Disseisor the Disseisee entereth in the life of Tenant in tail who afterwards dieth the warranty works nothing for the cause aforesaid And also he put this Case Tenant in tail of Land grants a Rent-charge in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth to the Grantee with warranty and dieth the Tenant in tail dieth now the issue is bound but if Tenant in tail dieth before him who maketh the Release now the Rent is determined by the death of Tenant in tail and then the warranty cannot attach upon it At another day the Case was moved and conceived in these words scil Tenant for life the Remainder in tail Tenant for life leaseth for years a Recovery is had against him in the Remainder in tail living Tenant for life the Recoverors enter and oust the Lessee for years the Son and Heir of him in the Remainder in tail releaseth with warranty to him to whom the Recoverors have assured the Lands the Lessee enters he against whom the Recovery was had dieth the Releasor dieth c. It was holden that the Entry of the Lessee before that the warranty had attached upon the possession which passed had avoided the warranty And the Lord Anderson conceived That the Recovery should not prejudice the issue in tail but that the issue shall Fauxifie the same And if Tenant in tail be disseised and so disseised suffereth a common Recovery his issue shall not be barred quod fuit concessum per omnes And afterwards another matter was moved scil That the Release is pleaded to be made to Lincoln College by the name of Custodi sociis Scholaribus Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia where the true name of the College as is confessed by the Record in the Plea pleaded is Custos sive Rector Socii Scholares Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia c. It was adjourned See this Case reported 3 part Lincoln College Case LXXXIII Hall and the Bishop of Bath 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HAll brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Bath and others The Incumbent pleaded Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat c. nisi de praesentatione Georgii Sidenham militis not named in the Writ and demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was argued by Drew Serjeant for the Plaintiff That the Writ was well brought without naming the Patron for if a Quare Impedit be brought against the Patron and Incumbent and the Patron dieth 1 Leon. 45. pendant the Writ the Writ shall not abate 9 H. 6. 30. It might be that the Plaintiff did not know nor could tell who presented the said Incumbent but he findeth the Incumbent a Disturber by his Incumbency and if of necessity such Patron ought to be named then if such a Vsurper should die before the Writ brought he which hath cause of Action should be remediless And by Anderson and Periam the Writ is good enough for the reason aforesaid And Anderson put this case If A. wrongfully by Vsurpation doth present and his Clark is received and afterwards A. having gained the Patronage grants it over to B. Against whom shall the Quare Impedit be brought Walmsley Against B. which Anderson doubted LXXXIV Hughe 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Formedon the Writ was That A. Dedit Aliciae filiae suae and to J.S. and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten and it was shewed in abatement of the Writ That the name of the Wife is put before the name of the Husband To which it was said by the Court that if such a Writ be brought against the Husband and Wife and the name of the Wife be put before the name of the Husband the Writ shall abate and if in the Case at Bar it had appeared That the Donees at the time of the Gift were Husband and Wife upon such a matter disclosed the Writ should abate but that doth not appear plainly to the Court. LXXXV Mich. 32 Eliz. In the common-Common-Pleas NOTE It was holden by the Court 1 Cro. 567. 3 Cro. 224. Post 189. That if a Writ of Dower be brought against an Infant who loseth by default at the Grand Cape that he may reverse the same by a Writ of Error but where an Infant appeareth by Guardian and afterwards loseth by default there he shall never avoid it for if any default be in the Guardian the Infant shall recover against him in a Writ of Deceit And afterwards the Iudgment in the first case was reversed LXXXVI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber NOTE In the Exchequer-Chamber before the Lord Chancellour The two chief Iustices and the chief Baron a Writ of Error was cast upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer and it was agreed Quod propter absentiam Dom. Thesaurarii Angliae They ought not nor could receive the said Writ and the Statute of 31 Eliz. doth not help the matter for that extends but to discontinuances which before the Statute many times hapned for the not coming of the Chancellour or Treasurer and not to give Conusance in a Writ of Error in the absence of the Treasurer c. LXXXVII Lacy and Fisher 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Lacy against Fisher The Defendant pleaded that the place where c. is called Spicold and holden of the Manor of Easthall by certain Rent and made Conusance as Bailiff of the Lord of the said Manor and issue being joined hereupon It was tried by the Iury of the Visne of Spicold and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the issue was mis-tried For the Visne ought to have been of Spicold and Easthall also Web and Richmond's Case And a Case was cited to have been adjudged accordingly betwixt Webb and Richmond M. 31 Eliz. in the same Court. LXXXVIII Corbet 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That an Action of Debt was brought by original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was dwelling and before notice of that suit he paid divers other debts of the Intestate due by specialties so as he had not Assets to pay the debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the original and now the Defendant appearing pleads the same special matter and concluded And so nothing remained in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea See 2 H. 4. 21 22. LXXXIX Sir William Pelham 's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Co. 41. THE Case short put was this A. Tenant for life of a Messuage c. the remainder in tail to B. with divers remainders over A. by Deed indented and enrolled bargained and sold the Messuage c. so conveyed to Sir William Pelham in Fee who afterwards suffered a common Recovery thereof in which A. is vouched and so a common Recovery is had and executed and
also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the common-Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.
the Lessee entred 29 Sept. which is before the Term begins For the words of the Habendum are From the Feast of St. Michael therefore the Feast of St. Michael is no part of the Term and then was the Defendant a Disseisor and the day after the Term began which cannot alter his Estate but that he continueth a Disseisor and then he is not in by force of the said Lease and so no Rent can be due Williams As the Declaration is here the same is not any disseisin for the Plaintiff set forth in his Declaration That the Lessee the Defendant hath occupied the Land demised the whole year and so hath not admitted any Disseisin it being in his election to make it a Disseisin or not Clench Iustice Be it a Disseisin or not or be it that the Defendant entreth or not he is to pay the Rent Gawdy The Lessee is a Disseisor and continueth a Disseisor and yet Debt lieth against him for the Rent by reason of the privity of Contract which see Rysden's Case 24 H. 8. Dyer 5. And so in our Case Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXII Monings and Worley 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 561. Error IN Debt upon an Obligation brought by Mary Worley against Monings in the Common-Pleas The Condition was That if Mary Worley the Plaintiff in the said Action doth not depart out of the service of the Defendant without license of the Defendant Monings nor marry her self but with his consent Then if the Defendant shall pay to the said Mary within twenty eight days after demand by her made of Monings at his house at Waldersey 100 l. That then c. And the Defendant in the said Action pleaded That the said Mary the Plaintiff in the said Action 4 Maii 30 Eliz. departed out of his service without licence The Plaintiff Mary by Replication said That 6 Septemb. the same year she departed out of his service with licence and that 4 Octob. after she demanded the said 100 l. at Waldersey aforesaid and he refused to pay it Absque hoc that she departed out of his service 4 Maii 30 Eliz. without licence and the Writ bare date 18. of October next after the demand And it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given for her in the common-Common-Pleas and now a Writ of Error is brought by Monings Tanfield The Iudgment ought to be reversed for always the Replication in such cases ought to contain sufficient Cause of Action and sufficient breach of the Condition or otherwise the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment although that the Issue be found for him as 7 E. 4. 31. In trespass for taking of goods of A. and B. A. pleads Not guilty B. justifies the Plaintiff makes Title to the goods by a gift B. traverseth the gift and it is found for him against the Plaintiff A. is found guilty Now although A. be found guilty yet the Plaintiff shall not have judgment against him for it is found that he hath not any Title to the goods As in Debt upon a Bond against A. and B. A. pleads Non est factum B. pleads the release of the Plaintiff and it is found the Deed of A. and that the Plaintiff hath released to B. the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment for upon the Verdict it appears that he hath not cause of Action And here in the Replication there is not a sufficient breach shewed of the Condition for although that Mary hath not departed from the service of the said Defendant yet the same is not material but the Defendant had twenty eight days after the demand to pay the 100 l. but the same is not so here for the Plaintiff hath prevented the Defendant for the demand is alledged to be 4. Oct. and the Writ bears date 18. Octob. the same year and so the Defendant had not his time allowed him Gawdy The issue is taken upon the departure out of his service so as the demand is not now material and therefore the alledging of the same is surplusage and shall not hurt And the Defendant hath pleaded in Bar the departure of the Plaintiff out of his service upon which he relieth and the demand set forth in the Replication is not to be regarded as to prejudice the Plaintiff As 3 Ma. Dyer 115. Lessee for years covenants that he will not cut any Trees The Lessor assigns the breach of the Covenant in succidendo twenty Oaks The Lessee pleads that he did not cut the twenty Trees nor any of them The Iury found that the Defendant had cut down ten Trees The Plaintiff upon that Verdict shall have Iudgment for the rest is but surplusage and more put in issue than there needs to be Fenner It is not any full Plea to say That the Plaintiff did not depart out of the service of the Defendant 4 Maii for if she departeth at any other time she shall not recover for which cause she ought to have pleaded That she continued in his service untill such a day and then she departed with his licence and the inducement to the traverse ought to be sufficient matter otherwise it is not a full Plea nor the Traverse is not good And if it be surplusage yet if it be not matter against her self it makes the Plea naught which see 1 H. 7. 29. 6 H. 7. 16. Gawdy conceived that the Iudgment was well given for the Defendant was at his liberty to plead the departure of the Plaintiff without his licence or to stand upon the demand And now although he pleads the departure yet the demand is not confessed And afterwards the Iudgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas was affirmed CXXIII Bashpool 's Case 27 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this The Father seised of Lands Stiles Rep. 148. is bound in an Obligation and deviseth his Lands to his Wife untill his Son cometh to the age of twenty one years the remainder to the Son in Fee and dieth and no other Lands descend or come to the Son from his Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in that case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But Gawdy and Shute Iustices 3 Len. 118. were of opinion That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent Clench contrary CXXIV Bennet and Shortwright 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 1 Cro. 206. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kind and now the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition and suggested That they had used in the said Parish time out of mind c. to take the tenth Sheaf in satisfaction of Tythe of Corn c. and in those years in which the Plaintiff had supposed the subtraction of his Tythes he had severed the tenth Sheaf from the nine parts and the Parson would not take
in the house of Robert not by the Will but by descent and this Devise shall not take effect otherwise and the Devise as to that is void and then the Common Law shall hold place and that is to descend to the issue of the one sister and the surviving sister And here the survivor hath but an Estate for life in the house of Robert and then by the death of Robert the Fee-simple accruing to the surviving sister the moyety of her Estate for life is extinct And if one of the daughters had died without issue before Robert the house of such daughter had come to Robert and the other sister as coparceners for the son is to have all the Fee and a moyety of the same executed and a moyety expectant and the other sister should have a moyety for life and so the Devise not void And afterwards Iudgment was given against the husband of the surviving daughter CCXLIV Hurlston 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 4 Len. 160. HUrlston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen upon a Iudgment given for the Queen in the County Palatine of Chester It was moved by Gawdy the Queens Serjeant that the Writ did not lye for he ought to sue to the Queen by Petition which see 23 E. 3. 22. A Writ of Error cannot be granted Absque speciali gratia Dom. Regis See also 22 E. 3. 3. And the case was That Iudgment was given for the Queen in a Scire facias to reverse the Patent of the Constableship of the Castle of Chester and by him in Chester there are many Courts King's-Bench common-Common-Pleas Exchequer Chancery And here a Iudgment or Decree in the Chancery cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so he conceived of a Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester and it cannot be reversed in the King's-Bench Also they have a custome in Chester that they may reverse within certain Months the Iudgment before Clench There needs no Petition for both the Patentees claim from the Queen and whether there be Error or not the Queen is not prejudiced Coke There needs no Petition for it is now past for the Queens Attorney's hand is to it 11 Eliz. In one Haunce's case a Writ of Error was brought against the Queen and they were compelled to sue to the Queen by Petition Coke In the Exchequer If an erronious Iudgment be given for the Queen in a Bill of Intrusion the party shall have a Writ of Error against the Queen without any Petition It was the case of one Eliz. Mordant 15 Eliz. she brought a Writ of Error to reverse a Fine levyed by her during her minority against the Queen and the proceeding in it was stayed because she had not sued to the Queen by Petition first Wray Many Outlawries have been reversed by Error without any Petition and yet in such case the Queen hath an immediate interest CCXLV Gomersall and Gomersall 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Account The Plaintiff charged the Defendant as Bailiff of his Shop Curam habens administrationem bonorum The Defendant answered to the goods onely and said nothing to the Shop Tanfield moved the same matter for Error in arrest of Iudgment As 14. H. 4. 309 310. One charged another as Bailiff of his house Et curam habens bonorum in eo existen the traverse was That he was not Bailiff of the house Pro ut that is good and goeth to all but he cannot answer to the goods and say nothing to the house See 49 E. 3. 7. Br. Accomp 21. A man brought an Accompt against one as Bailiff of his Manor Habens curam of twenty Oxen and Cows and certain quarters of Corn And by Belknap If he have the Manor and no goods yet he shall accompt for the Manor and it shall be no Plea to say that the Plaintiff sold him the goods without traversing without that that he was his Bailiff to accompt render And as to the Manor he may say that the Plaintiff leased the same to himself for years without that that he was his Bailiff Another exception was taken by him That the Plaintiff chargeth him with moneys Ad merchandizandum And he traverseth that he was not his Receivor denarior ad computandum pro ut and so he doth not meet with the Plaintiff and so it is no issue And it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes 32 H. 8. but mis-joining of issue is helped by that Statute 19 Eliz. W. an Attorney of the Common-Pleas did charge another Attorney of the same Court with a Covenant to have three years board in marriage with the Defendant's daughter and he pleaded that he did not promise two years board and so issue was joined and tried and the same could not be helped by the Statute because it was no issue and did not meet with the Plaintiff So if one charge in the Debet detinet and he answers to the Detinet onely it is no issue and therefore it is not helped by the Statute In 29 H. 6. in trespass for entring into his house and taking of his goods the Defendant pleaded Non intravit and the issue was tried and damages given and because the taking of the goods was not also in issue all was void 4 E. 3. One shall not accompt by parcels because the Action is intire See 3 E. 3. 8. and Book of Entries 202. A Precedent 14 H. 7. That the Verdict was not full and did not go to the whole and therefore was void Hele Serjeant contrary And as to the first point he said That there is a Case in 9 E. 3. Accompt 35. where the Plaintiff chargeth the Defendant in accompt as Bailiff of his house and that he had the administration of his goods viz. Forty sacks of wooll and upon issue joined the Iury found that he was not Bailiff of his house but they farther find that he had received the forty sacks of wooll to render accompt of the same and the Plaintiff in that Case had Iudgment for the sacks of wooll although there was no Verdict found for the house See 5 H. 7. 24. Where if a Iury be charged with several issues and the one of the issues is found and the other not that the same makes no discontinuance or if one of the issues be discontinued yet it is no discontinuance as to the whole But admit the same be not helped by the Common Law yet he said it is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Jeofailes which is Non obstant discontinuance or miscontinuance Daniel to the same purpose And he said that the Books before cited of 14 H. 4. and 49 E. 3. are not ruled nor the Cases there adjudged in the one Book the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff gave the goods unto him and in the other Book that he sold the said goods unto him and demanded Iudgment of the Action And he said That it is no
Rot. 509. Hubbart and Windsmore's Case in Hubbart and Windsmore's Case II. Thatcher and Damport 's Case Mich. 32 and 33 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 19. THatcher recovered against Damport as Administrator of one Zouch 1 Cro. 145. 215. ib. Error The Defendant put in Bail and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Defendant in this manner Ideo videtur Justiciariis quod querens recuperet debitum suum versus c. and thereupon a Scire facias was sued against the Bail Judgement against the Bail. and a good and lawfull Iudgment given against them And they brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Iudgment given against them and assigned Error because Iudgment was entred against them before a good and lawfull Iudgment was given against the Defendant himself For Videtur Justiciariis quod querens recuperet c. is not any Iudgment and the Court held that the Iudgment given against the Bail ought to be reversed but that the other Iudgment should stand such as it is neither affirmed nor disaffirmed but the Bail should not cause the same Iudgment for their discharge to be entred And afterwards came Thatcher and surmised the nullity of the said Iudgment and prayed that Iudgment might be entred for him in forma juris habuit And now upon this new Iudgment Damport brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error the entry of that new Iudgment for before a Iudgment was entred tiel queb and Thatcher proceeded upon it and had a Scire facias against the Bail and Iudgment thereupon given against the Bail Also the Record was removed by Writ of Error and this second Iudgment is merely erronious for then there should be two Iudgments and they should give Iudgment upon a Record which was not before them Gawdy Iustice The Writ of Error is to remove the Record Si Judicium inde redditum sit by which if Iudgment be not given the Record doth remain unremoved and then they may well enough give Iudgment For the former pretended Iudgment was no Iudgment at all and the Record is not removed As 4 Eliz. Dyer 206. a Certiorari to remove a Record capt in Curia nostra whereas it was in Curia of the predecessor the Record is not removed The former Writ of Error was to remove the Record of the Scire facias against the Bail which might be removed although the other Record did remain for they are two distinct Iudgments And such was the opinion of the other Iustices And afterwards upon advice of the whole Court the Iudgment against the Defendant himself was affirmed but that which was given against the Bail was reversed because given before Iudgment given against the Defendant himself III. Werdman and Yate 's Case Trinit 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Partition 1 Cro. 155. 281. WErdman brought a Writ of Partition against Yates and others who all appeared and confessed the Action and afterwards brought Error which was entred Pasch 27 Eliz. Rot. 43. and they assigned Errors and the opinion of the Court was against them and they seeing it did discontinue their Writ of Error and now they sued a new Writ of Error out of the Chancery Error directed to the Lord Anderson being dated 19 Nov. 31 Eliz. containing That whereas a Writ had been directed to him to remove such a Record That all the Record is not yet removed wherefore this was to remove the residue of the said Record Vpon which Writ was sent hither a small parcell of the Record upon which the Plaintiffs sued a new Writ of Error out of the Chancery Coram vobis residet and that was Hil. 31 Eliz. and it was entred upon a new Roll of the same Term and not upon the ancient Roll and thereupon new Errors were assign'd in the judicial proces out of the body of the Record 1. That the Plea was discontinued for Pone was awarded against three of the Defendants and idem dies not given to the other two nor any thing spoken of them 2. Because there were not fifteen days betwixt the date of the Pone and the Retorn of it scil the first day of the Retorn i. the first day of Essoins as ought to be by Law. 3. Iudgment was given that the Defendants should be amerced where they appear upon the first Proces and thereupon the Plaintiff sued a new Writ of Diminution one to the Lord Anderson and the other to the Custos Brevium And now came and pleaded all the matter aforesaid viz. the former Writ of Error the proceeding in it and the discontinuance of it and demanded Iudgment if the Plaintiff should have a new Writ of Diminution upon which the Plaintiff did demurr Coke this second Writ of Error is not maintainable For the first Writ sent to the Lord Anderson could not be sued out of the Chancery for it is not a Writ of Error but a Writ of Diminution For in the Register there are but two Writs of Error the first to remove Record the second Quod coram vobis residet 2 H. 7. 19. and in the Writ there is not any mention of Error and therefore it cannot be a Writ of Error and if there be not any such Writ in the Register then it is a good argument to say there is no Writ at all as the Lord Dyer argued in the Lady Hale's Case 5 Eliz. 262. in Plowden in the Case of the Writ of Escheat Also it is against all the precedents that a Writ of Error Quod coram vobis residet should be otherwise entred than upon the first Record and not upon a new Record and the Writ of Diminution is not an Original Writ and ought always issue out of the Court where the Writ of Error is depending And also the party cannot now alledge Diminution i. after a Scire facias ad audiendum Errores which see 22 E. 4. Diminution 45. by Hussey For by the Scire facias ad audiendum Errores he affirms the Record to be full So 7 E. 4. 25. After the Defendant in the Writ of Error hath pleaded in nullo est erratum he shall not alledge Diminution for the parties are agreed upon the Record 28 H. 6. 10. after a Scire facias the Plaintiff shall never assign Errors in fact c. Tanfield contrary he agreed that a Writ of Diminution cannot be sued out of the Chancery but that will not hurt us for it is idle and utterly void And when the Record is removed it is not material how it comes in so as it be here for they are both the King's Court as it is in the common Case of Indictments and then the Writ of Error is to examine the Record Quod coram vobis residet And although the same be in divers Rolls the same is no matter of Exception Entry of Records but if the Roll be entred in a wrong Office it is not good but if all be in one Office the misfiling
well in the case of a Subject as in the case of the Queen That nothing can be an Inducement to a Traverse but such a thing as is Traversable and here the Descent induceth the Traverse being not Traversable in this case Also it was holden That the place where the party dieth seised needs not to be shewed in pleading a Descent And afterwards Manwood at another day mutata opinione conceived That as to plurima Recorda there needed no Traverse although there were many presidents to the contrary Diu ante transgressionem fieri sup is a good Plea in Trespass in Case of a common person not in the King's Case diu ante Intrusionem c. XXXVIII Robinson and Robinson 's Case 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber IN the Case betwixt Robinson and Robinson in the Exchequer-Chamber by English Bill concerning the Manor of Draiton Basset The Defendant pleaded in Bar a special Plea to which the Plaintiff replyed and afterwards the Defendant when he should have Rejoyned would have relinquished his special Plea and pleaded the general Issue Manwood In the Common Pleas and King's Bench and in the Court of Common Pleas in the Exchequer before the Issue joyned the Defendant might relinquish his special Plea and plead the general Issue for the Pleadings there are in paper until Issue be joyned and therefore at any time before Issue joyned the Plea might be withdrawn But in the Chancery Court of Requests and here all Pleas put in are in Parchment and filed and therefore it cannot be so done and therefore here if the Plea be once ingrossed into Parchment and filed the Defendant cannot relinquish his Plea and plead the general Issue contrary where the Plea is yet in Paper Gent Baron That if upon the Plea in Paper an Issue be offered with an Absque hoc c. the other party cannot relinquish it although it be but in Paper But afterwards the Barons asked the Clarks what was their course in such cases who answered That if the Plea be in Parchment and upon the File it shall never afterwards be taken from off the File but with the consent of the parties and Order of the Court. And afterwards Manwood with the assent of the rest of the Barons gave a Rule That the Defendant should rejoyn to the Replication or otherwise a Nihil dicit to be entred XXXIX The Lord Cromwel 's Case 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN the Case of the Lord Cromwel upon the Statute of 33 H. 8. for levying of the King's Debts A Debt came to the Queen by Attainder of the Creditor upon which an Extent issued against one of the Ter-tenants liable to the Debt and not against all It was moved That upon a branch of the said Statute all the Ter-tenants ought to be charged But it was the Opinion of divers that such a Debt which cometh to the King by Attainder is not within the said Statute for although the Attainder is by a Iudgment yet Debt by Iudgment it cannot properly be said but where a Debt is recovered by Iudgment And that was the Case of the Lord Norris for a Debt due to Heron by the Lord Williams which Heron was attainted XL. Machel and Dunton 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. Rot. 631. in the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione Firmae the Case was That one Machel 1 Crō 288. Owen 54 92. Poph. 8. Alderman of London was seised and Leased for years with clause of re-entry for non payment of Rent and in the Indenture of Lease there were divers Covenants on the parts of the Lessee And afterwards the said Machel by his Will willed That the Lessee should retain the Land-demised for thirty one years reckoning the years of the first term not expired as parcel of the said term of thirty one years yielding like Rent and under such Covenants as the Lessee held the former Lease and by the same Will devised the Inheritance over to a stranger It was first moved If here the Lessee for years had a new interest accrued to him by the Will If it shall vest in him as an interest by it self or that both Estates as well the former Lease as the Estate for years devised by the Will should be united by way of Surrender Another matter was because that the Devise is yielding such Rent and under such Covenants c. Now because the meaning of the Devisor was That the Devisee should hold over the Land for the term encreased as he held before if here the Law shall give construction to this Devise as near the intention of the Devisor as it may be and so construe the words of the Will to amount to a condition But by the Opinion of the whole Court the words of the Devise cannot make a Condition for a Condition is a thing odious in Law which shall not be created without sufficient words Another matter was moved If the Fee-simple should pass by this Devise in point of Reversion or Remainder And by the better opinion of the Court it shall pass in point of Reversion for if it should be a Remainder then the Rent which is reserved upon the Lease by the Will shall not be incident to such Remainder and therefore the Law shall qualifie it into a Fee-simple Another matter was moved Admitting that the words of the Devise ut supra are Condition If here in this Case there be a Grantee of the Reversion intended within the Statute of 32 H. 8. As A. seised of Lands in Fee deviseth them to B. for years rendering Rent with clause of Re-entry and by the same Will deviseth the Reversion to another If because that it was never in the Devisor a Reversion or a Condition If the Devisee be within the said Statute to take advantage of it And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Devisee of the Fee-simple should take advantage of this Condition XLI Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Postea 210. A Justicies issued forth to the Sheriff of H. for the Debt of 40 l. and the same Plea was held and determined before the Vnder-Sheriff in the absence of the Sheriff It was moved by Puckering Serjeant If a Writ of Error or a false Iudgment lieth in this Case And it was resolved by the Iustices That the Sheriff himself in his person ought to hold Plea of a Justicies and if he make a Precept or Deputation to another it is meerly void 34 H. 6. 48. See the Case there abridged Fitz. Bar. 161. And a Justicies is not an Original Writ but a Commission to the Sheriff to hold Plea above 40 s. And upon a Iudgment given upon a Justicies a Writ of false Iudgment lieth and not a Writ of Error See 7 E. 4. 23. And it was the Opinion of the Lord Anderson That the Iudgment given in the principal Case was utterly void coram non Judice XLII The Queen and Jordan 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer 11 Co. 89 90 c.
cited a Case adjudged upon a like Act scil the Statute of 35 H. 8. by which it was enacted That the Lady Katharine Wife of the said King should be as a Feme sole and that she might make Leases c. In that case the Leases should not bind the King or his successours for the said Act did not extend to make the Leases good but onely against Coverture And it was observed by Clench Iustice that in the Act of Parliament now in question It is expresly provided that the Rent reserved by the Marchioness should go to the lady Bourcher but no provision made that it should go to the King and therefore it is not reason that the King should be bounden But another matter arising upon the pleading the point did not fall in judgment LXVIII Backhouse and Spencer 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench SAmuel Backhouse brought a Writ of Annuity against Alderman Spencer of London 1 Roll. 228. and declared upon a Grant of an Annuity for term of years and depending the Action the term expired And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court that the Plaintiff could not have Iudgment for the Iudgment in this Writ is Quod querens recuperet annuitatem praedictam and now there is not any Annuity in being See 34 H. 6. 20. 6 Co. Higgin's Case 1 Inst 285. a. 14 H. 7. 31. 19 H. 7. 16. LXIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Writ of Partitione facienda The Defendant prayeth Aid and the Plaintiff counterpleads the Aid upon which counterplea they are at issue and it is found for the Plaintiff It was adjudged that same is peremptory to the Defendant and the Iudgment shall be Non quod respondeat sed quod Partitio fiat c. LXX Rolston and Chamber 's Case 1 Leon. pa. 282. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas ROlston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry against Chambers and upon issue joined it was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento adjudged and all were trebled in the Iudgment with this perclose Quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of damages and it was objected against this Iudgment That where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But afterwards it was clearly agreed that not onely the costs assessed by the Iury but that which was also de incremento adjudged should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as it was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books scil 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly It was also agreed that the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon an Indictment for the same LXXI Wren and Bulman 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Len. 282. Rolston and Chambers WRen brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 and 2 of Phil. Ma. for unlawfull impounding of Distresses against Bulman and was Nonsuit and it was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. and it was adjudged that he should not and that appears clearly by the words of the Statute c. For this Action is not conceived upon any such matter which is comprised within the Statute And also the Statute upon which this Action is conceived was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives costs and therefore the Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy thereof cannot extend to any Action given by 1 and 2 Phil. Ma. And so Rhodes Iustice said it was adjudged 8 Elizabeth LXXII Mery and Lewes 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas MEry brought an Action upon the Case against W. Lewes 3 Len. 91. Executor of David Lewes late Master of St. Katharine juxta London and declared That the said David in consideration that Quaedam pars domus fratrum sororum Sanctae Katharin fuit vitiosa in decasu The said Mery ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet eandem assumed to pay to the said Mery all such moneys that the said Mery expenderet in such reparations And farther declared That eandem partem Domus praedict reparavit c. and upon Non assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff In arrest of Iudgment it was objected That the count was too general Quaedam pars domus For the Plaintiff ought to have shewed specially what part of the house in certain as Hall Chamber or other Rooms but the same was not allowed Another objection was because it is set forth in the consideration that the Plaintiff Ad requisitionem dict Davidis repararet and the Plaintiff declared Quod reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. ad requisitionem dict Davidis reparavit and that is not the reparation intended in the Declaration scil Reparatio ad requisitionem but a reparation of his own head and at his pleasure and for that Case judgment was reversed LXXIII Brasier 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the common-Common-Pleas NOTE It was agreed in the Case by all the Iustices and by the Prothonotaries That if the Disseisor levy a Fine and the Disseisee in the preservation of his right against the said Fine enter his claim in the Record of the Foot of the Fine that the same is not any such claim as shall avoid the Statute of 4 H. 7. See for this Case of the Lord Zouch in Plowden's Commentaries LXXIV Ralph Morris 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench RAlph Morris and his Wife libelled in the Spiritual Court for that the Defendant called the Wife of one of the Plaintiffs Veneficam Sortilegam Incantatricem Daemoniorum and now came the Defendant into this Court and surmised that the matter of the Libell is determinable by the Common Law and thereupon prayed a Prohibition and it was holden by the Court That although the offence of Witchery be in some cases triable by Law yet the same doth not take away the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Court and therefore to call one a Witch generally an Action will not lie at Law as it hath been adjudged But to say that he hath bewitched such a one an Action will lie at Law. Wray Such Witchcraft as is made Felony by any Statute is not punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court but in case of slander of such Witchcraft upon such slanderous words of Witchcraft which is not Felony the Ecclesiastical Court shall punish the same and afterwards in the principal Case a Consultation was awarded LXXV Bardens and Withington 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A. Is bound in a Statute to B. and sows the Land. B. extends the Lands which are delivered unto him
where the Case was That Davis being Lessee for years devised that his Wife should have and occupy the Land demised for so many years as she should live nor unto the Case of Paramour and Yardley 21 Eliz. Plow 539. for there the Lesse devised That his Wife shall have the occupation and profits of the Lands untill the full age of his Son For in these two Cases the Land it self is quodam modo devised but in our Case all the Estate is devised i. the Lease it self And also in those two Cases a certain person is assigned and named in the Will who should take the residue of the term which should be expired after the death of the Wife But in the Case at Bar there is not any person certain appointed c. but the Devise as to that is conceived in general words to Children unpreferred therefore neither any possibility nor Remainder in any person certain therefore all the term is wholly in the Wife and then she might well dispose the whole But all the Court was to the Contrary and that in this case the possibility should rise well enough to the death of the Wife to that Daughter unpreferred Another matter was moved If the said term being sold in the possession of the Wife of the Devisor by force of the Execution aforesaid If now the judgment being reversed the sale of the term be also avoided for now the party is to be restored to all that which he had lost And it was argued by Coke That notwithstanding the reversal of the Iudgment the sale did stand good for the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in a Writ of Error is That he shall be restored to all that which he hath lost Ratione judicii praedict and the Iudgment was That the Plaintiff should recover 140 l. and therefore by the Iudgment in the Writ of Error he shall be restored to so much but the mean act scil the sale of the Lease shall stand and shall not be defeated or avoided As 7 H. 6. 42. A Statute Staple is bailed in Ouster le main the Conusee brings Detinue against the Bailee and hath Iudgment and recovers the Statute and upon that hath Execution The Baylee brings a Writ of Error and reverseth the Iudgment given in the Detinue yet the Execution shall stand and Audita Querela doth not lie for the Conusor And see 13 E. 3. t. Bar. 253. Accountant found in Arrearages committed to the next Gaol escapes and reverseth the Iudgment given against him in accompt by an Ex parte talis yet the Action upon the escape lieth and the Court as to that point all agreed but that point did not fall in Iudgment for by the sale nothing shall pass but the interest in praesenti which was in the Wife of the Devisor but the possibility to the children unpreferred was not touched thereby And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CXVI Edwards and Halinder 's Case Mich. 36 Eliz. In the Exchequer RIce Edwards brought an Action upon the Case against Halinder See the Case reported in Popham's Reports fol. 46. very short but not with the Arguments and declared That whereas one Banister had demised unto the Plaintiff a Cellar to have from week to week Quandin ambabus partibus placuerit And also whereas the said Banister had leased to the Defendant a Shop directly over the said Cellar there the Defendant had laid so great a burthen upon the floor of the said Shop that there by the said floor fell down and brake certain vessels of the Plaintiff's full of Wine by reason whereof the Plaintiff lost his Wine to the value of c. to his damages c. The Defendant said That before the charging of the floor ut supra The said floor had sustained greater weight and farther that the said Banister let unto him the said Shop for to lay there the weight of 30 Tun and he had laid there but the weight of 12 Tun and also that the Walls of the said Cellar are so weak that the floor of the said Shop fell by reason thereof upon which there was a Demurrer in Law. It was argued by Godfrey for the Plaintiff Where injury or wrong is done unto any the Law gives remedy to the party grieved and although that the Shop was let unto him to lay wares there which he hath done and that it was not his intent to surcharge the said Warehouse although the event be contrary yet forasmuch as by the laying of wares there a wrong and damage follow to the Plaintiff the Defendant shall be punished for the rule is Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas If I have a house and another buildeth so high over me that rain-water descends and falls from his house upon my house an Action upon the Case lieth See F. N. B. 184. So if by his building he stops my light as it was lately adjudged in the King's-Bench in the Case betwixt Bland and Mosely See 6 E. 4. 7. 8. Damages recovered for a wrong done against the will of the party and see other Cases upon this Learning 13 H. 4. t. Action upon the Case 48. The Plaintiff had sold certain trusses of Hay to the Defendant within such a Meadow to be carried away from the said Meadow within a certain time but the Defendant let the Hay lie there without carrying the same away so it putrified the Meadow by reason whereof the Plaintiff lost the profit of his Meadow for a great time and thereupon brought an Action of the Case against the Defendant and the Action was adjudged maintainable See 22 E. 4. 8. where the owners of the Plough in turning of the Plough according to the custome in the common fields upon the Land of another one of the Plough Cattel against the will of the driver takes a mouthfull of Grass the same is justifiable but if the driver of the Cattel suffereth the same to continue an Action will lie against him So 22 E. 4. 49. Where I am bound to enclose my Land against another and in default of enclosure the Cattel of the other escaped into my Land and Close I shall not punish him but if he after notice doth suffer them to continue there he shall be punished although it be through my default Also it is alledged in our Declaration That the Defendant intending to hurt and spoil the Plaintiff's Wines did lay such a weight c. And the Defendant answers thereunto That the floor fell in default of repairing of the walls of the Cellar or for the ruinousness of them where he ought to have pleaded farther Absque hoc that the Shop was surcharged with the intent to hurt the Plaintiff's Wines In an Action upon the Case upon a Trover The Defendant pleads that the goods whereof c. were pawned unto him for the security of certain money not yet paid The same is no plea without saying farther Absque hoc that he did convert c. See
's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 291. 1 Len. 247. 3 Len. 174. That whereas he was possessed of a parcel of Land called the Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 29 of May 29 Eliz. untill the day of the bringing of this Writ the Defendant had the said twentieth day of May stopt the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so it continued untill the fourteenth day of February by which his land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it by that time And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration there doth not appear any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made Title to the Land drowned from the twentieth of May so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is said to be made the twentieth day and so it appeareth the Nusance was before the possession of the Plaintiff and if it were so then cannot he complain of any wrong done before his time To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before his possession yet the continuance of the same is after and a new wrong for which an Action lieth as 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbat had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is stopt The Successor shall be put to answer to the said Indictment by reason of the continuance of it And see that continuation of a Nusance is as it were a new Nusance 14 and 15 Eliz. 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified untill long time after the twentieth day of May scil after the stopping And the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXX Trusto and Ewer 's Case Pasc 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 23. IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if a Controversie be betwixt two for the Title of a Lease for years and they submit the matter to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators award that one of them shall have the term the same is a good Gift of the interest of the term See 12 Ass 25. 14 H. 4. 19. 24. But if the Award be that the one shall permit the other to enjoy the term the same is no Gift of the interest therein See as to the Arbitrement 9 E. 4. 44. CXXXI Andrew 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 214. IN the Case of Andrews of Grays Inn it was holden by Gawdy and Fenner Iustices That if a Lease for years be made by Deed indented with these words demisi ad firmam tradidi That upon that Writ of Covenant lieth against the Lessor if he himself entreth upon the Lessee but contrary if a stranger enter if it hath not clause of Warranty For by Fenner when Covenant is brought upon that word Demisi the Plaintiff shall recover the term it self but not damages and that cannot the Plaintiff do when a stranger entreth and that was holden for clear Law See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. A covenant against the Heir in such case CXXXII Bigg and Clark 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Rot. 549. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case in the Court of Hertford the Plaintiff declared How that the Defendant hired a Horse of the Plaintiff to carry three Bushels of Coals from Ware to his House in Hertford and that the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise the Plaintiff quod ipse in via praedicta nollet onerare the said Horse aliter than with the said three Bushels of Coals And the Plaintiff said That the Defendant had loaded the said Plaintiff's Horse with a greater weight than with the said Coals and so had hurt his Horse upon which the Plaintiff recovered And Error was brought and the Error assigned was this That it is not specially shewed how the Defendant aliter loaded the said Horse with what thing As 19 H. 6. In Debt against Executors they plead That they have onely expended such a sum of the Goods of the Testator in Funeral expences absque hoc that they have administred aliter vel alio modo the Plaintiff cannot Reply and say that they have administred aliter vel alio modo without shewing how Another Error was assigned because it is not certainly shewed how the Horse was hurt but that Exception was not allowed for it is not the point of the Action but for the first matter the Iudgment was reversed CXXXIII Toley and Windham 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 206. 3 Len. 150. That whereas certain controversies were betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in his life time and whereas he had brought a Writ of Subpoena out of the Chancery against the Defendant for the said profits taken by the Father of the Defendant in his life intending to put in a Bill against the Defendant in the said Court The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would stay his intended Suit promised That if the Plaintiff can prove that the Father of the Defendant took the profits or had the possession of the said Land under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff that he should pay to him for all the said profits And farther declared That he had proved that his Father had taken the profits under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff Coke took up Exception to the Declaration because it is not shewed How and by what means under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff he took the profits as by Lease for that is traversable Gawdy Iustice The Son hath not any cause of Action or Suit for the profits taken in the time of the Father therefore the staying of Suit arising from such matter is not any consideration But as to the other Exception because it is not shewed how and by what Title he took the profits it is well enough As unto the other Exception it was moved at another day that there was a Case betwixt Stone and Withypool An Infant promiseth to pay a simple Contract Stone and Withypool's Case and thereupon there was a Suit in the Chancery but it was holden that it was not maintainable for the promise was void because there was no consideration And it was agreed by all the Iustices that this Action would not lie for the Plaintiff hath declared That where certain Controversies were betwixt the Father of the Defendant and him scil the Plaintiff himself for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in the time of the Father of the Plaintiff c. and he doth not shew that he himself is Heir or Executor of his Father and therefore the Chancery cannot give him any remedy And on the other
Hundred and that the one side of the said Lane is within the Parish of S. and the other side within the said Parish of D. and that the Robbery was done in the side of the said Lane which was in the Parish of S. and prayed the opinion of the Court upon that matter And the Court was clear of opinion That notwithstanding that Exception the Plaintiff should have Iudgment for here is the right Hundred which ought to be charged and the mistaking of the Parish is not to any purpose But then it was moved on the part of the Plaintiff that for as much as the Verdict aforesaid was special by reason of the doubt which the Iurors conceived upon the mistaking of the Parish in the Plaintiff's Declaration That the charges of the Iurors should be indifferently born by both parties as the course is in cases of special Verdicts but the whole Court was clear against that and commanded that the Plaintiff alone should pay the said charges for the matter here found specially is not any doubt but out of all question for it is clear that the Action is well brought for as much as the Hundred is charged the mistaking of the Parish shall not hurt CCXIII. Hellyard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Habeas Corpus was to the Warden of the Fleet to bring the body of one Hellyard who retorned the Writ That the said Hellyard was committed to the Fleet Per mandatum Francisci Walsingham Militis unius principalium Secretariorum Dominae Reginae c. And because the Warden did not shew in his Retorn for what cause the said Hellyard was committed the Court gave him day to amend his Retorn or otherwise the prisoner should be delivered CCXIV. Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas UPon a Recovery in a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin of two acres of land Habere facias seisinam was awarded The Sheriff as to one acre retorned Habere feci as to the other tarde And the Retorn was shewed to the Court and all the Iustices but Periam held that the Sheriff should be amerced for that Retorn contrary and repugnant in it self But by Periam it may be That the acre of which no seisin is had was so far distant from the other acre whereof seisin was that the Sheriff for want of time could not make execution of both being so remote the one from the other To which it was answered That if the truth of the Case was such then might the Sheriff make execution in one acre in the name of both acres And if upon a Capias ad satisfaciend against two the Sheriff doth retorn as to one Cepi and to the other tarde he shall be amerced for those several Retorns cannot stand together CCXV Edgar and Crispe 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Edgar recovered against Crispe in Debt and afterwards released to Crispe and afterwards notwithstanding the release Edgar sued for a Capias ad satisfaciend against Crispe and pursued the same untill Crispe was outlawed and it was the opinion of Anderson cheif Iustice That Crispe should have an Audita Querela notwithstanding the Outlawry and if the Audita Querela passeth with Crispe the Outlawry also should be avoided CCXVI Frankwell 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Trespass for carrying away of Tithes the Case was That Frankwell Parson of the Church of D. was accused in forma Juris before the high Commissioners who pleaded that the same cause and crime was prosecuted against him in the Arches and prayed that he might not be doubly vexed for one and the same offence and notwithstanding that he was deprived and another Clerk presented to the same Church by the Patron and was admitted instituted and inducted and upon entry brought Trespass against the former Incumbent And note the manner of the Deprivation as it was found by Verdict That the Bishop of London with the assent of the other Commissioners gave sentence of Deprivation against him and it was shewed That the high Commissioners had not power by 1 Eliz. to give sentence of any thing which is dependant in another Court For it was not the intent of the said Act to take away the jurisdiction of the other Ecclesiastical Courts for then it is in vain to have such Courts It was also moved because the pleading is That the Bishop of London ex assensu of the other Commissioners gave sentence the same is a void sentence for it ought to be the sentence of all the Commissioners for they shall have equal authority And to this purpose he cited the Case 29 H. 8. Dyer 40. where a Lease is made of Lands whereof the Dean and Chapter are seised in common per nomen Decani ex assensu consensu totius Capitul but it was holden a void Lease for the Chapter ought to be party to such Lease contrary where the Lease is made of the Land which is the proper and peculiar Inheritance of the Dean But that Exception was not allowed for the form of Entries in all cases hath always been so Coke posito That the Commissioners ought not to proceed in this Case yet because they have so done the same ought not to be examined here for the Iudges here ought to think that this Deprivation was duly maâ—e for cuique credend in sua arte which Wrey granted And it was said by him That the Court was created for two causes 1 For the expedition of the causes depending in the spiritual Courts Co. 4. Inst 326 327. 2 To give to such Iudges authority to punish offences in more high degrees for before they could not but onely excommunicate but now they may imprison and if the party had Libelled against him in the spiritual Court of the Arches it is no reason but that the party for his own expedition and for to procure due punishment against the offender may send the cause into the high Court and after Iudgment was given according to the Deprivation And afterwards Error was brought thereupon and the Error assigned upon the matter in Law whether the said Deprivation was lawfull or not Coke I remember the reason of the Iudgment given by the Court was That admitting that the sentence of the high Commissioners was erroneous yet it shall bind untill it be reversed by appeal Fenner If the party grieved might be restored by appeal I agree that such sentence should bind untill it were reversed but in our Case no appeal lieth from the high Commissioners wherefore we ought to be helped here or otherwise we are without remedy Coke If the Delegates give sentence no appeal lieth and yet the party grieved shall not be helped here Fenner 16 Eliz. One Foxe was deprived the last day of the Parliament for incontinency which offence was pardoned by the same Parliament and that sentence of Deprivation was holden void Anderson In your Case the offence it self was pardoned and discharged Also it is
60 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of the said Cheney and his wife for their lives with divers remainders over and it was adjudged in the Court of Wards that by the Feoffment the term was not extinct And he put the case of the Lord Paget in the King's Bench adjudged A Feoffment was made unto the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee the Feoffor and the Feoffees for good consideration levied a Fine unto a stranger and afterwards the Feoffor named one and died the party named by the Feoffor shall have the land notwithstanding the Fine Beamount The contingent use here is utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Act of 27 H. 8. That the makers of the Act did not favour Vses but their intent was utterly to extirpate Vses And if contingent Vses which are not nor cannot be excused by the Statute should stand in force The mischief would be That no purchasor should be secured and safe in his purchase but should always be in danger of a new born Vse not known before and he grounded his farther argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and the Feoffees and those in remainder make a Feoffment to divers new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth It was the opinion of the said two Iudges That by that Feoffment ut supra the contingent Vses are destroyed For when the Estate which the Feoffees accept is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses which are the branches and fruit of the body of the said Tree it necessarily followeth That they be also taken away and because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred to enter to recontinue the Estate which should yield such Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton was of opinion that notwithstanding the said Feoffment that the Vse should rise in his due time according to the limitation of it It was adjourned CCXIX. The Lord North 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Queen granted unto the Lord North and his heirs the Fines pro licentia concordandi and one would not pay him the Fine for which cause the Lord North brought an Action upon the Case against him and declared upon Indebitatus assumpsit c. Godfrey moved this matter to the Court to know their opinion if such Action would lie for the matter or not Fenner For a Fine in a Court-Baron or Court-Leet debt lieth but as he conceived 1 Leon. 249 250. 3 Len. 56. 234. here this Action doth not lie for it is a real Fine and there is no contract betwixt the parties but the same is given by the Law and some were of opinion that debt lieth for a relief for there is a contract by Fealty Gawdy conceived That the Action doth well lie for it is not any casual profit and therefore debt lieth for it although it be an inheritance And see Dyer 28 H. 8. 24. The heir shall have an Action of Debt upon a Nomine poenae reserved by his Ancestour Wray I do not see that he hath any other remedy and therefore I am of opinion that this Action will lie CCXX Mrs. Paschall 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer MIstress Paschall was bound with sureties for her appearance before the high Commissioners that she should not depart without licence under the hands of three of them and she pleaded the general Pardon at the last Parliament in which there is an Exception of all Bonds and Recognizances except onely such Bonds and Recognizances as are for appearance And Atkinson argued That she ought to be discharged by the Exception for although the departure without licence be not specially named yet it is within the sense for the not departure without licence is no other thing than to continue her appearance Popham contrary For The Non departure without licence was set down in the Condition to this purpose That she should not go into the Countrey to be corrupted there or to corrupt other and receive Seminaries c. therefore it is another thing than appearance Between Hore and Hare the Case was One was bound to make his appearance at such a day and in the mean time thrice every Month to repair unto such a Preacher to be better informed in Religion although the Non appearance was pardoned yet the other point i. the resorting to the Preacher is to be answered Atkinson There the resorting to the Preacher is collateral and a several point from the appearance But in the Case at Bar the not departure is pursuant to the appearance And the opinion of all the Barons was That the pardon did not extend to the same CCXXI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Len. 205. AN Action was brought against an Executor who pleaded That he refused the Executorship upon which the parties were at issue The Bishop certified Quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary of the Bishop Fenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon this matter and argued That the Court ought to write to the Commissary which was denied by the Court for he is not the Officer to this Court as to that purpose but the Bishop himself is our Officer and the party cannot have an Averment against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff And the Court also held That the onely remedy for the Defendant was by an Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the issue joined upon the refusal ought to be tried by the Countrey and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and such was the opinion of Windham and Walmsley Periam Where the issue is that the Executor refused before such a day or after there the issue shall be tried by the Countrey contrary Where the issue is upon the refusal generally for the refusal is before him as Iudge as also resignation is CCXXII Giles 's Case Mich. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Writ of Error was brought in the King's-Bench to reverse a Iudgment given in an Action upon the Case in the Court of Common-Pleas where the Writ brought against the Defendant there in that Case was Quare exaltavit stagnum per quod pratum of the Plaintiff was inundatum The Defendant in the Action there pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found That the Defendant Erexit stagnum and they said That if the Court shall judge That Erectio and Exaltatio be all one then they find that the Defendant is guilty and afterwards Iudgment was given in the said Court of common-Common-Pleas for the Plaintiff Whereupon this Writ of Error is brought And Glanvile Serjeant who
good answer for they are Pleas onely before the Auditors and not in an Action upon Accompt and farther he said That although the Verdict be found but for part yet it is good for no damages are to be recovered in an Accompt In trespass it is true if one issue be found and not the other and joint-damages be given the Verdict is not good for any part but if several damages be given then it is good as it is ruled in 21 H. 6. Coke 26 H. 8. is That the Plaintiff cannot declare generally of an house Curam habens administrationem bonorum but he must farther say Twenty quarters of Corn or the like c. In the principal Case it is a joint-charge and but one for the shop and goods and he answers unto one onely but he ought to answer to all or else it is no answer at all But Coke found out another thing viz. That there is a thing put in issue which is not in the Verdict nor found nor touched in the Verdict and that was the Verdict of all which is found not to be good and it is not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Jeofailes I grant that discontinuances are helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. but imperfect Verdicts are not helped thereby Vid. 205. It was a great Case argued in the Exchequer Chamber and it was Brache's Case An information was against Brache for entring into a house and an hundred Acres of Lands in Stepney He pleaded not guilty The Iury found him guilty for the hundred acres but said nothing as to the house upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Iudgment was reversed and he said it was not a discontinuance but no verdict for part Daniel That was the default of the Clerks who did not enter it and it hath been the usage to amend the defaults done by the Clerks in another Term All the Iustices said That is true if the Postea be brought in and not entred but here it is entred in the Roll in this form Daniel Where I charge one in Accompt with so much by the hands of such a one and so much by the hands of such a one although there be but one Absque hoc to them all yet they are as several issues The Court answered Not so unless there be several issues joined to every one of them But by Gawdy Iustice If there be several issues and the one be found and the other not no Iudgment shall be given Clench Iustice In the principal Case It is not a charge of the goods but in respect of the shop therefore that ought to be traversed Shute Iustice The Traverse of the shop alone is not good Egerton the Queen's Solicitor said That the Books might be reconciled and that there needed not a Traverse to the goods for the Traverse of the shop Prout is an answer to all But now he takes issue upon the goods onely which issue is not warranted by the Declaration and he said That if one charge me as Bailiff of his goods ad Merchandizandum I shall answer for the increase and shall be punished for my negligence But if he charge me as his Receiver ad computandum I shall not be answerable but for the bare money or thing which was delivered CCXLVI Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Postea 215. IN Trespass for taking of goods the Defendant justified as Bailiff to J. S. The Plaintiff by Replication saith That the Defendant prest his Cattel of his own wrong Absque hoc that he is Bailiff to J. S. And by Anderson 1 Leon. 50. If one hath good cause to distrain my Cattel and a stranger of his own head without any warrant or authority takes my goods not as servant or Bailiff to another and I bring Trespass against him he cannot excuse himself by saying that he did it as Bailiff c. for once he was a Trespassor but if one do distrain as Bailiff although that in truth he be not Bailiff if afterwards he in whose right he justifies assents to it he shall not be punished as a Trespassor for this assent shall have relation unto the time of the distress taken which Periam concessit and also Rhodes A. distrains and being asked for what cause he distrains and he assigns a cause which is not sufficient and afterwards an Action is brought against him 3 Co. 26. he may avow the distress for another cause CCXLVII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That the Queen gave Lands in tail to hold in Capite and afterwards granted the Reversion Windham In this Case the Tenure is not incident to the Reversion but is in respect of the person and therefore the Tenure in Capite doth remain and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in gross And also the Grantee of the Reversion shall hold of the Queen in Capite and so two Tenures in Capite for the same Lands See 30 H. 8. Dyer 45. If the Queen in this cause had reserved a Rent upon the Gift in tail the same should go with the Reversion CCXLVIII Dighton and Clark 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DIghton brought Debt upon a Bond the Condition of which was That whereas the Plaintiff was in quiet possession of such lands If now neither J. S. nor J. B. nor J. G. did not disturb the Plaintiff in his possession of the said lands by any indirect means but by due course of Law That then c. that Defendant pleaded That neither J. S. nor J. D. or J. G. did disturb the Plaintiff by any indirect means but by due course of Law upon which there was a demurrer Godfrey The Plea in Bar is not good for there is a Negativa pregnans scil a Negative which implies an Affirmative See 21 H. 6.9 In a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin the Defendant saith That the Demandant by his Deed after the Darrein continuance did confirm and ratifie the possession of the Tenant c. The Demandant said Not his Deed after the Darrein continuance and the same was holden to be Negativa pregnans See more there and see also 5 H. 7. 7. And see farther 39 H. 6. 8 9. Another Exception was taken to the Plea in Bar because he hath pleaded That neque J. S. neque J. D. neque J. G. had disturbed the Demandant by any indirect means but onely by due course of Law and that issue cannot be tried not by the Countrey for they cannot know what is a due course of Law and by the Court it cannot be tried for the Defendant hath not certainly shewed by what due course of Law the Demandant hath been disturbed which see 22 E. 4. 40 41 c. The Lord Lisle's Case In Debt upon a Bond the Condition was That if the Defendant before such a day or any other for him and in his name come to B. and there shew unto the Plaintiff or one of his
petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff for if he should oust the Defendant of his prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have pleaded the Law of the Forrest in such case viz. Lex Forrestae est c. for the Law of the Forrest is not the common Law of the Land and we are not bound to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded or otherwise the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the prescription of the Defendant for here are two prescriptions one pleaded by the Defendant by way of Bar the other set forth by the Plaintiff in his Replication without any traverse of that with is alledged in the Bar which cannot be good but if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex Forrestae talis est c. then the prescription of the Defendant had been answered without any more for none can prescribe against a Statute Exception was taken to the Bar because the Defendant had justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging that there was not any underwood but the Exception was not allowed for he hath choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken because he hath not shewed that at the time of the cutting it was not fawning time Poph. 158. 2 Cro. 637 679. for at the fawning time his prescription did not extend to it and that was holden a good material exception but because the Plaintiff had replied and upon this Replication the Defendant demurred the Court would not resort to the Bar but gave Iudgment upon the Replication against the Plaintiff CCLIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Black-Smith of South-Mims in the County of Middlesex took a Bond of another Black-Smith of the same Town that he should not exercise his Trade or Art of a Black-Smith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of it and upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common-Pleas depending which the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the said County upon the matter against the Obligee upon which the matter being found by examination the Iustices committed the Obligee to prison and now upon the whole matter Puckering Serjeant prayed a Habeas Corpus for the said Obligee to the Sheriff of Middlesex and it was granted and Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court told him openly of this matter That by the Laws Iustices of Peace have not Conusance of such offences nor could meddle with them for their power is limited by their commission and the Statutes and the Recorder did much relye upon the opinion of Hull 2 H. 5. 5. But by the clear opinion of the whole Court although this Court being a high Court Owen 143. 2 Cro. 596. might punish such offences appearing before them on Record yet it did not follow That the Iustices of Peace might so do But as to the Bond the Court was clear of opinion that it was void because it was against Law. Ante 34. CCLX Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Justicies issued forth to the Sheriff of H. for the Debt of 40 l. and the Plea was determined before the Vnder-Sheriff in the absence of the Sheriff and it was now moved by Puckering Serjeant If a Writ of Error or a Writ of false Iudgment did lie in that Case And first the opinion of the Iustices was That the Sheriff himself in his person ought to hold Plea of a Justicies and if he maketh a Precept or Deputation to another the same is meerly void 34 H. 6. 48. And see the said Case abridged Fitz. Bar. 161. and it was said That a Justicies is not an Original Writ but a Commission to the Sheriff to hold Plea ultra 40 s. and upon a Iudgment given upon a Justicies a Writ of false Iudgment lieth and not a Writ of Error See for that 7 E. 4. 23. And it was the opinion of Anderson chief Iustice That such Iudgment is utterly void and Coram non Judice CCLXI Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE by Anderson chief Iustice That if Cestuy que use 3 Len. 196. 4 Inst 85. Kel 41. after the Statute of 1 R. 3. leaseth for years and afterwards the Feoffees release unto the Lessee and his heirs having notice of the Vse that this release is unto the first Vse But where the Feffees are disseised and they release unto the Disseisor although they have notice of the Vse the same is to the use of the Disseisor and that was the Case of the Lord Compton and that no Subpoena lieth against such a Disseisor See 11 E. 4. 8. CCLXII Hamper 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench HAmper was indicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 1 Cr. 147. 3 Len. 230. and in the body of the Indictment The Record was That he Falsa deceptive deposuit whereas the Statute is Wilfully and although in the perclose of the Indictment the conclusion is Et sic commisit voluntarium perjurium Yet the opinion of the Court was that the same doth not help the matter and for that cause the party was discharged For contra formam Statuti will not help the matter nor supply it and yet it was moved and urged That contra formam Statuti would help it and it was holden in this Case That if a witness doth depose falsly but the Iury doth not give credit to it nor give their Verdict against his oath although the party grieved cannot sue him yet he may be punished at the King's suit CCLXIII Moulton 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench IT was moved by Coke That one Robert Moulton Tenant in tail 1 Cro. 151. having issue two sons Robert and John died seised and that Robert his son and heir levied a Fine thereof and afterwards levied another Fine and died without issue and John brought two several Writs of Error to reverse both the Fines and the Tenant to the Writ of Error brought upon the first Fine pleaded the second Fine in Bar of it and in Bar upon a Writ of Error brought upon the second Fine he pleaded the first Fine and the Court advised him to plead That the Fine pleaded in Bar was erroneous 7 H. 4. 107. where a man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by any other Outlawry CCLXIV Broccus 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BRoccus Lord of a Manor covenanted with his Copiholder 1 Roll. 15. Pordage versus Cole 20 Car. 2. B. R. to assure to him and his heirs the Freehold and Inheritance of the Copihold and the Copiholder in consideration of the same performed did covenant to pay such a sum And it was the opinion of the whole Court That the Copiholder is not tied to pay the money before the Assurance made and the
of the Roll will be no hurt So here it is not so formal as it ought yet it is not any prejudice to us But the great matter is if the Plaintiff may assign new Errors and have a new Writ of Diminution two of the Errors assigned in the Mesne Proces but the third is in the Record it self i. the Iudgment And there is no doubt but that a man may have divers Writs of Error but he shall have but one Supersedeas and so divers Errors but one delay Also it is not a Writ of Diminution which we have sued for I do not say that it is a thing below which is not here but I say that is not a thing below which ought to be viz. there is not any discontinuance but the Court awarded that Writ for their satisfaction for the non esse of the thing shall come on the other side and 9 E. 4. the Court awarded a Certiorare to enform themselves And he said that after a Scire facias the Plaintiff may assign new Errors Trin. 20. H. 7. Rot. 84. betwixt Edge-Court and London a Writ of Error was brought against two and after Errors assigned one of the Defendants died before a new Writ of Error could be assigned But here the first Record is discontinued and determined for which there is not now any Record which may be objected against us nor any thing in it as 20 H. 7. A man avows for a Rent due at such a day and is nonsuit Now he may avow for the same Rent and suppose the same to be due at another day Estoppell for he shall not be estopped by the Record upon which he was non-suit and so here upon the whole matter the Writ out of the Chancery is not material and the Roll is not misplaced but is in the right Office Also this is not a Writ of Diminution but a Writ to inform the Iustices Wherefore upon the whole matter the Writ of Error will well lie It was adjourned IV. Savacres Case Rot. 7. Mich. 31 and 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error Post 185. A Writ of Error was brought by Savacre and the Bishop of Glocester upon a Iudgment given in a Quare Impedit for the Queen and Errors assigned 1. Attachment was awarded against the Defendants in the Quare Impedit retornable Quind Pasc at which day Savacre appeared and cast an Essoyn and notwithstanding that a Distress was awarded against them both retornable Crastin Trinit and this awarding of the Distress was erroneous for the Essoyn was as appeareth to save c. and therefore against him no Distress ought to have been awarded And upon alledging of Diminution the Record of the Essoyn was certified but the same doth not appear upon the Plea Roll. 2. This Record is ideo ipsi in misericordia and so both the Defendants are amerced for their default of appearance 15 Pasch whereas Savacre was then Essoyned and so no cause to amerce him Coke The Original Writ was sued Mich. 26 Eliz. retorned 15 Hillarii and then both the Defendants made default for which an Attachment was awarded retornable 15 Pasc and then Savacre appeared and Iudgment given quod ipsi sint in misericordia in which point the Error is apparent but I conceive that it is not Error for upon the Attachment the parties ought to put in Sureties for their appearance and the said Sureties took upon them that the Defendants and each of them should appear and if they or any of them make default they shall be amerced And so here this Iudgment ideo ipsi in misericodia doth refer to the Sureties not to the parties for the Defendants shall not be amerced until the end of the Suit and but once onely in an Action which see Book of Entries 464 where there was but one Defendant and therefore if the amercements shall be referred to the Defendant then it shall be ideo ipse not ipsi c. And that is the Reason wherefore the Queen nor an Infant shall not find Pledges for no amercement shall be upon their default therefore it were in vain for them to find Pledges c. If the Sureties be amerced where they ought not to be amerced by the Law yet the Defendant shall not have a Writ of Error thereupon for he is not the party grieved by the amercement and upon that Reason it is if in a Scire facias against the Bail erroneous Iudgment be given the Defendant in the Action shall not have a Writ of Error The awarding of the Distress upon the Roll against both where one of them only made default is not Error especially as this case is for although one of them was essoyned until the day aforesaid yet at that day they make default and so the Distress well awarded against them and although the Writ was not well awarded yet when they appear Crastin Trinit at the day of the Retorn of the Distress all mesn defaults in the Process are saved and so the misawarding of the Distress by appearance after is supplyed as 39 E. 3. 7. The Law requires that in an Action founded upon the Statute of Praemunire c. 27 E. 3. the Defendant gave Garnishment by two Months yet if the Defendant not having warning appear now the Process is good enough So 9 E. 4. 18. where upon any Process the Defendant doth appear although the day of appearance be not lawful yet he shall be put to answer and see many Cases there to that purpose And so was the Opinion of the Court in the principal Case As to the second Error That this Iudgment ideo ipsi in misericordia shall be reserved to the Sureties onely and not to the party and that the Defendant shall be but once amerced in one Action True it is he shall be amerced but once for one default but if there be many defaults the Defendant shall be amerced severally for the several defaults for every offence and it should be unreasonable that the Sureties should be amerced and that the Defendant who is the principal should be freed which see in the book of Entries 193. ipsique plegii sui in misericordia c. V. Nevil and Cook 's Case Trinit 32 Eliz. Rot. 76. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff declared Covenant That where it was covenanted betwixt the Plaintiff and the Defendant That each of Them upon request should be accountable to the other for all the Corn growing upon such a place and that upon such account the one of them should deliver to the other the moiety of the Corn or the profit of it and whereas the Defendant had taken all the said Corn scil twenty loads of Wheat forty loads of Barley and thirty loads of Pease growing upon the said Lands and had been required to render account of the said Corn which he refused to do The Defendant traversed the request upon which they were at issue and it was hereupon
to Smith i. Mines called Argil and Mines called Greenbourn and it was against the Executors of Smith The Defendant pleaded as to parcel non detinet and as to the other parcel of the arrerages That in the Indenture of Lease there is a Covenant That if it shall happen that the said Lessee be hindred Quo minus Mineriis praed gaudere possit That then so much Rent should be deducted anno to the value of the Mine that he could not enjoy c. And he said that he was hindred Quo minus gaudere potuit Mineriis praed c. and issue was joined that the Lessee could not enjoy c. and it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved by Coke in arrest of Iudgment That here is not any place shewed where these Mines were so as it doth not appear from what place the Visne should come as if in an Action as here the Plaintiff declares of a Lease made of Lands called R. in such a County the same is not good The issue here is Non potuit fodere in praed Minera de Greenbourn for the space of seven years and an half from whence shall the Visne come for trial of it Not from Durham where the Lease was made for no affinity or nearness is betwixt the place where the Lease was made and this issue But if the issue had been That the Lessor had not any thing in the Mines at the time of the Lease that might be tried where the Lease was made Another exception was because that the plea is Quod non potuit fodere in 3 4 5 6 7 8. dimidio 10 11. and that appears to be seven years and a half and the Iury find that he could not digg per spatium septem annorum tantum without speaking of the half year and so they have not given a full Verdict And as to the first Exception it was said If a thing be alledged in pleading which is issuable and there is not laid down any place of it although that no issue be joined upon it yet because he hath prevented the other of his plea to it Iudgment given in such case shall be reversed and so it was rated betwixt Matthew and Stansham So upon the Statute of Vsury the Informer charged the Defendant that by way of corrupt bargain he hath received so much and doth not shew the place although no issue was joined upon it but they were at issue upon another point yet if Iudgment in such case be given it shall be reversed And in all Actions upon the Case where Request is necessary and the Plaintiff ought to alledge it the place of the Request must be shewed and he said That such issue was to be tried where the Mines leased are and here no place is alledged where the Mines are but onely in the County of Durham and yet a Visne of the City of Durham hath tried the issue which ought not to have been but the Visne ought to have come De Corpore Comitatus Clark Baron If the issue be joined upon taking of the profits it shall be tried where the Land is but Non debet or detinet where the Lease is made Coke The issue is Non potuit fodere and that is local therefore it shall be tried where the Mines are Manwood Non potuit fodere Non potuit gaudere are not local but Non fodit Non gavisus fuit is local and shall be tried where the Mines are and here it is not shewed how he was hindred to dig c. and the issue is to be de postatia non de actu Tanfield as to that which Coke hath said That the Visne in this Case shall come de corpore Comitatus the same is not so for such a Visne shall never be but where the issue is upon Nul tiel vill hamlet or place known In another Case the trial shall be de corpore Comitatus as in a false imprisonment the Defendant justifies that the common voice and fame was that the Plaintiff committed such a Felony c. The Plaintiff traverseth the common voice and fame there the Visne shall be de corpore Comitatus 11 E. 4. 4 and 5. and see also 25 Eliz. the Case of Gynne and Constantine reported now in Coke 6. part Dowdale's Case 48. As to the defect in the verdict for the half year the Record is not so for the Record is dimidio anni decimi undecimi and so two half years make a whole year and so there is but seven years in which the disturbance is supposed to be done See as to the Visne de corpore Comitatus 22 E. 4. 4 Visne 27. Another Exception was taken because that the Declaration is That the Lease was made at Durham in Comitatu Dunelm and doth not say also in Selberg for such is the name of the County Palatine but to that it was said That every Writ of Execution which goes into the County Palatine is directed Episcopo Dunelmensi Cancellario suo quod det in mandatis Vice-com suo c. And Durham was called Selberg in ancient times and the name of the County Palatine there is commonly Dunelm Selberg and their pleas there entred Placita coram Justiciariis de Dunelm Selberg but the same is amongst themselves onely and all directions from hence to them are Episcop Dunelm without mention of Selberg and a Precedent was shewed to the Court to that purpose and intent Manwood Levied by distress and issint rein arere shall be tried where the Lease was made Clark That is true for by the Issint the plea before is waved And see 8 H. 5. 10. Where an issue is to be tried in Lincoln or such a Town which is a Franchise the Ven. fac shall be of Lincoln c. and not de vicineto de Lincoln for then the Iury shall be as well of the County adjacent as of Lincoln it self which the Sheriff of Lincoln cannot doe but a Venire facias de suburbiis of Bristow was awarded good And if in the case at Bar the defendant had pleaded that the Defendant had entred into part of the Mines and so suspended his Rent upon which they are at issue that by Manwood shall be tried by a Iury de corpore Comitatus The issue here is If the Defendant might enjoy those Mines Secundum veram intentionem dimissionis praedict and that is referred to the Devise which was made at Durham and there it is well triable And afterwards at another day it was holden That all the issues are Jeofailes but as to the want of place the same was holden to be a material Exception See the Case of Mynes Plowd 337. Exception was taken to the Information because it is not laid down there is what Town or Hamlet Newlands lay and it was holden the same had been a material Exception if the Defendant had demurred upon the Information in which case there is no trial by Iury c. and
in execution it was adjudged in this Case that the Conusee should have the Corn sowed The same Law in case of a Recognizance LXXVI Smalman and Lane 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was a Capias upon an original Process was delivered to the new Sheriff of Warwick against Lane at the suit of Smalman And the Sheriff informed the Court that before that the Process was directed to him That the said Lane was taken in Execution by the old Sheriff upon a judgment given against him in the King's-Bench and that the said old Sheriff had imprisoned the said Lane by force of the Execution in his own house and there he remained and prayed the advice of the Court what retorn he should make upon that matter because the said Lane was never in his possession for all the other prisoners which were in the Gaol and in the ordinary Prisons were delivered to him and the old Sheriff would not bring Lane to the place where the other Prisoners were delivered And it was the opinion of all the Iustices That by the Law the old Sheriff ought to deliver the body of him who is in his custody by view to the new Sheriff and such Prisoners ought to be brought unto him to view and from that time the Law shall adjudge such Prisoners to be in the possession of the new Sheriff and not before for he is not bound to go to them not being in the ordinary Prison of the County Anderson The new Sheriff may retorn That the said Lane is in Execution in custodia sua and so charge himself For although the Office of the old Sheriff be determined yet it is not an escape so long as the party be in custodia and not at large Periam contrary It is an escape in the old Sheriff as soon as his authority is determined the Prisoner not delivered See now C. 3. part 71. Wesby's Case LXXVII Megot and Broughton and Davie 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 105. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit it was found by Nisi prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank one of the Defendants died and after Iudgment given the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the same Court where the Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of one of the Defendants pendant the Writ Roll 798. b. 3 Len. 96. Vide 2 E. 3. 21. It was said that the Case is not like the Case of an Action of Trespass for every Trespass done by many is several by each of them but every Assumpsit is joint and not several Another point was moved If the Court could reverse their own Iudgement Quaere LXXVIII Farrington and Fleetwood 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries was this 3 Len. 164 165. ante 333. Plus The Abbat and Convent of A. c. 29 H. 8. made a Lease of certain Lands for three lives to begin after the death of one F. if they so long live and afterwards 30 H. 8 within a year before the dissolution they make another Lease to Fleetwood If the first Lease in the life of the said F. be such an Estate and Interest as by virtue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question for it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason that hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for F. by possibility may survive all the said three and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility or otherwise it is such a thing which may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of F. And note the words of the Statute If any Abbat c. within one year next before the first day of this present Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Manors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance and hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of the Lease to Fleetwood And of such Opinion were all the Barons and divers other Iustices and therefore a Decree was made against the Lease c. LXXIX Beaumont 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte it was holden by all the Barons in the Exchequer Owen Rep. 46. That a Duty which is not naturally a Debt but by circumstances onely as Debt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants or to save harmless may be assigned over to the Queen for a Debt but in such case a present Extent shall not issue but a Scire facias shall issue forth to know if the party hath any thing to plead against such Assignment LXXX Goddard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Case of Goddard concerning the Manor of Staple in Hampshire 11 Leon. 8. If the Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite be disseised and the Disseisor aliens the Lands and afterwards the Disseisee doth re-enter Manwood said That the Land shall not be charged with a Fine for alienation without licence because the Title of the Alienee grew under the wrong of the Disseisor but the person of the Disseisor shall be charged with such Fine Tenant of the King in Capite makes a Lease for life the Lessee for life makes a Feoffment in Fee without licence the Lessor re-entreth neither his person nor the Land shall be charged But if my Feoffee upon Condition maketh a Feoffment without license and I re-enter for the Condition broken now my Land shall be charged with the Fine upon Alienation for the Feoffee was in by me by good and lawfull Title because he had power to make a Feoffment over although subject to the Condition So if Tenant in tail or the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Land is recontinued the Fine accruing for Alienation without licence shall bind the Land And if Tenant for life loseth issues and dieth the Lands shall be charged with the same LXXXI The Lord of Northampton and Lord St. John 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll. 195. Co. 12. 1 2. Co. 4. 95. Dyer 262. THE Lord of Northampton had by ancient Letters Patents bona catalla felonum fugitivorum within the Isle of Ely and one dwelling within the Island was attainted of Felony to whom another was indebted by Obligation and the money by the Condition of the Bond was to be paid at a Manor of the Lord St. John's who within his Manor
was but Tenant in Law because Vouchee and also that the Recovery was a good bar to him in the remainder notwithstanding that he was within age at the time of the Recovery And afterwards at another day the Case was argued by the Barons and Clark Baron conceived That the Entry of him in the remainder was congeable It hath been said That Sir William Pelham did not know that the Bargainor had an Estate but for his life or that any other person had any remainder therein the same is not to any purpose to excuse him for 42 E. 3. Every Purchasor ought at his own peril take notice of the Estates and charges which are upon the Lands of which he is Purchasor and the Law presumes that none will purchase Lands without advice of Councel and without knowing the Titles to the Lands And although divers Statutes have been made to provide against the practices of particular Tenants yet it is no argument that no other remedy was before And by Littleton If Tenant for life joyneth the Mise upon the mere right it is a forfeiture And he held strongly That the Iudgment did not take away the Entry cause of forfeiture being given before the Iudgment See 5 Ass 3. and 22 Ass 31. to that purpose For where Tenant for life is impleaded he ought to attend upon him in the reversion and to expect instructions from him in defence of his Title c. And therefore if he maketh default or confesseth Action the same is a forfeiture And as to the supposed recompence the same shall not help this Case for this is a common recovery and nothing else but an Assurance And Recoverors they are but Assignees and they shall take advantage of Conditions by 32 H. 8. and a Recoveror shall be seised to the use of him who suffereth the Recovery if no other use be expressed And he also held That when Tenant for life bargains and sells his Lands by Deed enrolled although no Fee passeth yet it is a forfeiture and that by reason of the Enrolment which is matter of Record And he said that if an Infant Tenant for life be disseised and the Disseisor dieth and afterwards the Infant dieth that he in the Remainder might enter Gent Baron argued to the same intent and he said That if Tenant for life suffereth a Recovery the same is not simply a forfeiture for he may have a warranty upon a Release or Confirmation made to him Attornment doth not give a Right but is onely a Consent yet if he who hath not any thing in the Reversion will levy a Fine thereof unto another and afterwards the Conusee brings a Quod juris clamat against the Tenant of the Land and he attorn it is a Forfeiture Manwood Baron to the same intent this is a new Case and I have not seen nor read the Case in any Book nor seen any presidents and it is a great case and a general case and worthy to be argued And I conceive clearly That here is a direct and express forfeiture the Dignity of Iudgments in reputation of Law hath been urged which ought to stand in force until they be reversed by Error or Attaint And also Littleton 481. hath been urged where upon the Statute of West 3. he saith That before the Statute aforesaid if a Lease had been made to one for life the remainder to a stranger and afterwards a stranger by faint Action hath recovered against Tenant for life by default and afterwards the Tenant for life died he in the Remainder had not any remedy But there Littleton doth not report the same as his own Opinion but as an Opinion conceived by a Reader upon the said Statute and in truth it is but a meer conceit And as to the main point he took this difference Such Recoveries in which the title of the Demandant stands indifferent to the Court and non constat if it be good or not being suffered by Tenant for life by default or confession without aid-prayer of him in the Reversion do not make any forfeiture although that the Tenant for life hath not dealt with him in the Reversion not having prayed in aid of him And in such case if a Lease be made for life the Remainder over in Fee upon such Recovery he in the remainder shall have a Formedon in the remainder or a Writ of Right and shall not put out him who recovered without any Action and that by the common Law. Then came the Statute of West 2. c. 3. which gave unto the Wife a Gui in vita upon a Recovery had against the Husband by default where before she had not any remedy but onely Writ of Right and notwithstanding si ulterius quaeratur si necesse habet ostendere jus suum secundum formam brevis quod prius impetraverat And if his Right be not better than the right of him in the Reversion he shall lose it notwithstanding the Iudgment given before for him and that Statute gave Receipt or Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeteriit and that Statute is to be intended of such Recoveries where a good Title or indifferent is so as non Constat Curiae if it be good or not After that Tenant for life was driven unto a new shift and would not make default or lose for not pleading but he would plead but that faintly for the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 13 R. 2. which gave Receipt in such case the particular Tenant being restrained by this Statute he jugled yet and practised to suffer a Recovery secretly without notice of him in the Reversion for the remedying of which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made and that makes such Recovery had against such a particular Tenant void against him the Reversion It hath been objected That the said Statute of 32 H. 8. did not give any forfeiture in this case but makes the Recovery void and therefore he in the Reversion ought to stay until after the death of the particular Tenant To that I shall speak after But here our case is of a common Recovery and it doth appear to the Court that the Demandant hath not right for the Tenant might have barred him Also this Recovery is not to the use of the Recoveror but to the use of him who was Tenant in it and in truth it is nothing else but an assurance and in these feigned Recoveries the Recoveror comes in under the Title of the Tenant to it and not paramount as in case of a Recovery upon a good Title A Lease for years made by him who after suffers a Recovery is good and shall not be defeated by the Recovery otherwise it is where the Recovery is upon a good Title See Statute of Glocest cap. 11. where upon default of the Tenant Receipt is given for Lessee for years yet if the Tenant vouch upon default of the Vouchee the Lessee for years shall be received and now Receipt of Lessee for
was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen
was holden 5 Julii and then it was void For the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 35 requires that Leets be holden within one Month after Michaelmas and Easter But that Exception was not allowed For by Anderson Windham and Rhodes by force of the Prescription The Lord might hold his Leet what day he pleased and that his Liberty is not restrained by the Statute and such is the common experience for the same Statute provides for it scil Quod quilibet habeat libertates suas quas habuit habere consuevit tempore Regis H. avi nostri vel quas postea perquisiret And by Rhodes the said Statute doth not extend but to the Sheriffs Towns and not to other Leets which see Br. Leets 23. upon the Case of 8 H. 7. 1. which was affirmed by him to be good Law Contrary by Periam but he granted that if a Leet hath used to be holden at one day certain other than that which is limited by the said Statute the same may so continue notwithstanding the Statute for such Liberty is saved by the Statute And by Anderson and Rhodes If the King grant to one a Leet to hold Semel quolibet anno and doth not say Ad libitum of the Grantee yet the Grant is good and the Grantee may hold it at what day he will. C. Goore and others against Dawbeny 13 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber Error A Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber by Goore and Goore Swinnerton and Tedcastel against Dawbeny of a Iudgement given against them in the Court of Exchequer in an Action upon the Case in the nature of a Conspiracy brought by Dawbeny c. who declared That Goore and Goore were joint Merchants of a stock of many wares in moyeties transported in Barbary and Swinnerton and Tedcastel were their Factors and Dawbeny and the Goores were also joint Merchants intire of Merchandizes transported c. And the said Swinnerton and Tedcastel were their Factors therein and that was to merchandize for two years and shewed farther That the said Plaintiffs did conspire against the said Dawbeny See the Declaration in the Number Roll for I could not take it in brief Coke of Councill with the Plaintiff assigned the Errors because Dawbeny in his Declaration hath declared that they were joint Merchants scil the now Plaintiffs and have conspired against him and hath not shewed the place where they were joint Merchants or where they were made joint Merchants and that is issuable although it be not the principal thing in the Declaration for that is the fraud As where Debt is brought for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the principal matter is the Debt and the principal Issue is Nihil debet Yet the Demise is issuable and Non dimisit is a good Plea And here the Defendant by the Plea of Not guilty hath not lost the advantage of Exception aforesaid And he cited a great Case lately adjudged betwixt Stansam and Matthew in an Action upon the Case conceived upon the Trover of a Bond and the Conversion of it to his use The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found against him And because in the Declaration there was not any place of the Conversion Iudgment was stayed Here in the Declaration are two things First the Conspiracy Secondly the execution of it for the one without the other will not maintain the Action but here the Conspiracy is not pursued nor executed according to that which is laid to be conspired The Conspiracy is laid That the Factor upon his account demanded 4000 l. of Barbary money per nomen bona denariorum summas and the Execution is laid That he demanded in allowance of wares delivered to Isaac Abess And he took a general rule That a Commander shall never be charged but where his Commandment is strictly and precisely pursued Barbary money is included in this word Bona for it is not current in England See as to the pursuing of the Commandment Sanders and Archer's Case Plow 18 Eliz. 437. And in our Case he not onely puts the thing but also the person for the Conspiracy is that he demanded allowance for goods delivered to Isaac and his four sons for Isaac In the one Case it is pretended That Isaac and four sons are Debtors and in the other Case Isaac onely Also here Dawbeny hath allowed and accepted the accompt of the Factors against which he cannot have this Action for it is ignorantia crassa idque facti quae non excusat Also upon such incertain demand as is laid in the Declaration Dawbeny was not holden to make allowance i. for so much wares upon a certain bargain made with Isaac and that was not a lawfull demand and upon such uncertain demand he was not bound to make allowance Et hoc modo est ignorantia juris quae non excusat omnino Also here Swinnerton onely accompts and demands allowances and Swinnerton onely was not Factor but also Tedcastel and therefore Dawbeny was not bounden to allow that accompt to Swinnerton no more than to a mere stranger And also Dawbeny alone was not to make allowance for the two Factors were accomptable to him and to Goores also And so allowance by one of them to whom they are accomptable is not good One Executor where the power is committed to two sells the Land the sale is void and two joint Attorneys c. one onely can doe nothing And here in this Declaration it is many times alledged that they were conjunctim Mercatores conjunctim Factores But I confess that one joint Factor with the express consent of his companion may accompt alone and so of the other one may by express consent take an Accompt onely One Factor is no Factor where there are many joint Factors and in our Case the two Goores and Dawbeny saw the accompt but Dawbeny onely allowed of it and that is not good As if two Arbitrators are and one onely makes the award although both hear the matter 14 E. 3. Fitz. Acc. 72. That the one Accomptant cannot accompt without his companion but there Parn saith That it had been adjudged 6 E. 3. that the one might accompt without the other See 41 E. 3. 3. 9. Tamworth's Case Tanfield contrary As to the first Error it is but conveyance and matter of inducement to the fraud and conspiracy which is the principal point of the Action and therefore needeth not to be so precisely alledged and also by the general issue they have passed the advantage of it and all the special matter of the Count is contained in the general issue for not guilty goes to all and includes the whole Also upon the matter the Iury hath found that they were joint Merchants and although they were joint Factors and the one onely hath accompted yet the same accompt is good enough for it was made with the consent of the other as appeareth by the Declaration Conspiraverunt agreaverunt that Swinnerton in his accompt
peteret allowance c. so there was consent to take the accompt c. and 6 E. 3. it is adjudged ut supra And that the one joint Factor may accompt without his companion is the Law of Merchants for Factors are oftentimes dispersed so as they cannot be both present at their accompts and so it hath been heretofore allowed in the King's-Bench And as to that that Dawbeny onely hath given allowance to this accompt the same is good enough If I promise to two to doe any act the one of them may discharge me from it and that by word for it is but a personal thing Two joint-tenants of a Manor grant the Stewardship thereof to one and 20 l. per ann for the exercise of it if the one discharge him it is a good discharge as to the service but yet he shall have his Fee If the Lord of the Manor grant the Stewardship thereof to another taking 10 l. per ann of the issues and profits of his Court there for his Fee and afterwards the Lord dischargeth the Steward the same is void for it is a disadvantage to the Steward for he cannot have his Fee if no Courts be holden but if the Fee be limited to issue out of Lands there such discharge is good for there the Steward shall have his Fee although that no Courts be holden there See 18 E. 4. 8. to that purpose Egerton Solicitor to the contrary although as hath been objected the matter of joint Merchant be but matter of inducement it is notwithstanding material and without it the Action will not lie In Debt upon Arbitrament The Plaintiff in his Declaration ought to shew the submission and although the Defendant pleadeth Nihil debet yet if the place of the submission be not shewed in the Declaration all is naught for although that it be but inducement yet it is a material inducement for if no submision no award and if no award no Debt and then no cause of Action The Case of 14 E. 3. cited before there the Accomptants by their Deed or jointly or severally accomptable at the pleasure of him to whom c. Also because it is set forth in the Declaration that they were joint Merchants of wares adventured into Barbary for the space of two years the Factor in praying of allowance ought to shew what wares were adventured into Barbary within the said two years Conspiracy is a thing odious and ought to be directly proved and it is not reason that that which he himself hath once allowed he himself shall after defeat it as here he attempts And he relied much upon the variance between the Conspiracy and the execution of it moved before by Coke where by the Conspiracy Isaac is made the Debtor with his four sons and in the Execution Isaac is made the onely Debtor and to that point he vouched the Case 3 4 Ph. Ma. betwixt Brown and Nevil That an award was to be performed Brown and Nevil's Case scil an award made between Joh. Brown for and in the behalf of John Moore on the one part and R. Nevil on the other part and did not shew that Moore made the submission and for that cause it was holden naught For Moore was a principal person in the award and Brown but a servant c. So in our Case for Isaac Popham Attorney General in an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declares Quod cum the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in 20 l. he promised to pay to the Plaintiff 20 l. Here it needs not that the Plaintiff shew in his Declaration the place or time in which the Defendant became his debtor for the promise is the principal matter and the other matter is but inducement So if A. in consideration that I at his request have married his daughter promised to pay to me 100 l. In an Action upon the Case brought by me upon this promise it is not necessary that I shew the place where I married his daughter In all personal things where two are chargeable to two the one may satisfie it and one may accept of satisfaction and bind his companion and yet the one cannot have an Action without his companion nor both onely against one 18 E. 4. 3. Two joint tenants of a Manor have one Bailiff of it the one of them assigns Auditors to the Bailiff who accompts and is found in arrearages the same is a good accompt and it is holden there that both c. may have Debt upon the arrearages of the accompt taken by the manner And if one may assign Auditors he may also take accompt and discharge the accomptant against his companion And he conceived That this allowance of the accompt by Dawbeny did not exclude him of his Actions but rather gave him cause of Action Nam Laesus non esset nisi credidisset and the Bailiff of my Husbandry who bargains and sells for me if upon his accompt to me he alledgeth and surmiseth that he hath sold my Cattel to one who is decayed and upon that surmise I allow his accompt afterwards Re comperta I shall have an Action of Deceit And in this very Case at the Bar it was holden in the King's-Bench That Dawbeny notwithstanding his allowance of this false accompt should have his Action c. Note that afterwards viz. Trin. 32 Eliz. The Iudgment given for Dawbeny was reversed CI. Sir William Waller 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case it was moved by Winter 3 Len. 259. 4 Len. 44. Post 87. That if one hath Iudgment in Debt and upon that within the year and day sues a Capias ad satisfaciendum although that he doth not prosecute the same by the space of two or three years yet when he pleaseth he may proceed thereupon and he shall not be put to a Scire facias for a Writ of Execution once sued forth shall be a continual claim and the party shall never be put to a Scire facias and of such opinion was Philips Manwood I grant that if one hath sued forth a Writ of Execution and that be continued by Vicecomes non misit breve for two or three years yet the Plaintiff may proceed thereupon and shall not be put to a Scire facias but if such Writ be sued forth and not continued but discontinued by a year and a day he shall be put to a Scire facias for it is negligence of the Plaintiff of not continuing of it which within the year and day he might without Order of the Court but after the year not by any Order of the Court c. CII Griffin 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was holden in this Case That if Lessee for years of a Messuage grants totum Messuagium suum the Grantee hath but at Will but if he grant all his Interest and Estate in such a Messuage then the whole Lease passeth and so it was said to have been lately
the Reign of King H. 8. And if the Common Law doth not warrant such Executions Truly the presidents cannot make such imprisonments lawfull without Act of Parliament It hath been said that Executions ought to be favoured that is true but also Liberty to which the Law hath special respect See the Statute of Magna Charta Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae and this is not Lex terrae but usage onely and Malus usus est abolendus 26 Eliz. Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Curia de Woodstock which is a Court of Record and Error assigned for that they had awarded Execution secundum consuetudinem Villae against one who had bailed the Defendant without a Scire facias first sued forth against him i. the bailee and it was adjudged Error and the custome could not maintain it for the Bailee might have a release or other matter of discharge to plead And he cited the Case of 13 and 14 Eliz. Dyer 306. That upon a Scire facias out of a Recognizance in Chancery Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and the Warden of the Fleet was commanded to detain the Conusor in his custody in Execution for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Conusor escaped the Plaintiff not satisfied And it was holden no escape for his body was not liable in case of a Recognizance to the Execution and see also the book of Entries 500 there is a Rule put If the Recognizee will have execution within the year he may have a Fieri facias or Elegit but not a Capias ad satisfaciendum And he conceived that this Process is not onely erroneous but also utterly void As a Capias in a Formedon antea 77. contrary where in Debt a Capias is awarded after the year where it ought to be Scire facias the same is but erroneous for such Process lieth upon such Iudgment if he had not surceased his time Another matter he moved because this issue is not well tried for it was tried by Nisi prius out of the Exchequer and the Statute of West 2. cap. 30. Mar. 14 E. 3. cap. 1. do not give Nisi prius in Causes out of the Exchequer but onely out of both Benches but Causes out of the Exchequer are tried by Commission and here their Commission was insufficient for it was directed Chr. Wray and Williel Periam without saying Et eorum alteri so as it was joynt and not several and Wray at the time of the trial was as the Parliament at London and so the cause was tried before Periam onely and therefore coram non Judice At another day The Case was argued by the Barons of the Exchequer And Clark Baron conceived that the Plaintiff ought to recover and he said That upon the escape the Common Law gave an Action upon the Case against the Sheriff and the reason why the Sheriff shall be charged is that one cannot be in Execution but once and then if the Sheriff should not be charged the party Plaintiff should by negligence of the Sheriff lose his Suit and also his Debt And admit that a Capias doth not lie in the Case yet the Execution by force thereof is not void but voidable onely and Error may be assigned as well in the Execution as in the Iudgment which see 17 Ass 24. where the Recognizor in a Statute Merchant aliened the Land and afterwards the Conusee sued forth Execution so as the Land was extended supposing the payment i. Solvend 14 E. 3. whereas in truth it was 16 E. 3. and the Feoffee brought a Writ of Error thereupon and it was allowed but the Sheriff shall not take advantage of the same And truly the common course is That a Capias lieth upon a Recognizance and 7 H. 4. 101. upon a Recognizance acknowledged for the Peace a Capias lieth for the King and a Recognizance is but an Obligation of Record and wherefore should not a Capias lie thereupon as well as upon an Action brought upon an Obligation The Statute of West 2. cap. 45. Si recens sit Cognitio statim habeat Querens Breve de Executione illius Recognitionis and the Statute doth not speak in certain what manner of Writ or what manner of Execution therefore we ought to resort to the Common Law for it as that is a Capias Gent Baron argued and agreed in every point with Baron Clark. Manwood chief Baron argued That the Plaintiff should recover and he put the Case of Recognizance The Plaintiff sueth two Scire facias's upon which two Nichel's are retorned and afterwards a Levari facias and upon that also Nihil is retorned and then issueth a Capias ad satisfaciendum for to take the said Francis Woodhouse who then was in Prison for Felony upon which Capias the Sheriff did arrest him and he being afterwards convicted of Felony escaped upon this matter Debt is brought against the Sheriff A Recognizance taken in the Chancery is a thing upon Record in a Court of Record an Obligation of Record and a Debt upon Record It hath been objected where no Capias lieth in the Process upon the Original there no Capias lieth upon the Execution but it is good to examine the Reason thereof for Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur The Capias upon a Recognizance is not by 25 E. 3. but by the common Law for here is a Debt upon Record wherefore shall not this body be subject to it as well as in the case of a Debt upon a bare Obligation I do admit the Rule That where there is no Capias ad respondendum there is no Capias ad satisfaciendum but that ought to be intended in cases where there is an Original and Mesn Process before Iudgment but here is no Original nor Mesn Process before Iudgment ergo our Case is not within the same Rule But I will put a good Rule It is Debt upon Record ergo a Capias lieth In the King's Bench If the Defendant comes in by Latitat if the cause whereof the Action is brought be of importance he is to put in special Bail and those who bail him shall be bounden in a Recognizance c. The Defendant is condemned in the Action Now if the Defendant cannot be found so as Execution may be sued forth against him then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties which bailed him and upon that a Capias and that is very frequent therein use So also is the course of the Court of Common Pleas ergo it shall be so in the Chancery in case of a Recognizance If one be taken in Execution upon a Statute Staple and sueth an Audita Querela upon a Release or other matter and be bound with Sureties in the double value c. to the King and to the party If he be condemned in the Audita Querela c. and cannot be found a
upon the floor there so as vi ponderis it fell down To which the Defendant hath said That the walls were ruinous in occultis partibus and doth not answer to the surcharging scil Absque hoc that he did surcharge it Clark Baron It is a general Rule That every material thing alledged in the pleading ought to be traversed confessed and avoided which the Defendant hath not done here but he would excuse himself through the default of another and answer nothing to that with which he himself is charged And afterwards Iudgment was given in the Court of Exchequer for the Plaintiff Whereupon afterwards the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber where the Case was argued again But there the Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer was affirmed See this Case reported short in Popham's Reports lately published CXVII Linacre and Rhode 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Blomfield's Case 3 Len. 230. THE Case was That Linacre was bound in a Statute and his body taken in Execution and the Sheriff voluntarily set him at large and afterwards the Conusee sued Execution of the Lands of the Conusor who thereupon brought an Audita Querela It was moved by Yelverton Serjeant That by that voluntary discharge of him by the Sheriff the whole Execution was discharged for the Execution is intire See 15 E. 4. 5. Where the Conusee in a Statute Merchant hath the body and lands of the Conusor in Execution and afterwards the Conusee surrendreth his Estate which he hath by Extent now the Execution of his body is discharged and the Conusor shall have a Scire facias or Audita Querela to discharge his body So if three Conusors be in Execution and the Conusee doth discharge one of them the same is a discharge of them all and in the principal Case the body is the principal and therefore the discharge of the principal part of the Execution is the discharge of the whole Hammon Where the Conusee himself dischargeth the Execution in part it is good for the whole but where discharged by the Sheriff Nihil operatur Anderson If the Conusor dieth in Execution yet the Conusee shall have Execution against his Heir of his land for the having of the body in Execution is not any satisfaction to the party for his body is but a pledge untill the money be paid and there is no reason that the act of the Sheriff should discharge the Execution Windham to the same intent And if the Conusee sueth Execution and hath the body of the Conusor in Execution this day he may the next day sue Execution of the lands and the next day after of the goods and if the Conusee doth discharge the body the whole Execution is discharged and it is true That if A. recovereth against B. in an Action of Debt and B. is taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum and afterwards the Sheriff permitteth B. voluntarily to escape here B. is discharged although it be not the act of the party for there the Plaintiff had a full Execution which is not here for in Case of Execution upon a Statute-Merchant the Execution by the body is not the full Execution and therefore although the Sheriff hath discharged the body yet the Conusee may have Execution of the goods and lands but not of the body and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff That the Audita Querela did not lie and that Execution might be sued of the goods and lands but not of the body CXVIII Webbe and Mainard 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Walter Goldsmith seised of certain lands made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of John his eldest son in Fee Proviso That after his death his said son shall pay unto his younger son William 30 l. by 3 l. per ann at the Feast of St. Michael untill the entire sum be paid and if he fail of payment then to the use of the said William and his heirs Will. Goldsmith the Feoffor dieth the money is not paid but afterwards the said younger son makes an Acquittance and thereby acknowledgeth the Receipt of the said money according to the Proviso John dieth Now if the younger son may enter And first if the younger son be concluded by that Acquittance to say that the 30 l. was not paid And if he be not concluded Then if because that the words are but words of limitation the younger brother hath Title of Entry and then if this Entry be bound by the descent from John to his Heir or if John by continuance of the possession after the breach of the Proviso be a Dissesor or not were Questions propounded to the Court which the Court took time to consider of yet it was then said That the use was settled in William and the possession executed unto it but not such a possession upon which an Assise or Trespass lieth CXIX Willis and Jermine 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 647. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 167. Roll Tit. Estate 830. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Leased the Land where c. to Jermine rendering Rent to be paid at their Chapter-house at Exeter and for default of payment that such Lease shall be void and cease and that the said Jermine conveyed his interest to the Defendant and afterward the Rent was demanded at the Chapter-house but not paid and afterwards The Dean and Chapter by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Exeter where they are incorporate by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary in Exeter make an Indenture of Lease for forty years in their Chapter-house to Willis and thereunto put their seal in the Chapter-house and made a Letter of Attorney to another to enter and to make Livery of the said Deed which was done accordingly it was moved by Harris Serjeant That this Lease made in manner c. is not good for the Corporation is misnamed i. of Exeter for in Exeter but the Court disallowed that Exception for there is not any material variance and so it was said it hath been ruled And he said that for another cause the Lease is not good for when the Dean and Chapter in their Chapter-house make this Indenture of Lease Davis Rep. 42. and set their Chapter-seal to it It was their Deed presently without other delivery and then Jermine being in possession at the time of the putting of the seal to it they were out of possession thereof and so the new Lease void because they were not in possession at the time of the making of it for no delivery is necessary to the Deed of a Corporation but the date of the sealing of it makes it a perfect Deed and then the delivery of the same by the Attorney is of no effect Wiat to the
them away and that he had offered that matter by way of Plea in the Spiritual Court but they there would not allow of it And the Court was clear of opinion That the suggestion was good for if the Parishioner setteth out his Tythes and the Parson will not take them or if they be destroyed by Cattel by his Laches he shall not have Tythes again and therefore if the Ecclesiastical Court will not allow that Plea it is reason that the party have a Prohibition for after severance transit decima in Catalla But it was said by the Court That if the Parishioner doth set forth his Tythes and takes them again he may be sued for Tythes in the Spiritual Court and the setting forth shall not excuse him CXXV Walter against Pery and Springe Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench WAlter brought a Scire facias against Pery and Springe Sureties for one Brook upon Bail in an Action of Debt The Defendants pleaded the death of Brook before Iudgment given against him And all the Iustices except Wray held that the Plea was not good for it is a surmise against the Iudgment for Iudgment cannot be given against a dead man. Wray The same is Error in fact and of such Error the party may have advantage in this Court. Gawdy The Surety cannot take advantage of Error nor plead it for he is a stranger to the Record Wray He may plead that the Defendant is dead after the Iudgment quod fuit concessum but it was ruled That the Defendants should be sworn that their Plea was true CXXVI Aldersley and Duparrie 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon an Obligation bearing date 4. Julii 30 Eliz. The Defendant pleaded that it was endorsed with condition to pay 50 li. before 15 Octob. 31 Eliz. and pleaded that he had paid it before the 15. of Octob. aforesaid scil the ninth of June 30. Eliz. which is three Weeks before the date of the Obligation upon which the Action is brought And they were at Issue That the Defendant Non solvit before 15 Octob c. And the Iury have found That the Defendant had not paid it before 15 Octob. and that matter was assigned for Error for that Plea is contrary and repugnant in it self to alledg the payment before the date of the Obligation But it was moved That here the day of payment is not material and but matter of surplusage for the Issue is Whether the Defendant paid the money before the 15. day of October and the Iury have found the negative so as the day in the Scilicet is not material and the alledging of that is matter of surplusage As 20 H. 6. 15. Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbam consumpsit continuand transgress from such a day usque ad diem impetrationis brevis praedict Scilicet 14 F. 17 H. 6. whereas the date of the Writ fuit 12. Octob. 17 H. 6. scil the October before February But it was not allowed for the day of the Writ brought is certain enough and the mistaking in the Scilicet is not to any purpose Wray Payment before the day is not a good Plea if he doth not shew the day and place It was adjourned CXXVII Parker and Burton 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case for slanderous words scil That the Plaintiff was perjured The Defendant doth justifie That whereas a suit was prosecuted in the Exchequer-Chamber at Westminster betwixt the Defendant and another and from thence a Commission was awarded out of the said Court to divers persons to examine certain Witnesses at B. in Berk. and there by virtue of the said Commission the Plaintiff was deposed false deposuit praetextu cujus he spake the said words Antea 811. The Plaintiff replicando saith De injuria sua propria absque tali causa upon which Issue was joined and tried in Berk. and found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Coke in Arrest of Iudgment That the said Issue ought not to be tried in Berks onely but by both Counties Mid. and Berks for all the matter of justification doth arise out of both Counties the Suit and the Commission which was in Midd. and the Execution of the Commission and the Oath which were in Berks all which matters is but one Case as 2 H. 7. 3. and 4. Atkinson The Trial is well for the manner for the matter of the justification is the Perjury and the Suit and Commission are but induction and conveyance to the Action Also the Defendant hath not shewed that the Exchequer-Chamber is in the County of Midd. as he ought As where a man pleads a thing done in any Court except in the Common-Pleas he ought to shew in what County the said Court was at the time that such thing was done for Communia Placita teneantur in loco certo Gawdy and Wray When the Defendant doth justifie by reason of the Perjury and the Plaintiff replies without such cause the same amounts to as much as if he had traversed the Perjury which being supposed to be committed there shall be tryed there Coke It was the Case of one Loveday 25 Eliz. In an Action upon the Case for slanderous words the Defendant did justifie by reason of a Robbery committed by the Plaintiff in another County and the Plaintiff pleaded De son tort demesne sans tiel Cause the same shall be tryed by both Counties See 2 H. 7. 3. Also it was moved that here it is not shewed in what County the Exchequer Chamber is Admit that it be in Berks yet it ought to be tryed by both Counties and that was Chelderlie's Case And although it be not shewed in what County the Exchequer Chamber is the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and the Tryal was held good enough CXXVIII Sir Tho. Bacon 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Writ was awarded out of the Court of Admiralty against Sir Thomas Bacon and Sir Thomas Heyden to shew cause whereas the Earl of Lincoln late High Admiral of England had granted to them by Letters Patents to be Vice-Admirals in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk why the said Letters Patents ought not to be repealed and adnulled and so the said Writ was in the nature of a Scire facias And now it was made by Coke Postea 114. That although the Admiral had but an Estate for life yet the Patents did continue in force after his death As the Iustices here in the Common Pleas although they have their places but for life yet they may grant Offices which shall be in force after their deaths c. And because this matter is determinable at the common Law he prayed a Prohibition for in the Admiral Court they will judge according to the Civil Law and the Court gave day unto the other side to shew cause unto the contrary or otherwise a Prohibition should be awarded CXXIX Weshbourn and Mordant
side if the Plaintiff had any remedy the same ought to be against the Executors of the Father of the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath not allowed that the Defendant is Executor to his Father and therefore he hath not any colour of Suit against him nor therefore is there any consideration Fenner The Defendant by the Law is not chargeable nor in conscience upon this matter he shall be charged for by the same reason he should be charged for the simple Contract of his Father and a promise to pay it will not bind him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CXXXIV Veal and Robert 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 199. How that John Veal leased to him 30 Eliz for twenty one years ten Acres of Land called M. The Defendant pleaded That before the Demise and Ejectment one John Roberts was seised of the said ten Acres called M. in Fee and 14 Eliz. demised the same to one John Cox for life and afterwards 25 Elizab. John Roberts dyed and the Reversion descended to the now Defendant Cox demised the Land to John Veal for thirty years who leased unto the Plaintiff as in the Declaration of which he was possessed quousque c. Cox dyed 30 Eliz. after whose death the Defendant entred and ejected prout was lawfull for him to do c. The Defendant by replication saith That before John Roberts had any thing one Wall of P. of Glocester was seised of the said ten Acres inter alia and 29 H. 8. demised to John Veal Father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff the said Land inter alia by the name of two Messuages and two Yard Lands in the County of Glocester nuper in tenura J. S. and of two other Houses in a Yard Land tunc in tenura E. H. nec non de ten acres vocat M. lying inter C. I. tunc in occupatione E. W. for term of years yet during Habendum dict four Messuages and three Yard Lands in tenura I.S. E.H. nec non the said ten acres to the said John Veal à tempore mortis sursum redditionis forisfactur vel determinationis status vel terminor praedict I.H. W. in eisdem for sixty years by force of which he was possessed of the interest of the term aforesaid and afterwards 14 Eliz. the Estate of the said E. W. in the said ten acres ended for which the said John Veal entred and 25 Eliz. dyed intestate and Administration was committed to J. S. Lessor of the Plaintiff by force of which he entred and Leased to the Plaintiff and so he was possessed untill ejected The Defendant did rejoyn and said That long before John Roberts had any thing William Roberts was seised in Fee and enfeoffed the said John Roberts before the Ejectment supposed who demised unto John Cox and so as in the Bar absque hoc That the said Abbat demised to the said John Veal modo forma prout the Plaintiff replicando allegavit the which matter he is ready to aver petit Judicium The Plaintiff said That the Abbat demisit ut supra hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was objected by Snag That this issue was not well taken for the Estate of John Veal was not to begin before all the Estates being in esse at the time of the making of the Lease by the Abbat of Glocester are expired Coventry contrary and that the Estates do begin severally and singulatim as the Estates precedent shall end and shall not expect untill the other Estates be determined which see Iustice Needham's Case now reported by Coke 5 part 37 Eliz. and see Pollard's Case there cited At another day it was objected by Snag That the new Estate could not begin in any part untill all the former Estates be determined for if this new Lease be made reserving Rent and one part thereof is now come in possession then he should pay for that part all the Rent But the Court was clear of Opinion That the Lease in the ten Acres did begin presently without having regard to the other Estates in demand for the intent of the Lessor was That no mean time should be betwixt the expiration of the Lease for ten years and the beginning of the new As in the Case betwixt Wrotesley and Adams 1 Eliz. Plo. Com. 198. A Lease is made to begin after the expiration of a former Lease for years the first Lessee takes a new Lease of the Lessor which was a Surrender of the former Lease If the Lease scil the second Lease shall now begin was the question or should expect untill the first Lease shall end by expiration for the former Lease is ended but not expired i. by effluction of time And it was holden that the said second Lease should begin presently for the intent of the Lessor was that no mean time should be betwixt the end and beginning of the said Estates And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXV Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench NOTE If a Record be removed out of the Common-Pleas into the King's-Bench by Writ of Error and the Plaintiff shall not assign his Errors then a Scire facias shall issue forth quare executionem habere non debet and upon summons or two Nichels retorned the Plaintiff shall have Execution yet the Plaintiff may assign his Errors And to such a Scire facias Exception was taken because the Writ was coram nobis apud Westm where it should be ubicunque fuerimus in Anglia and for that cause a Supersedeas was granted It was also holden That although a Writ of Error doth not lie here upon a Iudgment given in London yet upon a Iudgment given at Newgate which is upon Commission in their Sessions Error lieth here CXXXVI Bows and Vernon 's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon an Obligation was brought by Bows against Vernon and Hennington who pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. and shewed that Vernon was in Execution and that the Bond was made for his deliverance against the Statute The Plaintiff replied and said That at the time of the making of the said Bond the said Vernon fuit sui juris and at large absque hoc that he was in Prison tempore confectionis scripti praedict modo forma c. Egerton Solicitor moved that the Traverse was not good for if a man be in Prison in Execution and makes a promise to make a Bond for which he is inlarged and within an hour after he makes the Bond the same is within the Statute and therefore this issue is not well joined but it ought to be absque hoc that it was pro deliberatione c. and of such opinion was Fenner and Gawdy Iustices See Dive and Manningham's Case 4 E. 6. Plo. Com. 68 69. acc CXXXVII Hunt and Sone 's
Writ of Account against Robston Hil. 29 Eliz. Rot. 1. and now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Account was brought against the said Defendant as Receiver of Monies for to render Account quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the opinion of the Court was That the Writ in his generalty was holden good And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersal scil quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned That the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be given in an Action upon Account which see 2 R. 2. Acco 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries fo 22. In a Writ of Account against one as Receivor to Account render damages were given For if my Bailiff 1 Leon. 302. by imploying of my Moneys whereof he was the Receivor might have procured to me profit and gain but he neglects it he shall be chargeable to me in right and shall answer for it And here in our case damages shall be given and afterwards notwithstanding all objections made to the contrary the Iudgment given before was affirmed CLXI Yates 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench 3 Len. 231. A Writ of Error was brought by Yates and others upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and it was assigned for Error that the Writ of Partition was not sufficient for it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and do not shew of what Estate or whose inheritance See F. N. B. 61. 5. and 62. a. insimul pro indiviso tenent de haereditate quae fuit A. matris of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 Cro. 759 760. And yet see F. N. B. 62. A. A Writ of Partition betwixt strange persons without naming haereditate in the Writ And see also that a Partition of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate Courtney and Polewheel's Case Finch and Firrel's Case L. Cheney and Bell's Case See Register 76. 6 Eliz. in a Partition by Courtney against Polewheel no Estate shewed in the Writ so betwixt Finch and Firrel and betwixt Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. Devon. 26 Eliz. betwixt the Lord Cheney and Bell and Mich. 4 and 5 Ph. and Ma. Rot. 208. It was holden That it is not necessary in such a Writ to shew the Estate and such also was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case but Tenants in common ought to shew it in the Count And the Iudgment given was affirmed CLXII Phillips and Stone 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 32 H. 6. upon which this special matter was found That one J. S. had heretofore recovered against him 100 l. in an Action of Debt and upon the Capias ad satisfaciend he was taken and committed to the Plaintiff who was Gaoler c. to the Sheriff and so being in Execution he escaped and afterwards he was re-taken by the Plaintiff and kept in prison and so being in prison made the Bond upon which the Action is brought It was said by the Court That if a Prisoner being in Execution escapes with the permission of the Gaoler the Execution is utterly gone and extinguished and the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was taken in Execution shall never resort to him who escapes but shall hold himself to the Goaler for his remedy but if such a Prisoner escapeth of his own wrong without the privity or consent of the Gaoler the Gaoler may well take him again for his indemnity untill the Plaintiff hath determined his Election whether he will have his remedy against the Gaoler or that he will maintain his Execution 13 H. 7. 1 and 2. But as unto the Statute of 23 H. 6. the Court was of Opinion That posito that the party who escapes cannot be taken again yet being taken the Bond which is taken colore Officii is within the said Statute because the party was retaken colore Executionis and so the Bond was void CLXIII Gering 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against one as Executor 1 Len. 87. the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will appointed certain lands and named which should be sold by his Executor and the monies thereof coming to be distributed betwixt his daughters when they have accomplished the age of one and twenty years The lands are sold and if the monies thereof being in the hand of the Executor untill the full age of the daughters shall be Assets to pay the debts of the Testator was the question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the said monies should not be Assets for they said that that money is limited to a special use Quaere of this Case For I have heard that it was afterwards resolved in another Case that the monies in the like Case remaining in their hands should be Assets CLXIV Davies and Percie 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Margaret Davies and one Perce the Case was 2 Roll 284. Goldb 58. That one Anth. Perce upon speech of a marriage to be had betwixt the said Anthony and the mother of Margaret covenanted by Indenture with certain friends of the mother to pay to all the daughters of the mother 20 l. a piece at their several ages of four and twenty years and to perform the Covenant was bound to the said friends in an Obligation Anthony Perce made his Will and willed that his Executors should pay to each of the daughters 20 l. at their several ages of four and twenty years in discharge of the said Covenant and died Now the said Margaret sued the Executors in the Spiritual Court for the 20 l. bequeathed to her and upon this matter the Executors prayed a Prohibition And by the Lord Anderson a Prohibition will lie for here is no Legacy but the Will refers to the Covenant and is in discharge of the Covenant As if A. be indebted to B. in 20 l. And if A. by his Will willeth that his Executors shall pay to the said B. 20 l. in discharge of the said debt the same is not any Legacy but a Declaration that the intent of A. is that the debt shall be paid Periam Iustice was of the same opinion as the Lord Anderson and Anderson said If a Legacy be bequeathed to me and the Executor covenants to pay me the said Legacy and afterwards J. sueth the Executor in the Spiritual Court he shall have a Prohibition Quod caeteri Justiciarii negaverunt See F. N. B. 44 Br. If the Testator by his Will charge his Executors to pay his debts and his creditors they do
Tho. Henage Hungate's Case the Queen leased for years unto Hungate provided that he should not do Waste Waste is done the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir Tho. Henage Office is found the Grantee entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull and that the Queen should have the mean profits from the time of the Waste done untill the time of the Grant. Some say Sir Walter Mildmay's Case that that case was not adjudged but compounded And he vouched Sir Walter Mildmay's Case The Lord Sturton held Lands of the Queen in Knights-service and was attainted of Felony by which the Lands escheated to the Queen who granted those Lands and it was holden that the Queen should have the mean profits betwixt the time of the Felony committed and the Grant. And after in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff scil the Patentee of the Queen against the Lessee who cast in a Writ of Error and by his Council prayed That the Writ of Error be not broken open untill the Iudgment be entred Manwood The Iudgment hath reference and relation unto the first day of this Term and therefore do not doubt of that CLXXIX Sted 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 259. STed of Great Melton in the County of Oxford was assessed to 7 s. for Fifteens and upon refusal to pay it the Collectors distrained the Beasts of Sted and sold them Sted brought Trespass thereupon in the King's-Bench and the Collector exhibited his Bill into this Court against Sted who shewed by his Council That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteen provideth That the said Fifteen shall be levyed of the movable Goods and Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteens and Tenths to be contributary and chargeable and shewed farther that the Cattel distrained were tempore districtionis upon the Gleab Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Gleab Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteens granted by the Temporalty nor the Chattels upon it But it was the Opinion of the whole Court Although that the Parson himself payeth Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteens and his Cattel are distrainable for it even upon the Gleab Land of the Parsonage and therefore it was adjudged that in the principal Case the Distress and Sale were good and lawfull CLXXX The Dean and Chapter of Winsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 258. IN this Case it was moved If one hath a Rectory impropriate and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. is to pay an annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and by that is discharged of Tenths and first fruits If he shall have the Privilege of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And the Barons were of Opinion that he should not for so every one who is to pay any Tenths or first fruits should draw another who sueth him into the Exchequer and so all Controversies concerning Tithes and Parsonages should be drawn hither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Conier's Case Solicitor vouched a Case scil Conier's Case where the King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tithes thereof being withdrawn the Prior impleaded him who withdrew his Tithes in the Exchequer and in that Case it was holden that the Prior should have the Privilege for the King is in danger to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Tenant of the King in chief or he who pays first fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Privilege here Quaere CLXXXI Cony and Beveridge 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 216. IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That the Plaintiff leased unto the Defendant certain Lands lying in the County of Cambridge rendring Rent and afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in a Bond for payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton to which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon payment they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that the issue was mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge See 44 E. 3. 42. Anderson was of opinion that no Iudgment should be given for the cause aforesaid Rhodes and Windham contrary for it doth not appear that the issue is mis-tried because that no place of payment is pleaded and it might be for any thing is shewed that the Rent was paid in the County of Northampton CLXXXII Berry and Goodman 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae upon a special Verdict the point was Ow. 95 96. One intruded upon the possession of the Queen into Lands in Kisgrave in Suffolk and during this Intrusion the Queen granted these Lands to A. B. by her Letters Patents and the Patentee before any Entry made in the said Land granted the same over Some held that the Grant was good for the Intruder had gained nothing against the Queen and by the Grant of the Queen and the assignment over nothing accrued to him and where a man hath possession of Lands his continuance therein cannot gain to him any interest or increase his Estate without some other act done of later time If the Guardian do continue in possession after the full age of the Heir he is not a Disseisor nor hath any greater Estate in the Lands and upon the Book of 21 E. 3. 2. this Case was collected The Tenant of the King dieth his Heir within age a stranger intrudes the Heir at full age sueth his Livery out of the King's hands the Intruder dieth in possession the same descent shall not take away Entry Coke contrary The Intruder cannot be Tenant at sufferance for at first he enters by wrong and none can be Tenant at sufferance but he who comes in by Title And it is clear That the Intruder by his first Entry doth not gain any Estate in possession upon which he can have an Action of Trespass but after the Grant of the Queen he hath presently Fee by wrong 8 H. 4. 129. A stranger enters upon the King to which he hath right in the right of the Ward yet the Freehold doth remain in the Heir And he said that if A. levyeth a Fine to B. sur Conusans de droit c. now the Conusee hath possession in Law but not in fact and if before the entry of the Conusee W. entreth and dieth seised he hath no remedy for he had not possession
engrossed because that now the Divorce is avoided for Henry in his second marriage hath issue therefore there is no perpetua frigiditas c. but at the last it was engrossed because the sentence of the Divorce doth continue in its force and then Humphrey born in the second marriage is the first son of Henry lawfully begotten and so capable of the use to him limited upon the Feoffment of Henry 22 E. 4 Fitz. Consultation 51. by Catesby where my father and mother are divorced without lawfull cause and afterwards they marry themselves elsewhere and die the said Divorce as long as it is in force shall bind me in point of inheritance and I cannot have an Action as heir c. during the Divorce is in force For the Divorce being a spiritual Iudgment shall not be reformed but in the spiritual Court and therefore this sentence of Divorce Causa perpetuae frigiditatis as long as it is in force not repealed or reversed shall bind all persons But in some cases such a Divorce shall not disable the party to sue as if a man bringeth an Action De muliere abducta cum bonis viri where after the trespass committed the husband and wife are divorced yet the Action lieth for this Action is not in the right but in possession onely and in such Action Never accoupled in legal Matrimony is not any plea but the Defendant ought to answer to the possession Not his wife for although they are divorced yet the Action lieth and if Iudgment is given in the spiritual Courts the Courts of the King shall receive and admit of them as long as they are in their force The Abbat of Fountain's Case 9 H. 6. 32. the custome of the Abby was That at every vacation of the Abbat the Monks should proceed to a new Election and that he who should be chosen by the greater number of the Monks should be Abbat and the Case was That upon such avoidance one A. was elected by the greater number of voices scil 22 Monks And B. was chosen by the lesser number scil 20 Monks but notwithstanding that B. entred and carried himself as Abbat by the Institution of the Visitor and made a Deed by consent of the Covent and died it was holden That the said Deed should bind the House for here is a spiritual Act scil the Institution of the Visitor which being in force shall bind us and our Law 34 H. 6. 38. upon contention betwixt two Patrons claiming the presentment unto a Church the Bishop awarded jure Patronatus which found for one of them upon which the Bishop admitted the Clerk of him for whom it was found by the jure Patronatus and afterwards the other party brought a Quare impedit and it was found for him Now this judicial Act done by the Bishop shall excuse the Bishop from any disturbance Fenner Serjeant contrary Although that the sentence of this Divorce be set down in peremptory and final terms as matrimonium cassum irritum nullum yet our Law shall respect the cause and ground of it scil Perpetua frigiditas c. and now it appeareth by the success of the second marriage scil the issue Humphrey that the cause and matter upon which the Divorce was grounded c. was an offence of the time and not of nature for he is now recovered and in as much as the Church hath erred in the sentence of this divorce which error is now apparent this Court shall adjudge according to the truth of the matter as the spiritual Law ought to have adjudged and not as they have adjudged And he cited Fox's Case 16 Eliz. The said Fox being Parson of a Church was deprived in the Parliament time for incontinency and by the same Parliament all incontinencies were pardoned Now upon the matter we are to adjudge this deprivation meerly void without any other spiritual act At another day the Case was argued by Walmsley Serjeant That the sentence definitive of the spiritual Court in cause of divorce causa frigiditatis should stand and he argued much in what manner the Law of the Church and the Law of the Law should determine marriage and he argued that the right of marriage was determinable by the spiritual Law and he said that such sentences ought to be passed by our Law and taken notice of and therefore he who pleads a Divorce ought to shew before what Iudge the Divorce is had to the intent the Iudges may know to what persons they shall write for the trial of it and it appears in our books That our Law takes upon it the Conusance of the competency of an Ecclesiastical Iudge which see 2 E. 4. 15 and 16. The Iudges of the temporal Courts of the King have determined That the Pope is not a competent Iudge within this Realm and it is true the Common Law doth yeild unto the Law of the Church the trial and determination of the right of marriage but the trial of the possession of the marriage retains to it self As if an Infant marrieth within the age of consent and afterwards at full age of consent doth disagree now the common Law shall determine that the same is not any marriage So 11 H. 4. 167. The temporal Court shall adjudge upon marriage in fact and in possession but if the party will plead 1 Len. 53 181. 3 Len. 129. That they were never accoupled in lawfull matrimony a Writ shall go unto the Bishop to certifie the same and in trespass De muliere abducta cum bonis viri and in Cui in vita c. this issue not his Wife is to be tried by the temporal Court of the King for the right of the marriage is not in question but it is sufficient if it were a marriage in fact and in possession See 44 Ass 12. 13. and see 21 H. 7. 39. The temporal Court shall determine of the marriage if void or voidable A Deacon marrieth a Wife that marriage is not void so of a Priest but if a man marrieth a Nun the marriage is void But in our Case here is a sentence definitive in a cause of Divorce in which Case it doth not belong to us to examine the cause but be the Divorce right or wrong it shall stand c. 10 E. 3. Bar. 296. Nisi sit quoad thor tantum vel causa castitatis And see by Shelley 28 H. 8. 13. If they of the spiritual Court give Iudgment in any cause be it true or false untill it be defeated or reversed it shall bind all the world See 22 E. 4. Fitz. Consultation 5. Corbet's Case 4 H. 7. 14. by Oxenbridge 18 E. 4. 30. by Chock and 9 E. 4. 24. He who pleads a Divorce ought to shew before what Iudge the Divorce was had but that is not to examine the matter but to know to what person the Court shall write for the trial of it It is true that in case of Resignation and Deprivation but in case
conjugem matrimonium non esse c. Eosque praecipimus ab invicem seperari Vid. secundum partem Summae Sylvestrianae Si Ecclesia sit decepta in hoc quod ille in quo erat impedimentum carnalem copulam cum alia perfecerit redintegrabitur praecedens matrimonium dirimetur secundum quamvis de sententia Ecclesiae factam Et alibi Si Ecclesia se deceptam invenierit ex hoc quod impedimentum quod judicavit perpetuum apparet temporale redintegrabitur primum matrimonium c. And afterwards the Case was adjourned Afterwards that is to say Mich. 30 and 31 Eliz. the Case was moved again and Iudgment was prayed for the Plaintiff and then the Lord Anderson Ex assensu sociorum commanded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff and shewed unto the Council of both parties That about the Certificate which the four Doctors have shewed unto us of their opinions upon the point we our selves have conferred with the said Doctors who have given us their answers That the said sentence of Divorce being yet in force not reversed is peremptory and not subject to the success and although in the examinations and depositions taken in the Ecclesiastical Court no matter appeareth upon which such peremptory Divorce might be granted yet it might be as we are informed by the said Doctors that upon the examination of Physicians and Matrons sufficient matter did appear to the said Ecclesiastical Iudges which for modesty sake ought not to be entred of Record and that appeareth within the sentence i. Habito sermone cum matronis medicis which speech not entred of Record causa qua supra might be the cause that induced the Ecclesiastical Iudges to give sentence for the Divorce notwithstanding that the matter within the Record be too general to prove naturalem frigiditatem generandi but rather maleficium and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and so the sentence is bound by the Divorce as long as the sentence doth continue in force See this Case in Coke 5 Part. Where upon a Writ of Error brought 41 Eliz. the Iudgment was affirmed CCVIII Gittinson and Tyrrel 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas GIttinson brought an Action of Debt against Tyrrel Warden of the Fleet by a Bill of Privilege but he would not appear and the Court was in great doubt what remedy the Plaintiff hath to compell the Defendant to appear For he cannot be fore-judged the Court because he hath an Estate of Inheritance in the said Office And afterwards it was surmised to the Court That the said Tyrrel had made a Lease of his said Office to another for three years and then the Court was clear of opinion That the said Tyrrel should not have the Privilege for now during the Lease he is not Officer but the Lessee CCIX. Harris and the Lord Mountjoy 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas HArris affirmed a plaint of Debt in the Guildhall in London Dalton's Off. of Sher. 105. against the Lord Mountjoy and made an Attachment of the goods of the said Lord in the hands of Sir Drew Drewrie The Lord removed the matter into the Common-Pleas by a Writ of Privilege If now the said Lord shall find Bail was the question because that he is a Lord of the Parliament c. And the opinion of the whole Court was that he should find Bail for that is the course of the Court whosoever is party And by Anderson admitting the Law to be That the Body of a Lord of Parliament shall not be taken in Execution which I do not believe yet notwithstanding that Bail shall be found in such case For the condition of Bail doth consist upon two points First that he render his Body to Prison in Execution if Iudgment be given against him Secondly or to pay the condemnation And therefore if the Body of a Baron of Parliament is not subject to Execution yet the Bail shall stand for the second i. e. to pay the condemnation and all the Iustices were of clear opinion That for Execution upon a Statute-staple Merchant upon the Statute of Acton Burnel or upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. The Body of a Baron of Parliament shall be taken in Execution for by these Statutes such persons were not exempted CCX Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was said That the division of a great Meadow into many parcels by making of Ditches is not waste for the Meadow may be the better for it and it is for the profit and ease of the occupiers of it Hob. 234. And by Windham and Rhodes Iustices If a Termor converteth a Meadow into a Hop-garden the same is not waste for it is imployed to a greater profit and it may be a Meadow again Periam Iustice Although it be a greater profit yet it is also with greater labour and charges And the conversion of a Meadow into an Orchard is waste although it may be to the greater profit of the occupier CCXI. Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for damage feasant and upon issue joined it was found for the avowant and damages assessed and now issued a Retorno habendo upon which the Sheriff did retorn Averia elongata whereupon a Withernam was awarded and now came the Plaintiff and tendred in Court the damages assessed by the Iury and prayed stay of the Withernam and threw the Moneys into Court but the whole Court was clear against it for in this Case the Plaintiff ought to pay a Fine because he had essoigned the Cattel which is a contempt wherefore the Court assessed a Fine of three shillings four pence upon the Plaintiff and then the Plaintiff had his Prayer CCXII. Shrewsbury and the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Ashton Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas AN Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry was brought by Shrewsbury against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of the three Hundreds de Ashton in the County of Bucks It was moved on the part of the Defendants That if upon such Hue and Cry the Inhabitants do their endeavours as much as in them is to follow and take the Malefactors and yet they cannot apprehend them that in reason they ought not to be charged by the said Statute But the whole Court was strongly against it And by Anderson The Inhabitants of the Hundred in which the Robbery was done are bound to apprehend the Felons or satisfie the party robbed And the party robbed is not bound to give notice to the Inhabitants nor to direct them which way the Felons took their flight but the Inhabitants are bound to follow the Felons without any such instruction and after the Enquest was taken and gave a Verdict in this manner That whereas the Plaintiff had declared That the Robbery was done in the Parish of D. in the Hundred aforesaid the Iury found that the place where the Robbery was done is a Lane within the said
against a general Statute of which every one ought to take notice Periam When the Case was in the Common Pleas it was moved If of a sentence given by the high Commissioners an Appeal did lie and it was certified by Clark Doctor of the civil Law that it did for the Commissioners are as the Delegates of the Queen And as by the Canon Law one might appeal from the Delegates of the Pope unto the person of the Pope so now one may appeal from the high Commissioners to the person of the Queen See for that 24 H. 8. 12. Another Error was assigned because that the Commission gave authority to the Commissioners to adjudge upon confession of the party or upon the witnesses but here none of these two ways is found by the Verdict but sentence was given upon his Plea That he was sued in the Arches for the same cause and so they have not pursued their authority for the Act is That such Commissioners shall have authority by vertue of the said Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise c. And they are directed by the Letters Patents that they shall proceed upon due proof had by confession or true witness to give sentence Periam Although they have not observed the due form prescribed unto them by the Letters Patents yet such sentence is not void Anderson If the party appeareth and will not answer it shall be taken pro confesso and he shall be condemned CCXVII Sir John Sand 's and Packsal Brocas 's Case Trin. 38 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIR John Sands brought an Action upon the Case against Packsal Brocas upon a Trover of goods and houshold-stuff The Defendant pleaded as to parcel that they were fixed to his Freehold in S. in Hampshire Absque hoc that he found them in other manner as to the part that the Plaintiff gave them to him at D. in Hampshire and as to the other part he pleaded Not guilty For the first part the Plaintiff caused it to be entred Non vult ulterius prosequi and took issue upon the two other and it was found for the Plaintiff by several Iuries in several Counties and damages and costs assessed by the Iuries and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned Error i. because the Plaintiff as to the first had entred Non vult ulterius prosequi which is a Non-suit and Non-suit in part is Non-suit in all Anderson It is a Question if this be a Non-suit The entry is Querens venit gratis concessit that as to the goods mentioned in the first Pleas Non vultulterius prosequi Ideo consideratum est quod nihil de iisdem versus the Defendant fiat est ille pleg in miseric the Defendant eat inde sine die Periam A Non-suit is when the Plaintiff is demanded and doth not appear but when he comes into Court and saith Quod non vult ulterius prosequi the same is a Retraxit Nelson Prothonotary Non-suit is upon default but here the Plaintiff appears and this is the usual form of entry of a Retraxit Another Error was assigned because both Iuries have assessed costs and Iudgment given according whereas the last Verdict ought to do it And where two Iuries are to try the issue the form of the entry after the first Verdict is Cesset executio untill the other issue be tryed Vid. 21 H. 6. 51. 36 H. 6. 13. Anderson Several issues cannot sever the costs although they may the damages for it is but one suit therefore but one costs and that is the reason that Iudgment shall not be given untill the last issue be tryed because that costs shall be but once assessed which was granted by the whole Court And by Periam The first Iury may assess costs for the whole suit Quod fuit concessum Coke Here are several Iudgments for the costs and although it be void for the later issue yet it is good for the first Periam How shall it appear unto us which Verdict was the first and which the last although that the one Verdict be entred of Record before the other the same doth not make that it was first given wherefore the whole shall be reversed CCXVIII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 224. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his first son and his heirs The father and the Feoffees before issue for money by Deed give grant and enfeoff J. S. and his heirs who hath not notice of the use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvile The use limited to the first son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and that the same is gone by their Livery See Plowden's Com. 340. And also he vouched the case of the Earl of Kent whereby the release of the surviving Feoffee a sleeping use was destroyed and could not afterwards be revived Harris The use may rise without entry of the Feoffees And he put a difference between uses created before the Statute and uses created after for in the first case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the case betwixt Gascoign and the Earl of Kent they shall never rise but in the later case all the authority and confidence is by the Statute out of the Feoffees and the uses contingent shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for the land is bound to the uses and charged with them As upon a Recovery in a Warrantia Chartae the land of the Defendant is charged pro loco tempore and according to the common experience in Conveyances for the payment of the Debts of the King as in the case betwixt Breden and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his heirs untill he makes default of payment of such a sum unto the King at such a day and upon default to the use of the King and his heirs Cooper There needs no entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt an use created before and an use created after the Statute And now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or destroy such cases but are onely as instruments to convey the uses for the use is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the use is limited be capable thereof at the time of the limitation thereof but if not the Law shall preserve the same and it cannot by any means be prevented And he put the case of Bro. Feoff to Uses 50. 30 H. 8. And there is a great difference betwixt an Vse limited before the Statute and after the Statute for now after the Statute the Feoffees have not any seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment And he put the case between Cheney and Oxenbridge Cheney leased to Oxenbridge for
argued for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error alledged the general Error viz. That Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff where it ought to be found for the Defendant And he said That Erigere stagnum est de novo facere exaltare is erectum majoris altitudinis facere Deexaltare est ad pristinam altitudinem adducere Prosternere stagnum est penitus tollere And in every Action upon the Case such apt and precise words are to be in the Writ according as his Case requires unto the end that Iudgment may in such Action be given to the Plaintiff according to his plaint and his damages In 7 E. 3. 56. In Assise of Nusans Quare exaltavit stagnum ad nocumentum liberi tenementi sui The Defendant pleaded that he had not inhanced it after it was levied and there it was said by Drew Serjeant That there is not any other Writ in the Chancery but Quare exaltavit stagnum But that was denied by Herle For that he said that the Plaintiff might have a Writ out of the Chancery Quare levavit stagnum And there by that Book it is assigned That Levare stagnum exaltare stagnum do differ and therefore he said that in this Case the Writ should abate for the using of one word for another 8 E. 3. 21. Fitz. Nusans 5. by Chauntrel In a Writ of Nusans Quare levavit if it be found that he levied it to the Nusans c. the whole shall be destroyed but in a Writ Quare exaltavit nothing shall be pulled down if it be found for the Plaintiff but that which is enhaunced onely So 8 Ass 9. Br. Nusans 17. the same Case is put And see 16 E. 3. Fitz. Nusans 11. If the Nusans be found in any other form than the Plaintiff hath declared he shall not recover And in 48 E. 3. 27. the Writ was Quare divertit cursum aquae c. and the Plaintiff shewed that the Defendant had set piles and such other things in the water by reason whereof the course of the water was straitened and because the Plaintiff might have had a Writ Quare coarctavit cursum aquae the Writ was abated Another Exception was taken viz. That the Assise of Nusans ought to be brought against the Tenant of the Freehold and therefore it would not lie in this Case it not being shewed that the Defendant was Tenant of the soil Vid. 33 H. 6. 26. by Moile If a way be straitned and impaired an Action upon the Case lieth but if it be altogether stopped up then an Assise must be brought But there it is said by Prisoit That if the stopping up of the way be done by the Tenant of the Land then an Assise lieth if by a stranger then an Action upon the Case But for common Nusances no Action lieth but they ought to be presented in the Court-Leet or Turn and there redressed and such was the opinion of the whole Court in this Case Then it was moved 6 Co. 25. That one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error had released and the Question was whether that release should bar his companion to which nothing was said At another day the Case was moved again and Drew Serjeant said That Exaltare and Erigere are all one but all the Iustices were against that for that Erigere is de novo facere and Exaltare is in majorem altitudinem attollere and afterwards judgment was affirmed CCXXIII. Freeman and Drew 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case by Freeman against Drew The Defendant pleaded That after the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff had declared There was an agreement betwixt them That the Defendant and two others should be bound in a Bond to the Plaintiff for the sum promised and that they entred Bond accordingly The Plaintiff confessed the agreement and that the Bond was made according to the agreement and that the parties bound did deliver the same as their Deed cuidam ignoto to the Plaintiff The Defendant said That they did deliver the Deed to one J. S. and gave notice thereof unto the servant of the Plaintiff and that they are now ready to deliver it to the Plaintiff upon which there was a Demurrer Godfrey argued That the said Plea of the agreement specially executed ut supra was good as in a Case lately adjudged between Alford and Leigh 1 Cro. 54. Ante 110. Tr. 29 Eliz Where the Arbitrament was made That Leigh should release unto Alford before the Feast Petri ad vincula and before the said Feast Leigh sealed and delivered such a release unto the use of the said Alford and after the Feast he tendred it to Alford but he refused it and brought Debt upon the Bond for performance of the Arbitrament and it was adjudged That the Action would not lie for if he do recover upon that Action he also should take advantage of the release Coke In Alford's Case a tender was to the Plaintiff himself which is not in this Case and although that it was after the Feast yet it was before the suit commenced and also in our Case the tender is depending the suit Gawdy If the Plaintiff should recover in this Action he might plead the recovery in Bar of the suit upon the Obligation Wray Let the Plaintiff release the Bond and take Iudgment here which was done accordingly CCXXIV. Somers and Sir Richard Buckley 's Case 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN the Case betwixt Somers and Sir Rich Buckley Where the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition to the Court of Admiralty The Case was That the Defendant sued in the Admiral Court for the moyety of a Ship and prize taken by them upon Letters of Reprizal 2 Inst 205. for the Civil Law is That if two Ships meet at Sea together although they do not go forth as consorts and the one Ship in the presence of the other taketh a Ship with goods in it the other Ship which was present shall have the moyety 2 Roll. 205. or one half of the Ship and goods taken for although it did not take the Ship yet the presence thereof there at the time of the taking was a terrour to the other Ship which was taken Sine quo the other Ship could not be so easily taken And now the Plaintiff for the Prohibition did surmise That after they were arrived in England 2 Roll. 171. they did agree amongst themselves That the Plaintiff should have four parts of the said Ship and goods so taken and the other five parts And the Plaintiff said that he had pleaded this matter in the Court of Admiralty and they would not allow the Plea and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition which was granted but afterwards it was moved on the other side That the said Court of Admiralty would allow the Plea and there trie it and thereupon a conditional consultation was granted by the Court so that that Court allow that Plea and trie
land and that he and all those whose Estate c. have common of pasture in 16 acres of land called D. from the time that the corn was reaped untill it be sowed again and also common of pasture in lands called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and land and that the Defendant had plowed the said lands and so disturbed him of his common and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in stay of Iudgment That here it appeareth that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assize and not an action upon the Case but the exception was disallowed per Curiam See 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 H. 2. Action upon the Case 36. CCXXX Hore and Wridlesworth 's Case Mich. 32. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. HOre brought an Action of trespass against Wridlesworth Quare clausum domum suam fregit The Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new assignment i. a House called a Stable a Barn and another house called a Carthouse and Garnier and that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy The same is good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment But if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many buildings as Barns Stables c. and so was the opinion of the whole Court. CCXXXI Savacre 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Writ of Error Ante 4. was brought by Savacre and the Bishop of Gloucester M. 31 and 32 Eliz. upon a Iudgment given in a Quare Impedit for the Queen And Error assigned 1. An Attachment was awarded against the Defendant in the Quare Impedit retornable Quind Pasch at which Savacre appeared and cast an Essoin and notwithstanding that a Distringas was awarded against them both retorned Crast Trin. and the awarding the Distringas was erronious for the Essoin was as an appearance for to save c. and therefore against him no Distringas ought to have been awarded And upon alledging of Diminution the Record of the Essoin was certified for the same did not appear upon the Plea Roll. 2 The Record is Ipsi in Misericord and so both of the Defendants are amerced for the default of appearance Quind Pasch whereas Savacre was then Essoined and so no cause of amerciment of him Coke The original Writ was here sued Mic. 26 Eliz. retornable Quind Hillar and then both the Defendants made default for which an Attachment was awarded retornable 15 Pas and then Savacre appeared and Iudgment was given Quod ipsi sint in Misericord in which point the Error is assigned But I conceive that it is not Error for upon the Attachment the parties ought to put in sureties for their appearance and the said sureties took upon them that the Defendants and each of them should appear and if they or one of them maketh default the sureties should be amerced and so here this Iudgment Ideo ipsi in Misericord shall refer to the sureties not to the parties for the Defendants shall not be amerced untill the end of the suit and but once onely in one action which see Book of Entries 464. where there was but one Defendant and therefore If the amerciment shall refer to the Defendant then it should be Ideo ipse not ipsi c. and that is the reason wherefore neither the Queen nor an Infant shall find pledges for no amerciament shall be upon their default therefore in vain for them to find pledges c. And if the pledges be amerced where they ought not to be amerced by the Law yet the Defendant shall not have Error upon it for he is not the party grieved by that amerciament And upon this reason it is That in a Scire facias against the bail if erronious Iudgment be given against him the Defendant in the Action shall not have a Writ of Error The awarding of the Distress upon the Roll against both where the one of them onely makes default is not error especially as this case is for though that one of them was Essoined untill the day aforesaid yet at the said day they make default and so the Distress is well awarded against him and although that the Writ were ill awarded yet when they appear Cr. Trinit at the day of the retorn of the Distress all mean defaults in the Process are saved and so the misawarding of the Distress by appearance afterwards is supplyed As 39 E. 3. 7. The Law requires that in an action grounded upon the Statute of Praemunire 27 E. 3. the Defendant hath warning by two Months yet if the Defendant having not had such warning appeareth the Process is well enough So 9 E. 4. 18. Where upon any Process the Defendant appeareth although the day of appearance be not lawfull yet the parties shall be put to answer and see many cases there to the same purpose and such was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case And as to the second Error that the Iudgment Ideo ipsi in Miseric shall be referred to the sureties onely and not unto the party and that the Defendant shall be but once amerced in one action the same is true that he shall be but once amerced for one default but if many defaults be the Defendant shall be severally amerced for every default And it should be unreasonable that the sureties should be amerced and that the Defendant who is as principal should go free See the Book of Entries 193. Ipsi plegii sui in Misericordia c. CCXXXII Farnam 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench FArnam Schoolmaster and others were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for entring In domum Rectoriae de Putney ac in cert terras eidem domui part jacen in Putney c. Exception was taken to the Indictment because it recited the two parts of the Statute 1 Expulsion and Disseisin with Force 2 Holding out and there is not any offence in it contained as to one of them scil Holding out and although it was not necessary to recite the Statute yet the party meddles with it and doth not apply it to the special matter the same is naught See for that the Case between Strange and Partridge Plow Com. 2 The entry is supposed In domum certas terras eidem domui pertinen jacen in Putney which is incertain as to the lands and it is naught for the house also for it is not shewed in what Town the house is for this clause ac certas-terras eidem domui pertin jacen in Putney is a distinct clause by it self and refers onely to the lands and doth not extend to the house As to the first exception is was disallowed for it is not like unto Partridge's Case for there the
Statute and it was moved If it should not be a good Indictment for the assault so as he might be fined for it and by Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court The Indictment is void for the whole for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and there the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. CCXXXV Mead and Cheney 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench MEad brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Cheney Executor of one Skipwith and recovered and upon a Fieri facias the Sheriff did retorn Devastavit and it was moved to have an Elegit and the Iustices would advise of it and afterwards at another day a Precedent was shewed to the Court of 17 Eliz. and thereupon the Elegit was granted CCXXXVI Tompson and Trafford 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 910. Poph. 8 9. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Warden and Fellows of New College in Oxford 8 Eliz. leased a Mansion house in the Burrough of Southwark to one Standish for 21 years and afterwards 25 Octob. 21 Eliz. they demised the same Mansion house to the said Standish for 21 years to commence the Michaelmas after And the Stat. of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. and 18 Eliz. cap. 11. were also found And if this second Lease shall be said a Lease in Reversion and so be void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. was the Question Foster moved That it is a Lease in Reversion for the first Lease doth continue untill Michaelmas and so was the opinion of the Iustices of Assise at the trial Towse contrary For when Standish accepteth the second Lease the same is presently a surrender of the former Lease for he giveth power unto the Lessor for to contract for the house presently and to that purpose he cited Corbet's Case 8 Eliz. Coke It is a surrender presently for you cannot apportion the Term. It was adjourned CCXXXVII Wood and Avery 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon a Bond by Wood against Avery the Condition was That where the Plaintiff had demised to the Defendant for term of years two Messuages c. If the Defendant at all times during the term shall maintain sustain and repair the said two Messuages with good and sufficient reparations that then c. And the Defendant pleaded That he had performed the Conditions in all but as to one Kitchin which was so ruinous at the time of the Demise that he could not maintain or repair and therefore he took it down and rebuilt it again in so short a time as he could possible in the same place so large and so sufficient in breadth length and heighth as the other Kitchin was and that the said Kitchin all times after the re-edifying of it he had sustained and maintained and well repaired and demanded Iudgment c. upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and by the Court the Plea were a good Plea if it were in an Action of Waste but here where he hath by his own Act tied himself to an inconvenience he ought at his perill to provide for it And here it was said That if the Condition be impossible the Bond is single contrary where a man is charged by an Act in Law. CCXXXVIII Bostwick and Bostwick 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas DOrothy Bostwick brought Dower against Bostwick an Infant Ante 59. and the Case was That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service of M. C. and by his last Will devised two parts of the Premisses to his Executors during the non-age of his heir and died his heir within age after whose death M. C. entred into the third part descended as Guardian in Knight's-service and the Executors into the other two parts upon which the Demandant brought one Writ of Dower against the Guardian to be endowed of the third part and another Writ of Dower against the heir within age in whom the Freehold of the two parts was The heir appearing by Attorney pleaded to issue which was found for the Demandant but the Iudgment was afterwards reversed because the heir being within age did not appear by Guardian but by Attorney for which cause she again brought a Writ of Dower against the heir and the Sheriff did retorn him summoned but the heir made default for which cause the Court was moved in the behalf of the Demandant to have the aid of the Court in this Case for if upon default of the Tenant a Grand Cape should issue forth and so a Recovery by default should follow the same would be Error which see 6 H. 8. Br. Liver Defaul 50. And therefore it was prayed that some person be appointed Guardian to the heir who may appear and plead for him for otherwise the Demandant is at great mischief for the Guardian now will not suffer the heir to appear in person And if the Widow now Demandant should stay for her Dower untill the heir should come of full age it would be a great mischief But by Walmesley Periam and Windham We cannot appoint a Guardian to the heir for his appearance here unless the heir be here in person in Court before us and he was appointed to be brought in person into Court. CCXXXIX Sir Anthony Denny 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas SIR Anthony Denny seised in Fee of the Manor of Chessam extending into Chessam and in the Town of Hertford and also of other Lands in Hertford by his last Will devised the Manor of Chessam to Henry Denny his son and heir in tail and his Lands in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger son c. It was holden by Walmsley Periam and Windham absent Anderson That the younger son should have that part of the Manor of Chessam which lieth in the Town of Hertford Another point in the Case was That upon the death of Sir Anthony and Office was found without any mention of this Devise for which cause the Queen seised and leased all the Lands so devised to a stranger during the minority of the heir The heir comes of full age and hath Livery of the whole and without any express entry leaseth the Lands for years rendring Rent the Lessee entreth and payeth the Rent to the heir the heir dieth the Lessee assigns over his term and the Rent is yearly paid to the right heir of Sir Anthony And how Edward Denny entred and per Curiam his entry is lawfull for if the heir entreth in this Case and many descents follow yet the Devisee may enter at any time for his entry doth not make any abatement or wrong but may well stand with the Devise for if the Devise be waved or the Devise doth defer the execution of the Devisee 1 Inst 111. a. 240. b. 3 Cro. 145. Ow. 86 87. it is reason that the heir enter and take the profits untill the Devisee entreth But if
discharge is onely material As in debt for arrearages of Rent reserved on a Lease for years if the time and place of the making of the Lease be not set forth in the Declaration the Declaration is not good But if the Defendant plead a collateral matter as release of the arrearages or other such matter now all the imperfections of the Declaration are waved c. At another day the matter was argued again There are three manner of considerations upon which an Assumpsit may be grounded 1 A debt precedent 2 Where he to whom such a promise is made is damnified by doing any thing or spends his labour at the instance of the Promiser although no benefit cometh to the Promiser As I agree with a Surgeon to cure a poor man who is a stranger unto me of a sore who doth it accordingly he shall have an Action 3 Or there is a present consideration c. The first Exception was because the Assumpsit being laid to procure such a Lease which another had i. e. one A. it is not shewed in the Declaration in facto That A. had such a Lease and if he had not any such Lease then there cannot be any consideration to procure it For Ex nihilo nihil fit Secondly the Declaration is That A. was possessed of a Lease for years to be ended and determined in An. 1606. without shewing any beginning of it and although that Lease be but matter of Conveyance and inducement yet because it is the ground of the Action it ought to be certainly and sufficiently set forth Thirdly the Lease to be procured is laid to be made by a College in Cambridge and it is not shewed for what term of years i. e. for 21 years or under for if it be above then such Lease is void Fourthly It is not laid in the Declaration that the Lease was by writing and then void for a College cannot make a Lease without writing and it shall be intended it was made without Deed because it is not laid to be by Deed As if a Corporation makes a Lease for life and afterwards granteth the Reversion for years he that will entitle himself to the said Reversion ought to say in pleading That he made the Lease for life by Deed although the Lease for life in such case be but matter of Conveyance Fifthly It is not laid in the Declaration That the Lease to be assured was in esse and had continuance at the time it was to be assured for although it be laid to be in esse at the time of the promise yet being a particular interest it shall not be intended to continue if it be not specially shewed As 10 H. 7. 26. Sixthly Here the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action but Palmer for the Assumpsit upon which the Action is grounded the money is to be payable to Palmer not to the Plaintiff 2 E. 4. 5. My Bailiff lets my Land to Farm rendring Rent he shall not have an Action for the Rent but I my self in whose right he leased 25 Eliz. It was the Case of one Crewe I promised unto J. S. 25 Eliz. Crew 's Case That in consideration that he will make unto me a Lease for years of such Lands I will assign the same to his servant If he will not make the Lease not J. S. but his servant shall have Action upon the promise and although the Defendant hath pleaded collateral matter by which the promise is confessed yet the same doth not amend the matter for if the Declaration be insufficient the Court ex Officio ought to stay Iudgment As 6 H. 7. 10. In trespass the Defendant pleads That there was an Accord betwixt them that in satisfaction of the said Trespass he should pay to the Plaintiff such a sum and make two Windows the which sum he had paid before the day without speaking any thing of the Windows The Plaintiff pleaded No such Accord and it was found for the Plaintiff and although the Plaintiff doth admit the Plea as good yet the Court ex Officio shall stay the Iudgment See the Book of Entries 4. A Carpenter brought an Action upon the Case and declared generally upon the Assumpsit Pro diversis rebus vocat Carpenters wares pro diversis laboribus per querent at the instance of the Defendant in arte lignaria c. and holden good without any particulars It was adjourned CCLVI. Payne 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber A Writ of Error was brought by Payne 3 Len. 144. Treasurer of the Records of the King's-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer upon an assignment of a Lease for years by the Earl of Oxford to the Queen One Error is assigned That whereas the issue was joined upon intrusion in taking of the profits and so two matters put in issue The Iury have found Payne guilty of intrusion but have said nothing of the taking of the profits and so the verdict doth not fully meet with the issue But the great matter of the Ease was upon this point The Information is That the Assignment to the Queen was 16 Maii the Intrusion 17 Maii the Inrollment of the Deed of Assignment the 18. of May. So it appeareth upon the Record That the intrusion is supposed to be done before the Queen have any interest in the Lands in which the intrusion is supposed for nothing was in the Queen before the Inrollment For the Queen is a Corporation of State of such prerogative and excellency that she cannot give or take interest in any Lands without matter of Record and this Lease is a Chattel Real and interest in Lands See as to the Inrollment 1 H. 7. 30 31. 5 E. 4. 7. 7 E. 4. 16. But I grant that if the Lessee for years be outlawed the Lease shall be in the King without Office for the Outlawry it self is a sufficient Record to entitle the King to it If the Queen makes a Lease for years of Land rendring Rent with clause That if the Rent be behind that the Lease shall cease if the Rent be not paid it was agreed here in Sir Moile Finche's Case Sir Moile Finches Case That the Lessee continuing his possession shall not be accounted an intruder before Office thereof found but he shall be accountant to the Queen for the profits as Bailiff of his own wrong But here we are charged with intrusion It hath been doubted if personal things be in the King without Office 37 H. 6. but now it is clear that it is as 35 E. 3. Br. Praerogat 113. The Villain of the the King purchaseth goods the property thereof is in the King without seisure and so of all personal Chattels because transitory 1 H. 7. 17. 4 H. 7. 1. 39 H. 6. 26. And here it appeareth upon Record that this Deed of Assignment was delivered to Baron Clark the 16 of May at Westminster and to that we say That the
J. S. he was constrained to pay the money J. S. promised for the same consideration to repay the money 286 D DIminution 3 Distress for Rent 8 Debt 10 26 33 49 88 90 122 126 136 150 153 162 163 172 181 189 200 208 248 Debt for Rent 14 28 67 121 Dower 15 85 174 238 Devise 16 92 123 165 171 198 239 243 276 279 280 287 Debt upon Recognizance 24 Descent no plea nor any title against the Queen 37 Debts of the King by the Statute of 33 H. 8. 39 Disseisin 80 Distress 179 Detinue 201 Discharge of a promise a good plea upon an Assumpsit 270 E ERror 2 3 4 77 86 100 115 132 135 160 161 222 231 244 251 255 256 263 Entry of Records 3 Estopell 3 17 Extent 20 75 167 Exceptions to a Writ 47 Extendi facias sued out and the Liberate not returned if good 65 Escape an Action of Debt brought upon it 112 Execution upon a Statute and the Sheriff voluntarily sets him at large 117 Execution 202 Enquest taken at the instance of the Plaintiff 203 Ejectione firme 250 Exposition of Statutes do belong unto the Queen 's temporal Courts 267 F FEoffments to Uses 7 25 118 183 194 218 233 257 282 285 False imprisonment 43 Fine 38 73 139 169 191 206 263 Formedon 84 196 Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster how and of whom the Tenure shall be 184 Fines in Courts 219 G GRant de Advocatione Ecclesiae what passeth 106 Grant of Lands of the Dutchy of Lancaster by the King unto another Tenend in Fee-farm if this Land shall be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy 197 Gift where void both by Common-Law and the Statute of 13 Eliz. 284 H HEriot 10 Habeas Corpus not well returned day given to amend it 213 I JUdgment against Bail 2 Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy 6 Justicies no Original but a Commission to the Sheriff 41 260 Information upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of wine 52 In consideration that the Plaintiff would stay an intended suit in Chancery promised that if the Plaintiff can prove that the father of the Defendant took the profits of the Lands in question that he would pay to him for all the said profits 133 Information upon the Statute of Usury 144 In consideration of marriage the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. 146 Joint-tenants in Fee grant a Lease for years rendring Rent and one dies how the Rent shall be divided 148 In consideration that the Testator would forbear the payment of a sum of money for a week he promised to pay him within a week if the Action will lie for the Executors 149 Judgment not to be reversed but by Error or Attaint 154 Information upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 4. by the party grieved The Plaintiff was non-suit yet shall not pay costs and damages 156 Indenture delivered at another day and not the day of the date 157 Indictment for inclosing of Common vi armis c. not good 159 Intruder dying in possession the same descent taketh not away an Entry 182 Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants 204 Indictment upon the Statute of Praemunire of 13 15 R. 2. 225 Indictment upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry 226 232 Indictment for not repairing of a Bridge 227 Indictment for an unlawfull assembly and entry 228 Indictment upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. for drawing of his dagger in the Church 234 Indictment upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 262 Judgment joynt against three will not lie against one of them in particular 277 L LEases 1 40 78 96 102 110 116 119 131 134 169 178 192 207 236 252 253 261 Leet how holden 31 98 266 Love is no consideration upon which to ground an Action 35 Letters Patents Bona Catalla felonum c. 81 Letters Patents of Offices not to be repealed after the death of the Grantor 128 Limitation and Condition with their difference 52 M MAintenance in returning a partial Jury 177 N NUsance for stopping a River with earth by which land was drowned 129 222 Nudum pactum quid 187 O OUtlawry 23 166 Obligation for appearance upon a Latitat where void 103 220 Office found 169 Obligation that the Obligor shall not exercise his Trade within a Town nor within a certain precinct of it void and against Law 259 P PArtition 3 Prescription 13 Property 35 113 Partitione facienda 69 Privilege is not for an Atturney against an Attachment by the custome of London 190 Presentments several make the Church litigious 205 Privilege pleaded for a Lord of Parliament 209 Prohibition prayed to the Court of Admiralty 224 Payment no good Plea without alledging it upon Record 269 Proof how to be made 273 Q QVare Impedit â—â— 83 Quo Warranto 266 R REceit of the wife 11 Rectory Quid 13 Rent charge 21 185 186 Replevin 29 58 82 87 107 158 168 170 211 274 281 Rents and Services 57 Reparations 72 Replicando of his own wrong how construed 108 Remainder in tail who was attainted of Felony 169 Recognizance of good behaviour 199 Recovery in a Writ of Entry 214 Return of a Devastavit upon a Fieri facias a motion to have an Elegit 235 Replication where good by Executors 265 S SEals 27 Special Plea to an English Bill if it may be relinquished 38 Sheriff must deliver all the prisoners in his custody over to his successor 76 Scire facias against the bail in an action of Debt to which was pleaded the death of the Defendant before Judgment given against him 125 T TEnancy several where no good Plea 9 Trover and conversion 22 50 217 278 Tythes 30 32 93 95 98 105 124 180 216 Tail. 51 54 63 170 247 Trespass against the Warden of the Fleet brought in the King's Bench 56 Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que use holdeth over if he be a Disseisor 59 Tenant at will if he may grant Copihold Estates to Copiholders 59 Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry 70 Trespass for an assault and battery 104 Tender of rent if refused where good and where not 173 Trespass by one Administrator against another for taking away the goods of the intestate 188 Trespass Quare clausum fregit and new assignment pleaded 230 Toll no lands to be discharged of it but lands Socage onely 240 Trespass Quare clausum fregit 241 Trespass for taking of goods and the Defendant justifies as Bailiff to J. S. 246 Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiffs close and for killing his Conies 254 Trespass for cutting down of four Oaks and the Defendant pleads that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel c. 258 W WRit of entry in the Per 9 Will of the Request of Land and the name of the Devisor not in it if good 44 Waste 45 46 62 210 282 Writ of Annuity 68 Wager of Law 143 Writ of Enquirie of damages if too little damages be found no other Writ pro meliore Enquir can be granted 272 Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin 283 FINIS