed the Termor and infeoffed John Leveson and his Heires and then the Termor re-enters claiming his Terme and for Rent arreare the Defendant made Counsans as aforesaid and it was adjudged against the Defendant because this entry and Feoffment by Noke to Leveson and the re-entry of the Termor is no Attornment and this varies from Littleberries case where the Lessor entred and made a Feoffment and the Lessee re-entred for Noke the Lessor had not any Attornment and can have no Distresse and his Feoffee cannot be in better case then he himself And if the first Feoffee makes Feoffment to B. who enfeoffs C. and the Lessee re-enters that is Attornment but to the first Feoffee and not the other for he may be misconusant of it because he was outed by the Lessor but note Iudgment was not given till Trin. 36 Eliz. Pasch 36 Eliz. in C. B. Owens Case EDward Owen brought an Action of Waste against Peerce for land in ancient Demesne the Defendant made defence and pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court because the land was ancient Demesne and the Defendant was ruled to plead over for it is but a personall Action and the Statute is a beneficiall Statute for the Common-wealth and by the opinion of all the Court except Walmsley does extent to ancient Demesne 40 Ed. 3.4 Ancient Demesne is a good plea in Replevin 2 H. 7.17.21 Ed. 4.3 it is no good plea in an action upon the Statute or Glocester Mich. 33 and 34 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2122. Sir Edward Cleeres Case SIr Edward Cleere brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Norwich Edward Peacock and Robert Hinston Clerk to present to an Addowson holden in Capite Anderson A Devise of an Addowson in grosse is void because it is of annuall value whereof the King shall have the third part But Owen Beaumont and Walmsley held the contrary and so it it was adjudged See the Case of the Earle of Huntington against the Lord of Montjoy of a Devise of Liberties of Cramford which were not of any annuall value and yet the opinion of Wray and Anderson Iustices was certified to some of the Councell being Arbitrators that the Devise was not good Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2145. Brownes Case ANthony Brown brought an Action of Trespasse against Richard Pease the Case was this John Warren was seised in fee of the Mannor of Warners and of the Mannor of Cherchall and demised his Mannor of Warners to the youngest Son of Richard Foster his Cosin in fee. at which time Richard the Father had issue George Foster and John Foster And he demised his Mannor of Cherchall in haec verba I will my Mannor of Cherchall to Margery Water for her life and if she die and then any of my Cosin Fosters Sons then living then I will my foresaid Mannor of Cherchall unto him that shall have my Manner of Warners and after the Devisor died without issue and the Reversion of the Mannor of Cherchall discended to Henry Warner as Brother and Heire of the Devisor And after the said Henry Warner by Deed Inrolled did bargain and sell the Mannor of Cherchall to Anthony Browne who devised it to the Plaintiff And then George Foster dies without issue and the Mannor of Warners does discend to Iohn Foster his Brother and Heire who enters and enfeoffs the Lord Rich and after marriage the Tenant for life of the Mannor of Cherchall dies and the Plaintiff enters and the Defendant enters upon him as Servant to Iohn Foster whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because that the words and the intent of the Devise was that the Mannors of Warners and Cherchall should go together and therefore the Mannor of Warners was sold before the death of Margery by John Foster and after the death of Margery John can take nothing by the Devise Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2325. or 2929. Hambletons Case JOhn Hambleton had issued foure Sons John the eldest Robert the second Richard the third and Thomas the fourth and devised to each of them a parcell of land to them and the Heirs Males of their body begotten and if it happen that any of their Heirs dye without issue Male of his body lawfully begotten then the Survivor to be each others Heire If these words make a Remainder or are void was the question And it was adjudged against the Plaintiff for the Court held that all those that survived were Ioynt-tenants and one Ioynt-Tenant cannot have a Trespasse against the other for by the intent of the Will it appears that the Survivors should have that part and the survivority of each other Heire each Survivor that is all that survive shall be each others Heire and so the remainder should be to every one of them 29 Eliz. Fenners Case argued before the Lord Mayor of London at Guildhall IN this Case it was adjudged that if a man Covenants that his Son then within age and infra annos nubiles before such a day shall marry the Daughter of I.S. and he does marry her accordingly and after at the age of consent he disagrees to the marriage yet is the Covenant performed for it is a marriage and such a one as the Covenantee would have untill the disagreement vide 7 H. 6.12 Dyer 143.313 369. 25 Eliz. Webbe against Potter IN an Ejectione firmae by Webbe against Potter the Case was Harris gave Land in Frank-marriage to one White and the Deed was Dedi concessi Iohan. White in liberum maritagium Iohannae filiae meae habend dictae Ioannae heredibus in perpetuum tenend de capitalibus Dominis feodi illius with Warranty to Iohn White and his Heires Periam The usuall words in Frank-marriage shall not be destroyed for the words of Frank-marriage are Liberum maritagium cum Ioanna filia mea in the Ablative case and although here it be in the Dative case it is good And of the same opinion were all the Iudges Also a Gift in Frank-marriage made after the Espousals was held good by all the Iustices 2 H. 3. Donor 199.4 Ed 3.8 Dyer 262 B. And a Gift in Frank-marriage before the Statute was a Fee-simple but now speciall taile and if it be not a Frank-marriage he shall have an Estate for life and to prove this his
shall not have an Action of Debt untill the last year expired And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff viz. Mich. 29. Eliz. Rot. 2248. 28 Eliz. Between Sticklehorne and Hatchman ADjudged by the Court that if for not scouring of a Ditch or Mote the Groundsells of the house are putrified or Trees cut downe which are in defence of the house whereby the house by tempests is blown down Waste shall be assigned in Domibus pro non Scourando c. IN an Ejectione firmae Broker Prothenotary said that where the title of him in the Reversion is not disclosed in pleading nor cometh in question aid shall not be granted Pasch 28 Eliz. in C. B. Yardley against Pescan THe Queen seised of an Advowson being void the Ancestor of Pescan presented and so gained it by usurpation and then the Church being void he presented again and his Clark is now dead and then the Queen grants the Advowson to Yardley the Plaintiff and he brings a Quare Impedit in the name of the Queen supposing that this usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession and it was argued that the Grant could not passe without speciall words because it is of the nature of a Chose in Action and this was moved the last terme and then Dyer Meade and Windham held that this usurpation did gaine possession out of the Queen and that she should be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson and now this terme Fenner moved the case againe and the opinion of Anderson that was the chief Iustice of the Common Pleas was clearly that the Queen was not out of possession for he said that it was a rule in our Books that of a thing which is of Inheritance the act of a common person will not put the Queen out of possession but if she had but a Chattell as the next Advowson then perhaps it is otherwise But Meade and Windham held very earnestly the contrary and they relied on the Book of 18 Ed. 3.15 where Shard said that if the King had an Advowson in his owne right and a stranger who had no right did happen to present that put the King out of possession And the King shall be put to his Writ of Right as others shall vide 47 Ed. 3.14 B. 18 Ed. 3.16 The Defendant there did alledge two Presentments in his Ancestor after the Title of the King and demanded Iudgment if the King should have a Writ of possession and the plea was admitted to be good but after Pasch 25 Eliz. Iudgment was given for the Queen for that she might very well maintain a Quare Impedit and the two Presentments did not put her out of possession 31 Eliz. Rot. 211. SIr Robert Rowley made the Lord Keeper Sir Robert Catlin and the Master of the Rols his Executors and did devise a terme to Sir Robert Catlin and died and they writ their Letters to the Ordinary certifying that they were made Executors but that they could not attend the executing of the Executorship and therefore they required him to commit the Administration to the next of kin ut lex postulat The Ordinary enters in the Register Quia Executors praedicti per testamentum praedictum distulerunt c. and thereupon committed the Administration over Afterwards the Lord Catlin received the Rent of the Farme and after granted it to a stranger The Administrator ousted the Lessee and he brings an Ejectment And if this writing was a refusall in the Executors or not was the question And it was said by Ford Doctor of the Civill Law that it was a refusall and he said that if Legatees being Executors do refuse to prove the Will yet by the Civill Law they shall have their Legacies But adjudged by the Court that if Legatees do refuse to prove the Testament that by the Common Law they have no remedy for their Legacies for by the refusall there is a dying Intestate and then nothing could be devised and also said that this Writing was a refusall of the Executors so that the Ordinary might presently commit Administration and therefore Sir Robert Catlin could take nothing as Legatee Pasch 31 Eliz. THe Array of a Pannell was challenged because the Sheriff was Cosin to the Plaintiff and upon a Traverse it was found that they were Cosins but not in such manner as the Defendant had alledged and per curiam the Array was quasht for the manner is not materiall but whether he be a Cosin or not 18 H. 6.18 Pasch 31 Eliz. IT was resolved in the case of Miles against Snowball that if the Sheriff return one who hath no Freehold yet he shall be sworne in the Iury if he be not challenged by the parties And after upon the evidence it was moved If a woman make a Deed of Feoffment to severall persons of a house and land wherein she her self inhabiteth and is seised and delivers the Deed to the Feoffers without saying any thing if this be a good Feoffment of which Periam doubted because she did inhabit there all the time but if it were of other lands on which she did not dwell and she comes there to make Libery and delivers the Deed upon the land and saies no words yet is this a good Feoffment because she comes thither to malte Livery Anderson The Feoffment in this case is good for if she hath an intent to make Livery the delivery of the Deed is good Livery Quod Periam tota Curia concesserunt if she had intended to make Livery vide Co. lib. 6 26. lib. 9.136 Dyer 192. Pasch 31 Eliz. A Woman brought an Action of Debt as Administratrix to another the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was an Alien born in Gaunt under the obedience or Philip King of Spain the Queens enemy And Walmsley moved for the Plaintiff that this was no plea because that the recovery is to anothers use but the Court was against him for the Court will not suffer that any enemy shall take advantage of our Law and then he moved that that King was no enemy because Wars were not proclaimed But Anderson said that a more open enemy then King Philip cannot be who had conspired the death of the Queen and had endeavoured to invade the Realm and subvert the State which Windham granted but Periam haerebat aliquantulum whether he could be called enemy in law before such proclamation But Walmsley said that the plea was that the woman was born under the obedience of the Emperor who was in amity with the Queen and the Court replied Plead as you will abide by it Pasch 13 Eliz. IN a trespasse of Assault and Battery the Plaintiff declared to his damages of twenty pounds and the Iury found for the Plaintiff and gave thirty pounds damages And by the Court the Plaintiff shall recover no more then he hath declared for and this ought to be done of course by the Clarks 2 H. 6.7.8 H. 6.4.42 Ed. 3.7 Mich. 30. and 31 Eliz.
Rot. 610. Bond against Richardson In Debt the Defendant pleaded payment at the day and gave in evidence payment at another day before the day of payment and so was it found by the Iury in a speciall Verdict And Anderson said We are all agreed that Iudgment shall be given against the Plaintiff for payment before the day is payment at the day and Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Willis against Whitewood A Man was seised of lands in Socage and made a Lease for years by Paroll and died his wife was Guardian in Socage to his Son and the Lessee accepted of a new Lease by Deed of the Guardian in Socage and then the Guardian died and a new Guardian entred and outed the Lessee and if the second Guardian could do this was the question Anderson It cannot be a surrender for a Guardian hath no Estate that may be surrendred but it is an extinguishment of the Lease and if a Woman Guardian in Socage takes Husbandâ— and dies the Husband shall not be Guardian in Socage Almeskey against Johnson JOhnson had a second deliverance returned which was returned Averia eloigniata c. whereupon he prayed a Withernam of the Cattle of the Plaintiff and it was granted and then came the Plaintiff and satisfied the Defendant his damages and charges and praid a Writ of Restitution to have his Cattle again taken in Withernam Fleetwood Cattle taken in Withernam are not repleiditable how then can you have your Cattle and then we shall not be paid for the meat And the Court held that the Cattle were not repleivisable but for satisfaction of damages he shall have restitution of the Cattle and so is the course which was confirmed by the Clarks And Walmesley cited 16 H. 6. Repleviâ—… to warrant this And as to the meat he had the use of the Cattle whereby it was reason he should sustain them And a Writ of Restitution was granied Mich. 31 and 32 Eliz. IN case of a Farmer of Dame Lineux Manwood it was said that the Order called the Cistrenses Order hav a priviledge that they should pay no Tythes for the lands that Proprils manibus excolunt but if they let it to Farmers then they were to pay Tythes and now comes the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. If the Queen should pay Tythes was the question And it was said that the Queen and her Farmers also should hold the land discharged of Tythes as well as the particular persons of the Order should for the King cannot be a Husband and therfore his Farmers shall hold the land discharged so long as the King hath the Freehold in him although he make a Lease thereof for years at will but to if the King sell the land to another or the reversion to another then the Farmers shall pay Tythes Mich. 31 Eliz. IT was said by the Barons in the case of one Beaumont that a Debt which is not naturally a Debt in it self but a Debt onely by circumstance may be assigned to the Queen As where a man is bound in a Bond to save another harmlesse and failes thereof the Obligation may be assigned to the Queen But in such case a present extent shall not be awarded but the Processe shall be onely a Scire facias against the party to see if he hath any thing to plead against it which note well And where a man recovers damages in an Action on the case parcell of the damages cannot be assigned to the King before execution for he must bring a Scire facias upon such Record And Manwood chief Baron held clearly that a moyely hereof could not be assigned over 22 H. 6.47 One was indicted of Treason at S. Edmundsbury Coram Justiciariis ad diversas felonias c. audiendas and after the Indictment made mention of Bury and did not say praedict and by the opinion of the Iustices the Iudgment was quasht Trin. 30 Eliz. AN Action of the Case was brought against one Gilbert for saying that the Plaintiff was a Suitor to a Widow in Southwark and that he consened her of her money in procuring false witnesses to consen her And a Verdict found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was said that in the case of Kerby it was adjudged that Cousener will not beare Action and so was it adjudged in this case Mosse against Reade THe Defendant called him Theef and thou forgest a Deed and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff and in Arrest of Iudgment it was said that Theef generally without saying of what nature specially will not bear Action But Wray chief Iustice denied that and said that it had of late been adjudged to the contrary and Gawdy against him But as to the words that he had forged a Deed adjudged that the Action will lye although it be not specially alledged what manner of Deed was forged Pasch 32 Eliz. COllings informed upon the Statute of buying of Tythes against Robert Davyes and Stock And it was said by Periam that although the words of the Statute be Pro termino diversorum annorum yet if a Lease be made but for one year yet is it within the penalty of the Statute Mich. 31 and 32 Eliz. CRipps brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Canterbury and others and declared upon a Grant of the next avoidance and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Deed and the Plaintiff shewed a Letter which was written by his Father to the true Patron by which he had writ to his Father that he had given to his Son that was the Plaintiff the next avoidance and upon this there was a Demur And the whole Court for the Demur for that such Letter was a mockery for the Grant was not good without Deed and Iudgment was given accordingly In Tymbermans Case it was said that if a Sheriff took one in Execution by force of a Capias although he return not the Writ yet an Action of Debt will lye against him upon an escape and Periam said it had been so adjudged Katherine Gilham brought an Ejectment as Administratrix to her Husband Quare determino eject bona catalla sua ibidem inventa cepit c. and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and it was alledged in Arrest of Iudgment that this word Sua shall not be intended her own Goods and not the Testators And the Court was of opinion that Sua shall be intended in such manner as Administrator and no otherwise And therefore Iudgment was affirmed Mich. 31 and 32 Eliz. Baldwin against Mortin USe to the Husband and Wife habendum to the Husband for thirty years the Wife shall take nothing thereby and this case was argued at the Bar and Bench and was called the Earl of Cumberlands case Fleetwood moved that an Action was brought against the Husband and his Wife and dit declare a trover of the Goods of the Plaintiff by the Wife which she converted to her own use and prayed
Chaplaines they cannot take many Benefices during the lives of the others which are beneficed and discharged of their Services for if the Law were otherwise the Lords might make any capable of holding Benefices by admitting them to be their Chaplaines In an Action of false Imprisonment brought against the Maior Citizens Sheriffs and Commonalty of Norwich it was moved where the Issue should be tried And by the Court the Issue shall not be tryed there and in the same case it was moved whether the Sheriff could summon himself and it was answered by the Court that he could not and Periam said that so it had been after adjudged Mich. 29. and 30 Eliz. IN an Avowry adjudged by the Court Anderson being absent that in an Avowry it is sufficient for the Avowant to say Son Franktenement but if the Plaintiff traverse it it is no plea without he makes to him a Title that is the difference of pleading Son Franktenement on the part of the Avowant and on the part of the Plaintiff And Welson said that so were all the Presidents that it is no plea to traverse the Bar in the Avowry without making Title And Periam said that it is no Title to plead De son seisin demesne but he must make out his Title Paramount his Seisin Demesue Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Bloss against Holman JOhn Bloss brought an Action of Trespasse Quare vi armis for taking of his Goods against Holman and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Iury gave a speciall Verdict viz. That the Plaintiff at the time of the Trespasse was of the Mystery of the Mercers and that at that time the Defendant was his Servant and put in trust to sell his Goods and Merchandizes in Shopa sua ibidem de tempore in tempus and that he took the Goods of the Plaintiff named in the Declaration and carried them away and prayed the advice of the Court if the Defendant were culpable or not and upon the Postea returned Shuttleworth prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff And the doubt was because the Declaration was Quare vi armis because it appeared that the Defendant had custody of the Goods but Shuttleworth doubted whether he had Custody and cited the case of Littleton viz. If I give my Sheep to Compasture c. and he kills them an Action of trespasse lies and the Iustices held that in this case the Action did well lye and Periam said that the Defendant had onely an authority and not custody or possession and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff 3 H. 7.12.21 H. 7.14 And Windham said that if he had imbezelld his Masters Goods without question it was felony Quod fuit concessum Anderson absente and the Law will not presume that the goods were out of the possession of the Plaintiff and the next day came the Lord Anderson and rehearsed the case and said that the Defendant had neither generall nor speciall property in the Goods for it is plaine he could have no generall property and speciall he had not for he could not have an action of Trespasse if they were taken away then if he had no property a trespasse lies against him if he take them so if a Shepheard steal Sheep it is felony for he hath no property in them wherefore he gave Iudgment accordingly Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 1410. Cooke against Baldwin A Lease was mate for one and twenty years to one Truepenny and Elizabeth if she and he or any Child or Children between them lawfully begotten should so long live and then they were married and the Wise died without Issue If the Lease be determined or not was the question And it was moved that it was determined because it is conjunctive if he and she c. and now one of them is dead without issue and it is not like the case of Chapman where a man covenants to enfeoff one and his Heires for it is impossible to enfeoff his Heires he living and therefore in that case it shall be taken for a disjunctive and if I make a Lease for years to two if one of them dye the other shall have all because they take by way of interest but it a Lease be made to two during the life of one of them if one dye the Lease is gone Quod fuit concessum And here the meaning is that the Lease shall be determined if one of them dye Rhodes Iustice The meaning is against you for by the word or which comes after it appears that they are to have their lives in it Anderson By the words it is plain that after the death of one the Lease is determined and that which moves me to think it was so intended is because it was intended as it seems to me to be a Ioynture for the wife which was made by them before marriage and then if by the death of one it should be gone and she have nothing could not be the meaning To which the other Iustices assented And all the Iudges agreed that the Lease was not determined by the death of one and Iudgment given accordingly Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. IN a Quare Impedit by Sir Thomas Gorge Knight against the Bishop of Lincolne and Dalton Incumbent the Case was That a Mannor with the Advowson appendant was in the hands of the King and the Church became void and the King grants the Mannor with the Advowson If the Grantee shall have the Presentation or the King was the question And all the Iustices held clearly that the avoidance would not passe because it was a Chatiell vested And Periam said that in case of a common person without question an Advowson appendant would not passe by such Grant for if the Father dye it shall go to his Executor but if it be an Advowson in grosse in case of a common person there is some doubt But in the principall case all the Iudges held ut supra and said that so it was in 9 Ed. 3.26 Quare Impedit 31. And in Dyer in the case of the Church of Westminster but F.N.B. is contrary 33 N. Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 728. HOuse and Elkin brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation made to them against Roger Grindon as Sheriffs of London upon condition of appearance at a certain day in the Kings Bench The Defendant pleaded that he being arrested by a Precept out of the Kings Bench appeared at the day And upon this they were at issue to be tried by the Country And a Repleader was awarded because it was triable by Record for although the Sheriff do not return the Processe yet the Defendant ought to come into the Court at the day and there speciall entry shall be made of his appearance And so was it adjudged this terme in the Case between Bret and Shepheard But Bradford Prothonotary said it was well enough for it may be that he appeared there and there was no Record of it To which it was answered that it
that the Estate-tail was not barred Dyer The Estate tail is barred and made a difference where the Fine is defeated by entry by reason of the Estate-tail and where it is defeated by entry by reason of another estate-tail as in 40 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levies a Fine to a stranger and retakes an Estate in Fee before the Proclamations passe the Discontinuee enters and then the Tenant in tail dies seised and adjudged that the Issue is not remitted for the Statute 32 H. 8. saies That a Fine levied of lands any way intailed by the party that levies the Fine shall bind him and so it is not materiall whether he were seised by force of the Estate-tail or by reason of another Estate or whether he have no Estate And all the Iustices were of opinion that the Estate was barred for although the discontinue had avoided the Fine by the possession yet the Estate-tail remains concluded and the same shall not enter by force of the Estate-tail but by force of the Fee which he had by discontinuance Popham Avoidance of a Fine at this day differs much from avoidance of a Fine at the Common Law for it appears by the 16 Ed 3. that if a Fine at the Common Law be defeated by one who hath right it is defeated against all but at this day the Law is contrary for if a man be disseised and the Disseisor die seised his Heir within age and he is disseised by a stranger who levies a Fine and then five years passe the Heire shall avoid this by his nonage yet the first Disseisee is bound for ever for the Infant shall not avoid the Fine against all but only to restore the possession And therefore it was adjudged in the Lord Sturtons Case 24 Eliz. where Lands were given to him and his Wife and the Heires of him and he died and his Issue entred and levied a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passed the Mother enters it was adjudged that the Issue was barred for the Wife shall not avoid this but for her own Estate And so if a stranger enters to the use of him who hath right this shall not avoid the Fine Fenner did agree to this and said that it had been so adjudged but all the Iustices agreed that the Estate-taile being barred the entry shall go to the benefit of him who hath most right to the possession and that is the discontinue and therefore the Plaintiff in the Formedon hath good Title to the Land but onely to the Fee and not to the Intaile for that is barred by the Fine 28 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2130. Gibson against Mutess IN a Replevin the Case was John Winchfeild was seised of Lands in Fee and by his Will did devise all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Winchfeild and his Heires and before his death made a Deed of Feoffment of the same Lands and when he sealed the Feoffment he asked If this Feoffment will not hurt this last Will if it will not I will seal it And then he sealed it and made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery in any of the said Lands the Attorney made Livery but not of the Lands which were in question and then the Testator died And the question was if the Devisee or Heire of the Devisor should have the Land And it was said in behalf of the Heire that if the Testator had said It shall not be my Will then it is a Revocation Quod curia concessit But it was the opoinion of the Court that it appears that it was the intent of the Testator that his Will should stand and if it be not a Feoffment it is not a Revocation in Law although that the Attorney made a Livery in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet as concerning the Land in question whereof no Livery was made the Will is good and the Iury found accordingly that the Land does not descend to the Heire Fenner cited a Case of Serjeant Jeffereys where it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and being demanded if he will make his Will doth say he will not that this is no Revocation Sir Wolston Dixy against Alderman Spencer 20 Eliz. in C. B. IN a Writ of Errour brought upon a Iudgement given in an Assize of Fresh-force in London The case was Sir Wolston Dixy brought an Action of Debt for rent arrear against Spencer upon a Lease for years made to him by one Bacchus who afterwards granted the reversion to Dixy and the Tenant attorned and for rent arrear Dixy brought an action c. The Defendant pleaded in Bar that before the Grant made to Dixy the said Bacchus granted it to him by parole according to the custome of London whereupon he demanded Iudgement if c. and the Plea was entred on Record and hanging the suit Dâ—xy brought an assize of fresh force in London and all this matter was here pleaded and it was adjudged a forfeiture of the Land and hereupon Spencer brought a Writ of Errour and assigned this for errour that it was no forfeiture Shuttleworth It is no forfeiture untill a Trial be had whether the reversion be granted or not as in wast the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff had granted over his estate this is no forfeiture and in the 26 Eliz. in a Quid Juris clamat the Defendant pleaded that he had an estate Tail and when he came to have it tryed he acknowledged he had an estate but for life and that was no forfeiture But the Court said they could remember no such Case Walmesley It was so adjudged and I can shew you the names of the parties Periam Justice If there be such a Case we would doubt of it for there are Authorities to the contrary as the 8 Eliz. and 6 Rich. 2. Anderson If the Defendant in a Trespass prayes in aid of an estranger this is a forfeiture and if it be counter-pleaded it is a forfeiture and the denial alters not the Case Walmesley The Books in 15 Ed. 2. Judgement 237. and 15 Ed. 1. that Iudgement in a Quid Juris clamat shall be given before the forfeiture Andâ—rson In my opinion he may take advantage before Iudgement as well as after if the Plea be upon Record And so was the opinion of the Court. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case Pasch 4 5 Ph. Mary in C. B. IN a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Exeter the Writ was ad respondendum Andrew Stoke Dennisae Franciscae de Suffolk Uxori eâ—uâ— Benlowes demanded Iudgement of the Writ c. because she lost her name of dignity by marriage with a base man as it was adjudged 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. where Madam Powes and her husband brought a Writ of Dower and the Writ abated because she called her self Dame Powes whereas she had lost her dignity by marrying with her husband Stanford agreed for Mulier nobilis si
estate and therefore the Release here is good Anderson We are all agreed that the Release is void and gave Iudgment that the Plaintiff should be baned Bretton against Barnet Mich. 41. 42. Eliz. A Man delivers money to J.S. to be redelivered to him when he should be required which J.S. refused and therefore an action of debt was brought and the defendant demurred for that an action of debt would not lie but an account as in the 41 Ed. 3.31 33. Walmesley An action of debt will very well lie And he took a difference between goods and money for if a horse be delivered to be redelivered there the property is not altered and therefore a Detinue lies for they are goods known but if money be delivered it cannot be known and therefore the property is alterd and therefore a Debt will lie And if Portugalls or other money that may be known be deliverd to be redelivered a Detinue lies Owen and Glanvill agreed to this and Glanvill cited a Iudgment given in Hilary Term wherein he was of Councell which was that a man delivers money to another to buy certain things for him and he does not buy them the party may bring an action of debt but he said that the Plaintiff ought to aver that the Defendant had not redeliverd them And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 41. 42. Eliz. Green against Wiseman in C. B. IN an Ejectment The Defendant pleaded that a Feoffment was made to the use of J.S. the Lessor of the Defendant who by force thereof and of the Statute was seised and made a lease to the Defendant and that one Green entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff and did not say that he entred upon J.S. And all the Question was whither when a feoffment is made to the use of another if he have such a seisin before his entry whereof he may be disseised Glanvill He hath no freehold neither in Deed nor in Law before entry Walmesley This is contrary to all the Books for a possession in Law is so translated from the Feoffee to Cestuy que use that the wife of the feoffee shall not be endowed Owen He ought to have alledged a Disseisin Anderson As he might have possession by force of a Devise at Common Law so he shall have possession of the land here by force of the Statute and it is in Cestuy que use before agreement or entry but if he disagree then it shall be out of him presently but not before he disagree And after viz. Hillar 42. Eliz. Williams moved the case again and Walmesley said then that he might be disseised before his entrie or agreement and the pleading shall be that he did enter and did disseise him but he shall not have a trespass without actuall entrie for that is grounded on a possession Glanvill agreed to this and advised Williams to adventure the case thereupon Hillar 41 Eliza. Smiths Case in C. B. THe Patron of an advouson before the Statute of 31 Eliz. For Symony doth sell Proximam advocationem for a sum of money to one Smith and he sells this to Smith the Incumbent After which comes the generall pardon of the Queen whereby the punishment of Smith the Incumbent is pardon'd and of Smith the Patron also If the Incumbent may be removed was the Question Williams said that the Doctors of the Civill Law informed him that the Law Spirituall was that for Symony the Patron lost his presentment and the Ordinary shall present and if he present not within six months then the Metropolitan and then the King Spurling Serjeant This punishment cannot discharge the forfeiture although it dischargeth the punishment Glanvill contra And said that this point was in question when the Lord Keeper was Atturney and then both of them consulted thereupon and they made this diversity viz. between a thing void and voidable and for Symony the Church is not void untill sentence declaratory and therfore they held that by the pardon before the sentence all is pardon'd as where a man committs Felony and before conviction the King pardons him by this pardon the Lord shall lose his Escheate for the Lord can have no Escheate before there be an attaindor but that is prevented before by the pardon and so here this pardon prevents the sentence Declaratory and so no title can accrue to the Ordinary Walmesley cont If the patron be charged by the sentence he may plead the pardon But if a Quare Impedit be brought by a third person the pardon of the King shall be no bar to him for the title appeares not to him but only the punishment Anderson They may proceed to sentence Declaratory notwithstanding the pardon for the pardon is of the punishment but the sentence does not extend to that but only to declare that the Church is void Glanvill in 16 Eliz. a man was deprived of his Benefice for incontinency and after he was pardond and restor'd Walmsley I doubt much whither the King can pardon Symony And Williams said that the Doctors of Civill Law said that neither the Pope nor the King could pardon Symony quoad culpam but only quoad poenam they may And the Court at last said that if the parties would not demur they would hear the Doctors upon this matter Jelsey against Robinson Trinit 25. Eliz. continued untill Pasch 28 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 704. 1544. UPon a speciall verdict upon an Ejectment the Iury gave this speciall verdict That the King was seised of the Mannor of Freemington and of the hundred there and granted this to Hâ—…pton to hold of the Mannor of East-Greenwich by fealty and 13 l. Rent and then the King being seised of the Mannor of Crankford of which the place in Question was parcell does grant his Mannor of Crankford and his Mannor of Freemington to the Marquess of Exceter and his heirs who by his Will does devise Legacies to his servants and does devise that all his Legacies shall be payd out of the Mannors of Freem ngton Uplaing and Crankford All which Mannors I give to my Cosen Blunt and his heires And the Defendant as servant to Baker who was heir to the Marquess did eject the Plaintiff the question was if by the Devise of the Mannor of Freemington the Rent of 13 l. did passe or not if it does not passe then by the Statute of 32 H. 8. the 3. part of the Mannor of Crankford does not go to the deuisee but descends to the heire at the Common Law Shuttleworth for the Plaintiffe The seigniory does not passe by the devise of the Mannor for the intent thereof shall be collected by the words of the Will 15 H. 7.12 a. 19 H. 8.9 6. but here he limits a distresse out of a Lordship which cannot be 3 H. 6. Also it is doubtfull if the seignory being entire may be divided by force of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. And I thinke not for when the
Perryn against Allen in C. B. Rot. 611. 612. IN a debt upon a Lease for years It was found that on Gibson was seised of Land in Lease for thirty years and he let the Land to Perryn for 19. years rendring 10. l. rent and that afterwards it was articled and agreed between Gibson and one J.S. that Pâ—rryn should have and hold the Lands which he had and also other lands which he had for terme of 3. years rendring a greater rent to which Articles Perryn at another time and place afterwards agreed but the intent of the articles and agreement betwixt them was not that the first Terme to Perryn should be extinct That afterwards Perryn letted this Land to the Defendant Allen for 17. years rendring Rent and then the three years expired and Gibson grants his term to J.S. who enters c. If this agreement amounts to a surrender was the question Hanam for the Plaintiff It is not for to a surrender three things are incident First an actuall possession in him who surrenders Secondly an actuall remainder or reversion in him to whom the surrender is made Thirdly consent and agreement between the parties But to all these the Plaintiff was a stranger and therefore no surrender For if I let land to you for so many years as J.S. shall name if he names the years it shall be good from that time and not before but if I let land for so many years as my Executors shall name this is not good for I cannot have Executors in my life time and when I am dead I cannot assent so in this case there ought to be a mutuall assent between the Lessor and Lessee Hâ—…iâ— Cont. It is a surrender for if he concluded and agreed at another time or accepted a new Lease it is a surrender 37 H. 6. 22 Ed. 4. 14 H 7. and then when a stranger does agree that he shall have other lands and pay a greater Rent this is a surrender Anderson If I covenant with you that J.S. shall have my land for ten years this is only a Covenant and no Lease quod Waâ—mâ—slâ—y concessit And so if I covenant that your Executors shall have my land for a term of years after your death this is no Lease And all the Court held that this was not a good Lease for the act of a stranger cannot make a surrender of the Terme Peryam You at the Bar have forgotten to argue one point materiall in the Case videlicet If Lessee for 20. years makes a Lease for ten years if the Lessee for ten years may surrender to the Lessee for 20. years And Hanam said privately that he could not surrender for one Term cannot merge in the other And Anderson said that by opinion of them all that the Lessee for 10. years cannot surrender But to the other point All the Iudges agreed that it was no surrender And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dabridgecourt against Smallbrooke IN an action of the Case the Plaintiff declared that he was Sheriff of the County of Warwick and that a writ came down to him to arrest J.S. at the suit of the Defendant who requested the Plaintiff to make Russell who was the Defendants friend his speciall Baily in consideration of which the Defendant did assume that if the said J.S. did escape that he would take no advantage against the Plaintiff whereupon he made Russell his Bailiff who arrested the said J.S. who afterwards escapt from him and that notwithstanding the Defendant had charged the Plaintiff for this And a verdict was found for the Plaintiff And in this case it was agreed that where a Sheriff did make a Bailiff upon request of any one it is reason that the party should not charge the Sheriff for an escape by reason of the negligence of such Bailiff for the Sheriff hath security from every one of his Bailiffs to save him harmeless wherefore it is great reason that if upon request he makes a speciall Bailiff that the party should not take advantage of such an escape but that the Sheriff may have his action against him again upon his promise And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hillar 31 Eliz. Beale against Carter Rot. 331. IN an action of false imprisonment The Defendant justified the imprisonment for two hours because the Plaintiff brought a little infant with him to the Church intending to leave it there and to have the Parish keep it and the Defendant being Constable of the Parish because the Plaintiff would not carry the child away with him again carryed the Defendant to prison all the said time untill he took the child away with him And hereupon the Plaintiff demurred And it seemed to the Iustices that it was no good plea for although the Constable at the Common Law is keeper of the Peace yet this does not belong to his Office but if he had justified as Officer then perhaps it had been good And afterwards viz. Hillar 33 Eliz. the Case was argued again and then Glanvill said That it was a good justification for any person may do it For if I see A. ready to kill B. I ought to hinder him of his purpose And in the 22 Ass 50. the Defendant justified because the Plaintiff was madd and did a great deale of mischief wherefore he imprisoned him And in 10 Eliz. which case I have heard in this Court The Constable took a madd man and put him in prison where he dyed and the Constable was indicted of this but was discharged for the act was legall and so here in this Case if the infant had dyed for want of meat it had been murder in the Plaintiff For it was held in 20 Eliz. at Winchester before the Lord Bacon if one brings an infant to a desert place where it dyes for want of nourishment it is murder Gawdy It was ill done of the Plaintiff but that ought to be reformed by due course of Law for a Constable cannot imprison at his pleasure but he may stay the party and carry him to a Iustice of Peace to be examin'd Wray Then such matter ought to be pleaded Quod Gaudie concessit Fenner If he had pleaded that he refused to carry the infant away then it had been a good justification for a Constable is Conservator of the peace but because it was not so pleaded the Plea is naught But the Iudges would not give Iudgment for the ill Examples sake and therefore they moved the parties to compound Pasch 31 Eliz. Sale against the Bishop of Lichfield in C. B. SAle Executor of J.S. who was Grantee of the nomination and presentation to the Archdeaconary in the County of Derby brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Lichfield and declared of a presentment and disturbance in vita Testatoris quod Ecclesia vacavit adhuc vacata est The Defendant pleaded Plein d'Incumbent before the writ purchased and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And it was moved
If a Quare Impedit does lye of an Archdeaconary for it is but a function or dignity and therefore a Quare Impedit will not lie of an office of a Commissary but the 24 Ed. 3.42 is express in the point And 30 Edw. 3.21 a Qure Impedit did lye of a Priory And therefore notwithstanding this exception Iudgement was given for the the Plaintiff But there were two other doubts in the Case First If a Quare Impedit will lie for an Executor for disturbance done in vita Testatoris and that by the Statute of 4 Ed. 3.7 Snigge The action will lye by the Executors for in all Cases where damages are to be recovered they shall have an action by that Statute 11 H. 7.2 An action of trespass was brought for taking of goods in the life of the Testator but no action will lie for entrie into land in the life of the Testator for it ought to be such an action as will survive in damages and may be a damage to the Executor 7 H. 42. An ejectement lies for Executors upon an ejectment in the life of the Testator And if an ejectment be maintenable in which a Terme shall be recover'd it shall be also maintenable in a Quare Impedit in which a presentment may be recovered Drew cont At the Common Law Executors have no remedy for a personall wrong quia moritur cum persona for upon the death of the Testator Executors have no remedy for arrears of Rent at the Common Law but only the Statute of 32 H. 8. And it cannot be that the Executors in this case are within the Statute of 4 Ed. 3. For that Statute intends onely to remedy such things as are avaylable to the Testator and are assets to pay debts and although Executors may have a Quare Impedit that is intended of a disturbance fait al eux but contra if it be done in vita Testatoris Walmesley I conceive no actions will lie For the Statute gives an action for the taking of goods and such like things but here is no taking but only a disturbance which may be done by Parol Perryam Justice cont For the Statute says that they shall have an action of trespass for a trespass done to their Testator and not for taking goods so that the taking of goods is but by way of resemblance and not that they shall have an action of trespass for taking of goods onely Windham and Anderson agreed with Perryam and whereas it hath been said that this cannot be Assetts Put the case that the Testator had judgment to recover damages shall not that be Assetts and why may the damages here recovered be Assetts and why shall not the grant of the Advowson be Assetts in the hands of the Executor aswell as in the hands of the issue And so was the opinion of the Court. 32 Eliz. Foster and Wilson against Mapps in B. R. Rot. 71. THe Case on a speciall verdict was thus Mapps the Defendant made a Lease of the Parsonage of Broncaster by Indenture and Covenanted by the same Deed to save the Plaintiff harmless and indemnified and also all the proffits thereof and premisses against Philip Blount the Parson of Broncaster and hereupon a writ of Covenant was brought against Mapps and the breach assigned was that Blount had entred and ejected the Plaintiff And one point was if this shall be accounted the Deed of the Defendant because the Defedant delivered his part of the Indenture to the Plaintiff as his Deed but the Plaintiff did not deliver the counterpart to him But the opinion of the Court was that this was a good Deed of the Defendants and Gawdy said that the safest way had been to deliver his part as an Escroll to be his Deed when the Plaintiff delivered the Counterpaine But a great doubt was made in this case because it was not shewed that Blount entred by a Title and then he shall be taken to have entred by wrong and so the Covenant not broken for to save harmeless is only from legall harmes as it is in Swettenhams Case Dyer 306. Where the Warden of the Fleet suffered a prisoner to escape and took a bond of him to save him harmeless and then the Warden was sued upon an escape and thereupon he sued the Obligation and adiudged that the bond was not forfeit because the partie was not legally in execution and therefore the Warden could not be damnified for the escape Padsy cont The Diversitie is where the Covenant is generall and where it is speciall for in this case it being speciall to save harmeless from Blount he ought to defend against him his entry be it by good title or by wrong and so is Catesbies Ease Dyer 3.28 Where the Lessor covenanted that the Lessee should injoy his terme sine ejectione vel interruptione alicujus the Lessee brought an action of Covenant because a stranger entred and did not say he had any title and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Gawdy The Covenant is broke For if Blount disturbe him so that he cannot take the proffits this is a breach of the Covenant for hereby the Plaintiff is damnified 2 Ed. 4.15 where the Condition of a Bond was that the Obliger should warrant and defend the Obliged for ever and against all and the Defendant pleaded that he had such a Warrant and there it was held by Danby to be no plea because he cannot warrant unless the other be impleaded And there it was said by Danby and Needham that if the obligee be outed by a stranger who hath no title the Obligation is forfeit by reason of this word defend Wray agreed and said that this case was not like to the Ease of 26 H. 8.3 where the Lessor Covenanted to warrant the land to the Lessee for there he shall not have a Covenant if he be wrongfully outed but our case is to save harmeless which is of greater force than to warrant for to warrant Land is only upon the title but here be the Lessee outed by wrong or by title yet is the Covenant broken to which the other Iustices agreed Fenner Vouchf 18 Ed. 4.27 where a man is obliged to save J.S. harmless against me if I doe arrest J.S. although wrongfully the obligation is forfeit which the other Iustice denied And at last Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 33 Eliz. Elmer and his wife against Thatcher in C. B. Rot. 1125. And Cooks 1. Inst 355. IN a Quod ei deforceat of a third part of an acre of Land whereof the wife was tenant in Dower The defendant confesed she was tenant in Dower but shewed how she committed waste Statut Westm 2. cap. 4. wherefore he brought his action of waste to which she appeared and pleaded nothing for which he had Iudgment to recover The Plaintiff said that no waste was committed and the Defendant Demurred Owen for the Defendant a Quod ei deforceat lies not in this case for such
hac conditione si vixerit vidua inhabitaret super prâ—m ssos the woman dyed before the Lease expired and her Executors entred and being outed they brought this Action and the question was if the Lease were determined by the death of the woman by limitation or by condition or if it yet remain Gawdy It cannot be a condition because the sentence is imperfect for if a man makes a Lease for life rendring rent sub hac conditione that if the rent be behind without any further words this cannot be a condition by reason of the imperfection of the sentence and without doubt if a Lease for years be made to a woman if she so long live and inhabit the premisses this is a limitation so that the term is ended by her death Clench It is neither condition nor limitation for a condition ought alwayes to be a full and perfect sentence and not uncertain As a Lease for years upon condition that the Lessee shall pay 181. at the house of the Lessor this is a full sentence but a Lease made rendring rent and if it be behind and no more said this is no condition And in all cases where these words quod si do make a condition it is requisite that these words quod tunc do ensue Neither can it be a limitation because the words quod si spoyl the sentence And Popham was also of opinion that it was neither condition nor limitation but if the words had been sub conditione quod tamdiu vixerit inhabitaret c. this is a perfect sentence and by her death or not inhabiting the estate might be determined and he put this difference that if a Lease had been for 20 years si tamdiu vixerit super praemissos the Lease had been determined by her death but if a Lease had been for 20 years si tamdiu inhabitaret quamdiu vixerit vel durante vita super praemissos there if she dyes within the term yet the term continues for in the first case the limitation goes to the interest and in the other to the time and Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff should recover for that the term continued Michaelm 37 38 Eliz. Mark Ives Case in B. R. IN a Debt upon a Bond the Condition was that if the Obligee should go to Rome and return from thence again before the 5. of July after the date of the Bond that the Obligor should pay to him 20 l. upon the 20. day of July at Pauls And it was moved by Williams Serjeant that if the Obligee returned within the time whether he ought to give notice of his return to the Obligor for otherwise by his secret return he may make a forfeiture of the Obligation for if the Obligor of necessity be to tender this money without notice of his return inconvenience would ensue for perhaps the Obligee is not returned at the time the money is due and then the tender is in vain and the Law will not compell a man to make a tender unless it be to some purpose and therefore the Obligee ought to give notice to the intent that the Obligor may know whether the money he due to him or not And it is like a Mortgage upon condition that if the Mortgager does pay 20 l. before Michaelmas at Pauls that theâ— c. here the Mortgager ought to give notice at what day before Michaelmas he will tender the money or otherwise he cannot enter for the time that the Law prescribes to make the tender is the last instant before Michaelmas and if the Mortgager will make his election to tender it before the day he ought to give the Mortgagee notice thereof And the Case of one Gurney was cited by Cook Adjudge 27 Eliz. where a Lease was made for years and the Lessor made another Lease for years to commence after the surrender determination c. of the first Lease and then a private surrender is made to the Lessor of the first Lease the second Lease shall not begin untill the Lessee hath notice of the surrender of the first Lease But Tanfield said that the Case was ruled contrary and that the Lease did begin presently without notice ideo quaere and as to the principal point the Court was divided But Fenner said that if the Obliges should give notice perhaps the Obligor will not be found and therefore good reason that the Obligor should make tender to the Obligee at his peril Trinit 36 Eliz. Escot against Lanreny in B. R. IN an action on the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Lord Barkley by his Indenture dimisit ad firmam tradidit totam firmam suam tolnetum proficuum nundinarum dierum Faerialium infra manerium Bergum de Thetbury for 21. years and that the Defendant had disturbed and hindred him from taking of divers pieces of Wool infra manerium Burgum praedict c. and after Issue joyned exception was taken to the Declaration because he declared of a demise made by the Lord Barkley and did not set forth that the Lord Barkley was seised at the time of the Demise 7 H. 7.3.34 H. 6.48 But the exception disallowed by all the Court because the Plaintiff in this action is to recover damages only and the right or title of Land does not come in debate but contra if it were in such action where the right of the Toll did come in debate and to prove this Glanvill cited 20 A sis 3.47 Eâ— 3. and 33 H. 6. and upon this reason he said that the Plaintiff of necessity is not bound to set forth the Market day nor the quantity of the Toll 34 H. 6.48 Where it was pleaded that J.S. made a Lease to him and did not shew that he was seised and yet held good Clench took another exception because he did not set forth that Toll was to be payd by common usage for no Toll is due for Hens or Geese or for many other things of such nature and so it might be that Toll was not due for wooll Fenner was of the same opinion but Popham Contra who said that the Plaintiff had declared that the Defendant had disturbed him from the Toll of divers pieces of Wooll and by that is implyed that Toll ought to be payd for Wooll And at another day Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 36 Eliz. Sackford against Philipps in Camera Scaccarii Rot. 484. IN a debt this Case was moved by Williams Serjeant A. is indebted to B. in 10 l. upon a Bond and R. did promise to B. that if he would forbear A that if A. did not pay him he would B. for non-payment by A. does recover so much in damages upon the assumpsit against R. If in Debt upon this obligation against A A. may plead this recovery in Bar. Walmsley he cannot for he is a stranger to the recovery ideo Quaere And it was assign'd for errour that it was alledged in the
the attainder and she granted it to Bones and all actions demands and a scire facias was issued out in the name of the Queen And the principall case was adjourned but the Patentee had express words to sue in the name of the Queen although it was not so pleaded 43 Eliz. Pelling against Langden in B. R. Rot. 438. IN a trespass for breaking his Close and killing 100 Conies The Defendant justified because he had common time out of mind and because the Conies were damage Feasant in the place where he killed them The Plaintiff demurr'd and judgment given for the Plaintiff for Conies are beasts of Warren and profitable as Deer and are not to be compar'd to Foxes and vermine which may be kill'd but the Owner of the soil may keep Conies where the Common is aswell as other cattle also he may make Fish-ponds in the Common and the Commoner cannot destroy them Cook 5. Rep. 104. 22 H. 6.59 so it was adjudgâ—d Trinit 43 Eliz. Gresham against Ragge in B. R. Rot. 1295. IN trepass for entring into a house The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was indebted to the Defendant in 100 l. and that he by the permission of the Plaintiffs servant the doores being open did enter to demand his debt Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred And adjudged for the Plaintiff For the servant of the Plaintiff could not licence any to enter into the house of his Mr. also a man cannot enter into anothers house to demand money unless the debtor be within the house Gawdy If it had been averred that the Plaintiff had been then in the house the Plea had been good Hillar 44. Eliz. Streetman against Eversley in B. R. IN an ejectment the Case was a Lessee for 80. years upon condition that if the Lessee his Executors or Assignes did not repairo the house within six weeks after warning that the Lease should be void the Lessee made a Lease for ten years who suffered J.S. to occupie the house and then the Lessor came to the said occupation of the house and at the house gave notice and said that the house was defective in reparations and did shew in what and so gave warning to have it repaired and after for default of reparations he entred and the Defendant as servant to the Lessee re-entred And his entry adjudged lawfull for notice given to J.S. who was but an Occupier of the house and not Lessee or Assignee of any interest of the terme was not sufficient but it ought to be to the person interessed in the terme who is liable to reparations Vid. Cooks 6. Rep. Greens case Also the notice at the house is not sufficient but it ought to be to the person of the Lessee and Popham agreed to this Trinit 1 Jacobi Shopland against Radlen in C. B. Rot. 853. IN a Replevin the question was when a Guardian in socage holds a Court in his own name and does grant Copies in reversion if this be a good Grant or not and adjudged to be good against the Heir Walmesley Dominus pro tempore of a Mannour may hold a Court and make a Grant of Copyholds but this is to be understood of perfect Lords which a Guardian is not but onely ad commodum haereâ—is and is rather a servant to the Lord than Dominus pro tempore and he cannot be called Dominus because he can neither grant nor forfeit his estate and hath nothing to do to meddle in the Mannour but to account for the profits and a Writ of Ward does not lye for the land but onely for the body Gawdy chief Justice Warburton and Daniel Justices to the contrary Who held that a Guardian in socage is Dominus pro tempore and that he hath interest in the land and may make a Lease thereof for years Commentar 293. and may avow in his own name 29 Ed. 3. Avowry 298. But a Guardian in socage cannot present to an Advowson because he cannot be accountable But Daniel Iustice said that the Guardian may present where the heir is not of years of discretion and a Guardian in socage shall have a Trespass and a ravishment of Ward 24 Ed. 3.52 and he hath the Ward by reason of looking to him and therefore he hath interest sufficient to keep Court and admit Copyholders who are not in by him but by the custome But a Bailiff of a Mannour hath no interest and therefore cannot make Grants and Copies but a Guardian hath interest provisione legis although it be such interest as cannot be forfeit and the heir cannot be at any prejudice for he shall have an account made to him of such Fines for the heir himself cannot grant them and the Law cannot compell the Guardian to occupy them neither can the Court be held in the name of the heir but the Guardian and therefore he may grant Copies And if a Guardian in socage hath such interest that he can make a Lease for years and his Lessee shall maintain an Ejectment a fâ—r â—…oti he may grant Copies Neither is it any argument at all to say that a Guardian in socage hath no interest because he cannot grant or forfeit his estase for the reason is because these things are annexed to his person And after Mich. 3 Jacob. it was adjudged that the Grant was good and shall binde the heir Vid. Keloway 46.6 37 Eliz. Brown against Hercey in C. B. Rot. 620. IT was found by office that J.S. who held the Mannour of D. of the King did dye without heir whereupon W.S. as heir to him did traverse the said Office and hereupon was at issue with the Queen if he were heir or not and depending this suit he made a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and after it was found for him against the Queen and Iudgement given against the Queen but before the Writ of Amoveas manum the Attorney made Livery and adjudged good for it cannot be said that the heir at the time of the Feoffment had nothing or that the Queen at the time of the Livery was in possession for by the Iudgement given the possession of the Queen was utterly defeated and possession in the party before any amoveas manum sued out for that serves but to compell the Eschaetor to avoyd the possession it he hold the land after Iudgement Vid. Stanford praerogat 78. 10 Ass 2. 10 Ed. 3. and the difference is where the King is seized by title and where without title for when the King is seized by title and his title is determined he ought to make Livery to him that hath right but when he is seized without title and he who hath right hath Iudgement against him he may enter without Livery 5 Ed. 5. Quare impedit 34. But it was here said by Owen Iustice that if a man makes a Feoffment of White-acre with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and then he purchase White-acre this is
that the wife is not in her former or antient estate but takes hereby a new estate for if Tenant for life grants his estate to J.S. and his heirs and J.S. grants a Rent and then re-grants an estate to the Tenant for life the Tenant for life shall be liable for the Rent Dyer 252. Harris contr For by the rendring of the estate by the Fine she shall be in her antient state and he cited the Case of Peter Cary here adjudged who being Tenant in T. the remainder to the Earl of Devonshire was attainted and then the King pardon'd him and gave him his land again and then he suffered a common recovery and thereby barred the remainder in the Earl of Devonshire But Anderson was against this Case and said that by the render the woman was in her antient estate and so the remainder discontinued and the entry of him in the remainder taken away Warburton The Fine does make no discontinuance for they give away but that which they may lawfully do and so is Bredons Case Cook 1 Rep. 67. and as to the common recovery it is out of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. because she remains party to the Fine and by the render upon the Fine they shall be as in by a new estate and then the recompence shall not be to the antient estate and therefore he in the remainder is not barred nor impeached by this Fine but he may enter within five years Kingsmill accorded for it is plain that by the render to the husband and wife they are in a new estate and the recompence shall go as to that and not to the antient estate but contr if it had been by way of voucher Walmesley accorded but notwithstanding the Fine and recovery the entry of him in the remainder is good and as to the woman it is clear that there is no discontinuance to him in the remainder in Fee for he in the remainder in Tail cannot discontinue because he is seized by force of the estate Tail as the 4 H. 7.17 Tenant in Dower and he in the reversion in Tail joyn in a Fine this is no discontinuance of the estate Tail because he was never seized and therefore it is a forfeiture in the Tenant for life although he in the remainder joyn'd with him by the 41 Ed. 3. but otherwise if Tenant for life and he in remainder in Fee joyn in a Fine Vid. Bredons Case 1 Rep. 76. Anderson I conceive he in the remainder may enter for all passeth from the Tenant for life and it is her Feoffment and the confirmation of the other and so the estate Tail being spent he in the remainder shall enter for forfeiture and the recovery shall be no bar because it was of another estate and also this title of entry for forfeiture shall not be barr'd by the common recovery no more than if a Feoffee upon condition does suffer a common recovery yet may the Feoffor enter for the condition broken and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff so that his remainder was neither discontinued by the Fine nor his entry taken away by the Recovery 43 Eliz. Hall against VVood in C. B. IN an Action on the Case for a Trover and conversion of 40 l. on not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff Walmesley How can an Action lye for a Trover of money if it be not within a bag for this Writ supposeth a loss and when the money was lost how doth it appear that the money found is the same money that was lost Davies There are many presidents in the Kings Bench to prove that this Action will well lye for corn and money and I have been of Counsel in many of those Cases Warburton If the money were lost in view of a third person upon such Trover the Action will lye for there it may be proved that it was the money of the Plaintiff And Walmesley agreed And note that a president was shewn tempore 40 41 Eliz. inter Holloway and Higgs which was thus a master delivered to his servant 30 quarters of corn to be sold and the servant sold them and converted the money and the master brought his Action on the Case for the Trover and conversion against the servant who pleaded not guilty and it was sound against him and two things were moved in arrest of Iudgement first that the master was never possessed of the money and therefore could not lose it secondly because the money cannot be known and so non constat whether it was the money of the masters or no. But notwithstanding this Case Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff because the possession of the servant was the possession of the master and when the servant converts this to his own use by this the master loseth the property and is also a conversion in the servant Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Leeke against the Bishop of Coventry in C. B. Rot. 3579. IN a Quare impedit the Case was thus Langford and Bussy were Patrons of an Advowson to which they and their Ministers use to present by turn Langford presented according to his turn and his Clerk dyed and then Bussy presented in his turn also and his Clerk was deprived after which Langford grants his Advowson in Fee to Leeke the Plaintiff and then the Bishop without any notice does collate Dr. Babington who dyes after whose death the question was if Leeke should present or Bussy and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff because that notwithstanding the Church was voyd by deprivation yet the Patron may transpose his Advowson over Bethell against Sir Edward Stanhop IN Debt against Sir Edward Stanhop as Executor to Francis Vaughan he pleaded that he is not Administrator and the said Vaughan gave 40 l. to his daughter within age with power of revocation upon the payment of 20 s. and it was found that this was done to defraud Creditors and then he dyed possest of the goods and the Defendant sold these goods which made him Executor in his own wrong and afterwards takes Letters of Administration Walburton I conceive the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for the Statute of 21 Eliz. of fraudulent conveyances annuls this gift of the Intestate because he did it to defraud his Creditors and then when he dyed it was assets in the hands of the Administrator And if a Testator have goods wrongfully taken from him out of his possession these are not Assets to the Executors or Administrators but if they be taken out of the possession of the Administrators or Executors they shall be Assets for they may take them again but for goods taken from the Testator they have but an Action But here the Administrator may take the goods which were given by the Intestate to defraud Creditors for the gift was voyd and therefore they shall be accounted Assets And as to the Action it is well brought for when a man does administer as Executor and then takes Letters of
Administration it is at the election of the Plaintiff to sue him as Executor or Administrator 9 Ed. 4.33 21 H. 6.8 2 Rich. 2.20 18 Ed. 4. Walmesley agreed for the Statute of the 27 Eliz. hath made voyd the Testators gift and subâ—ata causa toll â—ur effectus and the gift being taken away the property is also taken away from the Donee and setled in the Donor as to any Creditor To which the other Iustices agreed and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Trinit 43 Eliz. George Brooks Case in C. B. Rot. 1822. GIbson recovered in a Debt against Broâ—k as Executor to J.S. 60 l. and 6 l. damages and upon a scire facias to the Sheriff he returns no Assets and then upon the estate which was in Lâ—ndon which the Defendant had wasted and soâ—d a fieri facâ—as was awarded to the Sheriff of Lâ—…don with a Commission to the Sheriff of London to enquire if he had Assets at the day of the Writ c and by the inquest it was found that he had Assets at the day of the Writ purchased c. and that he had wasted the estate which was thus return'd by the Sheriff against which the Defendant took issue that he had not Assets and upon this was a a Demurr Walmesley A man may avert against the return of a Sheriff if the return be a matter collateral as if upon a Caâ—ias the Sheriff returns a Rescous there may be an averment against this 4 Eliz. 212. a. But if it be in pursuance of the Writ as non est inventus there no averment shall be taken against this but here the return is the saying of the Inquest and not his own saying Warburton I conceive he shall have an averment and traverse or else he shall be without remedy for he cannot have an Action on the Case against the Sheriff because he returns that which was found by the Inquest and so not like where the Sheriff returns falsly without such Inquest and no attachment lyes because it is but an Inquest of office and after it was moved at another day and a president shewn 33 Eliz. in B. R. between Westner and Whitenore and there it was adjudged that such return of the Sheriff was traversable and Anderson and Kingsmill agreed to it wherefore Iudgement was given for the Defendant and that the issue was well taken Day against Fynn IN an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease for years of a house and 30 acres of land in D. and that J. S. did let to him the said Messuage and 30 acres by the name of his house in B. and ten acres of land there sive plus sive minus it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because that 30 acres cannot pass by the name of 10 acres sive plus sive minus and so the Plaintiff hath not conveyed to him 30 acres for when 10 acres are leased to him sive plus sive minus these words ought to have a reasonable construction to pass a reasonable quantity either more or less and not twenty or thirty acres more Yelverton agreed for the word 10 acres sive plus sive minus ought to be intended of a reasonable quantity more or less by a quarter of an acre or two or three at the most but if it be 3 acres less than 10. the Lessee must be content with it Quod Fenner Crook concesserunt and Iudgement was staid Smith against Jones IN an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit the Case was that the wise of Jones was Executrix to J.S. and had Assets to satisfie all Debts and Legacies The woman dyes and the goods remained in the hand of her husband who was the Defendant and Smith the Plaintiff being a Legatee demanded his debt of the husband who said to him Forbear tâ—ll Michaelmas and I will pay you and if this was sufficient cause of Action was the question on a Demurrer Davies The promise is voyd because it is after the death of the wife Yelverton The Action will lye because he hath the â—oods in his possession and therefore is chargeable and must answer for them and therefore there is a good consideration And he cited Godfreys Case who laid claim to a Copyhold and the Copyholder in possession said to him If the opinion of the Lord Cook be that Godfrey hath a good title to it I will surrender it to him and because he did not surrender to him Godfrey brought an Action on the Case and it was adjudged that the staying of the suit was a sufficient consideration to have an Action on the Case Yelverton If the promise had been to pay this Legacy in consideration he would not sue him then it had been good Williams If there be no cause of suit there is no assumpsit and here is no just cause for he cannot be sued for Legacies Flemming of the same opinion for the husband cannot be sued by the Plaintiff and although perhaps the Legatee may sue him in the spirituall Court yet that is only for the temporall administration And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Michaelm 9. Jacob. Kempe and James against Laurence in C. B. Rot. 3648. IN a scire facias the case was thus Gant having two daughters made his wife Executrix untill his daughters came to the age of 21. years or should be married and then the Executorship should cease and that then his daughters should be his Executors and the woman did recover a debt upon a bond made to the Testator after which the daughters marryed the Plaintiffs and they brought the scire facias upon the said Judgment against the Defendants as terre-tenants and the Sheriff return'd the Defendants terre-tenants and no others and upon Oyer of the scire facias the Defendants pleaded that H. was seâ—sed of those lands die Judicii reddit and made a Lease for years to them Iudgment c. Nichols The daughters shall have this judgment as Executors for they are in privity and in by the Testator and are not like an Administrator who comes in by the Ordinary after the death of the Executor 6 H. 8.7 Cook 5. Rep. Brudnells Case and the daughters are Executors and subject to debts of the Testator And as to the plea he said that forasmuch as the Defendants are returned terre-tenants they cannot plead that they are but tenants for years and that their Lessor is not warned for the scire facias is a personall action to have execution but of the goods but in a reall action it is a good plea because the lessor himself cannot plead in discharge of such action 8 H. 6.32 And note that Michaelm 43 44. Eliz. Rot. 834. Iudgment in the very same point was given accordingly Trinit 9 Jacob. Information against West in C. B. Rot. 1246. IN an Information upon the Statute of the 5 of Ed. 6. cap. 14. for buying of wheate-meale and converting it into starch It was resolved by three of the
Court of Wards TEnant of the King by Knights service bargains and sells his land to Sir Henry Dimmock and his heirs and Sir Henry Dimmock dyes his heir within age and then the Deed is inrolled the question was if the King should have premier seisin Trist The King shall not because Sir Henry did not dye within his homage but the land was in the Bargainor as if there be a Bargainee of the reversion and the Tenant makes waste the Bargainee shall not have waste unless the Deed be introlled before the waste committed 3 Jacobi Bellingham against Alsop Bargainee before inrolment sells the land over and it was adjudged that the second bargain was voyd 10 Eliz. Mockets case Disseisee releaseth to the Bargainee of the Disseisor before inrolment and adjudged voyd 5 Eliz. in Pophams Case it was said that the Statute of inrolments had altered the Common Law for now by the delivery of the Deed no use is raised untill it be inrolled But all the Iustices held that the heir should be in Ward and pray premier seisin if he were of full age for the Statute sayes that no use shall be unless the Deed be inrolled but if it be inrolled it passeth ab initio and then the Bargainee shall be Tenant ab initio But it was also agreed by all the Iustices that the wife of Sir Henry shall not be indowed and that Rent paid to the Bargainor at the Rent-day incurr'd after the bargain is good and the Bargainee hath no remedy because it is a thing executed Trinit 12 Jacobi Cuddington against VVilkin in C. B. Rot. 924. IN an Action of the Case for calling the Plaintiff Thief the Defendant justified because the Plaintiff had stollen Sheep 37 Eliz. the Plaintiff replyed protestando that he had not stollen Sheep and pleaded the General Pardon 7 Jacobi upon which the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Pardon had so purged and abolished the Offence that now he was no Thief 1 Ed. 3. Corone 15. 2 Ed. 3. Corone 81. 1 Assi 3. So if one call another Villain after he is infranchised And in one Baxters Case in Banco Regis it was adjudged that where a man was accused for Perjury and acquitted by Trial if he be afterwards called perjur'd he shall have his Action on the Case And Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Seaman against Cuppledick IN a Trespass of Assault and Battery the Defendant justified in defence of his servant scil that the Plaintiff had assaulted his servant and would have beaten him c. and the Plaintiff demurr'd Yelverton The bar is good for the master may defend his servant or otherwise he may lose his service 19 H. 6.60 a. Crook Iustice The Lord may justifie in defence of his villain for he is his inheritance Williams contr The master cannot justifie but the servant may Justifie in defence of his master for he owes duty to his master 9 Ed. 4.48 Yelverton The master may maintain a plea personal for his servant 21 H. 7. and shall have an Action for beating his servant and also a man may justifie in defence of his cattle Cook A man may use force in defence of his goods if another will take them and so if a man will strike your cattle you may justifie in defence of them and so a man may defend his son or servant but he cannot break the peace for them but if another does assault the servant the Master may defend him and strike the other if he will not let him alone Williams It hath been adiudged in Banhams Case that a man cannot justifie a batterie in Defence of his soil a fortiori he cannot in defence of his servant vid. 19 H. 6.31 9 Ed. 4.48 Trinit 12. Jacob. Drury against VValler IN an action on the Case upon a trover and conversion of 200 l. delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and upon not guilty pleaded the Question was if denyall by the Defendant to pay it upon request would beare this action And the case of Isaac was urged who brought an action of Trover c. for 200 l. in a bag and by verdict it was found that demand was made thereof and a deniall to pay it And by Dodderidge it was a Conversion Crooke accorded but Haughton doubted the case And Man Prothonotarie said that he remembred a president in the Case where it was resolved that in such case deniall of a horse was a conversion Haughton I remember an action of Trover was brought for a Trunk and it was ruled there that if one hath Timber in my land and he demands liberty to carry it off my Land and I deny it this is not a sufficient conversion Dodridge there is great difference in the Cases for a Horse or money cannot be known if they be used but Timber may Et adjournatur Michaelm 8 Jacobi Alfo and Dennis against Henning in B. R. Rot. 969. IN an action of Covenant the Case was thus Thomas Tavener by Indenture primo Jacobi did demise land to one Salisburie for 7. years and by the same Indenture Salisburie did Covenant grant condescend and agree with Taverner his heirs and assignes that he his Executors and Administrators should pay to Taverner his heirs and assigne 75 l. per annum And after Taverner demised the same land to Mary Taverner for life and he demised the reversion for 40. years to the Plaintiff if he so long lived and the tenant attorned and for rent due at the Feast of St Michaell he brought his action of Covenant And the first question was if this were a sum in gross because the Lessee covenanted to pay this as a Rent And resolved by Cook Chief Iustice and the Court that this is a good reservation of Rent for it is by Indenture and their intention was to have it as a Rent and the words of the Indenture shall be accounted to be his who may most properly speak them 26 H. 8.2 10 Eliz. 275. 22 H. 6.58 28 H. 8.6 And the Case between Whitchett and Fox in Replevin this terme where a man made a Lease for 99. years rendring rent and the Lessee covenanted by the same deed with the Lessor that he would not alien without his assent upon paine of forfeiture and after he aliened and the Lessor entred And it was held by the Court that this was a condition although the Plaintiff did covenant for being by Indenture they shall be the words of both and the words sub paena â—orisfacturae are the words of the Lessor The second point was if the assignee for 40 years may have a Covenant and it was held he might for it is for payment of rent and if the Lessee covenants to do any thing upon the land as to build or repaire a house there a covenant will lie for the assignee by the common Law but if it do not by the Common Law yet it is cleere that it will lie by the Statue of
the Law makes a Tenure and when the party for if the Law makes a Tenure the Heirs shall have the Rent but otherwise where the party makes it unlesse there be expresse words for the Heire as in 10 Edw. 4.19 by Moile If H. makes a Gift in T. and reserves no Rent yet shall the Donee hold of the Donor and his Heires as the Denor holds over but if he make a Lease for yeares rendring Rent to the Lessor the Heire shall not have this Rent for it is a Tenure made by the act of the party So in the Book of Assises 86. If a man le ts two acres of Land rendring Rent ten shillings for one of them to himself by name without naming his Heires it is adjudged that the Heire shall not have the Rent of this acre And this is resembled to the case of 12 Edw. 2. Where a man made a Lease for yeares rendring Rent to the Lessor and his Assignes here none shal have the Rent but the Lessor and it is void by his death for his Assignee cannot be privy to the Reservation and the words of the party shall not in any case be enlarged unlesse there be great inconvenience to be avoided and his intent and will is performed if he himself have the Rent And if a man reserve such Rent to him and his Executors this word Executors is to no purpose for that the Rent cannot be reserved to them but the Rent shall be extinct by his death And if he reserve the Rent to his Heire and not to himself he shall not have it but his Heire for he shall be estopped to claime it against his own words and reservation And if I make a Lease for years rendring Rent to me during the terme if I dye without Heire during the terme the Lord by Escheat shall not have the Rent which case may be compared to the case of Warranty 6 H. 7.2 That without mention of the Heires the Warranty shall not bind them But if a Rent be reserved to his Assignes and he grants over the Reversion here because the Assignes were mentioned in the Reservation and for that now there is a privity the Assignees shall have the Rent for it shall be intended that when he speaks of Assignes in the Reservation he prefixeth thereby to whom he will Assigne the Reservation wherefore it was adjudged for the Defendant vide Dyer 2 Eliz. 180 181. H. bargaines and sells Land Proviso that if the Vendor shall pay a hundred pounds to the Vendes his Heires or Assignes that then the Bargaine and Sale shall be void by two Iustices The Tendor shall not be made to the Executors because the Law will determine to whom the Tendor shall be made when the parties themselves are expresly agreed Mich. 33 and 34 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Goddards Case Confirmation by the Lessor to the Assignee of Tenant for years H. makes a Lease for years of twenty acres rendring Rent the Lessee grants all his Estate in one of the acres to I.S. the Lessor confirmes the Estate of I. S. Resolved by the Court 1. That by this confirmation the entire Rent is gone in all the other acres for being an entire contract and by his own act there cannot be an occupation for part and an extinguishment for the other part and in this case there is no difference between a suspension in part and an extinguishment If A. makes a Lease for yeares of twenty acres rendring Rent upon condition that if he does not do such a thing that then the Lease shall be void for ten acres if he performes not the condition and the Lessor enters the entire rent is gone And it was resolved that a Lease for years was not within the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum for that Statute extends to an Estate in Land of Fee-simple See the Report of Serjeant Benlowes in 14 H. 7. A Warren did extend into three Parishes And a Lease was made for years rendring rent and after the Reversion was granted to another of all the Warren in one of the Parishes and the Lessee did attorne The question was if the Lessor should have any part of this rent during the terme so that the rent may be apportioned or not And the Iustices said in this Case that neither the Grantor nor the Grantee shall have any rent for the Law is that no Contract shall be apportioned 2. It was resolved that no Lessor shall avow for the arrearages of rent before the time of Confirmation and extinguishment for H. shall not avow for the rent determined but he may defend himselfe by way of Iustification See where a man may justifie the taking by speciall evidence 19 H. 6.41 by all the Court except Askew Mich 33 and 34 Eliz. in Ban. Reg. Rot. 471. Wardfords Case Error HAddock brought a Writ of Error against Wardford upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas the case was thus Two Coparceners of a house one of them lets her part to a stranger and the other lets her part to a stranger also and then both Leases come to the hands of one H. and then one of the Coparceners bargaines and sells her reversion to the other Coparcener The Lessee commits Wast Permittendo dictum Messuagium cadere and the grantee of the Reversion brought an action of Wast The Errors assigned were 1. That he brought but one action of Wast although of severall Demises by severall Lessors wheras he ought to have two actions of Wast Godfrey He cannot have an Action in other manner then his Grantor might have before the Grant and when the reversion came to him it can be in other plight then it was before Gawdy There is a diversity when the right is severall and when the possession is severall for although the possession be severall yet if the right be intire but one action will lys as appeares F.N.B. fol. 2. Godfrey There is difference between the Writ of Right in F.N.B. and this action for there he was never intituled but onely to the action but in our case the action was once severall and is like the case in F.N.B. 60. where it is said that a man may have one action of Wast and declare upon divers Leases but that is intended where the Leases are made by one person and he cited the case in 21 H. 7.39 where it is agreed by all the Iustices that if a man hold two acres of one H. by severall Services and dies without Heire the Lord shall not have one Writ of Escheat but ought to have two Writs Popham chief Iustice did agree with Gawdy for although that at first the Lessors were intituled to severall Actions yet by matter ex post facto the Actions may be united and said that H. might have an action of Waste and declare ex assignatione and also ex dimissione 2. Error was assigned that he had assigned the Waste to be committed in the whole house whereas he had
that it was enacted by the Major of London and common Councel that if any Citizen takes the Son of an Alien to be his Apprentice that the Covenants and Obligations shall be void and he shewed that he was the Son of an Alien and became an Apprentice to the Plaintiff who is a Citizen and made the Covenants with him for his Apprentiship And demanded Iudgment And it was held no Bar for notwithstanding the Act the Covenant is good for it is the Act of the Defendant although the Act of the Common Councell be against it but the said Act may inflict punishment on any Citizen that breakes it And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 41 Eliz. in B. R. Knotts against Everstead LEssee for life the remainder for life the remainder in taile he in the reversion who had the fee does enter and enfooffs the Lessee for years and adjudged that by this Feoffment Nihil operatur Popham said that he who hath a term cannot license another that hath nothing in the land to make a Feoffment for he who hath the Freehold wants nothing but possession to make a good Livery but in this case he who makes the Livery had not the Freehold and therefore the license is void But Tanfeild said that if Lessee for life gives leave to a stranger to make Livery it is void but if he consent that the stranger shall make a Feoffment it shall amount to a Disseisin and the Feoffment is good Which was denied by the Court. And Clench said if a Lessee for ten years makes a Lease for one year to him in reversion there he in the reversion who hath the land for a year may make a Feoffment to the Lessee for ten years and it is good Trin. 41 Eliz. Moyle against Mayle MOyle brought an Action of Waste against Mayle and declared that he had leased to him a Mannor and a Warren and that he had destroyed a Cony-borough and subverted it and assigned otherwastes in cutting down certain Thornes Williams The Action of waste will well lye and said that a Warren consisted or two things of a place of Game and of liberty and to prove that a waste did lye for a liberty he cited the Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 5. in which a Warren is intended also the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. and the Statute Articuli super Chartas cap. 18. by which Statutes it is evident that a waste does lie for Warrens and a Warren is more then a liberty for a Writ lies Quare warrenam suam intravit and by the 12 H. 8. if Lessee of a Warren does break the Pale it is a waste also if Lessee of a Pigeon-house stop the holes so that the Pigeons cannot build a waste doth lye as it hath been adjudged Also if Lessee of a Hop yard ploweth it up and sowes Graine there it is waste as it hath been adjudged Also the breaking a Weare is waste and so of the Banks of a Fish-pond so that the water and fish run out To all which cases the Court agreed except to the principal For the Court held it was not waste to destroy Cony-boroughs for wast will not lye for Conies because a man hath not inheritance in them and a man can have no property in them but only possession and although by a speciall Law Keepers are to preserve the land they keep in the same plight they found it yet thiâ— does not bind every Lessee of land Walmsley The subversion of Cony-boroughs is not waste and it was usuall to have a waste against those who made holes in land but not against those who stop them up because therby the land is made better And it was said that to dig for stones was a waste unlesse in an ancient Quarry although the Lessee fill it up againe And Walmsley said that in Lancashire it is waste to dig Marle unlesse it be imployed upon the land And said it was not waste to cut thornes unlesse they be in a Wood stubbed and digged up by the roots but if they grow upon the land then they may be stubbed and it is no waste But to cut down Thorne-trees that have stood sixty or a hundred years it is waste Hil. 32 Eliz. in B. R. Sir George Farmer against Brook IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff claimeth such a Custome in the Town of B. that he and his Ancestors had a bake-house within the Town to bake white bread and houshold-bread and that he had served all the Town with bread that no other could use the Trade without his license and that the Defendant had used the Trade without his license upon which the Defendant demuâ—'d Morgan This is a good Prescription and it is reason that a Prescription should bind a stranger vide 11 H. 6.13 A. prescribed to have a Market and that none should sel but in a Stall which A. had made and was to pay for the Stall and held there a good Prescription And the Arch-bishop of Yorks Case in the Register 186. is a good case A man prescribed that he had a Mill and he found a horse to carry the Corn thither and that therfore they ought to grind there and because they did not he brough his Action on the case Buckley contra It cannot be intended to have any commencement by any Tenure 11 H 4. A. procured a Patent that none should sell any thing in London without paying him a penny adjudged not good and the case of the Arch-bishop was good because he had it ratione dominii tenuri And adjudged the principall case that the action will not lye 23 Eliz. in C. B. Farrington against Charnock KIng Henry the 8 granted Turbariam suam in D. at Farrington rendring rent sur 21. years and then the Lessee imployed part of it in arable land and relinquisht part of it in Turbary and then Q. Mary grants Totam illam TurbariaÌ„ before demised to Farrington and adjudged that that passed only which was Turbary and the other part that was converted into Tillage did not passe Mich. 18 Eliz. in B. R. SIr Arthur Henningham brought an Action of Error against Francis Windham to reverse a common recovery had against Henry Henningham his brother and the Error assigned was that there was no warrant of Attorney of the Record And it was agreed by the Bar and Bench and adjudged error But the great point was if the Plaintiff could have a writ of Error The Case was Henry the Father had Henry his Son and three Daughters by one Venter and the Plaintiff by another Venter and died seised of the land intailed to him and the Heirs Males of his body Henry enters and makes a Feoffment the Feoffee is impleaded and voucheth Henry who looseth by default in the recovery and dies without issue and whether the Daughters which are Heirs generall or the Plaintiff which is Heir in tail shall have the Error Gawdy and Baker for the Defendant who said
that the Plaintiff could not have the Error but the Daughters who were the Heirs to Henry for an Action alwaies discends according to the right of land and it seems that the Heir in Burrow English shall have Error or Attaint and not the Heir at the Common Law which was agreed by all on both sides but it was said that this varies much from the present case for two reasons One because he came in as Vouchee which is to recover a Fee-simple and he shall render a Fee-simple in value which is discendable to the Heirs at the Common Law Secondly he hath no Estate-tail Bromley Solicitor and Plowden contra and laid this ground that in all cases where a recovery is had against one by erroneous processe or false verdict he which is grieved shall have redresse of it although he be not party or privy to the first Iudgment and therefore at the Common Law if a Recovery be had against Tenant for life he in the Reversion shall have Error of Attaint after his death and now by the Statute of R 2. in his life so in a Precipe if the Tenant vouches and the Vouchee looseth by default the Tenant shall have Error for the Iudgment was against him and he looseth his term and in the 44 Ed 4.6 in a Trespasse of Battery against two one pleads and it is found against him and the plea of the other not determined damages by the principall Verdict is given against them both which if they be excessive the other shall have an Attaint And Bromley said there could not be a case put but where he that hath the losse by the recovery should have also the remedy and Baker cited 9. H. 7.24.6 that if a Recovery be had against a man that hath land on the part of the Mother and he dies without issue the Heir of the part of the Father shall have the Error But Bromley and Plowden denied this case and that 3 H 4.9 it was adjudged to the contrary And Wray said to Baker that he ought not much to rely on that case for it was not Law and said that if Tenant for life makes a Feoffment and a Recovery is had against the Feoffee the first Lessor shall not avoid this Bromley there is no use for he may enter by forfeiture but in our case of whatsoever estate it be at the time of the recovery the right of the Estate-tail is bound and therefore it is reason that the Heir in tail shall avoid it Jeffrey of the same opinion and cited 17. Ass A Conusor makes a Feoffment and then execution is sued against the Feoffee by erroneous processe the Feoffee shall have the Writ of Error although he be not party to the first Record but the reason is because of his interest in the land And Bromley and Plowden said further that notwithstanding the Feoffee recovers against the Vouchee and the Vouchee recover over the land yet this recovery shall go to the Estate-tail And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 32 Eliz. in B. R. TRussell was attainted of Felony by Outlawry and after an Execution is sued against him at the suit of a common person and he is taken by force thereof and after he takes a Habeas Corpus out of the Kings Bench and Coke prayed that he might be discharged of this execution for where a man is attaint of Felony he hath neither Goods nor Lands and his body is at the Kings disposall and so is not subject to the execution of a common person 4 Ed. 4. But Harris Serjeant and Glanvill on the contrary For although he be attaint of Felony yet may he be in execution for his own offence shall not aid him and so was it in Crofs case in the Common Pleas where a man being attaint of Felony was taken in execution at the suit of a common person and he escaped out of Prison and an escape was brought against the Sheriffs of London and a Recovery against him And at last by advise of the Court because he was indebted to many persons and to discharge himself from his Creditors intended to have a pardon for his life and so deceive them therefore he was committed to the Marshalsey upon this execution Trin. 42 Eliz. Malloy against Jennings Rot. 1037. IN a Replevin the Case was A man seised of land in fee is bound in a Recognizance of 100 l. and then bargains and sells all his land to the Plaintiff and then the Recognizance is forfeit and the Conuzee sues out a Scire facias against the Conuzor before the Deed was inrolled and had Iudgment to have Execution And the question was if the Bargainor was a sufficient Tenant against whom the Execution was sued Williams Serjeant The Bargainor was Tenant at the time of the Scire facias before inrolement and although it was inrolled after shall have relation to the first livery to prevent any grant or charge And if an Action be brought against an Executor as in his own wrong and the Suit depending he takes Letters of Administration this shall not abate the Writ So in our case the Bargainor was seised of the land when the Scrie facias was brought and if a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent and then the Lessor bargains and sells the Reversion and before the Inrolement the Rent is behind and the Bargainer demands the Rent which was not paid and then the Deed is inrolled yet he cannot enter for the forfeiture which I have seen adjudged in the 28 H. 8. Dyer Disseisee of one acre makes a Release to the Disseisor of all his lands and delivers it as an Escroll to be delivered to the Disseisor and then he disseiseth him of another acre and then the Deed is delivered to the Disseisor yet the right in the second acre shall not passe And he much rolled on Sir Richard Brochets case 26 Eliz. who made a Recognizance to Morgan upon condition to convey unto him all his lands whereof he was seised the first day of May and it hapned that one Corbet had sold him land by Indenture the 24. day of April but the Deed was not inrolled untill the 24. day of May after And the question was if the Conuzor was bound to convey these lands or not and adjudged that he was not for inasmuch as the Deed was not inrolled the ffrst day of May he was not seised and great mischief would ensue if the Law should be otherwise for no man will know against whom to bring his Action for a Bargain and Sale before Inrolement may be done secretly Herne Serjeant The Bargainee is seised before Inrolement and by the Statute of 5 Eliz. which wills that none shall convert land used to tillage unlesse he puts other land to tillage within six months yet none will say that it is a breach of the Statute although Pasture be presently converted to tillage and he cited Chilburns cafe 6 Eliz. Dyer 229. that proves that
this very cause prescribed as we do in this case so they may prescribe in a way or other thing of easement or pleasure 7 Ed. 4.26 a. 15 Ed. 4.29 a. Anderson There is no question but Parishioners may justify their going over any bodies land in their Perambulation Warberton Parishioners shall not prescribe in an easement as in â—y way to the Church Owen The books make a difference between things of interest as in common for in such things Parishioners cannot prescribe and things of easement as a waste for in such things a man may prescribe Anderson It is plain that Parishioners cannot prescribe for none may prescribe but those that have perpetuall continuance and therefore Tenant for years or for life or Parishioners cannot prescribe but must be aided by custome Walmsley of the said opinion for there is no descent or succession in Parishioners And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Norton and Sharp against Gennet Rot. 178. A Prohibition was sued by the Plaintiffe as Executors to I.S. who surmised that the Defendant sued them in the Court Christian for a Legacy of 200 l. and that the Testator had goods but to the vale of 350 l. and set forth how he was Keeper of the Prison of Ludgate that he was bound to A. and M. Sheriffs of London to discharge and save harmlesse the same Sheriffs from all escapes which bond was to the value of a 1000 l. And shewed that one Holmes was taken by a Capias utlegatum at the suit of a stranger and how the Testator suffered him to escape whereupon an action of debt was brought against the Sheriffs and a Iudgment whereby the Obligation made to them by their Testator is forfeit and pleaded riens intermaines and because the Court Christian would not allow this plea they prayed a Prohibition upon which Coke Attorney-generall demurred And it was agreed by Gawdy Iustice Coke and Tanfeild that if the Bond to the Sheriff be not forfeit then is the Surmise good and the Legacy shall be paid But Fenner said to Coke Quomodo probas Who answered The difference is when a bond is made by the Testator for payment of money in a Suit at the Court Christian for a Legacy such a bond is a good plea although the bond be not forfeit as in the 9 Ed. 4.12 13. for the Condition of the Bond is part of the Bond and a duty but otherwise it is where the Condition is collaterall for the performance of Covenants but in our case the Condition is not broken as is supposed for the Capias utlegatum issued the 25 of Eliz. and so the Arrest meerly void for every Capias ought to be returned the next term after the Teste 21 H. 7.16.6 8 Ed. 4.4 6. Sed alii contra But after a Consultation was moved for if a Recovery was afterwards had against the Executors And it was answered that it was not the course to make a Bond to the party but to the Court But Fenner said that it such course be allowed no Legacy would be paid And Iudgment was given that a Consultation should be awarded if the Legatee would enter into a Bond to the Executor to make restitution if c. or otherwise not Hil. 38 Eliz. in B. R. Haddon against Arrowsmith IN an Ejectment the case was The Queen being Lady of the Mannor of Winterburne in the County of Berks by her Steward did license a Copyholder for life to make a Lease for three years if he should so long live the Copyholder did make a Lease generally to the plaintiff for three years who being ejected brought this Action Stephen The Action will not lye because the Copyholder hath not pursued his licence for license or authority must be pursued very strictly as well in form as substance 10 H. 7. license to enfeoff by Deed or license to impark 300. acres he cannot enfeoff by paroll or impark but 100. acres and it was resolved the last Terme in the Exchequer that if the King license his Tenant to alien he cannot alien to one in tail the remainder to the Donor in fee And so in our case where he makes a Lease for 3. years absolutely he hath not performed his license Gawdy contra for when his license is to make a Lease for yeares if he so long live these words If he so long live are but Surplusage for the Law saies that if Copyholder for life makes a Lease for years and dies the Lease is determined and therfore the clause in the License is no more then the Law saies and so is void Quod suit concessum per totam curiam Fenner The Condition in the License is meerly void for the Lord gives nothing by the License but only doth dispence with the forfeiture and the Lessee is in by the Copyholder and not by the Lord for the Lord cannot condition with him in his License Clench The Lord may license on Condition as where the Lord doth licence his Copyholder on condition that the Lessee shall repair the house or shall not cut Trees for otherwise the Copyholder may cut them and the Lord hath no remedy for his License is a dispensation of the forfeiture Popham contra A Condition to a License is void as a License to make a Lease for years on condition that he pay 20 l. the second year this is void for the reason given by my brother Fenner for the license does not give a right but only executes it as a Livery or Attornment but a Limitation to such License is good as license to alien for two years he cannot alien for three but in our case the Condition the Limitation made by the Lord is void and the difference is between a Copyholder in fee and a Copyholder for life for if the Lord doth license his Copyholder in fee to make a Lease for three years if he so long live and he makes a Lease absolutely this is no forfeiture for this Lease shall be a good interest against the Heir of the Copyholder but otherwise of a Copyholder for life And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 38 Eliz. in C. B. Bishop of Rochesters Case THe Bishop of Rochester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Deane and Chapter of Rochester and declared of an Annuity by Prescription from the Prior of S. Andrewes of Rochester which Priory was dissolved the 28 H. 8. 31 H. 8. their possessions were committed by the King to the Dean Chapter of Rochest Anderson The Annuity does not remain for an Annuity chargeth the party and not the possession and therfore when the Corporation is dissolved which is the person the Annuity is gone Walmesley But in 2 H. 6 9. it is said there If a Priory be charged with an Annuity the Annuity shall continue although it be charged to an Abby Anderson That is true for there the Corporation is changed only but here it is
dissolved Williams But that is saved by the 3â— H. 8 for Annuities are exprest in the saving Anderson But this is an Annuity or Rent with which the land is charged Beaumond If it be any thing wherewith the land is charged it is saved but the person is only charged with this Annuity Walmsley But the 21 H. 7. is that an Annuity out of a Parsonage is not a meer personall charge but chargeth the Parson only in respect of the land And the Court would consider on the case Pasch 38 Eliz. in B. R. The Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich THe Case was A Church in which there had been a Parson and a Vicar time out of mind and the Parson used to have the great Tythes and the Vicar the small and for the space of forty years last past it was proved that the Parson had Tythes paid him out of a feild of twenty acres of Corne and now the feild is sowed with Saffron and the Vicar sued for the Tythes of Saffron in the Court Christian and the Parson had a Prohibition Coke I conceive the Parson shall have the Tythes for by the Statute of 2 H. 6. it is enacted that Tythes shall be paid as hath been used the last forty years and this hath been alwaies tythable to the Parson and although the ground be otherwise imployed yet the Parson shall have the Tythes and so was it in Norfolk in the Case of a Park where the Parson proscribed Pro modo decimandi to be paid three shillings fours pence for all Tythes rising out of the said Park and although the Park was after converted to arable yet no other Tythes shall be paid Popham It hath been adjudged otherwise in Wroths Case of the Inner Temple in the Exchequer But the Law is clearly as hath been said and the difference is when the Prescription is to pay so much money for all Tythes or when the Prescription is to pay a shoulder of every Buck or a Doe at Christmas for there if the Park be disparkt Tythes shall be paid for Tythes are not due for Venison and therefore they are not Tythes in Specie And I conceive that Tythes of Saffron-heads shall be comprehended under small Tythes and although the Tythes of this Feild have been paid to the Parson yet it being converted to another use whereof no grosse Tythes do come the Vicar shall have the tythes and so if arable land be converted into an Orchard the Wicar shall have tythe of the Apples and so if the Orchard be changed to arable the Parson shall have tythes Quod Fenner concessit 36 Eliz. Higham against Deff IN a Trespasse the Case was That a Vicaridge by composition was indowed of the third part Omnium Bladorum decimarum of the Mannor of D. If he shall have tythes of the Freeholders of the Mannor was the question Johnson He shall not have them for a Mannor consisteth of two things viz. of Demesns and Services the Freeholders are neither parcel of the Demesnes nor the Services and therefore no parcell of the Mannor and this is proved in 12 Ass 40. a Rent-charge was granted out of a Mannor the Tenancy escheats it shall not be charged with the Rent Tanfeild contra For this word Mannor does extend to the Precincts of the Mannor and not to the Demesnes and Services onely and therefore if a Venire facias be awarded De viceneto Manerii de D. the Freeholders shall be returned also a survey of a Mannor shall be as well of the Freehold lands as of the Demesnes and if the King grants a Leet within the Mannor of D. all the Freeholders are bound to appear Fenner Grants ought not to be restrained to their strict words but are to be construed according to the intent of the parties Trin. 38 Eliz. in B. R. Ewer against Henden Rot. 339. IN an Ejectment the Iury found that I.S. being seised of a Capitall Messuage in the County of Oxford and also of a house and land in Walter in the County of Hartford makes a Lease for years of his house and land in the County of Hartford and then by Will does demise his house in the County of Oxon Together with all other his Lands Meadowes Pastures with all and singular their Appurtenances in Walter in the County of Hartford to John Ewer and whether the house in Walter in the County of Hartford does passe or not was the question Tanfeild The houses shall passe for if a man builds a house upon Black acre and makes a Feoffment of the acre the house shall passe and so if a man does devise una jugata terrae of Copyhold Land the house of the Copyhold does passe also for so is the common phrase in the Country and so if a man be rated in a 100 l. subsidy that does include houses and by the grant of a Tenement the house passeth but if a man demand a house in a Precipe there the house ought to be named Whistler contra It is true that if a man generally does devise his Land the houses passe but in this case the Devisee hath particularized his Land his Meadow and his Pasture and if he intended to have passed his houses he would have mentioned them as well as his Lande Fenner I am of the same opinion for this speciall numbring of particulars does exclude the generall intendment and if the Devisor had a Wood there that would dot passe by these words Popham contra For if a man sells all his Lands in D. his houses and woods passe by this word Lands and so was it agreed in a case which was referred to Dyer and Wray chief Justice and there reason was because that a Warrant of Attorney in a Precipe of a House Woods and Land is onely of Land which proves that land does comprehend all of them and therefore I conceive if a man does devise or bargain and sell all his lands in D. the Rents there shall passe for they were issuing out of the land But if a man be seised of three houses and three acres and he deviseth all his land in D. and one of his houses the other houses will not passe for his expresse meaning is apparant but here the words are in generall as to the lands in Walter and therefore the houses do passe But afterwards it was adjudged that the house did not passe for by the particular mentioning of all his Lands Meadowes and Pastures the house is excluded Pasch 4 Eliz. Hunt against King IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Formedon brought there the Case was Tenant in tail enfeoffs his Son and then disseiseth his Son and levies a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passe the Son enters and makes a Feoffment to a stranger the Father dies and the Son dies and the Issue brings a Formedon The question was Whether by the entry of the Son the Fine was so defeated
Declaration that the Defendant did promise to pay the 10 l. before Michaelmass in consideration the Plaintiff would forbeare to sue A. and that he hath forborn adhuc abstiâ—et and does not say that he made request as he ought to have done But the Court held it was well enough and there is a difference when the Defendant does promise to pay generally and at a certain day named there the Plaintiff ought precisely to alledge a request made in certain but when the Defendant promiseth to pay at a day certain he is bound to pay it at his perill without request and therefore to alledge quod saepius requisitus is sufficient without alledging a speciall request otherwise it is if the Defendant assume to pay it upon request for there it ought to be specially pleaded Another errour was because the consideration was that the Plaintiff should forbeare to sue A. and does not set forth for how long time for perhaps the forbearance was but for a quarter of an houre Peryam The consideration upon which an assumpsit is grounded ought to be of value but of what value is it where the forbearance is but for half an houre Fleming By his promising not to sue he is ingaged never to sue Peryam There is great difference between a promise not to sue and a promise to forbeare to sue for a promise not to sue excludes him from suing at all but a promise to forbeare to sue is only to forbeare for a time so that notwithstanding such promise he may sue after and it being not here exprest how long he will forbeare there is no consideration Walmesley There is a difference when the Defendant sâ—eaks the words and when the Plaintiff For if the Plaintiff sayes I will forbeare to sue you so you will promise to pay me and upon this the Defendant makes a promise accordingly the Plaintiff in this Case ought to forbear to sue him for ever But if the Defendant only speaks the words as here he does If you will forbeace to sue I will promise to pay you and the Plaintiff agrees and forbeares a certain time yet he may have his action afterward sed adjournatur Pasch 38. Eliz. Stroud against Willis in B. R. Rot. 66. IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was If the Obligor shall well and truly pay the Rent or sum of 37 l. yearly at two feasts according to the tenure and true intent of certain articles of agreement indented and made between the Obligor and Obligee during the terme therein mentioned that then c. The Defend intâ—…eâ—ded that these articles ut supra contain that the said Stroud the Obligee Dumisit ad firmam tradidit to the Defendant Omnia talia doâ—…s tenementa terras in Parochia de Petminster de in quibus the sayd Stroud hath an estate for life by Copy according to the Customs of the Mannor Habendum to the Defendant for 21 years if Stroud should so long live rendring to the said Stroud during the said terme 37 〈◊〉 to be paid at the Castle of Canton and pleaded further that at the time of the making the said Articles the said Stroud had not any estate in any Lands houses c. in Petminster aforesaid for the term of his life or by Copy And upon this plea the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintif in the Common Pleas and now was removed by Vrit of Errour And in this Case were two questions First If nothing passe by these Articles and so the reservation of the Rent is also voyd Secondly If the Obligation for payment of the said sum be also voyd and it was said that this could not be payable as a Rent upon the 14 H. 4. 4. 20 Ed. 4. 20 H. 6.23 for no Rent is reserved because there is no land out of which it can come and then the obligation is also discharged 2. Admitting the Rent is not vayable as Rent then whether it be an â—stoppell to plead as here is done against the Articles and therefore they took a difference where the recitall is generall and where not as if A. be bound to infeof me of all his lands of the part of his Mother and he hath no lands of the part of his Mother but otherwise if it were to infeof me of Black acre for he shall be estopped to say that he had not Black acre and so here he shall be estopped to say that there are no Articles but he may plead that he hath no land by Copie Cook 2. Rep. 33.6 Fenner When a man makes a voyd Lease rendring Rent the Reservation is also voyd because the land is the consideration and recompence for the Rent but where a man reserves Rent upon a grant or Lease which grant and Lease are good but the thing out of which the Rent is issuing cannot be charged with the Rent there the reservation is good as where a Rent is reserved out of an advowson or menaltie but in the Case at Bar the Lease did never begin and therefore Rent shall not then is it to be considered whether the Rent is to be payd by reason of the bond as a sum in gross or not and as to that matter the condition of the bond is to pay the Rent according to the true meaning of the Articles which is that if the Lessee have not the Land the Lessor shall not have the Rent therefore it shall not be paid as a sum in gross Popham cont But he agreed that the reservation was voyd for if no Land do pass no Rent is reserved and the reservation only does not make any estoppell and he took a difference upon the 14 Ed. 4. A man makes a Lease generally and the Lessee is bound to pay the Rent in such manner as it was reserved there such Rent ought to be demanded otherwise the Obligation is not forfeit and the demand ought to be upon the Land but if such Lessee for years do oblige himself to pay the Rent at a Collaterall place out of the land there he ought to pay it at his perill without any demand for now he payes it in another nature than as Rent so here if the payment had been limited at a place out of the Land the Obligor is bound to pay it although nothing were demised to him for by the bond he hath made it a sum in gross And it is altered from the nature of Rent upon the first reservation and he is bound also to pay the Rent or sum and if this be any of them he must pay it As to the second point he made this difference A his bound to J.S. to Release to him all his right which he hath in the Land descended to him on the part of his Mother there in Debt upon this bond the Obligee cannot plead that he hath no right descended to him on the part of his mother but must Release at his perill But if he binds
himself to infeof the Obligee of all the Land which he hath by descent of his Father there he may plead that he hath no Land from his Father for all may be Released although the Releasor hath no right but a feofment cannot be made of land which a man hath not Pasch 38 Elizab. Holcombe against Rawlins in B. R. Rot. 401. IN a trespass Quare Clausum fregit with a continuando from the 31 Elizab. to the 36. the Defendant pleaded that J.S. was seised in Fee and made a Lease to him c. The Plaintiff replyed that long time before J.S. was seised he himself was seised untill the said J.S. did disseise him and J.S. being so seised did make the Lease to the Defendant for years whereupon the Plaintiff reentred Tanfield It appears by the Plaintiffs Replication that the Defendant was in under the title of J.S. viz. the Lessee of the Disseisor of the Plaintif and therefore he cannot be a Trespassor to the Plaintiff notwithstanding his regress 34 H. 6 30. 37 H. 6 35. 2 Edw. 4 17. 13 H. 7.15 Atkinson contra At the Common Law the Disseisee being out of possession shall not recover any damages but only against the Disseisor and not against any other that comes to the land afterwards and for this cause the Statute of Glocesteâ— was made But at the Common Law when the Disseisee re-enters he is remitted as if he had not been out of possession at all and he shall have a trespass against the meane occupiers as in the 4 H. 7. A man was restored to his land by Parliament as if he had never been out of possession at all and he shall have a trespass against the occupiers that are in by title aswell as here he had against the Kings Patentee Gâ—wdy If a Disseisor be disseised and the first disseisee enter he shall have a trespass against the second Disseisor And Popham and Fenner agreed but Clench cont But at last adjudged for the Plaintiff vid. Cook 11. Rep. fol. 57. Lyfords Case to the contrary Pasch 37. Eliza. VViseman against Baldwin in B. R. Rot. 341. IN a writ of errour to reverse a judgment given in the Common Pleas the Case was thus Râ—chard Baldwin did demise his land in Taile upon condition that the Devisee should pay to J.S. 20. l. and if he failed of the payment that then the land should remain to J.S. and his heires for ever and whether this be a Condition in Law that the heir shall take advantage of or a limitation of the estate so that J.S. shall take advantage was the Question Gawdy It is a limitation and not a condition as is apparent in Dyer Wilfoâ—ds Case 7.128 and Pewis and Scholasticas Case in the Comentaries and there is great diversity between an estate in Law and a devise in which the intent of the Devisor is to be observed and here if this shall be taken for a condition the intent of the Devisor is defrauded Clench agreed For this should be as a new devise to J.S. and not as a remainder as a devise to a Monk the remainder to J.S. the remainder is not good as a remainder but as a new devise Fenner of the same opinion and said it had been so adjudged in this Court in an Attournies Case of Devonshire and also in Sir Edward Cleeres Case Gawdy The received opinion of all learned Lawyers hath been such as hath been said viz. that to the end the intent of the Devisor should be observed it shall be a limitation Then I put this Case A man deviseth his Land to J.S. upon condition and for non-payment be devises that his Executors shall sell the Land if J.S. faile of the payment it is cleere that the Executors may sell the Land Godfrey I agree because the Executors have nothing devised to them but only an authority given them by the Will to sell Gawdy But when the Executors have sold the Vendee is in by the Devisor and then it is no other than a devise to one in Fee on condition of payment c. and if he fail then to another And the three Iustices agreed but because the Chief Iustice was absent it was adjourned to another day at which time Fenner said that he had spoken with â—…wen one of the Iustices of the Common Pleas who said he never agreed to the Iudgment but in case of a perpetuity And therefore the Iudgment in the Common Pleas was reverst The Earl of Lincolne against Fisher THe Steward of the Leete being in Court did say in Fisher who was resident within the precinct of the Leet that he must be sworn for the Queen to make presentments at the said Court. To which Fisher replyed in saying I ought to be sworn you lie For which Fisher was fined at the Court 20 l. And the Earl who had the Leet brought his action for the same Yelverton The action will not lie for he is not finable for such words for they are no disturbance to the Court nor hindrance of Iustice for this word you lie in ancient speaking is no more than to say you do not say true Gawdy agreed that the action would not lie But Fenner Clench and Popham cont For this is a misdemeanor for which the defendant is finable for every Leet is the Queens Court and a Court of Iustice to which respect and reverence ought to he given and these words are in great contempt to the Court and the authority thereof which is supreme And Posito that he should here say to the Iudge of a Court when he delivered his opinion in any Case Mr. Iudge you lie without question he may be fined and imprisoned and as it is of a Iudge here so is it of a Iudge of any inferiour Court because it is a Court of Iustice And Popham said That if any misdemeaned himself in the Leet in any outragious manner the Steward may commit him And Gawâ—y changed his opinion Wherefore the Plaintiff had judgement to recover Pasch 36. Eliz. Allens Case A Scire facias issued out in the name of the Queen to shew cause why execution of a debt which is come to the Queen by the attainder of J.S. should not be had The Defendant pleaded that the Queen had granted over this debt by the name of a debt which came to her by the attainder of J.S. and all actions demands c. upon which the Plaintiff demurr'd And the question was if the Patentee might sue for this in the name of the Queen without speciall words And two presidents were cited that he may 1 Pasch 30 Eliz. rot 191. in the Exchequer where Greene to whom a debt was due was attainted and the Queen granted over this debt and all actions and demands and a â—câ—re facias was sued for him in the name of the Queen also in the 32 Elâ—z rot 219. Mabb of London was indebted by bond and the debt came to the Qu. by
propertie To which it was answered that if the ancient stock of Sheepe were still it had been godd but it was not and therefore the grant is voyd Walmesley Although the first stock was changed yet the new stock does supply it and is in place thereof and shall be in the same condition as the other stock is and therefore the Lessor shall have propertie in it But the whole Court was against him for they said that the increase of the stock of Sheepe should be to the Lessee and the Lessor shall never have them at the end of the terme but they agreed that if the lease were of the stock with Lambs Calves and Piggs there the increase belongs to the Lessor And all the Court took this difference sc when a lease is made of dead goods and when of living for when the lease is of dead goods and any thing is added to them for reparations or otherwise the Lessor shall have this addition at the end of the terme because it belongs to the principle but in case of a stock of Cattle which hath an increase as Calves and Lambs there these things are severed from the principle and Lessor shall never have them for then the Lessor shall have the Rent and the Lessee shall have no profit Trinit 29 VViseman against Rolfe in in C. B. Rot. 1454. IN a Writ of right the Case was thus A man selfed of Land in Fee makes his will and gives to D. his wife such Land for life the remainder to T. his son and heires of his body and also gives to T. his son his Land in B. and also his Land in C. and also he gives his Land called Odyum to the seed of his son habendum all the demised premisses to his T. son and the heires males of his body The Question was it T. should have an estate in Taile in B. and C. or if the last words shall relate only to that which was last named Fenner for the Plaintiff For the last Clause is a new Clause and shall not be preferred to the first for it begins with a verbe viz. I give my Land called Odyum and therefore the limitation afterward shall be referred only to this And 10 H. 7.8 There was a grant by Dedi custodiam Parci Arbores vento prostrat The Grantee shall have the trees by this Clause and 14 Eliz. A man deviseth thus I give my Mannour of C. to my second son Item I give my Mannor of S. to my second son to have and to hold to him and to his heirs And by Dyer Welsh and Weston he had an estate but for life but Brown cont for if a Lease be made to A. B. and C. successively it is adjudged that they are Ioyntenants but if it be to them as they are named they shall have it one after the other and if a devise be to one and his heirs and after to another for life the Law will conster that the estate for life is to procede for that words of Relation in Wills shall be taken stricttly as if a devise be to A. and his heirs of his body and he does devise other land in Forma praedicta this shall be but for life Walmesley cont and said that this limitation did go to all whereof no limitation was made before for the rules of reason are uncertain and therefore such matters shall be expounded according to the best sense that may be and here the sense is most naturall to refer it to all and the word all imports this and the Case of the fourth of Elizabeth under favour accords with this viz. that the Devisee shall have Fee in both But if the Devise had been I devise D. to my son Thomas and also to him and his heirs the Mannor of S. there he shall have D. but for life And if a man devise to his 4. sons A. B. C. and D. to have to the persons last named to them and their heirs there all shall have Fee 19 Ed. 4. In a precipe of a house and an acre of land in three severall Towns and that the Defendant Ibidem ingressus est and did not say into the house and land and yet it was held good Periam and Rhodes He shall have an estate Taile in all and the relation shall be to all Anderson doubted at first but agreed afterwards and Iudgement was given accordingly 32 33 Eliz. Mathewson against Trott in C. B. Rot. 1904. UPon a speciall verduit the Case was this A man seised of land in soccage devised it to his yonger son and died seised the elder son enters and dies seised and his heir enters and the yonger son enters upon him the Question was if his entry be taken away by this descent VValmesley It is not and he compar'd this case to a title of entry for a condition broken or a Conusee of a Fine upon grant and render c. in which Cases no descent shall take away entry Anderson The Devisee hath interest presently and the land does not descend for the devise prevents the descent and the Freehold is presently in the Devisee and the Statute 32 H. 8. which gives power to Devise lands does make a Title in the Devisee as a Title of entry for condition of Mortmaine and the Devisee shall not have an ex gravi querela upon this Statute but he must enter Walmesley The Devisee hath not a Freehold presently for if it were so the Devisee at the Common Law ought not to sue an Ex gravi Querela but certainly if the freehold be in the Devisee his entry is taken away And afterwards Iudgment was given by Anderson that descent does not take away the entry of the Devisee but delivered no reason for it Hillar 33 Eliz. Mosgrave against Agden Rot. 2529. IN an action of the Case on a Trover and conversion of six barrells of Butter The count was that they came to the hands of the Defendant and after the trover they were impared and decayed ratione negligentis custodiae And the Court held cleerly that the action would not lie for he who finds goods is not bound to preserve them from putrefaction but it was agreed that if the goods were used and by usage made worse the action would lie 44 Eliz. Ayer against Joyner in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a second Deliverance it was said by the Court that if Lessee for years does assign over his terme and yet continues possession that he hath but a naked possession and no interest nor estate but the estate and interest does remain in the grantee so that he may grant it over And Walmesley said that if the Lessee makes waste the Lessor may have an action of waste against him and there is a casâ— that if a man makes a Lease and the Lessee waves the possession and a stranger commits waste the Lessor shall have an action of waste against the Lessee but the principall question
21. years that is good and the Executor shall have it as in right of his Testator But where a man makes a Lease for years or life the remainder after his death for 40. years to his Executors the Executors shall have it as purchasors for this word remainder divides it from the Testator and makes the Executors purchasors Walmesley Glanvill and Kingsmill cont And their chief reason was from the intent of the parties and their intent was that the Lessee should have an estate during life for it is to him for 89. years if he so long live and because by common intendment he cannot survive those years their intent was that his Executors should have it after his death and that the certainty of the time might be known it was limited for 40. years And W lmsley said that the Administrator could not have this by purchase for when a man takes by purchase he must be named by an apt name of purchase by which he may be known as if there be tenant for life the remainder to the right heirs males of J.S. and J.S. hath issue two sons and the eldest hath issue a daughter and J.S. dies this daughter shall never take any estate because she is not heir male she hath no name of purchase and therefore here the Administrator cannot take by purchase for the Administrator comes in by the ordinary and therefore cannot be an assignee And at last Iudgment was given That the Administrator should hold it as a thing vested in the Intestate Michaelm 41 42 Eliza. VVhite against Gerish in C. B. Rot. 366. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowd for Rent The case was this Two persons did joyne in leavying a fine to J. S in Fee â—ur coâ—…ns de droit come ceo c. J.S. by the same Fine renders the Lands to one of the Conusors in taile reserving Rent and further would quod tenementa preâ—…cta remanerent to the other who is the avovee Walmesley The Rent shall passe as if a man grants land for life and also grants quod tenementa predicta remaneâ—unt to another these words Quod tenementa predicta do make a grant of the reversion and also these renders are as severall Fines and so it shall be taken as a grant in Taile rendring Rent and after a grant of the reversion Glanvill accorded Warburton If a man makes a gift in Taile rendring rent the remainder over in Fee the Donor shall have the Rent and not he in the remainder Walmesley That is true in a grant but not in a Fine Anderson If a man makes a gift in Taile rendring rent and at the same instant grants the Reversion and the Deeds are delivered accordingly this shall passe as a reversion And after it was adjudged to be a grant of the reversion and that the rent passeth Crawleys Case IN Replevin the case was thus A Rent is granted to two during the life of J.S. to the use of J.S. the grantee dieth and if the Rent were determined was the Question Walmsley The rent remains to J.S. for the grantees have an estate during the life of J.S. and by the Statute of the 27. l. 8. the use is raised and conjoynd with the possession whereby the Rent it self is carryed to J.S. whereby J.S. hath an absolute estate for his life and the life of the grantees is not materiall as if Rent be granted to two for the life of J.S. if he does not grant over the rent their lives are not materiall And if they grant over and dse the Rent shall not cease but the grantee shall have it during the life of J.S. And here the Statute 27 l. 8. vests this in cestuy que vie otherwise if it were before the Statute of use quod fuit concessum per curiam Pasch 41 Eliz. Shaw against Sherwood Rot. 2504. THe Executors of Shaw brought an Action of Debt for 20 l. upon a Bill and the Bill was thus I William Shaw have received of Thomas Pret 40 l. to the use of Robert Shaw and Elizâ—beth Shaw equally to be divided which said sum I acknowledge my self to have received to the use aforesaid and the same to re deliver again at such time as shall be most fit for the profit and commodity of the said Robert Shaw and Eâ—…zabeth Walmesley Two points are here First if this be a Debt to cestuy que use or to him who gave it Secondly if it be divided so that each of them shall have an Action for 20 l. And as to the first he held that it was a debt to him for whose use the money was delivered and as to the second that they shall have a debt as of several debts by reason of these words equally to be divided Kâ—…gâ—…m Here is no Obligation for the words are not obligatory but onely an acknowledgement of the receipt Glanyâ—ll accorded Walmesley When he acknowledged the receipt to both their uses without question such Receiver is a Debtor And agreed by the Court that admitting it was a Debt that then it shall be a divided Debt and not joynt Quod nota Lane against Cotton IN Debt upon a Bond on condition to pay 20 l. within a month after the Obligee had a son that did or could speak the Lords Pâ—…er in English that he could be understood the Plaintiff pleaded that he had a son qui loqui potuiâ— praecationem Domini uâ—intelligâ— potuerit and the Defendant demurr'd because it was pleaded that he had a son qui loqui potui for that is a secret ability that cannot be known Kingsmill The plea is good and shall be tryed as in case of a Writ of non comâ—…s mentis Glanvill accorded for it may be proved by the testimony of those who have heard him speak and if he ever spoke it it is good evidence that he had ability to speak Walmesley contr Because it is a secret thing it cannot be tryed Kingsmill A man is bound in a Bond to give me 20 l. when the River of Varâ— is novigable it is a good plea to say that the River is navigable without saying that some have navigated upon it Herâ— Serjeant cited a Case adjudged in a Quare impedit by the Patron against the Bishop who had pleaded that the Parishioners were Welshmen and that they could not understand English and that the Clerk he presented could not understand Welsh and the Patron pleaded that the Clerk could speak Welsh and upon Demurr it was adjudged a good issue and that such matter might be tryed Anderson The issue is good and it is at the election of the party to plead quod loqui potuit vel loquutus est And if I am obliged to you to give you a 100 l. when I am able to go to Pauls this may â—e tryed although in facto I never went to Pauls and if I am able I shall pay the money And he cited Broughtons Case where in Maintenance the Defendant pleaded that he
was peritus in legibus Angliae and that he was retained to he of Councel and adjudged no good plea for he should alledge that he was Student for a certain time and was elected by the Benchers to be a Barrester And Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Michaelm 41 42 Eliz. Swan against Gateland Rot. 3267 or 3667. IN a ravishment of Ward the Plaintiff demurred that T. B. was seized of land in socage and dyed and J B his son is of the age of two years and that the Guardianship belongs to him because he is next friend 〈◊〉 parâ—… maâ—…s J.B. viz. the brother of E.B. the infants mother The Defendant pleaded that E.B. the infants mother was his mother also and that he was begotten by one Gateland on the said E.B. and the said Gatelaâ—e dyed and the said E.B. did marry the said T.B. and had issue the infant and so concluded quod erat propinquior am cus absque hoc that the Plaintiff is propinquior amicus and upon this was a Demurr Hern for the Plaintiff The question is whether the uncle shall be Guardian in socage or the brother of the half blood and he said the uncle should have the Wardship because there is a more natural affection between the uncle and the infant than between the infant and the brother of the half blood and if there be not love he cannot be the procheme amy although in judgement of Law he be the next of kin 31 Ed. 3. Gawdy 157. In a Writ of Ward the Plaintiff declared that he was next of kin of the Plaintiff the mother of the infant and it was pleaded against him that the infants mother was alive but he replyed that the mother had made a Charter of Feoffment to the disherison of the infant and that she was attaint of Treason And in 15 Eliz. the brother who claimed the Wardship of his younger brother was also within age and therefore it was ruled that the uncle should have the Wardship because alterum â—…quâ—r regeâ—… qui seâ—psum nequit And 5 Ed. 6. the brother of the half blood is next of kin to whom administration shall be given before the mother for the Statute of 27 H. 8.15 sayes that the next of kin shall have it and the brother of the half blood is the next of â—in but Guardianship shall be given by the Law to the nearest friend and that is the uncle Williams contr For although the brother be but oâ— the half blood yet he shall have the Wardship for the brother is the next of kin to whom the inheritance cannot descend and the 31 Ed. 1. does not gainsay this for the mother was denyed the Wardship because she was attaint of Treason for the Law will not suffer that the infant shall be in Ward to any who may be suspected to do wrong to the infants land or to his person and therefore he shall not be in Ward to any that may inherit him for there is a suspicion that he may kill the infant And 5 Ed. 6. Brook Administration 47. it is agreed that the brother of the half blood is next of kin and that is the cause of the nearness of love and it cannot be intended that there should not be love between persons so nearly allyed And 30 Assi 47. a remainder was limited propinquioribus de sanguine and there it is agreed that the brother is next of blood Warburton contr The uncle shall have the Wardship for two causes for there is not such natural love between two brothers of the half blood as is between the uncle and the infant of the whole blood Also the Statute sayes that he shall be in custody parentum haeredis and therefore he ought to be in custody of those who are of most antient degree who are the parents but one brother cannot be parent to the other Walmesley contr For the brother is the procheine amy and so hath it been ruled in the time of the Lord Dyer in 7 Eliz. in C. B. for he ought to be in Ward to him that is next of blood and most remote in succession And the 5 Ed. 6. proves that he is next of kin and such nearness must needs procure love and although it sometimes happens that there is not such love yet this cannot alter the Law that alwayes intends amity and although the Statute of Mariebirdge speaks of parents that is intended of such as are of full age and of sound memory for if he be not then some other that is the next of kin shall have the Wardship and he told Warburton that he would shew him a report of such a Case where it was ruled accordingly before the Lord Dyer Hillar 43 Eliz. Peck against Charnell in C. B. Rot. 1703. IN an Ejectment upon a special Verdict the Case was this John Burly seized in Fee of land doth devise it to his wife for life the remainder to William Burly in tail the remainder to his next heir-male being of his sirname in Fee and dyes and then his wife does intermarry with William Burly who had the remainder in Tail and then they levyed a Fine come ceo c. to J.S. and by the same Fine J.S. rendred to the wife for life the remainder to the husband in Fee and then a common recovery was had against the husband and wife and that was to the uses contained in the Fine then the wife dyes and the husband dyes without issue and the right heir male of the sirname of the Devisor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who being outed by the Lessee of William Burly brought the Action Williams Here are two points first if this be a discontinuance â—y the wife secondly if the recovery barrs him in the remainder And as to the first point when woman tenant for life and he in the remainder in Tail being her husband do joyn in a Fine this shall not be a discontinuance of the estate Tail for by Littleton discontinuance cannot be by way of grant although it be in case of a Fine but ought to be by Livery And as to the second point Knivetons Case Bâ— 252. is express in the point that notwithstanding the common recovery yet the entry of him in the remainder is legal for as to the point of recovery a base Fee doth pass to the Conusee of the Fine which is rendred back again to the woman for life and her husband in Fee and by the Common Law there was no remedy for him in the reversion against a recovery had against Tenant for life 7 H. 7.12 5 Ed. 4.2 untill the Statute of Westminster the 2. which gives to him a Writ of ad terminum qui praeteriit and by the Statute of the 23 of H. 8. he may enter but now the question is whether this recovery will bar him in the remainder of his entry because the recovery was of another estate and not against his Tenant for life But I conceive