is not punishable by the Law of the Land no more than if many conspire to indict one but do not put it in Execution it is not punishable but if A. saith that B. lyeth in wait to kill him or rob him there an Action lyeth for insidiatores viarum are punishable But the Opinion of the whole Court was that because these words sound in great discredit of the Plaintiff it is reason he have his Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXL The Lord Stafford and Sir Rowland Heywoods Case THe Lord Stafford brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Rowland Heywood Kt. Abatement of Writ Exception was taken to the original Writ viz. ad respondend c. Quare colloquium quoddam habebatur inter Dominum Stafford Row. Heywood de assurando Castrum to the said Lord Stafford by the said Sir Rowland c. Dictus Rowlandus Castrum illud non assuravit c. where the said Writ said cum colloquium quoddam habebatur for the cause of the Action is not colloquium habitum but the not assurance of the Castle according to the promise made super colloquium praedictum and for that cause the Writ was abated CXLI Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Court If one who is not a common Informer be barred in any Information or Action upon a penal Statute he shall pay costs notwithstanding the Preamble of the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. be for the redressing of divers Disorders in common Informers but if pars gravata be barred in such case he shall not pay costs Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXLII Robinsons Case GEorge Robinson Lessee for years of the Manor of Drayton Basset the Reversion to the King devised his term to his wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow with the Remainder over if she married or died and made his Wife and his Son William his Executors the said William being within age and therefore the administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will and afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and dyed And by Cook nothing passed by this Grant for William had the same before for every Executor hath the whole Interest Popham contrary for at the time of the Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the wife was sole Executrix and by Egerton Solicitor if during the said Executorship by the wife one doth trespass upon the Lands the wife only shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-Executor which Cook denied and he cited the Case 10 H. 7. 4 where two Executors are and the one only is possessed of goods of the Testator and a Stranger takes them our of his Possession to whom the other Executor releaseth and after the Executor out of whose possession the goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespasser who pleads the Release of the other Executor and it was holden a good Plea for the possession of the Plaintiff was also the possession of his Companion The Case was further that Thomas Robinson in pleading shewing that G. Robinson was possessed and the same devised to his wife who granted to William Robinson who devised it to the Defendant And the other side shewed that the said Thomas granted the said term to Paramour and upon that grant they were at Issue if now against his own pleading Thomas might give in evidence that Thomas could not grant for that he had not any thing to grant for if the gift made by the wife to William was void and he had the term as Executor then he could not devise it but his devise to Thomas was void and then Thomas could not grant it and so Ne grant pas It was also shewed that the said Thomas granted the same to Paramour by Indenture if now against that Indenture he might give in evidence such special matter ut supra and if the Party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded to give the Verdict Secundum veritatem facti for they are sworn to say the truth and by Popham and Egerton as well the Iurors as the Parties are bound and concluded by the confession of the Parties on the Record and here all confess that William devised to him virtute cujus he was possessed The Queens Attorney to that said That true it is that Thomas Robinson was possessed but further said that the said Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides Therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary And by Manwood Chief Baron if the Parties admit a thing by not gainsaying it Jurors where bound by confession of the parties where not the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed the Iury shall be bound thereby And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLIII Applethwait and Nertleys Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant promised in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry his Daughter to give to the Plaintiff 40 l. and said he had married his Daughter and yet the Defendant Licet saepius requisitus would not pay it It was moved by Cook in stay of Iudgment that the Declaration is vitious because there is not set forth the place and time when the request was made for the Assumpsit being general it is by Law to be paid upon request Fenner If the promise was expresly to be paid upon request the Declaration was not good And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLIV Wats and Kings Case SAmuel Wats Plaintiff in Ejectione firmae against W. King upon a Special Verdict it was found that W. Wallshot was seized in Fee and he with one Oliver Shuttleworth Octab. Mich. 3 4 Phil. Mary levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to John Hooper who granted and rendred by the same Fine to Oliver for a month the remainder to the said W. Wallshot and to one Anne Cook and the heirs of their bodies c. the remainder to the right heirs of the said W. Wallshot in Fee and that with Proclamation William and Anne intermarry have issue John now alive W. Wallshot 4 5 Phil. Mary levy a Fine with Proclamation to Edward Popham Esq to the use of the said Edward and his heirs W. Wallshot 18 Eliz. died Anne took to husband Richard Stephens and they in the right of the said Anne entred and by Indenture demised the said Land to Richard Hoose the Father Richard the Son and Mary his wife for the term of their lives rendring to the said Richard Stephens and Anne his wife and to the heirs of the body
23 Eliz. is If any Person do any thing to move the People to Sedition the same is Felony but then it must be Sedition against the Queen and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLV Ratcliffe and Shirleys Case THe Lady Ratcliffe brought an Action upon the Case against Shirley for these words Words My Lady Ratcliffe is a beggerly Lady and giveth thread-bare Coats she bought Sheep and cosen'd men of their money and she is as very a Thief as he that robbeth by the High-way Vpon Not Guilty the Iury found that the Defendant spake these words She is a worse Thief than he that robbeth by the High-way It was holden that the words found by the Verdict were actionable as well as if the Defendant had called the Plaintiff Thief generally But it seemed to the Court that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for it may be that the Defendant dixit utrumque at several times and so several Causes of Action And it is not like to the Case 3 Ma. 118. where part of the words is found quoad alia verba non dixit and so expresly acquit him of the remnant so it is not here for this Verdict doth not acquit him of the other words and for that Cause Iudgment was stayed Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLVI Herne and Crowes Case IN an Action upon the Case by Herne against Crowe and declared that whereas certain Irish Merchants had imported Furs here into England which were offered to be sold in London which Furs the Defendant desired to buy but because he was a Foreigner he could not buy them without peril of forfeiture and then the Plaintiff was in communication with the Merchants to have bought them that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that when he had bought the said Furs the Defendant should have such a quantity of the said Furs as he pleased upon equal price assumed and promised that he would speak no more with the said Merchants for the buying of the said Furs yet that notwithstanding he proceeded in the said bargain and offered to the said Merchants sixty pound more than any other by reason of which the Plaintiff could not have them for such reasonable price as he might have had them before It was holden by Wray Chief Iustice That the Declaration here was insufficient upon which the Defendant might have well demurred Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLVII. Bakers Case A Writ of Partition by Baker Heir of Gertrudi Marquess of Exeter who devised all his Lands to Blunt by which the third part descend to the Plaintiff Estrepement and prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ is not to be granted for the Plaintiff may have a more proper remedy upon the Statute Cum duo vel tres and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded CCXLVIII Mich. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Conditions A Man was bound in an Obligation that he should release all his right in Black Acre to the Obligor and in the performance of the said Condition he made such a Lease and delivered the same to C. to the use of the Obligor The Opinion of the whose Court was That the Condition was not performed because the Obligor had not the Lease in his own hands to plead but is put to his Writ of Derinue against C. which was not the intent of the Condition Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLIX Seaman and Brownings Case SEaman brought Debt in an Obligation against Broshnin and others Executors of one Marshall The Condition was That whereas the said Marshall had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff If the Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoyed the said Lands against the said Marshall c and assigned the breach That the said Marshall had entred upon them and cut down five Elms there upon which they were at Issue And it was found that a Servant of the said Marshall had entred and cut them and that in the presence of the said Marshall his Master and by his commandment It was the Opinion of the Court that the Condition was broken and that the Master was the principal Trespasser Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCL Babingtons Case HUmphrey Babington brought a Writ of Disceit and counted that T. S. was seized of Land and held the same of the Manor of Rodely which Manor is ancient Demeasn And that the said T. S. being so seized a Writ of Entre sur Disseisin was brought against him in which T. S. pleaded and lost and Iudgment was given against him Et quod ipse Humphridus extitit Dominus Manerii praedicti and concluded ad exhaeredationis ipsius Humphrâ—di periculum manifestum Exception was taken to the Count because the words are quod cum ipse existit Dominus Manerii praedicti where he ought to say further Amendment Et tempore Judicii praedicti existebat for if the Recovery was before he purchased the said Manor his Action doth not lye which Rhodes and Anderson concesserunt wherefore day was given to the Plaintiff to amend his Count. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLI Sir William Pelhams Case THe Case was A. Tenant for life the remainder in tall to B. c. A by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Messuage so conveyed to W. P. in fee who suffered a common recovery in which A. is vouched and so a common recovery had and executed and this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the recovery should bind B. and his remainder in tail was the question or if it be a forfeiture Altham argued that here is a forfeiture 1. It is to see if a common recovery suffered by Tenant for life which here is the Bargainee be a forfeiture or no by the common Law 1 Leon. 264. it s not forfeited 2 Leon. 60 65. if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery 2. If it be executed then if he in the remainder may enter for the forfeiture When the Tenant for life bargains and sells the Messuage although upon it an estate in fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but what he may lawfully pass and that was the estate for life of the Bargainor for such an estate only he might lawfully pass and here the Vendee is but Tenant for the life of another and when of his own assent he suffers a common recovery and that without right it is a forfeiture By matter in Fait a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in Fait he cannot commit a forfeiture if not thereby the reversion be not pulled out of him in the reversion As if a Lessee for 10 years make a Lease for 1000 years it is not a forfeiture for by that the reversion is not touched but if he by matter of Record do
as the Statute of 11 H. 8. hath ordained in case of a Lease for years where the Lessor his Heirs or Assigns have suffered the recovery and not otherwise And afterwards he argued very much upon the reputation and dignity of common Recoveries that they are the strongest and most effectual Assurances in the Law and therefore they ought to be countenanced rather by the Iudges than in any part diminished or disabled and we ought to consider of them Non ex rigore juris rigida disquisitione but according to the common use and practice what is the ground and foundation of these Recoveries And so Iudges have used heretofore to examine Matters which peradventure according to the strict Rules of the Common Law drew them away But they perceiving that a dangerous Consequence thereby would follow to an infinite number of the Kings Subjects the Law having been otherwise practised before have framed their Iudgments not according to the exact Rules of Law but to avoid the Inconvenience aforesaid according to the common and received practice c. Nam communis Error facit jus and to that purpose he cited a Case very lately adjudged in B.R. viz. A Writ of Error was brought in B. R. upon a Iudgment given in Wales and the Error was in this That the Writ was returnable coâ—am Justiciariis Domini Regis Comitatus c. where it should have been coram Justiciariis Magnae Sessionis Dominae Reginae c and such are the words of the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap 26. the which Sessions shall be called the Kings great Sessions in Wales and notwithstanding that the Iustices in strict consideration of the Law thought the same to be Error for the said Statute had given to the said Court such name yet because it was well known to the Iustices That that was the common course in the said Court ever after the erection thereof And also if the said Iudgment should be reversed for that cause many Iudgments should be also reversed which should be a great disquietness and vexation to the whole Country there they in their discretion thought it convenient to qualifie the Law in that point and so to avoid the said Inconvenience affirmed the said Iudgment So in the case at Bar If this Rent-charge should stand against the said recovery no inconvenience should be so firm but it should be impeached no Title so clear but should be incumbred therefore for the common repulse of many the strict rules of the Law ought to yield to common practice for the avoiding of a common inconvenience it hath been holden for Law when Tenant in tail maketh a feoffment in fee the Feoffee is impleaded voucheth the Tenant in tail now forasmuch as he cometh in as Vouchee it is now said that he cometh in of all his estates I do not see any reason for that but common allowance practice and experience c. It was adjourned c. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXIV Baxter and Bartlets Case IN Assise of Freshforce by Baxter against Bartlet upon Null tort Null Disseisin pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment upon which the Tenant brought Error for that the Assize have generally found the Disseisin but have not enquired of the force And after many motions the Iudgment was affirmed CCLXV. Sir Henry Gilfords Case IT was found upon a Special Verdict That Henry Gilford Citizen and Freeman of London 7 Feb. 6 E. 2. seized of a Capital Messuage Devised the same by these words Lego volo Quod omnes Domus reddit ' quae habeo in Villa de London ordinentur assignentur per Executores meos ad sustentationem trium Capellanorum qui pro vita celebrabunt in Ecclesia Sancti Pauli London Et ad hoc faciend ' Do eis plenam potestatem and made his Executors William Staunton and others and dyed the Will was Proved and Inrolled according to the Custom Afterwards the Executors by their Deed bearing date 7 E. 2 granted and assigned the said Capital Messuage and his other Tenements in London to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls in London and their Successors Habend ' tenend ' in forma sequenti Haec est finalis Concordia c. That the Dean and Chapter shall have the said Lands for ever to find yearly a competent Sustenance of 10 Marks to a Priest to celebrate Mass for the said Henry Gilford and all Souls and that the said Priest at all hours of Divine obsequies should give his attendance in the said Church and faithfully do his Office to say Mass and Prayers according to the Degrees and Customs of the said Church and that the Dean and Chapter should find Bread and Wine and Massing-cloaths and Torch-light and granted the residue of the profits of the Lands to celebrate an yearly Obit and for the perpetual security of the said Chauntry the said Executors granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of London 20 s yearly rent for ever Ita quod the Mayor and Chamberlain for the time being presented a meet and convenient Chaplain to the said Chauntry to the said Dean and Chapter within 15 days after the Avoidance the which Chaplain the Dean and Chapâ—er are bound to admit And the form of the said Conveyance was such We the Executors H. G. do grant and assign to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls all the Lands Tenements and Rents aforesaid to have and to hold to them and their Successors for the sustentation of a Chaplain perpetual and his Clark for the said H. G. and all Souls receiving from the said Dean and Chapter 10 Marks for the celebrating of the said Obit of the said H. G. And that the Grant and Assignment of the said 20 s. to the Commonalty in the relief of the said Chauntry is such scil To have and receive of one Shop in Cheap maintenance of the said Chauntry aforesaid And that the said Dean and Chapter oblige themselves and their Successors and the Church to pay the same to the said Priest and Clark and that it shall be lawful for the Mayor and Commonalty aforesaid to distrain for the said Rents By virtue of which Will and Indenture the Dean and Chapter enter and were thereof seized in their demesne c. and that at all times after they had taken the profits thereof until 2 E. 6. and that the Dean and Chapter of the profits of the premises had yearly paid 10 Marks for the stipend of the said Priest And further the 27 July 16 H. 8. the Dean and Chapter demised the same to F. Cole for 40 years and that afterwards 15 Maij 36 H. 8. the said Dean and Chapter leased the same to Nicholas Wilford for 50 years rendring 9 l. Rent with Clause of Distress if the Rent was behind by half a year being demanded the Lease should be void which N. W. 1 E. 6. devised the same to his Wife who devised the same to Tho. Wilford the
rather a portion of the profits c. and therefore the Land shall be said the Chauntry and not the Sum and here the intent of the Statute extends to the intent of the Founder So that if the intent of the Founder was to give the Land to Superstitious Vses the same is within the Statute If Cestuy que use wills that his Feoffees have the profits of his Lands ut supra to the Sustentation of a Chauntry Priest and the Feoffees imploy but 20 l. per Annum whereas the Land is of the value of 100 l. per Annum by this Statute the King shall have all for the intent of the Founder was That all should be imployed And so here for upon the Matter the Dean and Chapter are but as Feoffees and see that this Statute of Chauntries makes a great difference between Obits and Lights and Chauntries for in the Case of Obits and Lights the King shall not have but that which was imployed Whetstones Case was That Whetstone seized of the Manor of Cocke made a Feoffment thereof to certain Feoffees to find two Obits in such a Chappel and with the residue of the profits to maintain the Chappel and Iudgment was given for the Queen Here the Condition knit to the Reversion upon a Lease made by the Dean and Chapter to Nicholas Wilford passeth to the King by the Act of Parliament for a Condition is an Hereditament and when the King grants over the reversion to Butcher the Condition also passeth by 32 H. 8. Bromley Solicitor The Statute extends to Chauntries in existence only and not to Chauntries in reputation Chauntry hath divers significations in Law 1. For the Service which the Chauntry Priest is to do as cessavit de Cantaria 2 Sometimes for the Advowson of the Chauntry scil Quod permittat praesentare ad Cantariam 3. Sometimes for the Body of the Chauntry scil the Land of which it is endowed and in that sense it is taken by the Statute I will agree if the same had been an ancient Chauntry time out of mind c. and the Incumbents thereof had taken the profits and made Leases of it that then it should be a Chauntâ—y within this Statute for it might be corporated by prescription But the Chauntry here in question is not a Chauntry by prescription for the beginning of it is known so it is a Chauntry in reputation only and not in facto And he said That in that case the rent limited to the sustentation of the Priest shall go to the King and not to the Land for the Land was not given for the sustentation of a Priest but the rent only so as the Land was not immediately imployed for the finding of the Priest And he resembled this case to the case lately in question upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. An Abbot was seized of a great Wood which was never imployed in kind to the use of the House being seven Miles distant from the House but was never in Lease but was yearly sold by parcels and the Woodward rendred an Account of the same to the Auditor And the Opinion was That a Lease for years made of it within a year before the Dissolution was not within the said Statute for it was not immediately imployed for Hospitality But see the same reported by the Lord Dyer to the contrary 3 4 Eliz. 207. that such a Demise was void although that the Wood was not immediately imployed c. And see also the words of the Statute scil That the Land shall be in the actual Possession of the King in as ample manner as the Priest had it and the Priest had nothing in the Land but only in the Rent It was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXVI. Harveys Case HArvey seized of a Manor made a Feoffment thereof to divers persons to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his Son and the Heirs Males of his Body and if the said Son or any of the Heirs males of his Body discontinue or alien otherwise than for 21 years or three lives that then his Feoffees should be seized to the use of Nic. Harvey his Brother in Fee the Feoffor dyed the Son made a Lease for 21 years and afterwards discontinued against the Proviso if that lease should bind Nic. Harvey who came in by the latter use c. Dyer It is hard to avoid the lease for at the time of the making of it the lessor had a good interest and authority to make the lease and the act which impeacheth the Estate of the lessor commenceth after the lease by the discontinuance and therefore shall not avoid the lease Manwood The second use doth determine the first use and all Estates derived out of it Mounson contr ' For here this word Otherwise than for 21 years c so as such a lease is excepted As if a man man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of J. S. and his Heirs until J. D. shall pay to him 20 l. and then to the use of J. D. and his Heirs here if J. S. makes a a lease for years and afterwards the Monies are paid to J. D. now J. D. shall hold the Land discharged of the lease for there is no word Otherwise c. for these words Otherwise qualifie the second use Dyer The word Otherwise amounts to an Exception Manwood doubted of it and moved and demanded if the wife of the Cestuy que use should have Dower or not Barham conceived that she should c. CCLXVII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in Socage made a lease for four years and dyed his Heir within age of 8 years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased by Indenture to the same lessee for 14 years It was holden that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise it is of a lease made by Guardian in Nurture CCLXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt it was found for the Plaintiff 20 Eliz. and 21 Eliz. the Plaintiff released to the Defendant and the continuance was made until this Term scil Mich 29 Eliz. per Curiam advisare vult And now the Plaintiff against his own Release prayed and had Iudgment A Release pleaded after Judgment and Verdict without any knowledge to the Defendant and Process of Execution issued and now Walter a Clerk of the Court on the behalf of the Defendant shewed the Release to the Court and also the whole special matter and prayed the Release of the Court against this practice Anderson presently granted a Supersedeas But afterwards before the Process issued forth he and the other Iustices were of Opinion That the Defendant could not plead the said Release nor any further matter after Verdict and demanded the question of Nelson chief Prothonatory who advertised the Court That he could shew a President where an Arbitrement had been pleaded after a Verdict and Issue joyned upon it and that
the whole matter is not any sufficient demand and so Wray Chief Iustice said CCLXXVIII Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ACtion upon the Case was brought for these words Thou wouldst have stoln my Cloak if J.S. had not come in the way and thou art a Thief and I will prove it After Verdict it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in Arrest of Iudgment That these words were not actionable For the first words Thou wouldst have stoln my Cloak c. do not by Law give any cause of Action and when the words subsequent Thou art a Thief are depending apon the said former words and to be construed as spoken in respect of them and upon that intent But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary And that the said latter words should be taken and construed in abstracto by themselves as in gross and not as dependant upon the former words and afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXIX Hungerford and Watts Case HUngerford brought an Action upon the Case againts Watts Words for that the Defendant had said That the Plaintiff had caused the Defendant to be arrested with forged Writs It was objected That the words were not actionable for it might be that the Writs were forged by strangers without the privity of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff not knowing them to be forged procured the Arrest But the Opinion of the Court was That the words were actionable for the word Caused extends as well to the Forgery as to the Arrest and so amounts to the slander of Forgery CCLXXX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs IN an Action upon an Escape the Plaintiff is Nonsuited It was holden that the Defendant should not have Costs Note The words of the Statute upon an Action upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for any offence or tort personal to be supposed to be done immediately to the Plaintiff Notwithstanding this Action is quodam modo an Action upon the Statute 1. by Equity of the Statute of West 2. cap. 11. which giveth it expresly against the Warden of the Fleet Yet properly it is not an Action upon the Statute for in the Declaration in such an Action no mention is made of the Statute which see in the Book of Entries 169 171. and also here is not supposed any immediate personal offence or wrong to the Plaintiff And an Action upon the Case it is not for then the Writ ought to make mention of the Escape and that it doth not here and yet at the Common Law before the Statute of Westm 2. an Action upon the Case lay for an Escape and so by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Costs are not given in this Case And by Dyer upon Nonsuit in an Action upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. the Defendant shall not have Costs for it is not a personal wrong for the Writ is quod disseisivit which is a real wrong Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXXI Hollingshed and Kings Case HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bound to him in a Recognisance in 200 l. before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera of Guildhall in London Vpon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed before brought a Scire Facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he had brought this Action and upon the Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that the Plaintiff in the setting forth of the Recognizance had not alledged That the Mayor of London had authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he had not then is the Recognizance taken coram non Judice and so void and as to the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 45. the same cannot extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordata sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui recordum habent in rotulis eorum irrotulantur c. and also at the time of the making of that Statute the City of London had not any Sheriffs but only Bayliffs And the Statute ordains That upon Recognizance Process shall go to the Sheriffs c. therefore not to them But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for we well know that they of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which do concern the Iurisdiction of that Court and which arise by reason of the matters there depending Another matter was Objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera therefore it was not well taken But as to that Anderson Chief Iustice said Admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in a Scire Facias sued upon it the Defendant shall not take any advantage he shall be now bound by that admittance As if one sues a Scire Facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any such Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him the same is not void but voidable And Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove the Courts of the King ought to take notice that those of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo Warranto issueth to the Iustices in Eyre it doth not belong to them of London to claim their Liberties for all the Kings Courts have notice of them And at the last after many Motions the better Opinion of the Court was That the Plaintiff should recover Periam aliquantum haesitavit And it was said by Anderson and in a manner agreed by them all That if dependant this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire Facias is reversed yet the Court here shall proceed and take no notice of the reversal CCLXXXII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seized of a Barn in which the Tythes of certain Lands have used to be inned let the same by these words Demises .. Demise and to Farm-let the Barn with all Tythes belonging to the same It was holden That by that Demise the Tythes did not pass but Tythes which had usually been demised with the Barn passed by such words as by the Demise of an House Cum omnibus terris eidem pertinent ' all the Lands pass which have used to be demised with the said House for the demising usually of the Tythes with the Barn makes the Tythes belonging to the Barn but not the Inning Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXXII Haltons Case Recognisance Inrollment A Recognizance was acknowledged before J. S. who was one of the Masters of the Chancery and before the same was Inrolled the Conusee dyed the point was whether at the request of the Executors
one John Whettesley and Ann his Wife examinand ' Ann ' praedict ea intentione That the said John and Ann should take back an Estate thereof for their lives the Remainder to one John Buck in Fee. Note the Surrender ought to be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot Two several Surrenders of the said Husband and Wife of the said two Messuages and took an Estate for their lives the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay certain Moneys c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the Warrant was ad Capiend ' unam sursam redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the Warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Letter of Deputation should be absolute and without condition and now in the Execution of it is conditional so as the conditional Estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the Court was clear of Opinion to the contrary in both the points That the proceedings here are sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because the Surrender and Regrant is entred into the Roll of a Court dated to be holden 2 Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the 3 of June after but as to that the Court was clear That the Mis-entry of the Date of the Court should not prejudice the party for that Entry is not any matter of Record but only an Escroll and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country And the party shall give in Evidence to the truth of the matter and shall not be bound by the Rolls and according to this Resolution Iudgment was given Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXLIX Long and Hemmings Case GIles Long brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester Hemmings and Hadnell Hemmings pleaded That one Tho. Long seized of the Manor of F. to which the Advowson was appendant by his Deed granted the Advowson unto him 17 Eliz. The Incumbent pleaded the same Plea to which the Plaintiff Replicando said That before the said Grant viz. 6 Eliz. the said Tho. Long granted to him the said Manor c. and upon Issue joyned the Iury found this Special Matter That the said Feoffment was by word and Livery and Seisin was made and afterwards the said Tho. Long granted the said Advowson to the Defendant and afterwards Attornment was had and if without Attornment the Advowson passed with the Manor was the Question Shuttleworth argued That the Advowson passed as appendant to the Demesns for an Advowson shall be more properly appendant to the Demesns than to the Services for the Services may be determined many ways so cannot the Demesns for if the Services be determined by Escheat c. yet the Advowson remains appendant to the Demesns and an Advowson may be appendant to an acre parcel of the Manor but not to the Services and so an Advowson may well pass without Deed as upon a Feoffment of a Manor the Services pass without Deed. And if a man seized of a Manor with an advowson appendant makes a Feoffment of one acre parcel thereof with the advowson the advowson is appendant to that acre 33 H. 6. 5. although it be not by Deed. Vide contra Temps E. 1. Faits Feoffments 115. 17 E 3. 4. It ought to be by Deed 43 E. 3. 24. Walmsley argued to the contrary The Verdict is That Tho. Long give not the Manor but the Capital Messuage of F. and all other Lands and Tenements of the same which words of the same have relation to the Messuage and therefore neither the Manor of F. nor the advowson pass and admit that all the Demesns pass yet the advowson cannot pass as appendant for that advowson shall pass as appendant to the whole Manor and not to such or such part of it And by Littleton 7 E. 4. 27. if a man holds of me three acres by 12 d. and I grant the Services of the third acre the same is void so here there is no advowson appendant to the Demesns And he said That in this case the advowson is appendant to the Services and although Services are Inheritances incorporeal yet an advowson may be appendant to them as one Office may be appendant to another Office and one advowson to another advowson 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. A Man seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant enfeoffeth one by Deed of one acre parcel thereof and also by the same Deed grants the Advowson the Advowson shall pass as in gross for they are several Grants although but one Deed. Another matter was That Thomas Long enfeoffed and here the Iury have found that Thomas Long gave in tail c. And he conceived that the Plaintiff upon that Verdict should have Iudgment As in Waste the Plaintiff assigns the Waste in cutting down of 20 Oaks and upon Not Guilty It was found that he cut down but 10 the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment upon that Verdict The Case was adjourned CCCL Trin. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was Lessee for life of another bargains and sells by Deed indented and enrolled and afterwards levies a Fine to the Conusee Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c It was holden by the whole Court That it was a forfeiture of his Estate for when the Bargainee being now Tenant for the life of another accepts a Fine of a Stranger sur Conusans de droit c. that he admit the Fee in him by matter of Record otherwise it is of a Fine sur Release And by Manwood If Lessee for life be disseised and levies a Fine to the Disseisor sur Conusans de droit c the Lessor shall re-enter Quod Dyer negavit Because that the Lessor at the time of the Fine levied had not any thing in the Reversion but only a Right Manwood put this Case Land is given to A. and B. and to the Heirs of B. they are disseized by two A releaseth to one of the Disseisors now they are Ioyntenants but for a moiety and the Estate in the other moiety is changed into an Estate for life Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLI The Queen and the Bishop of Norwich's Case IN a Quare Impedit the case was That the title to present to the Church was devolved to the Queen by Lapse The Patron himself presented and his Clerk was inducted and afterwards deprived It was the Opinion of the whole Court That if the Deprivation was without any covin that the title of the Queen by Lapse was gone Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLII. Ashpool and the Inhabitants of Everinghams Case IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Ashpool
which Ayliffe concessit Wray Chief Iustice was absent in the Star-Chamber Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XLV Harvey and Harveys Case Suit for Legacies Prohibition CLare Harvey libelled against Sebastian Harvey the Executor of Sir James Harvey their Father for a legacy bequeathed to him by his Father in his Will. By which he willed that after his death his Goods should be divided and parted betwixt his Children according to the laudable custom of London and averred in his libel that the Goods and Chattels whereof the Testator died possessed amounts to such a sum and that it belonged unto him being one of his children to demand so much Virtute Legationis praedict The Defendant came and prayed a Prohibition and Wray Chief Iustice conceived he ought to have it for here is not any legacy but the Testator setteth forth his meaning that his pleasure is that the custom of London should be observed in the disposition of his Goods and the said Clare is put to his Writ de rationabili parte Bonorum But yet afterwards a special Consultation was granted Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XLVI Sandersons Case Leet NOte It was adjudged by the Court that Pound-breach is not inquirable in a Leet for it is not a common Nusans But Rhodes Serjeant said that excessive Toll is inquirable in a Leet Vide Book of Entries 390. XLVII Pasc 37 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Abatement of Writ IN a Quare Impedit by the Queen exception was taken to the Writ because the words were quod permittat ipsam praesentare ad Rectoriam de D. where it ought to be ad Ecclesiam the Court awarded that the Writ should be openly amended in Court by a Clerk of the Chancery Amendment XLVIII Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Pleadings IN a Writ of Entry for Disseisin the Tenant said that the House in demand is within the City of London and that the said City is an ancient City and that King Henry 3. concessit Civibus Civitatis praedict quod non implacitentur de terris tenementis suis c. extra Muros Civitatis praedict and said that he himself is a Citizen of London and demanded judgment of the Writ and to the Pleading he further said Sed illis rectum teneatur infra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict Exception was taken to the Plea because the Tenant did not shew before that by their custom they ought to be impleaded And by the Opinion of the whole Court the Tenant ought to have shewed that the Citizens for their lands there ought to be impleaded in the Hustings c. And the general words in the Plea Sed illis rectum reneatur infra Civitatem praedictam secundum consuetudinem Civitatis praedict do not supply the defect aforesaid And afterwards it was awarded that the Tenant plead Ouster Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XLIX Hunt and Sones Case AN Action upon the Case by W. Hunt against W. Sone Assumpsit 2 Leon. 107. Owen 42. 3 Cro. 118. 1 Roll. 29. 30. ibid. The Plaintiff declared Quod cum idem Hunt was seised in his Demesn as of Fee of certain lands and shewed the same in certain praedict Sone in consideration that the said Hunt permit the said Sone occupare terras praedict ab eodem die 20 Julij 27 Eliz. usque ad secundum diem Novembris which should be in Anno 1589. assumed and promised that he the said William Sone ad festum omnium Sanctorum proxime sequend 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ac ab inde annuatim durante dict termino 20 l. 5 s. ad festa Annunciationis Beatae Mariae ac omnium Sanctorum per aequales portiones solvend eidem Hunt bene fideliter contentare vellet at licet praedict W. Hunt permisit praefat Sone occupare terras praedict a dict 20 die Julij 27 Eliz. Usque ad secundum diem Novemb. 28 Eliz. Licetque etiam post dict 20 diem Julij 27 Eliz. ante praedict diem secund Novemb. An 28 Eliz. dict fest omnium Sanctorum An. 27. Supradict ac fest Annunciationis Beatae Mariae Virginis ac fest omnium Sanctorum 28 Eliz. praeterierunt praedict tamen W. Sone dict 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad praedict fest omnium Sanctorum proxime sequend post permissionem assumptionem praedict ac aliam 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad fest Annunciationis 28 Eliz. ac alia 10 l. 2 s. 6 d. ad fest omnium Sanctorum An. 28. Eliz. superdict nondum solvit The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff entred into parcel of the Premises 6 October 28 Eliz. eadem occupare eundem Sone non permisit upon which they were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff it was moved in stay of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had no cause of Action before that all the Term was expired for it is an entire Assumpsit and cannot be severed by action and therefore it was said that if I promise to pay you 10 l. viz. at such a Feast 5 l. and at such a Feast other 5 l. there before the last day of payment no Action lieth for the sum of 20 l. is one sum entire But if I promise to pay another at Easter next 10 l. and at Midsummer as much here they are several Assumpsits and upon default of payment of the first sum an Action will lie without excepting the latter payment But at last the Court agreed That Iudgment notwithstanding that exception should be given for the Plaintiff and that the Declaration was good enough as well in respect of the Exception aforesaid as also that the word Licet was effectual enough to set forth the permission L. Hil. 31 and 32 Eliz In the Common Pleas. A. Disseised B. of two Acres of Land and leased one of them to C. at will and the other Acre to D. at will and they entred accordingly B the Disseisee by Lease leased both Acres to E. for years and entred into one of the Acres in the name of both and sealed and delivered the Lease to E. It was holden by the Court to be a good Lease to maintain an Ejectione firmae of both Acres LI. Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Cro. 655 656 plus 2 Roll. 416. Johnson versus Smart cont A. Seised of certain Lands and having two Sons devised part of his Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the other part of his Lands to his younger Son in tail with this clause in the Will that if any of his Sons dyed without Issue that then the whole Land should remain to a stranger in Fee and dyed the Sons entred into the Lands devised to them respectively and the younger Son died without issue and he to whom the Fee was devised entred It was adjudged That this Entry was not lawful and that the eldest Son should have the Land by the implicative devise Mich. 32 Eliz. In the
that Reversion shall descend to all the daughters notwithstanding the half blood for the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by license of the Lord is a demise and a Lease according to the order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the demise the Possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder for his possession is customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be the possession of the other therefore there shall be no Possessio Fratris in this case Possesso Fratris But if one had been the Guardian by custom or the Lease had been made by Surrender there the Sister of the half blood should not inherit And Mead said the Case of the Guardian had been adjudged Mounson agreed And it was said that if a Copyhold doth descend to the Son he is not a Copyholder before admittance but he may take the profits and punish a Trespass before admittance CIV Pasc 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Parson let his Rectory for three years and covenanted that the Lessee shall have and enjoy it during the said term without expulsion or any thing done or to be done by the Lessor and is also bound in an Obligation to the Lessee to perform the said Covenant Forfeiture Quaere Afterwards for not reading of the Articles he was deprived ipso facto by the Statute of 13 Eliz. The Patron presented another who being inducted ousted the Lessee wherefore an Action was brought upon the Obligation It was the Opinion of all the Iustices That this matter is not any cause of Action for the Lessee was not ousted by any Act done by the Lessor but rather for Non feasans and so out of the compass of the Covenant aforesaid as if a man be bound that he shall not do any waste permissive waste is not within the danger of it Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CV King and Cottons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Lessee for years the Remainder for life the Remainder in Tail to Lessee for years Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee with warranty and dyed he in the Remainder for life dyed the Issue in Tail entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff It was clearly resolved by the Court in this Case Entre Congeable That the entry of the Issue in Tail was lawful notwithstanding that the disseisin was done to another Estate than that which was to be bound by the warranty scil to the Estate for life Vide 50 E. 3. 12 13 46 E. 3. 6. Fitz. Garr 28. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CVI. Scot and Scots Case BArtholomew Scot brought a Writ of Accompt against Thomas Scot Accompt Thomas Scot sum ' fuit ad respondend Barth Scot quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit receptor denariorum c. And declared quod cum the said Thomas Scot fuit receptor denariorum c. recepisset so much by the hands of such a one c. Cumque idem Thomas habuisset recepiâ—â—et diversa bona and shewed what ad merchandizand c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Writ and Declaration is general against the Defendant as Receiver whereas for such goods as the Defendant had received ad merchandizand he ought to have been charged as Bayliff Quod Curia concessit Vide Book Entries 19. 46 E. 3. 9. and afterwards the Defendant traversed severally both the Charges whereupon several Issues were joyned and both found for the Plaintiff And as to the monies with the Receipt of which he was charged as Receiver the Plaintiff had Iudgment and as to the others Abatement of Writ which he received ad Merchandizandum the Writ abated And it was said by the Court That the Writ should have abated in the whole unless the several Issues had helped the matter because the Plaintiff might have had an Action for part in other manner Vide 9 H. 7. 4. by Brian 17 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber CVII Morgan and Coxes Case MOrgan exhibited a Bill of Perjury in the Star-Chamber against one Cox setting forth that whereas he was bound to his good behaviour by Recognizance acknowledged in the Kings bench and he in discharge of the said Recognizance had obtained a Writ De Fama gestu to enquire of his Conversation and therefore at the Sessions in the County of Devon where the said Morgan was dwelling the grand Iury charged with the said Matter the said Cox gave Evidence to the said grand Iury in maintenance and continuance of the said Recognizance and upon the Evidence given by Cox the said Bill was conceived It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant That that Bill upon the matter did not lye for that the Evidence in the Bill for the Perjury was given for the Queen in maintenance of the Recognizance and that to the grand Iury which was charged for the Queen But as to that it was said by the Lord Chancellor and both the Chief Iustices that the Writ De fama gestu Brief de Fama gestu is an especial Writ at the Suit of the Party and not of the Queen and the Court cannot deny it to him who asketh it and the grand Iury as to that matter shall be accounted a special Iury c. Mich. 16 Eliz In the Common Pleas. CVIII Jackson and Darcys Case Tail barred by a Fine 3 Leon. 57. IN a Writ of Partition betwixt Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and dyed it was adjudged that the Issue was barred and yet the Remainder to the Queen was not discontinued for by the Fine an Estate in Fee-simple determinable upon the Estate in Tail passed to the Conusee Trin. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CIX Stroads Case Tenures IN a Replevin the Case was Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries The King granted the Lands over unto another it was holden in this Case that the Patentee should hold of the King according to his Patent and not of the ancient Lord but the Patentee should pay the rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent-seck distrainable of Common right to the Lord and his Heirs of whom the Land was before holden CX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in Fee devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease Estate she to give the same to whom she will He had Issue two daughters and died Devises Leon. 121â— the wife granted the Reversion to a Stranger and committed waste and the two daughters brought an Action of waste In this Case it was holden that by that Devise the wife had but an Estate for life but she had also an authority
all the Iustices in the Case between Townsend and Pastor two Coparceners are in the use of a Manor after the Statute of 1 R. 3. the one of them enters and makes a Feoffment in Fee of the whole Manor that this Feoffment is not only of the moiety of the Manor whereof she might lawfully and by the said Statute make a Feoffment but also of another moiety by disseisin Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXVII Bulwer and Smiths Case BUlwer brought an Action upon the Case against Smith and declared how that H. H. had recovered against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas 20 l. and before Execution died and that the Defendant knowing that at D. in the County of Norfolk malitiose deceptive machinans to Outlaw the Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment in the name of the said H.H. c. in performance of his said purpose at W. in the County of Middlesex took out a Capias ad satisfaciend in the name of the said H.H. against the now Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment directed to the Sheriff of London and Non est inventus being returned upon that took out an Exigent in the name of the said H.H. which Writ by the procurement of the Defendant was retorned and then the Plaintiff was Outlawed and afterwards the Defendant in the name of the said H. H. took out a Capias utlagatum against the Plaintiff directed to the Sheriff of Norfolk by force of which the Plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for two months until he had gotten his Charter of Pardon by reason of which Outlawries the Plaintiff had forfeited all his Goods and Chattels and upon the said Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law and the principal cause of the demurrer was because that the Action might have been laid in Middlesex where the wrong began scil the Capias ad satisfaciend the Outlawry for this imagination at D. in the County of Norfolk set forth in the Declaration cannot give to the Plaintiff this Action But if divers conspire in one County for to indite one and they put the same in Execution in another County the Party aggrieved may lay his Action in which of the said two Counties he pleaseth 22 E. 4. 14. for a Conspiracy is more notorious than an imagination imaginatio est unius conspiratio plurimorum And in this Case the Deliverance of the Capias at D. in Norfolk is but accessary and the suing of the Process aforesaid at Westminster is the principal upon the part of the Plaintiff it was said that such an action might be laid in the County where the Plaintiff was wronged and the Plaintiff is not tied to lay his Action in the County where the original matter which was but conveyance to the said wrong was done A imprisoned upon a Capias ad satisfaciend in Middlesex escapes into Surrey the Action upon the escape shall be laid in Surrey Reteiner of a Servant in one County who departs in another County the Master shall lay his Action in which of the said Counties he will 15 E. 4. 18 19. 41 E. 3. 1. A Writ of Disceit was brought in the County of York and the Case was that in a Praecipe quod reddat of Land the Tenant shewed forth a Protection at Westminster the which was allowed for a year and within the year the Tenant stayed in the County of York upon his own occasions the said Writ of Disceit was holden to be well laid for there the wrong began notwithstanding that the Original i. e. the casting of the Protection was in Middlesex for the disceit is that the Tenant contrary to the pretence of the Protection continued at York for the Protection was quia Moraturus And always where the cause of the Action consists of two things whereof the one is matter of Record and the other is matter of Fact there the Action shall be laid in such County where the matter in fact may be more properly tried Vide 11 R. 2. Fitz. Action sur le Case 36 Br. Lieu 84. in the principal Case at Bar the Court was of Opinion that the Action was well brought in the County of Norfolk Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff hath there set forth whereas his true name is John Bulwer by which name he now sues he was sued and outlawed by the name of John Buller and then the now Plaintiff upon that matter was never sued nor outlawed and then is not grieved by the Defendant but John Buller for here in his Declaration there is not any averment that John Bulwer and John Buller are one and the same and not divers Persons But the Exception was disallowed for the whole Court held that for As much as the Plaintiff hath declared that he by the name of John Buller was sued and Outlawed the same is an averment in Law c. and amounts to so much Another matter was objected because it appeareth in the Declaration that H. H. was dead before this Process was sued and then the Outlawry was erronious and so the Plaintiff is not at any mischief but that he may reverse the Outlawry by Error as in Conspiracy the Defendant pleads that the Indictment upon which the Plaintiff is arraigned is vitious and erroneous and so his life was never in jeopardy But as to that it was said by the Court that the erronious proceedings of the Defendant shall not give advantage to himself but because the Plaintiff was vexed by colour and reason of the Outlawry and put to his Writ of Error which cannot recompence the loss and damage by him sustained by reason of the Outlawry aforesaid it is reason that the Plaintiff have his Action wherefore Wray Chief Iustice ex assensu Sociorum gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy CErtain Persons were indicted upon the Statute 23 Eliz. for refusing to come to the Church and upon the same were Outlawed and now they came to the Kings Bench ready to make their submission and to conform themselves according to the said Statute and thereupon they prayed to be discharged But the Court would not receive such Submission but advised them to purchase their Pardon for the Outlawry and then to tender their Submission which they did accordingly and at another day came again and shewed to the Court their Pardon whereupon the Clerk of the Court asked them if they would conform themselves according to the said Statute who said they would wherefore they were discharged Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXIX Christian and Adams Case Action for words AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these scandalous words of the Plaintiff scil the Plaintiff did conspire the death of the Defendant it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that upon the matter the Action did not lye for the bare conspiring of the death of a man
Assumpsit MEgot brought an Action upon the Case against Broughton and Davy upon Assumpsit and it was found by Nisi Prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank Broughton dyed and after Iudgment given Davy the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the said Court scil in the Kings Bench where Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of Broughton depending the Writ vide 2 R. 3. 21. and this Case is not like to Trespass for Trespass done by many are several Trespasses but every Assumpsit is joynt If the Court may reverse their own Judgment and if the Court upon this matter might reverse their own Iudgment was the Question the Case was not resolved but adjourned CLII. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found by Office that J. S. held by the Queen and dyed without Heir whereas in truth he had an Heir scil A. S. who leased the Lands for an hundred years and afterwards traversed the Office Office trove and had an Ouster le mayne le Roy. Now the matter was moved in the Common Pleas by Fenner in behalf of the Sheriffs of London before whom the matter depended to whom it was said by Anderson Chief Iustice Conveyance by the Heir upon Entrusion That where the King is entituled by an Office to a Chattel as to a wardship c. there if the Heir without any intrusion bargain and sell levy a Fine or lease for years during the possession of the King it is void against the King but shall bind the Heir but where the King is intituled to the Fee-simple as in this Case such a Conveyance is meerly void Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIII Samuel Starkeys Case HOmine replegiando by Samuel Starkey to the Sheriffs of London Who returned that the said Starkey was indicted to be de mala fama deceptione Domini Regis with divers other general words and namely that he had deceived J. S. a Clothier and that he was a common Cozener and thereof being found guilty Iudgment was given by the Mayor and Recorder That he should be disfranchized of his Freedom and should be fined and imprisoned for a year and further said that he had not paid his Fine nor the year expired Cook Such Return hath not been seen and it is directly against the Statute of Magna Charta Wray Chief Iustice gave a Rule that the Sheriffs should make their Return at their perils before such a day Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIV. Bushy and Milfeilds Case IN Error brought by Bushy and Milfeild It was assigned for Error that where in the first Action the Iury gave four pence Costs and the Court gave de incremento three and twenty shillings that in the Iudgment the four pence was omitted Error It was the Opinion of the Court That for that Cause the Iudgment should be reversed although it be for the advantage of the Party so where the Iudgment is quod sit in misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLV Bingham and Squires Case BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire Obligation 3 Leon. 151. The Condition was If Squire did procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Archdeaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so as the said Bingham at the said next Avoidance may present that then c. The Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the next Avoidance was made to Bingham but before the next Avoidance the present Archdeacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment of that Avoidance belonged to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case that the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words scil So that Bingham may present And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLVI Mansors Case A. Man bound himself in an Obligation to make an Assurance of Lands the first day of Jan. and the last day of December he to whom the Assurance was to be made scil the Obligee the said last day before Sun-setting came to the Obligor with a Deed ready to be sealed and prayed him to seal it who said to him that he was a man unlearned and said he would shew the same to his Counsel and then he would seal it And if the Obligation was forfeited or not because he did not seal it presently was the question And Fenner argued that it was not for when a thing is to be done upon request then he who makes the request ought to give sufficient and convenient time to perform the Condition I agree That where the Condition is absolute there if the Condition be not performed he shall not be excused by the default of another As if a man be bounden to marry A.S. and she will not marry him or to enfeoff J. S. and he refuseth as 3 H. 6. is the Obligation is forfeited Yet in these Cases if the Obligee himself be the cause that J. S. will not take the Feoffment or he will not marry A. S. the Obligation is not forfeited So in our Case for by his late request it is impossible for me to perform the condition for before my Counsel shall have perused it the time will be past If a man be bound to enfeoff one of Lands in Barwick request ought to be made so long time before that after that he may go to Barwick So if one be bounden to pay 1000 l. to J.S. he ought to make his Tender so long time before the last instant of the last day that the mony may conveniently be told This Case was in question A man made a Feoffment of the Manor of D. with the Appurtenances to which an Advowson was appendant and covenanted that the Manor upon request should be discharged of all manner of Incumbrances and before that the Feoffor had granted the next Avoidance to J. S. the Incumbent died the Clark of the Grantee was instituted and inducted the Feoffee requested the Feoffor to discharge the Incumbrance The opinion of many Sages of the Law was that he had not made his request within convenient time So if a man be bounden to infeoff the Obligee to have and to hold to him and his Heirs as long as J. S. shall have Issue of his Body If the Obligee demand Assurance after the death of J. S. without Issue yet the Obligation is not forfeited In 22 E. 4. if Lessee for the life of another continues possession for two or three weeks after the death of Cestuy que use where he could not have more speedy notice of his death he shall not be a Trespassor In 15 Eliz it was holden in Wottons Case That where he was bound to make a Feoffment to J. B. and J. B. came to him in Westminster Hall and tendred to him a Writing
on the other side That the Estate of the Alien is so weak that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be infeoffed to anothers use and if he be such use is void For there is not a sufficient seisin in an Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged on Forset Case Where an Alien and the said Forset were Ioynt-Purchasers and the Alien dyed that Forset should not have the whole by Survivour but that upon Office found the Queen should have the moiety Vide 11 Eliz. Dyer 283. Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVI Jermine and Arscots Case THe Case between Jermine and Arscot was this A seized of Lands in Fee had Issue six Sons and one Daughter and devised the Manor of c. parcel of his said Lands to J. S. for ninety years if the said J. S. and G. his Wife or any of them should so long live the remainder to P. his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his other Sons in tail the remainder to his Daughter Provided That if the said P. his Son or any of the Sons of the Devisor or any of the heirs males of their bodies should endeavour by any Act or Thing to alien bargain or discontinue c. that then after such attempt or endeavour and before such Bargain and Sale c. were executed that the estate of such Person attempting should cease as if he were naturally dead and that then the premises should remain and come to such person to whom the same ought to come remain or be by the intent and meaning of his Will and died P. levied a Fine of the Manor he in the next remainder entred and claimed the Land by force of the Devise This Case was this Term argued by Walmesly Serjeant that an Estate tail cannot cease for it is an Estate of Inheritance and here is not any limitation for the Estate tail by the meaning of the Devisor shall remain revivable upon the death of the Offender but a Limitation determines the Estate utterly which is not here but here it appeareth as well by the meaning of the Devisor as by the words of the Devise that the Estate tail upon such act should be suspended and it cannot be resembled to the Case cited on the other side 22 E. 3. A Rent granted to one in Fee and that it shall cease during the Nonage of every Heir the Rent is but suspended between the Parties and Privies to the Gift as in the Case of Littleton of Re-entry and Retainer quousque but that a Stranger should re-enter and retain quousque that cannot be And in the Case of Scholastica reported by Plowden the Estate tail by such Offence is determined by the limitation But in our Case by the meaning of the Devisor only suspended so our Case is not like to that Case Shuttleworth to the contrary The purpose of the Devisor appeareth to be the continuance of the Land in the name and Family of the Caries and as to the difference of ceasing and suspending of an Estate tail the same is not to the purpose for the Tenant in tail himself may suspend his Estate tail therefore à fortiori the Donor upon the Creation of the Estate tail As by Littleton Tenant in Tail grants totum statum suum the Estate tail is thereby suspended and by Anderson if in such a Case after such a grant Tenant in tail levy a Fine in our Case If Tenant in tail offend and the party to whom the next interest is limited enters and after the Offender levies a Fine to a Stranger there although his Estate was determined by the offence yet the Estate tail is bound by the Fine Ad quod caeteri Justiciarii murmurabant Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the eldest in the life of his Father levieth a Fine and after the Father dieth the Estate tail is bound contrary if the Father had survived his eldest Son And afterwards in the end of this Term Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for by the Will here is a good limitation and an estate to cease upon an act and upon another contingent to be revived is good enough Vide 30 E. 3. 7. A Lease for life rendring rent and if the rent he behind that the Lessor shall return quousque agreement be made so as a Freehold may cease and rise again according as the same is limited And all this was agreed by Rhodes Periam and Windham and afterwards Walmsley for the Plaintiff took an Exception to the Bar for that the Defendant pleaded Quod Petrus Cary tempore levationis finis praedict non habet exitum and doth not say that tempore quo ipse Henricus clamabat reversionem praedict the said Peter had not Issue for he said if Peter had Issue when Henry claimed the Reversion nothing had vested on him by the said claim But all the Court besides Anderson said that needed not be but if the matter had been such the same should come on the part of the Plaintiff Also they said That the Estate was vested in Henry without claim and although after the Offence committed and before claim Peter have Issue yet Henry should retain the Land during the life of the Offender against such Issue born after the Fine levied for by the Fine levied the Reversion vested in Henry without any claim by force of the said limitation CLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Alien suffers a common Recovery 9 Co. 141. LAnd was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder over to another in Fee the Alien suffered a common Recovery and died without Issue All this matter was found by Office. It was moved That this Office should have return so as upon the matter the Alien was not Tenant of the Land at the time of the Recovery suffered But the whole Court held the contrary and that the Recovery was good and should bind him in the Remainder Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVIII Seixtbark and Percies Case EJectione firmae of Lands in Knolton and Woodland the Parties were at Issue and the Venire facias was of Knolton only and it was found for the Plaintiff It was shewed in stay of Iudgment that the Venire facias was not well awarded for it ought to have been De vicineto de Knolton Woodland which was granted by the Court And that that defect was not relieved by any Statute for it is a Mis-trial and for that cause Iudgment was stayed and a Venire facias de novo granted 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXIX The Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxfords Case THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital and Meason de Dieu in Southampton and they make a Lease of Lands parcel of the Possession of the said Hospital to one Hagel for term of years by the name of
Praepositus Socii Scholares Collegii Reginalis in Oxonia Gardianus Hospitalis c. And in an Ejectione firmae upon that Lease it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in Arrest of Iudgment That this word Gardianus ought to be in the Plural Number Gardiani for the Colledge doth consist of many persons and every one of them capable and not like to Abbot and Covent The Court was all of Opinion that the Exception is not to be allowed but that as well the Lease as the Declaration were both good for the Colledge is a Body and as one Person and so it is as well Gardianus 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXX Greens Case AN Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry was brought by Green The Case was Upon Statute of Hue and Cry. That the Plaintiff delivered to his Servant certain monies to carry the same from Bristol to London in which journey the Servant was robbed upon which matter the Master brought his Action It was moved That the Plaintiff by the Statute of 27 Eliz. c. 13. is not a person able to bring this Action because he was not examined twenty days before the Action was brought but the Exception was disallowed for the Court was clear of Opinion that the Master should not be examined but the Servant CLXXXI 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved upon the Statute of 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary cap. 12. The Town of Coventry was within the Hundred of Offley in the County of Stafford and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents made the said Town a County And now a Distress was taken in the residue of the said Hundred and brought into the Town of Coventry and if that be within the Statute was the question It was holden by the Court clearly That now the Town of Coventry is exempted out of the Hundred aforesaid and is a thing by it self and it is a good challenge for the Hundred of Offley that the Iuror challenged dwells in the Town of Coventry for now it is not parcel of Offley as to the King But as to the Lord of the Hundred the said Town remains parcel of it notwithstanding the Queens Grant. And the Citizens of Coventry shall do suit at the Court of the Hundred but in an Action upon the Statue of Hue and Cry of a Robbery committed in the residue of the Hundred the Citizens shall not be charged 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXII Dolmans Case A. Seized of a Mannor to which two parts of the Advowson was appendant presented and afterwards aliened the Manor cum pertinentiis the Alienee presented and purchased the third part of the Advowson and presented again one J. S. Chaplain to the Earl of Rutland who had a dispensation and took another Benefice and was inducted 1 Eliz. and died 11 Eliz The Queen presented for Lapse and her Clerk was instituted and inducted the Alienee Lord of the Manor died seized inter alia this Manor was allotted to the Wife of Dolman for her part and he brought a Quare Impedit It was moved If Dolman should not joyn in this Quare impedit with her who had the third part and by Walmsley he need not Vide 22 E. 4. 8. By Brian If an Advowson descend to four Coparceners and they make Partition to present by turns and the third presents when the second ought for that time his presentment is gone but when it comes to his turn again he shall present which proves that they are several Tenants CLXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ONe recovered certain Copyhold Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Manor by Plaint in the nature of a Writ of Right It was moved in the Common Bench If a Precept may be made and awarded out of the said Court for the Execution of the said Recovery and to put him who recovered in possession with the Posse Manerii Posse Manerii Comitatus differ as in such Case at the Common Law with Posse Comitatus it was resolved clearly that force in such Cases is not justifiable but by Mandate out of the Kings Courts Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXIV Anne Bedingfields Case DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfield against Thomas Bedingfield the Tenant brought out of Chancery a Writ de Circumspecte agatis containing this matter that it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband of the Demandant was seized of the Manor of D. in the County of Norfolk and held the same of the Queen in Chief by Knight Service and thereof died seized the Tenant being his Son and Heir apparent and of full age by reason of which the Queen seized as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre as they came to her hands it was commanded them to surcease Domina Regina inconsulta It was resolved that although the Queen be intituled to have Primer Seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband died seized yet this writ cannot extend to any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seize more Lands than those which are found in the Office and therefore as to the Land found in the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Gawdy Serjeant for the Tenant that the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because the Queen is seized to have her primer Seisin And cited the Case 11 H. 4. 193. And after many Motions the Court clearly agreed that the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute of Bâ—gamis cap. 3. pretends that in such Case the Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such Seisin of the King and where the King grants the Custody of the Land it self 1 H. 7 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. Ã multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the Possession of the King for his Primer Seisin by the Statute of Bigamâ—s where the Heir was of full age there the wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now per Prerogativa Regis cap. 4. Such women may be there endowed si Viduae illae voluerint And after many Motions the Court Awarded that the Tenant should plead in Chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the Common Law if she pleased Vide Cook 9. Part Acc. CLXXXV Savages Case ONe Savage was presented to a Benefice and afterwards took another and then purchased a Dispensation which was too late and then was qualified and afterwards accepted of the Archdeaconry of Gloucester and Underhil who had the Archdeaconry libelled against the said Savage in the Spiritual Court. Vide the Case reported in the first Part of Leonards Reports Sect. 442. Ideo Quaere there CLXXXVI Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HVsband and wife Copyholders for Life the Husband surrendred to the Lord who granted the Land over by Copy to a Stranger
the Husband dyed the Wife recovered and entred and surrendred to the Lord and by Wray the Stranger to whom the Lord granted it after the Surrender by the Husband should have the Land and not the Lord himself against his own Grant. Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXVII Chomley and Conges Case CHomley brought Trespass of Assault and Battery made to his Wife against Cony and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action was not well brought for the same being an Action of Trespass done to the person of the wife the Writ ought to be brought and prosecuted in both their Names for now if Iudgment be given for the Husband and he dye before Execution the Wife to whom the wrong was done should not have Execution but the Executors of the Husband and afterwards upon advice the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Vide Cont. 9 E. 4. 51. 38 H. 6. 25. Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXVIII Blithe and Colegates Case Vide this Case Reported by Cook 2 Part of his Reports REplevin by Blithe and Colegate who made Conusans as Bayliff to Roger Beckwith Son and Heir of Elizabeth Beckwith for damage feasant and upon a Special Verdict the Case was That the said Eliz. was seized and took to Husband Christopher Kenne and by an Indenture made by the said Eliz. without the assent of her said Husband by the name of Elizabeth Beckwith bearing date 14 March 14 Eliz. declareth the uses of a Fine to be levied c. 1. To the use of the said Elizabeth for life without impeachment of Waste and after to the use of the Conusees for their lives and after to the use of the said Elizabeth and her Heirs And that afterwards the said Christopher Kenne before any Fine levied in Feb. 20 Eliz. by Indenture between himself and the said Elizabeth his Wife of the one part and R. W. of the other part without the consent of the said Elizabeth declared that the uses of the said Fine so to be levied should be to the use of the said Christopher and Elizabeth for life c. And afterwards the said Fine was levied by the Husband and Wife and the only Question upon the matter was if the uses declared by the Wife or the uses declared by the Husband should stand It was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that the uses declared by the Husband should stand and that the Declaration by the Wife should be rejected for a Feme Covert is not sui juris but is sub potestate vâ—ri And therefore â—7 Ass 17. a Feme Covert without her Husband acknowledgeth a Fine the Husband shall avoid it and as to the Declaration of the uses it is no other thing but the shewing of the meaning of the Parties to the Fine how and in what manner the Land of which the Fine is levied shall be disposed of by the Fine but such a power cannot be in a Feme Covert For if an Infant levy a Fine and declare the uses by Indenture the Declaration is void and the Fine shall be to his own use and that was adjudged in the Court of Wards The same Law in case of a man of Non sanae memoriae and if an Ideot levy a Fine and declare uses upon it the Declaration is void and the Fine shall be to his own use and that Case also hath been adjudged in the Court of Wards And by intendment of the Law every Wife is at the disposition of her Husband as in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Husband and Wife the Wife makes default it shall be accounted the default of the Husband for the Law intends that the Wife is ameanable by the Husband 21 Ass The Husband seized in the right of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee and in making of Livery his Wife interrupts him it was not any interruption or impediment quo minus the Livery operetur for cui ipsa in vita contradicere non potuit c. So in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Husband and Wife the Husband pleads one plea and the Wife another the Plea of the Husband shall be admitted 33 H 6. 43. 89 Ass 1 And the Husband may in some case prejudice his Wife in point of Inheritance as by Cession Vide E. 4 2. Fitz. Cui in vita 22. And he argued much upon the ground where it shall be said the folly of the Wife to take such a Husband If the Husband be seized in the right of his Wife they sell the said Land and for Assurance levy a Fine to the Vendee now the Husband alone shall have an Action of Debt for the mony upon the Sale which proves that it is the Sale of the Husband alone which see 48 E. 3. 18. Fenner Serjeant contrary And first he confessed that the Declaration by the Wife is utterly void and also the Declaration by the Husband and therefore when the Husband and Wife levy a Fine the Conusee in judgment of Law is in by the Wife and not by the Husband so as the Husband as to the right is a Stranger to the Land and to the Estate which passeth by the Fine although he be Party to the Fine for that is not for any Interest which he hath in the Land but for the conformity of Law which disables a Wife to levy a Fine without her Husband and therefore it is not any reason that the husband alone shall be received to declare the uses for he is no Proprietor of the Land in right especially forasmuch as in account of the Law the whole passeth from the Wife And the Law in divers Cases frames its Iudgment according to the possession of the Wife and that in acts done by the Husband 14 H. 8. 6 where A seized of a Rent-charge in Fee issuing out of the Land of the Wife A releases the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs the same shall enure to the Wife Vide 38 E. 3. 10. From such Cases the Law respects the nature of the Seisin and the manner of the possession And as to the Case vouched out of Dyer 12 Eliz. where the Husband and Wife were seized of a Messuage to them and to the Heirs of the Husband they suffer a common Recovery and the Husband alone declareth the uses the same is good for in that Case the Fee was in the Husband and always he who hath the Fee ought and may declare the use if all who have interest will not joyn and therefore if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one of them if they both joyn in a Fine he which hath the Fee may by himself declare the uses But if there be two Ioyntenants in Fee they both ought to joyn in the Declaration of the uses or otherwise make several Declarations of their several Moieties So if Cestuy que use and his Feoffees joyn in a Fine and make
of that which she her self hath done The Queen makes a Lease for years upon Condition that the Lessee surrender to her the Manor of B here for the not doing of it no Office is requisite Tenant of the King in Capite aliens by Fine that needs no Office for that appears upon Record so here And although the Condition be returned in the Exchequer after the Term yet it is well enough for the Exchequer is never shut as to take and receive Money Certificates made to be Inrolled although it be shut as to all Iudicial Acts. And although no tender at all be certified it is not to the purpose for the tender makes the Estate void without any other thing And it is not like to a Capias ad satisfaciendum for that is Ita quod Habeas Corpus c. therefore the Arrest is not sufficient by it self but the same ought to be remembred with an Ita. quod c. But as to that which hath been said That the Queen shall not avoid her own Lease the same is not so nor in case of a common Person As if Tenant in tail enfeoffeth his Heir within age who makes a Lease for years at his full age Tenant in tail dyes Now the Issue shall avoid his own Lease for he is remitted A Disseisor levies a Fine to a stranger the Disseisee enters upon the Conusee and enfeoffs the Disseisor now he shall avoid his own Fine à multo fortiori in the Case of the King. Now it is to see If the Grant of the Wood by the Queen being Tenant for the term of anothers life be good or not He conceived it was not for she was deceived in her Grant not knowing that she was but a particular Tenant It was Objected That the Queen hath property and right in the Trees and Woods forasmuch as no Waste or Trespass lyeth against her if she cast them down Certainly the Lessee if the Trees and Woods be not excepted hath the property in them but not the absolute property for the Writ of Waste shall say ad exhaered ' Qâ—erentis for he cannot cut them Id enim tantum possumus quod de jure possumus perhaps the Lessee shall have the Wind-falls because they are severed from the Inheritance by the act of God not of the Lessee himself and see 27 H. 6. Waste 8. and also in Statham titulo Waste A. leaseth to B. for life without impeachment of Waste a stranger cuts Trees and the Lessee brings Trespass he shall not recover damages for the value of the Trees for the property of the Body and the Tree is in him who hath the Reversion he may give it by which it appeareth that the Lessee is not to recover but only for the cropping and the breaking of his Close à fortiori in case where the Lease is made without the clause absque impetitione vasti as the Case at bar is And therefore when the Queen having so feeble an Estate makes such a Grant scil Grants all the Woods c. the Grant is void for she was deceived in her Grant by which if it should be good she should wrong her Subject A Grant to the Queen shall have a reasonable construction as the Grant of a common Person A. grants to the Queen Common in all his Lands the Queen by that Grant shall not have Common but in Lands commonable not in his Land where his Corn is growing or in his Orchard or Gardens Tenant for life grants all the Wood upon his Land nothing passeth but that which he may lawfully grant So in Cases of Grants of the King 22 Ass 49. the King grants to one bona catalla tenent ' suorum fugitivorum qualitercunque dampnorum the Grantee shall not have the Goods and Chattels of one who hath killed the Kings Messenger So in Grants of Amercements the Grantee shall not have a Special Amercement c. So here the Grant of all Woods ought to be intended of such Woods as Vnderwoods which the Queen might lawfully grant without wrong to another And he said That when the Queen hath granted the Land and the Woods for 40 years that Grant cannot be divided and the words of the Grant are That it shall be lawful to cut the Woods during the space of 43 years Now forasmuch as the Lease is surrendred ut supra the liberty of cutting the Woods is gon also A man bargains and sells his Manor with all Woods upon it growing the Deed is not Inrolled so as the Manor doth not pass the Woods shall not pass in gross for the Grant shall not be divided See more after Sect. 276. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLIV Brown and Peters Case PHilip Brown Executor of Eliz. Brown brought an Action upon the Case against John Peter as Executor of W. Brown and declared That the said William Brown was indebted to the said Eliz. in 80 l. Cumque ad specialem instantiam of the said William Brown It was agreed that the said William Brown should retain the said Sum in his hands until the said Eliz. should come of full age In consideration thereof he promised to give her 100 l. It was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment to recover and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error because the place of the Agreement was not shewed Sed non allocatur for that is the Consideration which is not traversable also it is not shewed certain that Brown retained the 80 l. for so long time Sed non allocatur for he shews in his Declaration That the said Sum was in the hands of the said William Brown and it shall be intended that so it there continued Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLV. Higham and Cookes Case EJectione firmae by Higham against Cooke The Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for years to have and to hold to him from the Sealing and Delivery of it and declared that the Sealing and Delivery was 1 Maij and the Ejectment the same day And this matter was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Ejectment could not be supposed the same day for the Lease did not begin till the next day ensuing the Sealing Ejectment c. But the Exception was not allowed by the Court for where the Lease is to begin from the time of the Sealing and Delivery or by these words for 21 years next following the Ejectment may be well supposed to be the same day for the beginning of the Lease is presently upon the Sealing and Delivery and such a Lease shall end the same time and hour as it began CCLVI. Trin. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Case was Land was devised to a Feme-sole for term of her life and she let the same to the Plaintiff for 5 years to begin after the death of the said Woman and afterwards by Deed bearing date 18 October leased the same Land to the same Plaintiff
But all the Court held the contrary and that the Copy should bind the Feoffee and the ceremony of admittance was not necessary For otherwise every Copyholder in England might be defeated by the sole act of the Lord viz. his Feoffment But the Lord by his own act which shall be accounted his folly hath lost his advantages viz. Fines Heriots and such other Casualties Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXV Boxe and Mounslowes Case THomas Boxe brought an Action upon the Case against John Mounslowe That the Defendant slandred him in saying That the said Thomas Boxe is a perjured Knave and that he would prove the said Thomas Boxe had forsworn himself in the Exchequer c. and supposed the said words to be spoken in London 4 Feb. 28 Eliz. Et praedict ' Johannes Mounslowe per Johannem Lutrich Attornatum suum venit defendit vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit quod praedict ' Tho. Boxe actionem suam versus eum habere non debet quia dicit quod praedict ' Thomas Boxe being one of the Collectors of the Subsidies before the speaking of the said words viz. 27 28 Eliz. in Curia Scaccarij apud Westm ' did Exhibt a Bill against the said John Mounslowe containing That the said John being assessed in ten pounds in Goods the said Thomas Boxe came to him and demanded of him sixteen shillings eight pence which the said John Mounslowe did refuse to pay and that demand and refusal was supposed to be in London in Breadstreet Et pro verificatione praemisiorum adâ—unc ibid ' Sacramentum Corporale per Barones praefat ' Thomae Boxe praestitit The said Thomax Boxe swore the said Bill in substance was true ubi revera the said John Mounflowe did not refuse per quod the said John Mounslowe postea viz. praedict tempore quo c. dixit de praefat ' Thoma Boxe praedict verba c. pâ—out ei bene Leuit The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant spake the words de injuria sua propria absque causa per praefat Johannem Mounslowe superius allegata Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Curiam praedict defendens similiter And a Venâ—re Facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages 400 l. And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there was no good Trial nor the Issue well joyned for the Issue doth consist upon 2 points triable in several Counties viz the Oath which was in the Exchequer and that ough to have been tryed in Middlesex and the matter which he affirmed by the Oath viz the demand and the refusal to pay the subsidy and that was alledged to be in London and is there to be tryed and the Issue viz. de 〈…〉 propria goeth to both for the ubi revera will not amend the Case as Penam Iustice said and both are material For the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff made such Oath and also that the substance and matter of the Oath was not true for otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be proved perjured And therefore the Counties here if they might should have joyned in the Tryal And the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff For Anderson and Wincham said That if this Issue could have been tryed by any one of the Counties without the other it should most properly and naturally have been tried in Middlesex where the Oath was made for the Perjury if any were was in the Exchequer But they said The Issue here was ill joyned because it did arise upon two points triable in several Counties which could not joyn whereas the Plaintiff might have taken Issue upon one of them well enough for each of them did go to the whole and if any of them were found for the Plaintiff that he had sufficient cause to recover Gawdy moved that it should be helped by the Statute of Ieofails which speaks of mis-joyning of Issues Anderson The Issue here is not mis-joyned For if the Counties could joyn the Issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyn it cannot be well tryed But the Issue it self is well enough Windham and Rhodes were of the same Opinion but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an Issue tryable in one Court be tryed in another and Iudgment given upon it it is Error And afterwards Lutrich the Attorney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quod mirum For first the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of Process and not mis-joyning of Issues and admit that this Case is not within any of those Clauses each of them being considered by it self yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32 H. 8. cap. 30. 18 Eliz. cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both Statutes was to waste delays circuits of Actions and Molestations and that the party might have his Iudgment notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appear to the Court. And here the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause to recover if any of the points of the Issue be found for him For if it be found that the matter and substance of the Oath be found true which might be tryed well enough by those in London the Plaintiff had cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the Verdict in London is good enough and effectual And note that Rhodes said that he was of Counsel in such a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevil and Dent. CCCLXVI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Leon. 103. THe Case was A. granted B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to commence when J. S. dyes without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue and the Issue dyeth without Issue Dyer said That the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore the Grant shall not then commence and if he dyeth then not at all by Manwood And Dyer and Manwood said If the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dyes without Issue c. And they said That if the Donee in tail hath Issue which dyeth without Issue the Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself dyed with Issue for there is an Interest And there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A and B. for the term of their lives if either of them dyeth the Survivor shall hold the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. or C. dyeth the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest CCCLXVII Temps Roign
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. 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 said it was 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 Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
where the Suit is Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso CXXII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Debt IF Rent-corn be reserved upon a Lease for years and it is behind for two or three years the Lessor may have Debt for the Corn and shall declare of so much Corn and it shall be in the Detinet but yet he shall not have Iudgment to have Corn but so much mony as the Corn was worth every several year being accompted Clark Baron doubted if he shall recover the price of the Corn as it was at the time when it was payable or it was at the time of the Action brought Manwood The Law is clear that the Lessee shall pay according to the price it was at the time of the payment and delivery limited by the Lease Clark said A is bound to pay and deliver to the Obligee 10 Bushels of Wheat and no place is appointed where the payment shall be made the Obligor is not bound to seek the Obligee in what place soever as it is in Case of payment of mony for that the importableness therefore shall excuse him which Manwood granted CXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Barons Fine for Alienation without Licence that for Fines for Alienation without licence not only the Land aliened but the other Lands of the Alienor shall be chargeable Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXXIV Prowses Case IT was holden in the Case of one Prowse by Egerton Solicitor Tythes upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. where an Abbot had a Rectory impropriate and also Land within the same Parish c. and so paid no Tythes because he could not pay them to himself and for no other cause was discharged and after the Dissolution the Rectory is granted to one and the Land to another that in such Case the King nor his Patentees should not be discharged of Tythes for the Lands were not discharged in Right but if the Lands in the hands of the Abbot were discharged in Right as by composition or lawful means there the King and his Patentee should be discharged from payment of Tythes And it was said by Burliegh Lord Treasurer that if the Composition or Custom was that the Abbot and his Successors should be discharged without extending to Farmors or Lessees if the Abbot made a Lease and the Lessee paid Tythes as he ought and after the Reversion cometh to the King the Lessee should pay Tythes during his Lease but after the Lease determined the King and his Patentee should not pay but should be discharged by the said Statute and said the like matter was in the Chancery Trin. 30 Eliz. The Abbot of Tewkesbury having the Rectory impropriate of Tewkesbury 11 H. 7. purchased Lands within the said Parish to him and his Successors Unity no discharge of Tythes after the dissolution the King granted to G. the Rectory and to W. the Lands and if W. should pay Tythes was referred to Manwood and Periam who gave their Resolution that Tythes were payable Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXV Ropers Case ROper was robbed by Smith and within a week after the Robbery he preferred an Indictment against him and within a month after the Robbery he sued an Appeal against Smith and prosecuted it until he was out-lawed and thereupon Cook moved to have Restitution and they of the Crown Office said that the Fresh-suit was not enquired for upon an Appeal one shall not have Restitution without Fresh-suit Restitution Cook The Books are if the Defendant in the Appeal of Robbery be attainted by Verdict Fresh Suit. the Fresh-suit shall be enquired of But here he was attainted by Outlary and not by Verdict and so the Fresh-suit could not be enquired of and here the Indictment is within a week and the Appeal within a month after the Robbery is a Fresh-suit Wray Chief Iustice In our Law he is to pursue the Felon from Town to Town but the suing of the Appeal is no Fresh-suit vide 21 F. 4.16 Restitution grounded upon Outlawry and Appeal of Robbery without Fresh-suit enquired of 1 H. 4. 5. if he confess the Felony and so is 2 R. 3. 13. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVI Piers and Leversuches Case IN Ejectione firmae by Piers against Leversuch It was found by Verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grandfather of the Defendant was Tenant in Tail of the Land whereof c. and made Lease for years to Purn who assigned it over to Piers the Plaintiffs Father Robert Leversuch died W. his Son entred upon Piers who re-entred W. demised the Lands without other words to P. for life the remainder to Joan his wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney to re-enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made Livery to Joan W. died Edward his Son and Heir entred upon his Wife she re-entred and let the Land to the Plaintiff who upon an Ouster brought the Action Heal Serjeant When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the Issue in Tail he was a Disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry was taken away of W. Leversuch Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a Disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a Deed of W. it appeared that his intent was not to enter as a Disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas it was Skipwiths Case Grandfather Tenant in Tail Father and Son the Grandfather died the Father entred and paid the rent to the Lessor and died in possession and it was adjudged the same was not any descent for the paying of the rent explained by what title he entred and so shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVII Penhalls Case PEnhall was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying that he drew it with intent to strike the Party and for that cause the Indictment was holden void as to the Statute It was moved if it should not bee a good Indictment for the Assault so as he should be fined for the same By Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court the Indictment is void in all for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and then the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVIII Weshbourns Case WEshbourn and Brown were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. and exception was
that the same is not any Claim to avoid the said Fine upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. Pasc 29 Eliz. CCXIII. The Queen and Sir John Savells Case A Bill of Intrusion was exhibited by the Queen in the Exchequer against Sir Robert Savell Kt. who pleaded in bar her pretence and upon Issue joyned the matter was tryed by the Records and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Queen and an Injunction for the Possession awarded accordingly Sir Robert dyed and now Sir John Savell Son and Heir of the said Sir Robert brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 31 E. 3. The perclose of which Writ was ad grave damnum ipsius Johannis Savell filii haeredis dicti Roberti It was objected against the Writ That no Writ of Error upon the said Statute of 31 E 3. lay upon such proceedings which at the time of the making of the said Statute was not in force For tryal of an Issue in the Exchequer by Record was enacted by the Statute of 33 H. 8. and the Statute of 31 E. 3. extended to give a Writ of Error upon such Iudgments which were given by Verdict Confession or Demurrer and not upon tryal by Records which was given but of late times But to this objection it was answered by the Lord Chancellor and the other Iudges That long time before the said Stat. of 33 H. 8. Issues joyned in the Exchequer have been tryed by the Records and he when he was the Queens Solicitor had seen divers Presidents to that intent in the time of Hen. 6. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXIV. Houtiers Case DEbt was brought upon a Concessit Solvere according to the Law of Merchants and Custom of the City of Bristol Exception was taken because he did not mention the Custom in his Declaration And because in the end of his Plea he saith Protestando se sequi querelam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis Bristol the Plea was awarded good and the Exception disallowed CCXV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man was indicted upon the Statute of 4 Eliz. of Perjury in a Court-Leet And the Indictment was That he at the Leet of the Earl of Bath super Sacramentum suum coram Senescallo c. Exception was taken to it because it saith at the Leet of the Earl of Bath whereas every Leet is the Kings Court although that another hath the profit or commodity of it And it was said that the Steward of a Leet is not an Officer of Record and also his Oath was If he had done a Rescous or not with which he was charged And by Drew It is not within the Statute for it ought to be either before a Iury in giving Evidence or upon some Article But the Iustices in that were of opinion against him Mich. 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXVI Howen and Gerrards Case IT was adjudged in this Case That Partition of Lands made by the Bayliff of a Franchize was not good within the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Partition but it ought to be done by the Sheriff himself Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXVII Strangder and Burnells Case AN Action upon the Case of Trover of Goods and converting them to his own use in Ipswich The Defendant pleaded That the Goods came to his hands in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiff gave to him all Goods which came to his hands in Dunwich absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover or Conversion in Ipswich It was holden to be a good manner of pleading by reason of the special Iustification Vide 27 H. 6. But where a Iustification is general the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19 H. 6 7. 62 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXVIII Hodges Case IF one enfeoffeth his Son and Heir apparent and no use is expressed nor Consideration it was said It should be to the use of the Son and so hath the Law been taken and so it is in Case of a Covenant to stand seized to the use of the Son. The Court said that there was a difference betwixt the Cases or in the Case of Feoffment they seemed to be of Opinion that the Deed should have no operation but in the other Case it may be otherwise upon construction of the Result of the Vse to the Father 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXIX. Mark Stewards Case AN Assumpsit before Action brought may be discharged by word otherwise after Action brought Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXX Verney and Verneys Case IN Dower by Verney against Verney The Case was That Lessee for years by Fine to whom the Land was rendred by Fine for years upon the Default of the Tenant prayed to be received and it was Counter-pleaded because the Statute of Gloucester gave no Receit but where the Termor might have Recovery by Writ of Covenant but where the Lease as in our Case doth commence by render by Fine there cannot be any recovery by Covenant But it was the Opinion of the Lord Anderson That such a Termor shall be received CCXXI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor Treasurer c. A Writ of Error was cast upon the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 12. It was moved by Egerton Solicitor to the Queen for the Defendant That the Writ of Error ought to abate for false Latine for the Writ is Pertenet where it ought to be Pertinet But by Manwood Anderson and Wray The same is no Exception but notwithstanding that the Court may proceed to the Examination of the Errors For the same is not properly a Writ but rather a Commission to the Chancellor Treasurer c. and therefore it was ordered that the Party should proceed to the assignment of the Errors Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCXXII The Queens Fanes and the Archbishop of Canterburies Case THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against Fane 1 Leon. 201. the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Chichester and Hudson Incumbent and counted that John Ashburnham was seized of the Advowson of Burwash and was Outlawed in an Action of Debt during which Outlawry in force the Church voided by which it did appertain to the Queen to present The Archbishop and Bishop pleaded that they claimed nothing but as Metropolitan and Ordinary Fane pleaded That King E. 4. ex gratia sua speciali c. and in consideration fidelis servic c. granted to the Lord Hastings the Castle and Barony of Hastings and Hundred c. Et quod ipse haberet omnia Bona Catal. Tenentium residentium non residentium aliorum resident quorumcunque hominum de in Castro Baronia c. seu infra eadem pro numero debit c. tam ad sectam Regis c. quam c. utlagatorum Et quod ipsi liceret per se vel ministros suos c. and from him derived to
ordinary Condition But if the Condition was to be performed by Sir Francis in his proper person or by subscribing his name with his hand or such like act then it had been otherwise The case of Littleton 76. A Feoffment in Fee is made upon Condition that if the Feoffee pay to the Feoffor such a day 10 l. then the Feoffee shall have the Land to him and his Heirs for ever and before the day the Feoffee makes a Feoffment over upon a Condition the second Feoffee tenders the Mony it is a good tender and yet the words of the Condition do not extend so far but only to the first Feoffee who was privy to the Condition so where the payment is to be made on the part of the Feoffor and he dyes before the day tender by the Heir is good and here this is a general Condition and therefore may be performed generally without being restrained to any person for the performance of it And here we are in an Act of Parliament Quod omnia potest 32 H. 8. gave to Assigns of the Reversion which always before were fixed in privity Monks dead persons in Law by Act of Parliament made capable of Purchase and Inheritance Gavelkind and Borough-English made discendable at the common Law which the King could not do An Alien born is made Denizen by the King by which he may Purchase but yet not inherit But an Act of Parliament may make him heritable Corruption of Blood the King cannot take off but it ought to be purged by Act of Parliament As to the Statute of 29 Eliz. it hath made the Conveyance void as hath been objected for the Terms within the two years limited by the Statute are past and then the Condition is gone as against Intail upon Condition if the Intail be spent the Condition is gone But I conceive that until the two years be fully expired the Estates limited by the Conveyance continue and the Condition also The words of the said Statute are Shall within two years after the last day of this Session c. openly shew and bring forth into the Queens Court of Exchequer his Conveyance and there in the Term time in open Court shall offer and exhibit the same These words shew that the parties ought to shew the Conveyance within two years but doth not speak of any term and in the other Clause it speaks of term but not of two years so the time in which it ought to be shewed is two years but the time of the Inrollment might be in the term after the two years well enough for there are two two times in the Statute the one to shew the Conveyance the other for the Inrollment of it and two things are to be done Shewing and Inrollment and two times answerable to them two years and Term-time And he took it for a general Rule that time once expressed shall not be afterwards by implication abridged And if by your construction you make the time to end with the Term you abridge the time by a Month at least which was expressed before two years And for the reasonable construction of times Vide 28 H. 8. Dyer 44 Boulds Case If it fortune Joan Moll ' to decease before the Feast of c. without Issue Male of her Body then living c. this word then shall be referred to the Feast and not to the time of the death of the party for as the reason of the Case is where the intent of the parties is to have continuance in the thing the thing which they would have continue to the most extream time as may be And if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Males of his Body begotten and if he dye without Heirs of his Body then it shall remain over by this Implication if he dyes without Heirs of his Body the Donee shall not have general Tail but it shall be intended such Heirs to whom it was limited before And in our Case here there are some weeks between the ends of the Terms and the end of the two years and those weeks shall not be utterly void for in these weeks after the end of the Terms those of the Chancery shall take Conusance of Deeds And here in our Case the party was only to shew the Deed which might have been done at any time after the Terms so as it be within the two years if one be bound with Condition That if within two years he pay the Queens Silver upon a Fine to be levied and then and there in Term time ingross the same if he pay the Queens Silver within the two years he hath saved his Bond although that the Fine be not ingrossed until a Term after the two years So if one be bound to acknowledge a Deed in the Chancery within two years and there in the Term-time to Inroll the same if he do acknowledge it within two years it is sufficient and he may inroll it afterwards So in our Case the Estates continuing and the Condition also till the two years are fully expired therefore the Condition is well performed for the Estate continues defeazable by the Condition because within the two years and to abridge time is a violent thing And now Sir Francis is alive so as the power of the tender of the power of the King continueth And I conceive That the Certificate is sufficent without any Office and the party grieved may have traverse to it And I hold clearly that as this Case is Office cannot be found Office properly is to be found of things in paâ—s which happen before the Office as the Nonage of an Heir or of an Alien born or of a Villain here to entitle the King an Office is necessary to find things which have hapned before and without doubt this Certificate is traversable as the Certificate of the Bishop of Recusancy and also the Certificate of the Commissioners of Sewers and here those who are to certifie are to certifie a thing done by themselves and therefore there needs not any Office because they do it virtute Commissionis If a Commission be awarded to take a Surrender of the Bishoprick of N. or of a Pentioner c. there needs not any Office to find it and in the time of King Hen. 8 divers Abbots surrendred their Possessions to him of which no Office was found And now for conclusion The Queen comes in paramount her first Estate which she had pur auter voy scil by Attainder and now she hath it by the Condition and so paramount the Title under which the Defendants claim And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Queen Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXVII The Scholars of All Souls and Tamworths Case This Case is Reported in the first Part of Leonard IN a Writ of Right by the Colledge of All Souls in Oxon against Tamworth the Writ was Quod clamat tenere de nobis in liberam puram perpetuam Elemosinam And Exception was taken
20 Of omnia bona by an Executor what passeth 22 Of a Reversion by a Bishop 23 Of the Office of a Sheriff 33 Habeas Corpus WHere the cause of Commitment must be retorned upon it Where not 21 Heirs The second Son shall inherit the Land purchased by his eldest Brother notwithstanding the Attainder of the Father 5 Jeofails WHere upon a Jeofail the Court awarded a Repleader 19 Indictment Quare Clausum A. B. fregit held good notwithstanding A. had but a Lease at will of the Land. 6 De uno Equo for a Gelding not good But where Trespass is brought de Equo ellato and the Jury find a Gelding c. it is otherwise ibid. Upon Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 8. for being a Broker in an usurious Contract for which he incurred a Premunire 32 Upon Stat. 5 E. 6. against P. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. holden void for that it is not said he drew it with intent to strike the party 49 Upon Stat. 8 H. 6. two Exceptions taken to it but disallowed ibid. For stopping quandam viam valde necessariam quashed for want of the word Regiam and for that the party indicted had not any addition therein 121 Infant Makes a Lease for years and at his full age says to the Lessee God give you joy of it the Lease is thereby affirmed 4 If an Infant being in Execution sues a Writ of Error and is bailed the Recognisance shall be by his Bail only that he shall appear and if Judgment be affirmed that they pay the mony and not render his Body to Prison 6 Inmates Who shall be accounted Inmates upon the Stat. of 31 Eliz. 10 Interest Difference between an Interest and a Limitation 33 Judgment Shall not be stayed upon Allegation that one of the Defendants was dead after Verdict for the Court cannot take notice of it judicially nor any of the parties have day in Court to plead it besides the party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 15 If the Court may reverse their own Judgment Quaere 60 Reversed for Error in omitting the Costs the Jury gave 61 Jurors Where bound by confession of the parties where not 56 A Juror before the Retorn of the Pannel became a Minister of the Church and therefore prayed to be discharged according to the priviledge of those of the Ministry but it was not granted because he was a Lay man at the time of the Pannel made 190 Justice of Peace One cannot be Justice of Peace by Prescription 149 Lease OF a Manor c. with all the profits of a Wood except 40 Trees to the Lessor to take at his pleasure the Wood is not comprised within the Lease but the Lessee shall only have the profits as Pawnage Herbage c. 9 If a man makes a Lease of a Wood ad faciendum maximum proficuum meliori modo quo poterit the Lessee cannot thereby cut the Trees nor do waste 9 Made by a Corporation void for Misnosmer 11 Good to maintain an Ejectione firmae 14 Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 17 By Tenant at will if a disseisin 35 Leases made by Prebendaries within the Equity of the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 28. 51 Leet Pound breach is not inquirable there 12 But excessive Toll is ibid. Nobleman SHall be bound with Bayl in a Recognizance to render his Body 6 By 13 E. 1. if he hath not Goods or Lands his Body shall be taken in Execution ibid. Obligation Forfeited 18 Outlary How avoided by Plea in person 22 186 Payment OF Rent before the day by the Obligee doth not discharge him 4 Of a Debt generally by a Surety Executor to the Principal if it shall be as Executor or as Obligor Quaere ibid. Pleadings In a special Justification in Trover the place of Conversion may be traversed but where a Justification is general the County is not traversable at this day 4 It is no good Plea for the Tenant in a Writ of Entry sur disseisin to say that the House in demand is within the City of London whereof he is a Citizen and that King H. 3. concessit civibus c. quod non implacitentur c. extra muros Civitatis praed sed illis rectum teneatur infra Civitatem praed secundum cons Civit. praed For he ought to have shewed That the Citizens for their Lands there ought to be impleaded in the Hustings 13 In Trespass for pulling Hurdles c. the Defendant justified by Prescription to have a free course for Sheep in the place where c. and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave of the Lord of the Manor the Defendant cast them down prout c. the Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause and held naught for he should have traversed the Prescription 17 Traverse of the place in Trover where good 22 Special Plea to an Assumpsit not good and why 31 Posse Comitatus It differs from Posse Manerij 87 Possessio Fratris Where it shall not be of Copyhold Lands 38 Previledge Denied to the Treasurer of the Records of the Kings Bench and why 81 Prohibition If the Parson Libels in the Spiritual Court against the owner of Lands for Tythes which he severed but a Stranger took and carried away no Prohibition shall issue for that he might plead the same matter in bar in the Spiritual Court. 7 To the Spiritual Court to stay a Suit commenced there for Tythes upon a Prescription shewed in the Kings Bench. 25 Granted to stay a Suit in the Court Christian commenced against an Executor by one for a Legacy bequeathed to him by his Father who willed his Goods should be parted amongst his Children according to the Custom of London 12 Upon claim of Property 150 Quare Impedit May be brought by Executors to remove a Clerk collated wrongfully in the life time of the Testator 15 Recognizance IF a Recognizor of a Recognizance acknowledged before a Master in Chancery dye before it be inrolled it may be inrolled at the Petition of his Executors 8 Common Recovery Feme not party to the Writ of Covenant not bound by Recovery 26 Remainder Where void 21 Resceit One prayed to be received in a Formedon and was ousted of it by the Court. 51 Reservation Of Rents upon a joint Lease 27 Difference between a Reservation and a Contract 29 Retorn Of the Sheriff where void 21 Sale. OF a Bayliwick of an Hundred is not within the Statute of 5 E. 6. c. 16. 33 Of Goods by the Sheriff upon Execution where good where not 20 21 Surrender If Lessee for years take a second Lease from Guardian in Soccage made in his name it is a surrender of the first Lease 7 What shall be said to be a surrender of a Term what not 30 Treason UPon Attainder of Treason who shall seize the Goods for the Queen 34 Tythes Unity no discharge of Tythes 47 Venire Facias GRanted de novo after Verdict for that the first Venire Facias was of K. only for that it ought to have been de Vicento de K. W. 85 Vesturam terrae He who hath Vesturam terrae cannot dig the Land. 43 Those who have Lot-Meadow viz. to change every year according to Lots have not any Freehold therein but only Vesturam terrae 43 Writ DE fama gestu what it is 40 FINIS