Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Naylor versus Sharpless and other Coroners of Lancashire AN Action on the Case was brought for a False Return in which the Plaintiff sets forth Case for a false Return Mod. Rep. 198. that upon a Writ issuing out of this Court to the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster Process was directed to six Coroners being the Defendants which was delivered to one of them being then in the presence of the Party who was to be arrested but he did not execute it and afterwards at the Return of the Writ they all returned Non est inventus This Action was laid in Middlesex and upon Not-Guilty pleaded the Cause came to Tryal and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff Baldwyn Serjeant moved in arrest of Iugdment 1. Except That the Action ought not to be laid in Middlesex but in Lancashire where the Tort was committed But as to that it was answered by Serjeant Turner when two Matters both of which are material and are laid in two Counties the Action may be brought in either as if two libel in the Admiralty for a Contract made at Land in Dorsetshire and for which the Plaintiff brings an Action in London against one of them it has been adjudged the Action lies in either County 2. Except The Action will not lie against the six Coroners for the Tort was done by one alone As to that it was said all the Coroners are but one Officer so if one Sheriff suffer an Escape both are liable but in this Case it had been ill to have brought the Action only against one because the ground of it is the false Return which was made by six Coroners And as to the first Exception there could be no doubt now since after Verdict 't is * Stat. 16 17 Car. 2. c. 8. helped though the Trial be in a wrong County But the Court said that Statute helps a Mistrial in the proper County but not where the County is mistaken and inclined likewise that this Action was well brought against the six for this Tort committed by one Coroner but if it had béen for not arresting the Party in such a Case it ought to have been brought against the Coroner who was present with the person to be arrested for that had béen a personal Tort which could not have been charged upon the rest Edwards versus Roberts That he did totally forbear and doth not say hucusque good THE Plaintiff declares that the Defendant promised to pay him so much Mony in consideration that he would forbear to sue him and then he avers that he did extunc totaliter abstinere c. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was now moved by Turner Serjeant in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Except The consideration intends a total forbearance and the averment is that from the making of the promise he did totally forbear but doth not say hucusque Sed non allocatur for that shall be intended And it was the Opinion of the whole Court that if the Consideration be as in this Case wholly to forbear the Plaintiff by an Averment that from the making the promise hucusque he did forbear is well entituled to an Action A like Case was this Term where the Consideration was as before and the Averment was that he forbore seven Months and being moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Baldwyn because 't is not said hucusque which implies that after the seven Months he did not forbear it was notwithstanding held good it being a reasonable time and the rather because if the Action had been brought within the seven Months and the Plaintiff had averred that hucusque he forbore it had been good enough Quaere Reed versus Hatton IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Question did arise upon the construction of the Words in a Will Devise paying 5 l. per annum 't is a Fee The Case being this John Thatcher was seised in Feé of the Houses in question and did devise them to his Son Robert in which Will there was this Clause viz. Which Houses I give to my Son Robert upon this Condition that he pay unto his two Sisters five pounds a year the first payment to begin at the first of the four most usual Feasts that shall next happen after the death of the Testator so as the said Feast be a Month after his death with a Clause of Entry for Non-payment The Testator dies the Houses are worth 16 l. per annum and whether Robert the Son shall have an Estate for Life only or in Fee was the Question This was argued by Jones Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Seys Serjeant for the Defendant And for the Plaintiff it was said Ex parte Quer. that Robert had but an Estate for Life 'T is true in most Cases the Word paying makes a Fee where there is no express Fee limited but the difference is viz. where the Mony to be paid is a Sum in gross let it be equivalent or not to the value of the thing devised the Devisee shall have a Fee though the Estate be not devised to him and his Heirs but if it be an annual payment out of the thing devised as in this Case it will not create a Fee without apt words because the Devisée hath no loss and therefore it hath beén held that if a Devise be made to two Sons to the intent that they shall bear equal share towards the payment of 40 l. to his Wife for Life the Sons had only an Estate for Life because 't is quasi an annuel Rent out of the Profits and no Sum in gross * Jones 211. Cro. Car. 157. Broke Abr. tit Estate 78. And * 6 Co. 16. Colliers Case was much relied on where this very difference was taken and allowed that paying 25 l. in gross makes a Fee but paying 50 s. per annum creates only an Estate for Life All Devises are intended for the benefit of the Deviseé and therefore where a Sum in gross is devised to be paid which is done accordingly in such Case if the Deviseé should die soon after the Mony would be lost if he should have only an Estate for Life but in the Case at Bar the Testator by a nice calculation had appointed when the first payment should be made viz. not until a Month after his decease which hath prevented that damage which otherwise might have happened to the Devisee if no such provision had béen made Vide Hob. 65. Green's Case Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that Robert had a Fée for though here is a Sum to be paid annually 't is a Sum in gross and Collier's Case was also relied upon on this side It was agreed where payment is to be made by which the Devisee can sustain no loss the Word Paying there will not make a Fée but if there
after the Partition 2. The Rejoynder is a departure from the Plea which is that the Plaintiff never had any thing but joyntly with others and the Rejoynder is that at the time of the conversion he was joyntly possessed which is a manifest difference in point of time and such as will make a Departure 33 H. 14. Bro. Departure 28. 13. Ex parte Def. It was argued by Serjeant Hopkins for the Defendant that the Replication was not good for the Plaintiff therein had alledged a Partition by Deed and doth not say hic in Curia prolat̄ And in all Cases where a Man pleads a Deed by which he makes himself either party or privy he must produce it in Court As where the Defendant justifies in Trespass that before the Plaintiff had any thing One Purfrey was seised in Fee of the place where c. And by Indenture c. demised it to Corbet excepting the Wood c. Habendum for the Life of Ann and covenanted quod licitum foret for the said Corbet to take House-boot c. That he assigned his Interest to Ann and that the Defendant as her Servant took the Trees and upon Demurrer the Plea was held naught because though a Servant having justified by force of a Covenant he did not shew the Indenture 2 Cro. 291. Purfrey versus Grimes 6 Rep. Bellamy's Case 1 Leon. 309. Rol. Rep. 20. If a thing will pass without a Deed yet if the Party pleads a Deed and makes a Title thereby he must come with a * profert hic in Curia As to the Objection That there was a Departure he argued to the contrary For the Defendant in his Rejoynder insists only on that which was most material and the Plaintiff in his Replication had given him occasion thus to Rejoyn and though he had left out some of the time mentioned in the Bar yet the would hurt the Pleadings because a fair Issue was tendred for if at the time of the conversion he was joyntly seised he could not be entituled to the Action alone Judgment And afterwards in Trinity-Term following the Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was good in Barr though pleaded in Abatement and the Defendant hath election to plead either in Barr or Abatement the nature of a Plea in Abatement is to intitle the Plaintiff to a better Writ but here the Defendant shews that the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action and so it shall be taken to be in Barr And it hath been expressly resolved That where the Plea is in Abatement if it be of necessity that the Defendant must disclose matter of barr he shall have his election to take it either by way of Barr or Abatement 2 Roll. Rep. 64. Salkil versus Shilton So where Waste was brought in the tenet the Tenant pleads a Surrender to the Lessor and demands Iudgment if he should be charged in the tenet because it should have been in the tenuit and this was held a good Plea 10 H. 7.11 Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice at first doubting about the Departure and advised the Plaintiff to wave his Demurrer and to take issue upon payment of Costs Daws versus Harrison THE Plaintiff intitles himself as Administrator to Daws Administration pleaded and not loci istius ordinarius good and shews that Administration was granted to him by the Official of the Bishop of Carlisle but did not alledge him to be loci istius Ordinarius And Jones Serjeant demurred to the Declaration because it did not appear that the Official had any Iurisdiction Pl. Com. 277. a. 31. H. 6. 13. Fitz. Judg. 35. 22 H. 6. 52. 36 H. 6. 32 33. Sed non allocatur For the whole Court were of Opinion That the Declaration was good and that he shall be intended to have Iurisdiction but if it had been in the Case of a Peculiar Cro Jac. 556. Palm 97. Sid. 322. it cannot be intended that they have any authority unless set forth And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mason versus Caesar IN Trespass for pulling down of Hedges Commoner may abate Hedges made upon his Common the Defendant pleads that he had right of Common in the place where c. and the Hedges were made upon his Common so that he could not in ea parte enjoy his Common in tam amplo modo c. and so justifies the pulling them down And they were at issue whether the Defendant could enjoy the Common in tam amplo modo c. and there was a Verdict for the Defendant and Iudgment being staied 'till moved on the other side Scroggs Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Plea was ill and the Issue frivolous for 't is impossible that he should have Common where the Hedges are 5 Rep. 100. 9 Rep. 55. And therefore the Defendant ought to have brought an Action upon the Case or a quod permittat He cannot abate the Hedges though he might have pulled down so much as might have opened a Way to his Common 2 Cro. 195 229. The Lord hath an Interest in the Soil and a Commoner hath no authority to do any thing but to enter and put in his Beasts and not to throw down Quick-Set Hedges for that is a shelter to his Beasts But the Court were of Opinion That the Defendant might abate the Hedges for thereby he did not meddle with the Soil but only pulled down the erection and the Book of 29 E. 3. 6. was express in this point Vide 17 H. 7. 10. 16 H. 7. 8. 33 H. 6. 31. 2 Ass 12. And nothing was said concerning the Plea and so the Defendant had Iudgment Hocket and his Wife versus Stiddolph and his Wife Verdict cured a bad Declaration IN an Action of Assault and Battery brought by the Plaintiff and his Wife against the Defendant and his Wife the Iury found quoad the beating of the Plaintiffs Wife only that the Defendants are Guilty and quoad resid ' they find for the Defendants And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Scroggs Serjeant That the Declaration is not good because the Husband * Yelv. 106. Drury versus Dennis Sid. 376. joyns with the Wife which he ought not to do upon his own shewing for as to the Battery made upon him he ought to have brought his Action alone and the finding of the Iury will not help the Declaration which is ill in substance and thereupon Iudgment was staied but being moved again the next Term the Court were all of Opinion That the Declaration was cured by the Verdict and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Goodwin qui tam c. versus Butcher AN Information was brought upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Buying a pretended Title cap. 9. made against buying pretended Titles which gives a Forfeiture of the value of the Land purchased unless the Seller was in possession within a
year before the Sale After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Barrell because the Information had set forth the right of these Lands purchased to be in J. S. and that the Son of J. N. had conveyed them by general words 2 Anders 57. as descending from his Father which Title of the Son the Defendant bought whereas if in truth the Title was in J. S. then nothing descended from the Father to the Son and so the Defendant bought nothing Sed non allocatur for if such construction should be allowed there could be no buying of a pretended Title within the Statute unless it was a good Title but when 't is said as here that the Defendant entred and claimed colore of that Grant or Conveyance which was void yet 't is within the Statute so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Wine versus Rider al. TRespass against five Quare clausum fregerunt Traverse immaterial and took Fish out of the Plaintiffs Several and Free-Fishery Four of them pleaded Not Guilty and the fifth justified for that one of the other Defendants is seised in Fee of a Close adjoyning to the Plaintiffs Close and that he and all those c. have had the sole and separate Fishing in the River which runs by the said Closes with liberty to enter into the Plaintiffs Close to beat the Water for the better carrying on of the Fishing and that he as Servant to the other Defendant and by his Command did enter and so justified the taking absque hoc that he is Guilty aliter vel alio modo The Plaintiff replies That he did enter de injuria sua propria absque hoc That the Defendants Master hath the Sole Fishing The Defendant demurs Ex parte Def. and Newdigate Serjeant argued for him That the Iustification is good for when he had made a local justification 2 Cro. 45 372. he must traverse both before and after as he has done in this Case 2. The Plaintiffs Replication is ill for he ought not to have waved the Defendants Traverse and force him to accept of another from him because the first is material to the Plaintiffs Title and he is bound up to it Hob. 104. 3. There was no occasion of a Traverse in the Replication for where a Servant is Defendant de injuria sua propria is good with a Traverse of the Command Ex parte Quer. But on the Plaintiffs side Serjeant Baldwin held the Defendants Traverse to be immaterial for having answered the Declaration fully in alledging a Right to the sole fishing and an Entry into the Plaintiffs Close 2 Cro. 372. 't is insignificant afterwards to traverse that he is guilty aliter vel alio modo Then the matter of the Plea is not good because the Defendant justifies by a Command from one of the other Defendants who have all pleaded Not-guilty and they must be guilty if they did command him for a Command will make a Man a Trespasser Curia The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For as to the last thing mentioned which was the Matter of the Plea they held it to be well enough for the * Mires and Solebay Post Servant shall not be ousted of the advantage which the Law gives him by pleading his Masters Command Then as to the Replication 't is good and the Plea is naught with the Traverse for where the Iustification goes to a time and place not alledged by the Plaintiff there must be a Traverse of both In this Case the Defendant ought to have traversed the Plaintiffs free fishing as alledged by him in his Declaration which he having omitted the Plea for that reason also is ill and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Termino Paschae Anno 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Lee versus Brown IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Where reputed Lands shall pass under general words viz. There were Lands which re vera were not parcel of a Mannor and yet were reputed as parcel A Grant is made of the Mannor and of all Lands reputed parcel thereof and whether by this Grant and by these general Words those Lands would pass which were not parcel of the Mannor was the Question This Term the Lord Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That those Lands would pass Postea Cro. Car. 308. and they grounded their Opinions upon two Authorities in Co. Entr. fol. 330 384. The King versus Imber Wilkins If the Iury had found that the Lands in question had beén reputed parcel of the Mannor it would not have passed had they found no more because the Reputation so found might be intended a Reputation for a small time so reputed by a few or by such as were ignorant and unskilful But in this Case 't is found that not only the Lands were reputed parcel but the reason why they were reputed parcel for the Iury have found that they were formerly parcel of the Mannor and after the division they were again united in the possession of him who had the Mannor which being also Copyhold have since béen demised by Copy of Court Roll togethet with the Mannor and these were all great marks of Reputation and therefore Iudgment was given that the Lands did well pass 2 Roll. Abr. 186. Dyer 350. Wakeman versus Blackwel Common Recoveries how to be pleaded QUare Impedit The Case was The Plaintiff entituled himself to an Advowson by a Recovery suffered by Tenant in Tail in pleading of which Recovery he alledges two to be Tenants to the Praecipe but doth not shew how they came to be so or what Conveyance was made to them by which it may appear that they were Tenants to the Praecipe and after search of Presidents as to the form of pleading of Common Recoveries the Court inclined that it was not well pleaded but delivered no Iudgment Searl versus Bunion Justification where good IN Trespass for taking of his Cattel The Defendant pleads that he was possessed of Blackacre pro termino diversorum annorum adtunc adhuc ventur̄ and being so possessed the Plaintiffs Cattle were doing damage and he distrained them Damage fesant ibidem and so justifies the taking c. The Plaintiff demurrs and assigns specially for cause that the Defendant did not set forth particularly the commencement of the Term of years but only that he was possessed of an Acre for a Term of years to come and regularly where a Man makes a Title to a particular Estate in pleading he must shew the particular time of the Commencement of his Title that the Plaintiff may replie to it Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court held that the Plea was good upon this difference where the Plaintiff brings an Action for the Land or doing of a Trespass upon the Land he is supposed to be in possession
any other thing which lies in Grant and the Deed is lost or cancelled the Office or the thing granted falls to the ground for the Deed is the foundation and a Case was cited in the Lord Dyer If there be two Iointenants and one cancels the Deed it hath destroyed the Right of the other Quaere of these things But it was agreed that if two Men who have one Office for their Lives and the survivor of them if one surrenders to the other and then a new Grant is made to this other and a Stranger he hath debarred himself of the Survivorship and he and the Stranger are jointly seised Crossman versus Sir John Churchil IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiffs Title was set forth in his Declaration which was also found in a Special Verdict Where an Agreement for a Presentation by turns is good that Sir George Rodney was seised of the Advowson in Fée and died seised leaving two Sisters who were his Coheirs that Sir John Rodney being also one of the same Family and pretending a Right to the Estate for preventing Suits that might happen they all enter into an Agréement by Indentures mutually executed by which it was agreed that Sir John Rodney shall hold some Lands in severalty and the Co-heirs shall hold other Lands in the like manner and as for this Advowson a temporary provision was made thereof that each of them should Present by turns and this was to continue till partition could be made then comes an Act of Parliament and confirms the Indenture and Enacts That every Agreement therein contained shall stand and that all the rest of the Lands not particularly named and otherwise disposed by the said Indenture should be held by these three in common one of the three who by Agréement was next to Present grants the next Avoidance the Church being then full to the Plaintiff and the Question was whether these threé persons were not Tenants in Common of the Advowson and if so then the Grant of the next Avoidance cannot be good by one alone because he hath not the whole Advowson but only a Right to the third part It was said that if Tenants in Common had made such an Agreément it would not have beén any division of their interest for there must be a partition to sever the Inheritance The Court were all of Opinion Curia that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for there was an Agréement that there shall be a Presentation by turns and therefore for one turn each hath a Right to the whole Advowson by reason of the Act of Parliament by which that Agreement is confirmed and thereby an Interest is setled in each of them till Partition made but this Agreement would have vested no Interest in either of them without an Act of Parliament to corroborate it therefore there had been no remedy upon it but by an Action of Covenant This Case was argued four times and not one Authority cited The Earl of Shaftsbury versus Lord Digby In Banco Regis For Words upon the Statute of 2 R. 2. c. 5. Jones 49. SCandalum Magnatum The Plaintiff declares upon the Statute of 2 R. 2. cap. 5. for these Words viz. You are not for the King but for Sedition and for a Common-wealth and by God we will have your Head the next Sessions of Parliament After Verdict for the Plaintiff and 1000 l. damages given it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment and several Exceptions taken 1. As to the Recital of the Statute the Words of which are That no Man shall devise any Lies c. and the Plaintiff for the Word devise had used the Latin Word contrafacio in his Declaration which was very improper that being to counterfeit and not to devise for it should have béen machino or fingo those are more expressive Words of Devise 2. 'T is alledged that the Defendant dixit mendacia of the Plaintiff viz. haec Anglicana verba sequen̄ and doth not alledge that he spoke the Words 3. The most material Objection was a mistake in the Recital of the Statute the Words of which are That none shall speak any scandalous Words of any Dukes Earls c. the Justices of either Bench nor of any other great Officer of the Kingdom but the Plaintiff in his Declaration recites it thus viz. None shall speak any scandalous Words of any Dukes Earls c. Justices of either Bench great Officers of the Kingdom and leaves out the Words neque al so that it must be construed thus None to speak of any Dukes Earls c. being great Officers of the Kingdom and then 't is not enough that the Plaintiff is Comes but he also ought to be a great Officer of the Kingdom which is not set out in this Case But upon great Debate and Deliberation these Exceptions were overruled and the whole Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff As to the first Exception they said contrafacio is a legal Word and apt enough in this sense and so are all the Presidents and thus it was pleaded in the Lord Cromwel's Case As to the second Exception it was said the Mendacia which were told were the English Words which were spoken and the viz. haec Anglicana verba sequen̄ being in the Accusative Case are governed by the same Verb which governs the Words precedent viz. horribilia mendacia Besides for the supporting of an Action the viz. may be transposed and then it will be well enough viz. the Defendant spoke haec Anglicana verba viz. Lies of the Plaintiff As to the third Exception it was answered that the Plaintiff neéd not recite the Statute it being a * Sid. 348. general Law and admitting there was no necessity yet if he will undertake to recite it and mistake in a material Point 't is incurable but if he recites so much as will serve to maintain his own Action truly and mistakes the rest this will not vitiate his Declaration and so he hath done here by reciting so much of the Statute which Enacts That no Man shall speak any scandalous Words of an Earl which is enough he being an Earl to entitle him to an Action and he concludes prout per eundem Actum plenius liquet and the Court grounded themselves principally upon a Iudgment given in this Court which was thus viz. There was a Robbery committed and the Party brought an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry in which he recited incendia domorum 13 E. 1. cap. 1. the said Statute beginning Forasmuch as from day to day Robberies Murders burning of Houses c. and the Presidents are all so But the Parliament Roll is Incendia generally without domorum and it was strongly urged that it was a misrecital which was fatal But the Court were all of Opinion that the Plaintiffs Case being only concerning a Robbery for which the Statute was well recited and not about burning which was mistaken it was for that reason good
to shew that the Proceedings of that Court did not alter but interpret the Law But admitting the Case of the Duke of Norkfolk to be Law yet it concerns not this because the Sub Marshal there was taken as a Deputy but there is no such Officer as a Sub-Warden for Duckenfield had it for Life And then a Deputy being a person removable at pleasure will not be so considered in Law as one who hath a more fixed Estate for having nothing to lose it cannot be intended that he will be so careful in the execution of his Office as the other and therefore 't is reasonable in such Case that the Superiour should answer But he who hath a Freehold for Life hath an Estate of some value in the Law which he cannot be supposed easily to forfeit and therefore 't is reasonable that he alone should be lyable for his own Miscarriages for if the Defendant should be charged by the same reason the Grantee of the Reversion may be charged who is altogether an innocent person and so may be liable to a vast Sum for the Fault of another for which Reasons he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant The Court delivered no Opinion this Term Judgment but took time to advise and afterwards in Easter Term following Rainsford Chief Iustice delivered the Opinions of Twisden Wild and Jones Iustices who said they were all agreéing in the main Point but thought the Verdict imperfect and not to warrant the Plaintiffs Case for he declared that at the time when the Grant was made to Duckenfield when the Commitment was and when the Escape was suffered and ever since that Duckenfield was insufficient and not able to answer the Plaintiff but the Iury in the Special Verdict do not find the insufficiency at that time when this Action was brought But as to the main Question they were of Opinion that the Defendant was Superior and that he is chargeable for this insufficiency of Duckenfield but if he had béen sufficient when the Plaintiff brought this Action it might have been otherwise but his Inability being fully averred in the Declaration and the Defendant denying it and the Iury having found nothing against it but there being strong Suspicions of the truth of the Fact the Court would not make an intendment to the contrary The Iury have found expresly that Duckenfield was insufficient at the time of the Escape which was within six Weeks of the time when the Action was commenced so that having once found him disabled unless it appear that he was of Ability afterwards the Court will not intend him so but rather that he was insufficient at the time of the Action brought for there being strong surmises of it and there being no ground within the Record to intend him sufficient a Fact may be collected that is not found in the Verdict Fulwoods Case 4 Co. The King versus Moor. Difference between a prohibitory Clause and a Clause which gives a Penalty in a Statute AN Information was brought upon the Statute of the 4th 5th of Philip and Mary cap. 8. which Enacts That if any Person c. above the Age of 14 shall after the first day of April next after the making the Statute unlawfully take a Maid or Woman unmarried being within the Age of 16 years c. the Party shall suffer two years Imprisonment or pay such Fine as shall be assessed in the Star Chamber and that the Defendant existens supra aetatem quatuordecim annorum did take a young Maid away unmarried and kept her three days contra formam Statuti upon which he was found Guilty and now moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. It was said for the Defendant that this Court could not Fine him upon this Statute because when the Informer entitles himself by a Statute he must take the remedy therein prescribed and so 't is not like an Information at the Common Law for in such case this Court might Fine the Plaintiff 2. It is not averred that the party offending was above the age of 14 years at the time of taking but only that he being above the age of 14 such a day did take Where there are not Negative Words the Court of Kings Bench is not restrained Mod. Rep. 34. Sid. 359. Sir William Jones contra If the first Objection hath any weight in it 't is to bring the Party to an Imprisonment for the space of two years which is a punishment directed by that Statute but the Fine is limited to the Star Chamber and those Offences which were punishable there are likewise to be punished here because there are no Negative words in this Statute to abridge the authority of this Court which is never restrained but when the Statute directs before whom the Offence shall be Tried and not elsewhere It was the Opinion of my Lord Chief Iustice Hales That where there is a prohibitory Clause in a Statute and another Clause which gives a Penalty if the Party will go upon the prohibitory Clause Postea he is not confined to the manner expressed in the Statute but if he will go upon the Penalty he must then pursue what the Statute directs The first part of this Statute is but a Declaration of the Common Law the second Clause is introductive of a new Law as to the Court of Star Chamber but is not a restriction as to this Court which might have punished the Defendant if there had been no such Law The first Clause is prohibitory viz. That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away a Maid unmarried and upon this Clause this Information is brought The second Clause is distinct and directs the punishment viz. Upon Conviction to suffer Imprisonment for two years Now by taking away the Court of Star Chamber this prohibitory Clause is not repealed upon which a Man may be Indicted without demanding the Penalty and the Statute having directed that the Offence shall be heard and determined before the Kings Council in the Star Chamber or before the Iudge of Assise and no Negative words to restrain this Court therefore the Chief Iustice who is the Iudge of * Cro. Car. 463. Assise in the County of Middlesex may hear and determine this Offence and by consequence Fine the Party if he be found Guilty As to the second Objection That it is not averred that the Party offending was above the age of 14 years at the time of the taking it had been better if it had been said tunc existen ' supra aetatem quatuordecim annorum but notwithstanding 't is well enough for 't is said that being above the age of 14 years such a day he did take c. so that it cannot be otherwise but that he was of such an age at the time when the Maid was taken and the Iury found him Guilty contra formam Statuti which may likewise be an Answer to the first Objection for he being found Guilty contra formam
annum to the Plaintiffs in Trust for Mary and this was to be in discharge of the said Iointure Habendum to them their Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns in Trust for the said Mary for Life with a Clause of Distress and a Covenant to pay the 200 l. per annum to the said Trustees for the use of the said Mary the Breach assigned was that the Defendant had not paid the Rent to them for the Use of Mary The Defendant demurred specially for that it appears by the Plaintiffs own shewing that here is a Grant of a Rent-Charge for life which is executed by the Statute of Vses and therefore there ought to have been a Distress for Non-payment which is the proper remedy given by the Statute and this Action will not lie in the personalty 2. 'T is said the Defendant did not pay it to the Plaintiffs for the use of Mary which is a Negative pregnant and implies that it was paid to them 3. 'T is not averred that the Mony was not paid to Mary and if 't is paid to her then the Breach is not well assigned Ex parte Quer. But Serjeant Baldwin for the Plaintiff replyed that it was not a Question in this Case whether this Rent Charge was executed by the Statute or not for quacunque via data an Action of Covenant will lie and that the Breach was assigned according to the Words of the Covenant and so prima facie 't is well enough for if the Defendant did pay the Mony to the Plaintiffs he may plead it and so he may likewise if he paid it to Mary Curia The Court were all of Opinion that this Rent-Charge was executed by the Statute of Vses by the express Words thereof which executes such Rents granted for Life upon Trust as this Case is and transfers all Rights and Remedies incident thereunto together with the possession to Cestuy que use so that though the power of distraining be limited to the Trustées by this Deéd yet by the Statute which transfers that power to Mary she may distrain also but this Covenant being collateral cannot be transferred The Clause of Distress by the express Words of the Act is given to the Cestuy que use but here is a double Remedy by Distress or Action for if the Lessée assign his Interest and the Rent is accepted of the Assignee yet a Covenant lies against the Lessée for Non-payment upon the express Covenant to * Hayes and Bickerstaff Hollis and Carr Antea pay so if a Rent be granted to S. and a Covenant to pay it to N. for his use 't is a good Covenant And it was agreed that the assignment of a Breach according to the Words of the Covenant is good enough and that if any thing be done which amounts to a performance the other side must plead it as in this Case the Defendant might have pleaded that the Mony was paid to Mary which is a performance in substance but it shall not be intended without pleading of it Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Read versus Dawson DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Executor Repleader after an immaterial Issue Issue was joyned whether the Defendant had Assets or not on the thirtieth day of November which was the day on which he had the first notice of the Plaintiffs original Writ and it was found for the Defendant that then he had not Assets It was moved for a Repleader because it was said this was an immaterial Issue for though he had not Assets then yet if he had any afterwards he is liable to the Plaintiffs Action But Barrel Serjeant moved for Iudgment upon this Verdict by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. which helps in Cases of Mispleading or insufficient Pleading 'T is true there are many Cases which after Verdict are not aided by this Statute as if there are two Affirmatives which cannot make an Issue or when after a Traverse Issue is joyned with an hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam this is no Issue 2 Anders 6 7. Yelv. 210. Hob. 126. So if there be no Plea at all as if an Action is brought against Baron and Feme and she pleads only 2 Cro. 288. So if the Party puts himself super patriam where it should be tried by Record or if the Plea be nothing to the purpose or lie not in the Mouth of the Parties such immaterial Issues as these cannot be good The difference in Moor 867. is if the Plea on which the Issue is joyned hath no colourable pretence in it to barr the Plaintiff or if it be against an express Rule in the Law there the Issue is immaterial and so as if there was no Issue and therefore 't is not aided by the Statute but if it hath the countenance of a legal Plea though it want necessary matter to make it sufficient there shall be no Repleader because 't is helped after Verdict Here the Parties only doubt whether there were Assets at the time of the notice and 't is found there were none and so Iudgment was to be given accordingly and of that Opinion was the whole Court But Iustice Atkins was clear of Opinion that if the Parties join in an immaterial Issue there shall be no Repleader because 't is helped after Verdict by these Words in the Statute viz. any Issue 'T is not said an Issue joined upon a material Point and the intent of the Statute was to prevent Repleaders and that if any other Construction should be made of that Act he was of Opinion that the Iudges sate there not to expound but to make a Law for by such an Interpretation much of the benefit intended by the Act to the Party who had a Verdict would be restrained Curia The other Iustices were all of Opinion that since the making of this Statute it had been always allowed and taken as a difference that when the Issue was perfectly material there should be no Repleader but that it was otherwise where the Issue was not material And Iustice Scroggs asked merrily If Debt be brought upon a Bond and the Defendant pleads Robin Hood dwelt in a Wood and the Plaintiff joyns Issue that he did not this is an immaterial Issue and shall there not be a Repleader in such Case after Verdict Ad quod non fuit responsum Beaumont versus ........ Wager of Law THE Plaintiff brings an Action of Debt upon a Iudgment obtained against the Defendant in a Court Baron having declared there in an Action on the Case upon an Assumpsit and recovered The Defendant came to wage his Law and was ready to swear that he owed the Plaintiff nothing Sid. 366. but the Court held that he was not well advised for by the Recovery in the inferior Court it became now a Debt and was owing and being asked whether he had paid the Mony he answered that he owed nothing Whereupon the Court
likewise addressed to my Lord as before making several Protestations of his Innocency But having once in a Passion said that he scorned to submit My Lord for that Reason would not remit the Damages it was therefore moved for a new Tryal upon these Reasons 1. Because the Witnesses who proved the Words were not Persons of Credit and that at the time when they were alledged to be spoken many Clergy-men were in Company with the Defendant and heard no such Words spoken 2. It was sworn that one of the Iury confessed that they gave such great damages to the Plaintiff not that he was damnified so much but that he might have the greater opportunity to shew himself noble in the remitting of them 3. And which was the principal Reason because the Damages were excessive Curia The Court delivered their Opinions seriatim and first The Chief Iustice North said In Cases of Fines for criminal Matters a Man is to be fined by Magna Charta with a salvo contenemento suo and no Fine is to be imposed greater than he is able to pay but in Civil Actions the Plaintiff is to recover by way of compensation for the damages he hath sustained and the Iury are the proper Iudges thereof This is a Civil Action brought by the Plaintiff for Words spoken of him which if they are in their own nature actionable the Iury ought to consider the damage which the Party may sustain but if a particular Averment of special damages makes them actionable then the Iury are only to consider such damages as are already sustained and not such as may happen in futuro because for such the Plaintiff may have a new Action He said that as a Iudge he could not tell what value to set upon the Honour of the Plaintiff the Iury have given 4000 l. and therefore he could neither lessen the Sum or grant a new Trial especially since by the Law the Iury are Iudges of the damages and it would be very inconvenient to examine upon what account they gave their Verdict they having found the Defendant guilty did believe the Witnesses and he could not now make a doubt of their Credibility Wyndham Iustice accorded in omnibus Atkins Iustice contra That a new Trial should be granted for 't is every days practice and he remembred the Case of Gouldston and Wood in the Kings Bench where the Plaintiff in an Action on the Case for Words for calling of him Bankrupt recovered 1500 l. and that Court granted a new Tryal because the damages were excessive The Iury in this Case ought to have respect only to the damage which the Plaintiff sustained and not to do an unaccountable thing that he might have an opportunity to shew himself generous and as the Court ought with one Eye to look upon the Verdict so with the other they ought to take notice what is contained in the Declaration and then to consider whether the Words and Damages bear any proportion if not then the Court ought to lay their hands upon the Verdict 'T is true they cannot lessen the damages but if they are too great the Court may grant a new Tryal Scroggs Iustice accorded with North and Wyndham that no new Tryal can be granted in this Cause He said that he was of Council with the Plaintiff before he was called to the Bench and might therefore be supposed to give Iudgment in favour of his former Client being prepossess'd in the Cause or else to shew himself more signally just might without considering the matter give Iudgment against him but that now he had forgot all former relation thereunto and therefore delivered his Opinion that if he had been of the Iury he should not have given such a Verdict and if he had been Plaintiff he would not take advantage of it but would overcome with Forgiveness such Follies and Indiscretions of which the Defendant had been guilty but that he did not sit there to give Advice but to do Iustice to the People He did agrèe that where an unequal Tryal was as such must be where there is any Practice with the Iury in such Case 't is good reason to grant a new Tryal but no such thing appearing to him in this Case a new Tryal could not be granted Suppose the Iury had given a scandalous Verdict for the Plaintiff as a Penny Damages he could not have obtained a new Trial in hopes to increase them neither shall the Defendant in hopes to lessen them and therefore by the Opinion of these three Iustices a new Tryal was not granted Afterwards in this Term Serjeant Maynard moved in Arrest of Iudgment and said that this Action was grounded upon the Statute of R. 2. Which consists of a Preamble reciting the Mischief and of the Enacting part in giving of a Remedy and that the Defendants Case was neither within the Mischief or the Remedy This Statute doth not create any Action by way of particular design and if the matter was now Res integra much might be said that an Action for Damages will not lye upon this Statute for the Statute of Westm 2. appoints that the Offender shall suffer imprisonment until he produces the Author of a false Report Ca. 33. and the Statute of 2 R. 2. which recites that of Westm 2. gives the same punishment and the Action is brought qui tam c. and yet the Plaintiff only recovers for himself It was usual to punish Offenders in this kind in the Star Chamber as in the * Earl of Northampton's Case where one Goodrick said of him That he wrote a Book against Garnet and a Letter to Bellarmine 12 Co. 132. intimating that what he wrote in the Book was not his Opinion but only ad captandum populum which was a great disgrace to him in those days being as much as to say he was a Papist Cro. Eliz. But the Serjeant would not insist upon that now since it hath been ruled that where a Statute prohibits the doing of a thing which if done might be prejudicial to another in such case he may have an Action upon that very Statute for his Damages But the ground on which he argued was that these words as spoken are not within the meaning of the Act for they are not actionable 1. Because they are no scandal and words which are actionable must import a great Scandal which no circumstance or occasion of speaking can excuse and if they are scandalous and capable of any mitigation by the precedent discourse the pleading of that matter will make them not actionable and for this the Lord * 4 Co. Cromwel's Case is a plain Authority the Words spoken of him were You like those that maintain Sedition against the King's Person the occasion of speaking of which was to give an account of his favouring the Puritan Preachers which was all that was intended by the former discourse for that Lord had approved a Sermon which was preached by a Parson
quo and 't is in nature of a Contract raised by Law By the Words of the Capias ad satisfaciend ' it doth appear that the design of the Writ is to enforce the Payment of the the debt by the Imprisonment of the Defendant The Sheriff thereupon returns that he hath taken the Body and that the Defendant hath paid the Mony to him for which reason he discharged him and for this Return he was amerced not because he discharged the Party but because he had not brought the Mony into the Court for the Law never intended that a Man should be kept in Prison after he had paid the debt In this Case the Defendant can have no remedy to recover it again of the Marshal because it was not a bare Payment to him but to pay it over again to the Plaintiff and likewise in consideration that he should be discharged from his Imprisonment If it should be objected by the Marshal that the Plaintiff hath an Action of Escape against him and likewise by the Plaintiff that he did not make the Gaoler his Steward or Bayliff to receive his Mony Answ The Gaoler is made his Bayliff to keep the Party in Execution and it would be very hard that when the Prisoner will lay down his Mony in discharge of the Debt that the Gaoler should not have full power to discharge him If he had come in Michaelmas-Term after the long Vacation and informed the Court that he had offered to pay the Execution Mony to the Marshal and that he would not take it and that the Plaintiff could not be found the Court would have made a Rule to help him Mr. Holt contra If the Payment had béen good to the Sheriff or Marshal yet 't is not pleadable to the second Execution because 't is matter in fact That which hath been objected that the Party shall plead to a second Execution that his Goods were taken by a former Fieri Facias cannot be for no such Plea can be good because by that Writ the Sheriff hath express Authority to levy the Mony and the Plea is not Payment to the Sheriff but that the Mony was levyed by him by virtue of the Writ which ought to be brought into the Court and an Audita Querela lies against the Plaintiff and then the Defendant is to be bailed 1 Leon. 141. Askew versus the Earl of Lincoln Jones and Rainsford were of Opinion that the Defendant might have remedy against the Marshal to recover his Mony again and that the Payment to him was no discharge to the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was in Execution But Iustice Wyld was of another Opinion Quaere The Lord Marquess of Dorchester's Case In Communi Banco IN a Scandalum Magnatum Visne not changed in a Scandalum Magnatum Serjeant Pemberton moved to have good Bail which the Court denied and said that in such Case Bail was not requirable but notwithstanding the Defendant consented to put in 50 l. Bail And then upon the usual Affidavit moved to change the Visne the Action being laid in London which was opposed by the Serjeant who desired that it might be tried where it was laid but he said in this Case that the Visne could not be changed 1. Because the King is a Party to the Suit for 't is tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso 2. The Plaintiff is a Lord of Parliament which is adjourned and will meet and therefore it would be inconvenient to try the Cause in the Country since the Service of the King and Kingdom both require his Attendance here and he said that upon the like Motion in B. R. between the Lord Stamford and Needham the Court would not change the Visne North Chief Iustice said that he always took it as a current Opinion that in a Scandalum Magnatum the Visne could not be changed for since it was in the nature of an Information it being tam quam 't was advisable whether it was not within the Statute of 21 Jac. which doth appoint Informations to be tried in their proper Counties But Iustice Atkins inclined that the Visne might be changed for though by the Wisdom of the Law a Iury of the Neighbourhood are to try the Cause yet in point of Iustice the Court may change the Visne to which it was objected that then there would be no difference between local and transitory Actions Actions of Debt and Accompt shall be brought in their proper Counties 6 R. 2. and it was agreed that an Attorney is sworn to bring Actions no where else But the Court not agréeing at last the Defendant was willing that the Cause should be tried in London if the Plaintiff would consent not to try it before the first Setting in the next Term. And as to that reason offered why the Visne should not be changed because the Plaintiff was a Lord of Parliament Iustice Atkins said that did not satisfie him it might be a good ground to move for a Trial at the Barr to which it was answered that in the Case of the Earl of Shaftsbury the Court would not grant a Tryal at the Barr without the Consent of the Defendant The Visne was not changed Beaver versus Lane COvenant made to Baron and Feme Covenant to Baron and Feme the Baron alone may bring the Action the Husband alone brings the Action quod teneat ei conventionem secundum formam effectum cujusdam Indenturae inter Querentem ex una parte Defendentem ex altera parte confect ' and this was for not repairing his House After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because of this variance But the Court Ordered that the Plaintiff should have his Iudgment for the Indenture being by Baron and Feme it was therefore true that it was by the Baron and the Action being brought upon a Covenant concerning his Houses and going with them though it be made to him and his Wife yet he may refuse quoad her and bring the Action alone And the Chief Iustice said that he remembred an Authority in an old Book that if a Bond be given to Baron and Feme the Husband shall bring the Action alone which shall be looked upon to be his refusal as to her Calthrop versus Phillips THE Question was Supersedeas must be delivered by the old Sheriff to the new one Mod. Rep. 222. in regard a Supersedeas is not returnable in the Court whether the old Sheriff is bound to deliver it over to the new one or no and it was urged that it ought not because the old Sheriff is to keép it for his indempnity and he may have occasion to plead it But on the other side it was insisted by Serjeant George Strode that it ought to be delivered to the new Sheriff and that there was a Writ in the Register which proved it fol. 295. and if it should be otherwise these inconveniences would follow 1. It would be
of a Bond was that the Defendant should shew the Plaintiff a sufficient discharge of an Annuity who pleaded that he tendered a good and sufficient discharge in general without setting it forth it was not good Mod. Rep. 67. 3. The Plea is that the Indenture had the usual Covenants but doth not set them forth and for that cause 't is also too general In 26 H. 8. 1. The Condition was for the performance of Covenants one whereof was that he should make such an Estate to the Plaintiff as his Council should advise The Defendant pleaded that he did make such Conveiance as the Council of the Plaintiff did advise and the Plea was held ill and too general because he shewed not the Nature of the Conveyance and yet performance was pleaded according to the Covenant But notwithstanding these Exceptions the whole Court were of Opinion that this Plea was good for if the Defendant had set forth the whole Deed verbatim yet because the Lands are in Jamaica and the Covenants are intended such as are usual there the Court cannot judge of them but they must be tried by the Iury. He hath set forth that the Conveyance was by a Deed of Bargain and Sale which is well enough and so it had been if by Grant because the Lands lying in Jamaica pass by Grant and no Livery and Seisin is necessary if any Covenants were unreasonable and not usual they are to be shewed on the other side And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Spring versus Eve Verdict cures the misrecital of the time of the Session of Parliament DEBT upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 4. by the Sheriff for his Fées for serving of an Execution After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in an arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Pemberton because the time of holding the Parliament was mis-recited being mistaken in both the Statute Books of Poulton and Keble as it appeared by the Parliament Roll whereupon Iudgment was staied till this Term and the Court had Copies out of the Rolls of the time when the Parliament was held and they were all clear of Opinion that the time was mistaken in the Declaration and so are all the Presidents for the Plaintiff here declared that this Statute was made at a Session of Parliament by Prorogation held at Westminster 15 Febr. 29 Eliz. and there continued till the dissolution of the same whereas in truth the Parliament began 29 Octob. and not on the 15th of February for it was adjourned from that time to the 15th of February and then continued till it was dissolved My Lord Coke in his 4th Institutes fol. 7. takes notice of this mistake in the printed Books But the Court were all of Opinion Curia that though it was mistaken and ought to have been otherwise yet being after * Dyer 95. Yelvert 127. 2 Cro. 111. pl. 9. Br. Abr. tit Parl. 87. Verdict 't is well enough and the rather because this is a particular Act of Parliament and so they are not bound to take notice of it and therefore if it be mistaken the Defendant ought to have pleaded Nul tiel Record but since he hath admitted it by Pleading they will intend that there is such a Statute as the Plaintiff hath alledged and they could not judicially take notice of the contrary The Serjeant perceiving the Opinion of the Court desired time to speak to it being a new Point and told the Court that they ought to take notice of the Commencement of private Acts which the whole Court denyed And the Chief Iustice said that they were not bound to take notice of the Commencement of a general Act for the Court was only to expound it and though this had not been in the Case of a particular Act where 't is clear the Defendant ought to plead Nul tiel record yet being after Verdict 't is well enough because the Party took no benefit of it upon the Demurrer and because of the multiplicity of Presidents which run that way So in the Case upon the Statute of Tythes though it be mistaken yet it hath often been held good as if an Action be brought upon that Statute for not setting out of Tythes declaring quod cum quarto die Novembris anno secundo Edw. 6. It was Enacted c. and the Parliament began 1 Ed. 6. and was continued by Prorogation until 4 Novembris yet this hath often been held good and Multitudo errantium tollit peccatum And though in this Case the Parliament was adjourned but in that upon the Statute of Ed. 6. it was prorogued yet the Chief Iustice said that as to this purpose there was but little difference between an Adjournment and a Prorogation for an Adjournment is properly where the House adjourn themselves and a Prorogation is when the King adjourns them But Iustice Atkins doubted whether the Court ought not to take notice of the Commencement of a general Act and could have wished that there had been no such resolution as there was in the Case of Partridge and Strange in Pl. Commentaries for that he was satisfied with the Argument of Serjeant Morgan in that Case who argued against that Iudgment and held that he who vouched a Record and varies either in the Year or Term hath failed of his Record But since there had been so many Authoritis since in confirmation of that Case he would say nothing against it But he held that there was a manifest difference betwéen an Adjournment and a Prorogation for an Adjournment makes a Session continue but after a Prorogation all must begin de novo and that an Adjournment is not always made by themselves for the Chancellor hath adjourned the House of Péers ex mandato Domini Regis and Queen Elizabeth adjourned the House of Commons by Commission under the Great Seal 4 Iust 7 Mires versus Solebay Servant shall not be charged in Trover for taking Goods by the Command of his Master IN a Special Verdict in Trover and Conversion the Case was this viz. H. being possessed of several Sheep sells them in a Market to Alston but did not deliver them to the Vendée and afterwards in that very Market they discharge each other of this Contract and a new Agreément was made between them which was that Alston should drive the Sheep home and depasture them till such a time and that during that time H. would pay him so much every Week for their Pasture and if at the end of that time then agreed between them Alston would pay H. so much for his Sheep being a price then also agreed on that then Alston should have them Before the time was expired H. sells the Sheep to the Plaintiff Mires and afterwards Alston sells them to one Marwood who brought a Replevin against the Plaintiff for taking of the Sheep and the Officers together with Solebay the Defendant who was Servant to Marwood did by his Order and in assistance
Defendant demands Dyer of the Indenture wherein was a variance between the Covenant which was for notice to be given to the Testator and this Declaration by which notice is averred to be given to the Executor and for this reason he demurred And Serjeant Dolben Recorder of London argued for him that this was in the Nature of a Condition precedent and therefore they ought to have given the Testator notice which according to the Agreement ought also to have been personal which not being done but only notice given to his Executor did make a material and fatal difference between the Covenant and this Declaration 14 H. 6. 1. 1 H. 6. 9. And that in this Case there was no Covenant by the Testator at all for all agree to pay their proportions and the Testator should pay his part which is not a Covenant Barrel Serjeant on the other side said that the Executor doth represent the person of the Testator and that though this Covenant was to give notice to the Testator yet if the Declaration had been of a Covenant to give notice to him his Executors and Administrators c. it had been no material variance so as to prejudice the Action of the Plaintiff because 't is no more than what the Law implies Pl. Com. 192. And upon the first opening this Matter this Term the Chief Iustice and Iustice Atkins enclined that the notice ought to be personal and that the variance was material But afterwards in Hillary Term following mutata opinione the whole Court agreed it to be otherwise because the Covenant runs in Interest and Charge and so the Executor is bound to pay and therefore 't is necessary that he should have notice and that there was no material difference between the Declaration and the Covenant And lastly Antea that the Testator being a Party to the Deed his Agreement to pay amounts to a Covenant though the formal Words of Covenant Grant c. were wanting But then Serjeant Dolben perceiving the Opinion of the Court insisted that the Declaration was naught for another reason viz. they had not declared that this notice was given in writing which is expresly agreed in the Covenant to which it was answered that the Defendant having pleaded that he gave notice secundum formam effectum Conditionis it was well enough But he said that would not help the want of Substance Dyer 243. b. and cited a Case where an Action of Debt was brought for the performance of an Award so as the same was delivered in Writing c. The Defendant pleaded Non deliberavit in scriptis The Plaintiff replyed and set forth the Award in Writing but did not directly answer the Plea of delivering it in Writing only by way of Argument and upon Demurrer there omnes Justiciarii contra Querentem and so they were in this Case that the notice must be pleaded in Writing and that secundum formam Conditionis was not good And so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Frosdick versus Sterling THE Plaintiff alone brought an Action on the Case against the Defendant and sets forth Baron and Feme where the Action if it s not discharged shall survive to her they must both join that he and his Wife in her Right were seised of a Messuage Bake-House and Cole-Yard c. and that the Defendant had erected two Houses of Office so near the said Bake-House that the Walls thereof became foundrous and the Air so unwholesome that he lost his Custom and that the Defendant had digged a Pit so near the said Cole-Yard that the Walls thereof were in danger of falling and that he had built another Wall so near the said Messuage that he had stopped an old Light therein Vpon Not-guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff And now Serjeant George Strode moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Wife should have been joyned in this Action for where she may maintain an Action for a tort done in the Life-time of her Husband if she survive and where she may also recover Damages in such Cases she must joyn and it hath been adjudged that she ought to joyn with her Husband for stopping a way upon her Land Cro. Car. 418. 1 Roll. Abr. 348. pl. 1. 20 H. 6. 1. â— Ed. 4. 15. Cro. El. 461. So also for cutting down Trees on the Ioynture of the Wife made to her by a former Husband by reason whereof the present Husband lost the Loppings they both joyned for though the wrong was done to his Possession and he might have Released yet because there was also a wrong done to the Inheritance they ought both to joyn Cro. Car. 438. 3 Inst 650. So it hath been adjudged that the Husband and Wife in Right of the Wife jojned in an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. for not setting out of Tythes and held good and where the Wife cured a wound 2 Cro. 205 399. 9 E. 4. 55. both joyned in the Action 11 H. 4. 16. 46. E. 3. 3. The Court held That where the Action if not discharged shall survive to the Wife they ought both to joyn which if they had done here it would have been hard to have maintained this Action because entire Damages are given and for losing the Custom to his Bake-house the Husband alone ought to have brought the Action He may bring an Ejectment of the Lands of his Wife but Iudgment was stayed till moved on the other side Barker versus Warren Justification where 't is not local a Traverse of the place makes the Plea naught AN Action was brought against a Carrier and laid in London for losing of Goods there which were delivered to him at Beverly in Yorkshire to re-deliver at London The Defendant pleads That he was robbed of the said Goods at Lincoln absqe hoc that he lost them in London And the Plaintiff demurred 1. For that Robbery is no excuse for a Common Carrier so that the Plea is not good in substance 2. This was no local Iustification so that the Traverse was ill But on the other side it was said by Serjeant Hopkins that the Plea was good and that the Defendant might Traverse the place For in Trespass for the taking of Goods in Coventry the Defendand pleaded that the Plaintiff did deliver the Goods to him at London to deliver at Dale by force whereof he took them at London and delivered them at Dale accordingly absque hoc that he took them at Coventry and held good for by his Plea he hath confessed the delivery and the taking both at one time and place and he could not have pleaded the delivery at London and justifie the taking at Coventry because the Possession is confessed by the first delivery at London and therefore the justification of the taking at Coventry had been inconsistent 24 H. 6. 5. But it had been otherwise if the Defendant had justified because the Plaintiff
Heirs and Assigns that he and they from time to time during the said Lease should have liberty and full power to Fell the said Trees and root them up repairing the Hedges where they did grow That the said Martin granted some of the Trees to the Defendant by virtue whereof he and the rest of his Servants did cut them down which is the same breaking of the Close of which the Plaintiff complains To which Plea Mr. Pollexfen did demurr for the Insufficiency because the Defendant did not shew that upon cutting down the Trees he did repair the Hedges as by the Agreement ought to have been done for this being a limited and qualified power ought to be set forth at large and that it was a power only annexed to the Reversion and not assignable to any one else and so the Defendant hath wholly failed in his Plea he might have justified under Martin but not in any of their own Rights But the Court were of Opinion That an Action doth lie in this Case both against the Lessor and his Assignee acting under his Power and they agreed that a bare power was not assignable but where 't is coupled with an Interest it may be assigned and here was an Interest annexed to the power for the Lessor might sever the Trees from the Reversion Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Scoble versus Skelton Presciption must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee THE Plaintiff declared That he was seised of a Tenement called East and the Defendant of another Tenement called West Travallock and that he and all those whose Estate he had did use to fetch Pot Water from the Defendants Close c. Issue was taken upon this Prescription and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Mr. Pollexfen moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration did set forth generally that he was seised and it did not appear it was in Fee for if it be for Life only then the Action doth not lie because a Prescription cannot be annexed to an Estate for Life Tremain insisted that the Declaration was sufficient and certain enough for when the Plaintiff doth alledge that he was seised generally it shall be intended a seisin in Fee especially after Verdict But the Court held the Declaration to be defective in Substance because a Prescription cannot be annexed to any thing but an Estate in Fee and therefore 't is not helped after Verdict The Iudgment was reversed Putt versus Roster A Recovery in Trespass good Plea in bar to an Action of Trover TRespass for taking of his Cattle The Defendant justifies for a Herriot and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment The Plaintiff did afterwards bring an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same Cattle and the Defendant pleaded the former Iudgment in Trespass in barr to this Action of Trover and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Maynard argued That the Plea was not good because Trespass and Trover are distinct Actions and one may be where the other is not as if an Infant give Goods to one an Action of Trover doth lie to recover them but Trespass will not So if Goods be delivered to another and he refuse to deliver them upon demand Trover but not Trespass will lie and therefore these being different Actions a Recovery in one shall be no barr to the other A Formedon brought in the Descender and Iudgment thereon is not pleadable in barr to a Formedon in Remainder There is a great difference between a barr to the Action 5 Co. 33.6 Co. 37. a. Cro. El. 667. Eo Entr. 38. b. 2 Cro. 15. pl. 20. Antea and to the Right as where an Administrator sues not knowing that he was made Executor and Iudgment against him and he afterwards proved the Will and brought an Action as Executor the former Iudgment had against him as Administrator shall not be a barr to this new Action because 't is not a barr to the Right for by misconceiving his Action the former abated But Mr. Holt argued That these were Actions of the same nature and therfore a Iudgment in one was a good Plea in barr to the other Trespass or Trover lies for taking or carrying away the Goods of another and when he hath made his Election which to bring a Recovery there shall be a perpetual barr to the other In an Appeal of Mayhem 4 Co. 39. the Defendant pleaded a former Recovery in an Action of Assault and Battery and held good though one is of a higher nature than the other But the Court were of Opinion Curia Rose and Standen Antea That an Action of Trover doth lie where a Trespass doth not and if the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action that shall be no barr to him As to the Case put of the Mayhem Rozal and Lampen Antea that doth not agree with this because there can be no Mayhem without an Assault but there may by a Trover without a Trespass and though the Appeal of Mayhem be of a higher nature than the Assault because it doth suppose quod felonice Mayhemiavit yet the Plaintiff can only recover damages in both If a Man bring Trespass for the taking of a Horse and is barred in that Action yet if he can get the Horse in his possession the Defendant in the Trespass can have no Remedy because notwithstanding such Recovery the Property is still in the Plaintiff The Defendant in this Case hath justified the taking of the Cattle for a Herriot and by the Demurrer the justification is confessed to be true in fact now by the taking for a Herriot the property of the Goods was altered and wherever the Property is determined in Trespass an Action of Trover will never lie for the same but 't is a good Plea in barr and so it was adjudged here James versus Trollop Prescription for a Modus good ERror of a Iudgment in the Common-Pleas on an Action upon a Prohibition where the Plaintiff did suggest That William late Prior of Norbury in Staffordshire was seised of the said Mannor and of the Tythes thereof simul semel as of a portion of Tythes c. That the said Prior 25 H. 1. granted the said Mannor and Tythes to William Fitzherbert and his Heirs rendring Rent That the said Fitzherbert did Enter and was seised and held it discharged of Tythes that his Heirs afterwards granted two Hides of Land part of the said Mannor to S. with the Tythes at 5 s. Rent and so draws down a Title by Descent for 300 years to F. who being seised devised the same to Dorothy James under whom the Plaintiff in the Prohibition claimed and then concludes That Fitzherbert and all those whose Estate c. did pay the said Rent to the said Prior which since the Dissolution was paid to the King and his Assigns in discharge of all Tythes c. The Defendant having craved Oyer of the Deed demurred to the Suggestion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff
could not possibly secure them in his own House without subjecting himself to an Action and an Award that one Man shall take the Goods of another is void But if the Plea is not good yet if the Vmpirage be naught Iudgment is to be given for the Defendant for the advantage is saved to him upon the Demurrer And as to that the Vmpirage is but of one side for the Plaintiff is to do nothing nor is the Defendant to be acquitted of all Suits To which it was answered by the Plaintiff's Council That the Vmpirage was of both sides for there being Suits depending 't is awarded that each shall bear his own Charges which is a benefit to the Defendant for otherwise seing the right was in the Plaintiff the Defendant should have paid the Plaintiffs Costs as well as his own for which he cannot now sue without forfeiting his Bond Curia advisare vult Squibb versus Hole THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Escape Escape Action of Escape the Process was upon Bond not made within the Jurisdiction of an Inferiour Court and therefore no Escape and declares That he prosecuted one J. S. in the court of Ely upon a Bond made infra Jurisdictionem of that Court upon which he was taken and the Defendant suffered him to Escape Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict to this effect viz. That there was such a Bond upon which there was such a prosecution and such an Escape as in the Declaration but they find farther that this Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae Maynard Serjeant who Argued for the Plaintiff said that this Action was commenced in an Inferiour Court upon a Bond which the Plaintiff sets forth to be infra Jurisdictionem Curiae and that the Defendant was Arrested and suffered to Escape and whether if in truth the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem an Action of Escape would lye or whether all the proceédings are coram non Judice was the doubt He took a difference where an Inferiour Court hath an Original Iurisdiction of the Cause and hath conusance of such a Suit as is brought there for in such Cases the proceedings are not extra-judicial but if an Action is brought where properly no Action doth lye all the proceedings there are coram non Judice At the Common Law one who had a particular Iurisdiction to hold Pleas within a Liberty could not hold any Plea of a thing which did arise out of the Liberty for though it was transitory in its nature yet being alledged not within his Iurisdiction it was ill 2 Inst 231. But when the cause of Action arises infra Jurisdictionem that gives them Authority to proceed and therefore it would be hard that the Iudge and Officer should be punished by a construction to make all extra judicial when they have no possible way of finding whether in truth the Cause did arise within the * Post Crowder and Goodwin Iurisdiction of the Court or not But the Officer is bound to obey the Process of the Court if it appear as in this Case that they had conusance of it the Iudge is likewise bound to grant the Process otherwise he is subject to the Plantiffs Action for his refusal In some Cases the Plaintiff himself may not know where the Bond was made as if he be Executor of the Obligee c. Besides in this Case 't is set forth That in the Action below the Defendant pleaded non est factum and so had admitted the Iurisdiction or at least had waived it and it would be an insufferable mischief if after all this labour and charge the Defendant might avoid all again North Chief Iustice said That if this Cause had been tryed before him he would have Non-suited the Plaintiff because he had not proved the truth of what he laid down in his Declaration viz. That the Bond was made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae But as to the Matter as it stood upon the special Verdict he inclined that as to the Plaintiff who knew where the Bond was made all the proceedings were coram non Judice but as to the Officer it was otherwise for the Pleint and Process would be a good Excuse for him in an Action of false Imprisonment Judgment And afterwards by the Opinion of three Iudges viz. the Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkyns Iustices Iudgment was given for the Defendant That this was no Escape and that though the Party had admitted the Iurisdiction by his Plea of non est factum below yet that could not give the Court any Iurisdiction which had not any originally in the Cause and the Case of * Roll. Abt. tit Escape 809 pl. 45. Richardson versus Bernard was cited as an Authority in point where the Plaintiff in an Action brought against an Officer declared in Hull upon a Bond made at Hallifax and had Iudgment and Execution and the Defendant escaped And in an Action brought for this Escape the Declaration was held ill because it did not alledge the Bond to be made infra Jurisdictionem Curiae Ellis Iustice of a contrary Opinion in omnibus Sams versus Dangerfield THE Plaintiff being Collector of the Hearth-Mony Departure brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against his Sub-Collector conditioned to pay such Sums as he should receive within 14 days after receipt at such a place in the City of Worcester as the Plaintiff should appoint The Defendant pleads payment The Plaintiff assigns a breach in non-payment of such a Sum received at a place by him appointed The Defendant rejoyns that the Plaintiff appointed no place and the Plaintiff demurr'd And after Argument for the Plaintiff by Jones Serjeant this was adjudged a departure because the Defendant ought to have pleaded first that he had paid all but such a Sum for which as yet the Plaintiff had appointed no place of payment and Iudgment was given accordingly Smith versus Hall IN an Action brought against the Defendant for false Imprisonment he justified by virtue of a Latitat False Imprisonment doth not lye but an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for refusing sufficient Bail which the Plaintiff agreed in his Replication but farther set forth that after the Arrest and before the Return of the Writ he tendered sufficient Bail which the Defendant refused and Issue was joyned upon the tender which was found for the Plaintiff Newdigate Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Though it was an Offence in the Defendant who was the Sheriff's Bayliff to refuse good Bail when tendred yet 't is not an Offence within the Statute 23 H. 6. cap. 10. because a Sheriffs Bayliff is not an Officer intended in that Statute neither will this Offence make him a Trespasser ab initio because the taking was by lawfull Process Cro. Car. 196. * Roll. Abr. 2 part 561. pl. 9. Salmon versus Percival The Defendant as Bayliff to the Sheriff is not the proper Officer to
is altogether incertain for it doth not appear what is due 28 H. 8. Dyer 28. 9 Ed. 4. 16. 12 H. 8. 6. a. Ex parte Def. But it was argued for the Defendant that he need not Traverse the Accompt As to the first Objection made that the Plea is not good because it doth not answer the Declaration the Rule as to that purpose is generally good but then the Plaintiff must tell all his Case which if he omits he must then give the Defendant leave to tell where his omission is Sometimes a thing which belongs properly to another may be pleaded in bar or discharge to avoid circuity of Actions as one Covenant may be pleaded to another 1 H. 7. 15. 20 H. 7. 4. So where the Lesseé is to be dispunishable of waste he may plead it to a Writ of waste The Books note a difference where the Covenant is one or two Sentences for in the first case one Covenant may be pleaded in discharge of another but not in the last Keilway 34. 'T is true if the second Covenant had been distinct and independent it could not have been thus pleaded but in this Case 't is not said that the Covenantor for himself his Executors and Administrators doth Covenant c. but ulterius agreat̄ provisum est so that as t is penned provisum est makes a Condition and then the sense is I will accompt if you will discompt and if you refuse to discompt I cannot be charged Dyer 6. 'T is inutilis labor to make up an accompt If the other will not allow what he ought if there be an Annuity pro consilio impenso c. and he will not pay the Mony the other is not to be compelled to give his advice Fitzh Annuity 27. 25 E. 2. Annuity 44. Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for Arbitrations Wills and Acts of Parliament are to be taken according to the meaning of the Parties and Damages are to be given according to the merit of the Case In this Case the Defendant is bound to accompt upon request and to pay what Mony is due upon the Accompt and 't is an impertinent question for the Defendant to ask him to make allowance for Parsons Dinners before they come to accompt 'T is as if a Bailiff should say to his Lord I have laid out so much Mony and I will not accompt with you unless you will allow it this is a Capitulation before-hand and is very insignificant by way of discharge They have each a remedy upon these mutual Covenants and the provisum agreat̄ est doth not amount to a Condition but is a Covenant and Iudgment was given accordingly Iustice Ellis said he had a Manuscript Report of the Case of Ware and Chappel which he said was adjudged upon great Debate Stoutfil's Case PRohibition Tythes not to be paid for Brick or Pidgeons It was agreed clearly that no Tythes ought to be paid for Brick because 't is part of the Soil and so it has been often adjudged And it was also said that Tythes shall not be paid for Pidgeons unless it be by special Custom Columbel versus Columbel THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 500 l. Award pleaded under Seal and not under Hand not good The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was to observe an Award of A. B. Arbitrator indifferently chosen to determine all manner of Controversies Quarrels and Demands concerning the Title of certain Lands so as the said Award were made and put into writing under the Hand and Seal of the Arbitrator c. and then he pleads that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replies an Award by which such things were to be done and sets it forth in haec verba under the Seal of the Arbitrator The Defendant rejoyns that the Arbitrator made no Award under his Hand and Seal according to the Condition of the Bond. The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Defendant ought to plead the Award under the Hand as well as the Seal of the Arbitrator for when he produces it in Court as he doth by a profert hic in Curia he must plead it formally as well as produce it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Norris versus Trist Livery secundum formam Chartae where good IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was A Deéd is made to threé Habendum to two for their Lives Remainder to the third for his Life and Livery and Seisin is made to all thrée secundum formam Chartae And whether the Livery so made as if they had all Estates in possession whereas in truth one of them had but an Estate in Remainder was good was the Question On the one side it was said by Serjeant Seys that possession in this Case was delivered according to the form of the Deéd within mentioned which must be to two for Life Remainder to the third person and Livery and Seisin being only to accomplish and perfect the Common Assurances of the Land ought to be taken favourably ut res magis valeat quam pereat and therefore if a Feoffment be made of two Acres and a Letter of Attorny to give Livery and the Attorny only enters into one Acre and gives Livery secundum formam Chartae both the Acres pass Dyer 131 40. Coke Litt. 52. a. But on the other side Serjeant Maynard said that there was something more in this Case than what had béen opened for there was a Letter of Attorney made to give Livery to two and instead of doing that he makes Livery to them all which is no good Execution of his Authority and therefore no Livery was made the Authority not being pursued As to the Case in the 1st Institutes my Lord Coke errs very much there in that discourse for in saying that if there be a Feoffment of two Acres and a Letter of Attorney to take possession of both and he maketh Livery of both but taketh possession but of one and that both pass 't is not Law but if the Authority be general as to make Livery and Seisin and he take possession of one and then makes Livery of more secundum formam Chartae that is good and this is the difference taken in the Books 5 Ed. 3. 65. 3 Ed. 3. 32. 43 Ed. 3. 32. 27 H. 8. 6. The Remainder Man in this Case is a méer Stranger to the Livery There is also a manifest difference betwéen a Matter of Interest and an Execution of an Authority for in the first Case it shall be construed according to the Interest which either hath but an Authority must be strictly pursued The Court were all of Opinion that the Livery in this Case was good to two for their Lives Remainder to the third person Curia And the Chief Iustice said that whatever the ancient Opinions were about pursuing
Case could not be supposed to prevent the Forfeiture because if that had been the Iury would have found it the meaning of the Parties must make a Construction here and that seems very strong that 't is a good Lease but they gave no Iudgment Wilkinson versus Sir Richard Lloyd Where the Parties shall join in an Action where not THE Defendant covenanted that he would not agreé for the taking the Farm of the Excise of Beer and Ale for the County of York without the Consent of the Plaintiff and another and the Plaintiff alone brought this Action of Covenant and assigns for breach the Defendants agréeing for the said Excise without his Consent upon which the Plaintiff had a Verdict and 1000 l. damages given And Serjeant Pemberton moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that an Action of Covenant would not lie in this Case by the Plaintiff alone because he ought to have joined with the other both of them having a joint Interest and so is Slingsby's Case 5 Co. If a Bond is made to two joyntly and severally they must both join in an Action of Debt so here 't is a joint contract and both must be Plaintiffs So also if one covenants with two to pay each of them 20 l. they must both join 'T is true in Slingsbies Case 't was held if an Assurance is made to A. of White Acre and to B. of Black Acre and to C. of Green Acre and a Covenant with them and every of them these last Words make the Covenant several But here is nothing of a several interest no more than that one covenants with two that he will not join in a Lease without their Consent so that their Interest not being divided the Covenant shall be entire and taken according to the first Words to be a joint Covenant and the rather because if the Plaintiff may maintain this Action alone the other may bring a second Action and the Defendant will be subject to entire damages which may be given in both Judgment But the Court was of another Opinion that here was no joint Interest but that each of the Covenantees might maintain an Action for his particular damages or otherwise one of them might be remediless for suppose one of them had given his Consent that the Defendant should farm this Excise and had secretly received some satisfaction or recompence for so doing is it reasonable that the other should lose his remedy who never did consent For which reason the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Page versus Tulse Mil ' alios Vic' Midd ' THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for a false Return Case lies not against the Sheriff for returning a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though the Party doth not appear Mod. Rep. 239. Ellis and Yarborough post setting forth that he sued a Capias out of this Court directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex by vertue whereof he arrested the Party and took Bail for his appearance and at the day of the Return of the Writ the Sheriff returned Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he had not the Body there at the Return of the Writ but suffered him to escape The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. and saith that he took Bail viz. two sufficient Sureties and so let him go at large c. The Plaintiff demurrs and whether this Action lies against the Defendant was the Question who refused to proceed against him by way of Amerciament or to take an Assignment of the Bail-Bond This Case depended in Court several Terms It was argued by Serjeant Pemberton and Serjeant Coniers for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant George Strode for the Defendant and Iudgment was given in Easter Term in the 29th year of this King In the Argument for the Defendant that this Action would not lie it was considered Ex parte Def. 1. What the Common Law was before the making of this Statute 2. What alteration thereof the Statute had made At the Common Law Men were to appear personally to ansswer the Writ the Form of which required it and no Attorney could be made in any Action till Edw. 1. de gratia speciali gave leave to his Subjects to appoint them and commanded his Iudges to admit them 2 Inst 377. After the Arrest the Sheriff mighttie the Party to what Conditions he pleased and he might keep him till he had complied with such Conditions which often ended in taking extravagant Bonds and sometimes in other Oppressions for remedy whereof this Statute was made in which the Clause that concerns this Case is viz. If the Sheriff return upon any person Cepi Corpus or Reddidit se that he shall be chargeable to have the Body at the day of the Return of the Writ in such form as before the making the Act so that as to the Return of the Writ this Statute hath made no alteration the Sheriff being bound to have the Party at a day as before All the alteration made of the Common Law by this Statute is that the Sheriff now is bound to let the Party out of Prison upon reasonable Sureties of sufficient persons which before he was not obliged to do and it would be a Case of great hardship upon all the Sheriffs of England if they being compellable to let out the Party to Bail should also be subject to an Action for so doing because they have him not at the day so that the intent of the Law must be when it charges the Sheriff to have the Body at the Return that he should be liable to a Penalty if the Party did not then appear not to be recovered by Action but by Amerciament Cro. Jac. 286. The Security directed by this Act is to be taken in the Sheriffs own Name 't is properly his business and for his own Indempnity and therefore it is left wholly in his power for which reason no Action will lie against him for taking insufficient Bail that being to his own prejudice in which the Plaintiff is no wise concerned for if that had beén intended by the Act some Provision would have beén made as to his being satisfied in the sufficiency of the Persons When the Security is thus taken if the Defendant doth not appear at the Return of the Writ the Plaintiff by Amerciaments shall compel him to bring in the Body or to assign the Bond either of which is a full satisfaction and as much as is required If the Sheriff refuse to take 2 Sand. 59 154 1 Roll. Abr. 807 808. Cro. Eliz. 460 852. Noy 39. Moor 428. Sid. 23. sufficient Sureties when offered he is liable to an Action on the Case at the Suit of the Defendant for his refusal and it would be very unreasonable to enforce him to have the Party in Court at the Return when he is obliged under a Penalty to let him at large This Action is grounded upon a false Return when in
enough and Iudgment was given accordingly When this Cause was tried at the Barr which was in Easter-Term last the Lord Mohun offered to give his Testimony for the Plaintiff but refused to be sworn offering to speak upon his Honour but Iustice Wyld told him in Causes between Party and Party he must be upon his Oath The Lord Mohun asked him whether he would answer it The Iudge replyed that he delivered it as his Opinion and because he knew not whether it might cause him to be questioned in another place he desired the rest of the Iudges to deliver their Opinions which they all did and said he ought to be sworn and so he was but with a salvo jure for he said there was an Order in the House of Peers That 't is against the Priviledge of the House for any Lord to be sworn Anonymus DEBT upon the Statute for not coming to Church and concludes Per quod Actio accrevit eidem Domino Regi quer̄ ad exigend ' habend ' The Exception after Iudgment was taken that it ought to have been only Actio accrevit eidem the Plaintiff qui tam c. and not exigend ' habend ' for the King and himself Sed non allocatur For upon search of Presidents the Court were all of Opinion that it was good either way Anonymus Factor where he cannot sell but for ready Mony IN Accompt Iudgment was given quod computet and the Defendant pleads before the Auditors that the Goods whereof he was to give a reasonable accompt were bona peritura and though he was carefull in the keeping of them yet they were much the worse that they remained in his hands for want of Buyers and were in danger of being worse and therefore he sold them upon Credit to a Man beyond Sea The Plaintiff demurred and after Argument by Barrel Serjeant for the Plaintiff and Baldwin Serjeant for the Defendant the whole Court were of Opinion that the Plea was not good Curia For if a Merchant deliver Goods to his Factor ad merchandizand ' he cannot sell them upon Credit but for ready Mony unless he hath a particular Commission from his Master so to do for if he can find no Buyers he is not answerable and if they are bona peritura and cannot be sold for Mony upon the delivery the Merchant must give him authority to sell upon Trust If they are burned or he is robbed without his own default he is not lyable and in this Case it was not pleaded that he could not sell the Goods for ready Mony and the Sale it self was made beyond Sea where the Buyer is not to be found like the Case of * 1 Bulst 103. Yelv. 202. Sadock and Burton where in Accompt against a Factor he pleads that he sold the Iewel to the King of Barbary for the Plaintiffs use and upon a Demurrer the Plea was held naught for when a Factor hath a bare Authorty to sell in such Case he hath no power to give a day of payment but must receive the Mony immediately upon the Sale Therefore in the Case at Barr if the Master is not bound by the Contract of the Servant without his Consent or at least the Goods coming to his use neither shall the Servant have Authority to sell without ready Mony unless he hath a particular Order for that purpose There was another thing moved in this Case for the Plaintiff that the Plea ought to be put in upon Oath for having pleaded that he could not sell without loss he ought to swear it Fitzh Accompt 47. But no Opinion was delivered herein only the Chief Iustice said that the Plaintiff ought to have required the Plea upon Oath for otherwise it was not necessary But for the substance of the Plea it was held ill and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Harris's Case SErjeant Hopkins moved for a Prohibition The Case was Husband dies his Wife Executrix she dies before Probate Administration must be to the next of kin of the Husband 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. A Man makes a Will and appoints his Wife to be Executrix and devises a Shilling to his Daughter for a Legacy and dies the Executrix before Probate of the Will dies also intestate and whether the Goods shall be distributed by the Act for settling Intestates Estates amongst the next of kin to the Executrix or to the next of kin to the Testator her Husband was the Question Since she dying before Probate her Husband in Iudgment of Law died also intestate This Case seems to be out of the Statute the Husband having made a Will and the Act intermeddles only where no Will is made The Court delivered no Iudgment in it but seemed to incline that the Statute did extend to this very Case and that Administration must be committed to the next of kin of the Husband but if there should be no distribution it must then be according to the Will of the Testator Reder versus Bradley IT was moved to reverse a Iudgment given in an Honour Court upon a Writ of false Iudgment brought here Judgment reversed in an inferior Court where the damage was laid to 30 l. The Plaintiff declared in the Action below that there was a Communication between him and the Defendant concerning the Service of his Son and it was agreéd between them that in consideration the Plaintiff would permit his Son to serve him the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff 30 s. The Plaintiff avers that he did permit his Son to serve him and that the Defendant hath not paid him the 30 s. There was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and the Exceptions now taken were 1. 'T is not said that the Iurors were electi ad triand ' c. 2. He lays his damage to 30 l. of which a Court Baron cannot hold Plea for the difference taken by my Lord Coke is where Damages are laid under 40 s. Costs may make it amount to more but where 't is laid above in such Case all is coram non Judice for which reason Iudgment was reversed but in this Court the Iudge doth not pronounce the Reversal as 't is done in the Kings Bench. Lane versus Robinson Inferior Court TRespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant justifies by vertue of an Execution in an Action of Trespass brought in a Hundred Court and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Pemberton took two Exceptions to the Plea 2 Cro. 443 526. Hob. 180. Sid. 348. 1. Because the inferior Court not being of Record cannot hold Plea of a Trespass quare vi armis contra pacem but it was not allowed for Trespasses are frequently brought there and the Plaintiff may declare either vi armis or contra pacem Postea 2. The Defendant reciting the Proceedings below saith taliter processum fuit whereas he ought particularly to set forth all that was done because not being in a Court
Construction can be made of them but that an Estate in possession was thereby intended to pass 4. Object That this Fine and Grant must be construed to enure according to the intent of the Parties ut res magis valeat and they never intended to make a Forfeiture Answ Certainly no Man ever intended to make a Forfeiture of his own Estate those are generally the effects of Ignorance and not of the Will as the Case of Gimlet and Sands Cro. Car. * 1 Roll. Abr. 856. 391. where Tenant in Fee makes a Feoffment to two to the use of himself for Life then to the use of his Wife for Life Remainder in Tail to his Son and Heir Remainder to his own right Heirs and afterwards he made another Feoffment to Smith with Warranty the Mother and Son join in another Feoffment adjudged that this was a Forfeiture of her Estate for life though she had no notice of the Warranty made by her Husband for the Feoffment made by him was a publick Act upon the Land and she ought to have taken notice of it and though by her joining in the Feoffment with her Son she did not intend to forfeit her Estate yet the Law adjudges according to what is done But in the Case at Barr the intention of the Parties may be collected by the Act done and there is great reason to presume that the Parties thereby intended to displace the Reversion for the Husband joyning in the Fine and in the Warranty if it was no divesting the Warranty is of no use Another Objection has been only mentioned which is that admitting this should amount to a displacing if the Estate had been in possession yet in this Case it would not because it was prevented by the Lease for years in being But that cannot hinder the execution of this Fine 't is a Fine sur concessit which is executory in its nature and doth not pass any Estate or take any effect 'till executed and so is the Book 41 5. 3. 14. b. But in this Case the Fine was executed which may be by matter in pais as well as by Scire facias and as to this purpose may be executed by the entry of the Conusor 1 Rep. 106. Dyer 376. b. without suing out any Execution 38 Ed. 3. Brook tit Scire facias 199. If there had been a Fine executed there would have beén little doubt left in this Case and by the Attornment of the Lessee for years it must be admitted that this Fine was executed as 8 Ed. 3. f. 44. For a Fine of a Reversion may be executed to all purposes by the Attornment of the Lessee for years and if so when a Fine executory is once executed 't is as good as a Fine sur Conusance de droit come ceo to make a forfeiture of the particular Estate Where a Feoffment is made and a Lease for years is in being the Feoffment is not good because in such case there must be a present transposition of the Estate Postea Moor and Pitt which is hindred by the Lease But in case of a Fine which is a Feoffment upon Record a Lease for years is no impediment or displacing of the Reversion for if Tenant in Tayl expectant upon a Lease for years levy a Fine 't is a discontinuance of the Tayl and notwithstanding this Lease the Fine has such an operation upon the Free-hold that it displaces the Reversion in Fee Co. Lit. 332. And therefore if a Lease for years prevents not a Discontinuance it will much less hinder a displacing in this case But no Iudgment was given now in this Case another matter being debated whether the Plaintiff could have Iudgment because he was barred by the Statute of Limitations for it did not appear that he had been in possession for twenty years past and the Verdict hath not found any Claim or that the Plaintiff was within the Proviso of the Act. Waterfield versus the Bishop of Chichester Oath Ex Officio not to be administred A Prohibition was granted last Easter-Term to the Bishop of Chichester upon a Suggestion made by Waterfield that he being chosen Churchwarden of the Parish Church of Arundel in the County of Sussex the Bishop tendered him an Oath ex officio which was that he should Present every Parishioner who had done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a printed Book delivered to him some of which Articles concern the Church-warden himself and so in effect he was to swear against himself in case of any default which is expressly against the Statute of 13 Car. 2. Sid. 232 cap. 12. which prohibits any person having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction to administer the Oath ex officio or any other Oath whereby the person to whom 't is administred may be charged to accuse himself of any criminal matter whereby he may be lyable to any Censure or punishment and because the Bishop had Excommunicated him for refusing such Oath he prayed a Prohibition which was granted quoad the compelling him to make any answer to the said Articles concerning himself and the Excommunication was discharged But now upon the motion of Serjeant Brampston a Consultation was awarded because it appeared by the Affidavit of the Commissary who tendred this Oath and likewise by the act of the Court that he was Excommunicated for refusing to take the Oath of a Church warden according to Law which was the only Oath tendred and therefore the ground of the Prohibition being false a Consultation was awarded In this Prohibition it was recited That the Bishop cannot give an Oath but in two cases viz. in matters Testamentary and Matrimonial whereas they have authority in many cases more 't is true also that until his Iurisdiction was increased by Act of Parliament he could hold Plea in none but those two causes 2 Inst 487 537. but by the Statute De circumspecte agatis and of Articuli Cleri he may now hold Plea in many other cases The Bishop informed the Lord Chief Iustice that the Plaintiff Waterfeild had caused 2000 of the Prohibitions to be printed in English and had dispersed them all over the Kingdom intituling them a true translated Copy of a Writ of Prohibition granted by the Lord Chief Iustice and other the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas in Easter-Term 1676. against the Bishop of Chichester who had proceeded against and Excommunicated one Thomas Waterfield a Churchwarden for refusing to take the Oath usually tendred to persons in such Office by which Writ the Illegality of all such Oaths is declared and the said Bishop commanded to take off his Excommunication And this was declared by the Court to be a most seditious Libel and gave order to enquire after the Printer that he might be prosecuted Eleanor Plummer versus Sir Jeremy Whitchot Intr. Trin. 27 or 28 Car. 2. Rot. 301. in B. R. IN an Action of Debt for an Escape Vpon Nil debet
should take revenge themselves for which reasons he held the Action will lye Atkyns Iustice contra This is not a common Action upon the Case but an Action founded upon the Statute of the 2 of R. 2. upon the Construction whereof the Resolution of this Case will depend whether the Action will lie or not And as to that he considered 1. The Occasion 2. The Scope 3. The parts of the Statute 1. The occasion of it is mentioned in Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower f. 173. nu 9 and 10. At the summoning of this Parliament the Bishop of St. Davids declared the Causes of their meeting and told both the Houses of the Mischiefs that had hapned by divers slanderous Persons and sowers of Discord which he said were Dogs that eat raw Flesh the meaning of which was that they devoured and eat one another to prevent which the Bishop desired a Remedy and his Request seemed to be the Occasion of making this Law for ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur Leges 2. The Scope of the Act was to restrain unruly Tongues from raising false Reports and telling Stories and Lyes of the Peers and Great Officers of the Kingdom so that the design of the Act was to prevent those imminent dangers which might arise and be occasioned by such false Slanders 3. Then the parts of the Act are three viz. reciting the Offence and the Mischief then mentioning the ill Effects and appointing of a Penalty From whence he Observed 1. That here was no new Offence made or declared for nothing was prohibited by this Statute but what was so at the Common Law before The Offences to be punished by this Act are mala in se and those are Offences against the Moral Law they must be such in their nature as bearing of false Witness and these are Offences against a common Person which he admitted to be aggravated by the eminency of the person against whom they were spoke but every uncivil Word or rude Expression spoken even of a Great Man will not bear an Action and therefore an Action will not lie upon this Statute for every false Lye but it must be horrible as well as false and such as were punishable in the High Commission Court which were enormous Crimes 12 Co. 43. By this description of the Offences and the consequences and effects thereof he said he could better judge whether the Words were actionable or not and he was of Opinion that the Statute did not extend to Words of a small and trivial nature nor to all Words which were actionable but only to such which were of a greater magnitude such by which Discord might arise between the Lords and Commons to the great peril of the Realm and such which were great Slanders and horrible Lies which are words purposely put into this Statute for the aggravation and distinction of the Crime and therefore such Words which are actionable at the Common Law may not be so within this Statute because not horrible great Scandals He did not deny but that these were undecent and uncivil words and very ill applied to that honourable person of whom they were spoken but no body could think that they were horrible great slanders or that any debate might arise between the Lords and Commons by reason such words were spoken of this Peer or that it should tend to the great peril of the Kingdom and the quick destruction thereof such as these were not likely to be the effects and consequences of these Words and therefore could not be within the meaning of the Act because they do not agree with the discription given in it 2. Here is no new punishment inflicted on the Offender for at the Common Law any person for such Offences as herein are described might have been Fined and Imprisoned either upon Indictment or Information brought against him and no other punishment is given here but Imprisonment Even at the Common Law scandal of a Peer might be punished by Pillory and loss of Ears 5 Co. 125. De Libellis Famosis 12 Co. 37. 9 Co. 59. Lamb's Case So that it appears this was an Offence at the Common Law but aggravated now because against an Act of Parliament which is a positive Law much like a Proclamation which is set forth to enforce the execution of a Law by which the Offence is afterwards greater He did agree that an Action would lie upon this Statute though there were no express Words to give it to a Peer because where there is a Prohibition and a Wrong and Damage arises to the Party by doing the thing prohibited in such Case the Common Law doth intitle the Party to an Action 10 Co. 75. 12 Co. 100 103. And such was the Resolution in the Earl of Northampton's Case upon construction of the Law as incident to the Statute and as the Offence is greater because of the Act and as the Action will lie upon the Statute so the Party injured may sue in a qui tam which he could not have done before the making this Law 3. But that such words as these were not actionable at the Common Law much less by the Statute for the Defendant spoke only his Iudgment and Opinion and doth not directly charge the Plaintiff with any thing and might well be resembled to such Cases as are in Rolls Abridgm 1 part 57. pl 30. which is a little more solemn because adjudged upon a special Verdict the Words were spoken of a Iustice of Peace Thou art a Blood-Sucker and not fit to live in a Commonwealth These were not held actionable because they neither relate to his Office or fix any Crime upon him Fol. 43. in the same Book Thou deservest to be hanged not actionable because it was only his Opinion So where the Words are general without any particular Circumstances they make no impression and gain no credit and therefore in Cro. Car. 111. 1 Roll. Abridgm 107. pl. 43. You are no true Subject to the King the Action would not lie In this Case 't is said the Plaintiff acts against Law which doth not imply a Habit in him so to do and when Words may as well be taken in a mild as in a severe Sense the Rule is quod in mitiori sensu accipienda sunt Now these Words are capable of such a favourable construction for no more was said of the Plaintiff than what in some sense may be said of every person whatsoever for who can boast of his Innocency who keeps close in all his actions to Law and Reason and to say A Man acts against both may imply that he departed from those Rules in some particular Cases where it was the Error of his Iudgment only In the Duke of Buckingham's Case Sheppard's Abridgment 1 part f. 28. Viz. You are used to do things against Law and mentions a particular fact there indeed because of Usage of the ill practice it was held that an Action lies but if he had been
many Settlements would be shaken in which nothing was more usual now than to Covenant to stand seised to the Vse of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body c. They all agreed also That the Estate being well limited William should take per formam Doni as special Heir for Voluntas Donatoris in charta manifeste expressa observetur and 't is apparent Thomas intended that William should have it or else the Limitation to his Heirs Males had been needless So that taking it for granted that the Estate Tail once vested is not spent by his dying without Issue but it comes to William by descent and not as a Purchasor for so he could not take it because he is not Heir and till Thomas be dead without Issue the Tail cannot be spent so there was no difficulty in that Point And they held the Opinions of Dyer and Saunders in Creswold's Case to be good Law who were divided from the other Iustices but they doubted of Pybus and Mitford 's Case whether it was Law or not they doubted also whether by any Construction Thomas could be said to have an Estate for Life by implication they doubted also of the springing Vse but they held that this Limitation was good in its creation and Iudgment was given accordingly Cockram Executor versus Welby Statute of Limitations not pleadable by a Sheriff who levied mony by fi fa. and nine years pass Mod. Rep. 245. IN Debt the Plaintiff declared that his Testator recovered a Iudgment in this Court upon which he sued out a Fieri facias which he delivered to the Defendant being Sheriff of Lincoln and thereupon the said Sheriff returned Fieri feci but that he hath not paid the Mony to the Plaintiff per quod actio accrevit c. The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations to which the Plaintiff demurred And the question was whether this Action was barely grounded on the Contract or whether it had a Foundation upon matter of Record If on the Contract only then the Statute of 21 Jacobi cap. 16. is a good Plea to barr the Plaintiff of his Action which Enacts That all Actions of Debt grounded upon any Lending or Contract without Specialty shall be brought within six years next after the Cause of Action doth accrew and in this Case nine years had passed But if it be grounded upon matter of Record that is a Specialty and then the Statute is no barr Serjeant Barrel held this to be a Debt upon a Contract without specialty for when the Sheriff had levied the Mony the Action ceases against the Party and then the Law creates a Contract and makes him Debtor as it is in the Case of a Tally delivered to a Customer It lies against an Executor where the Action arises quasi ex contractu which it would not do if it did not arise ex maleficio as in the Case of a Devastavit 'T is true The Iudgment recovered by the Testator is now set forth by the Plaintiff Executor but that is not the ground but only an inducement to the Action for the Plaintiff could not have pleaded nul tiel Record so that 't is the meer receiving the Mony which charges the Defendant and not virtute Officii upon a false return for upon the receipt of the Mony he is become Debtor whether the Writ be returned or not and the Law immediately creates a Contract and Contracts in Law are as much within the Statute as Actual Contracts made between the Parties All which was admitted on the other side but it was said that this Contract in Law was chiefly grounded upon the Record and compared it to the Case of Attornies Fees which hath been adjudged not to be within the Statute though it be quasi ex contractu because it depends upon Matter of Record Rolls Abridg. tit Debt 598. pl. 17. And afterwards in Michaelmas-Term following by the Opinions of the Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices it was held that this Case was not within the Statute because the Action was brought against the Defendant as an Officer who acted by vertue of an Execution in which Case the Law did create no Contract and that here was a Wrong done for which the Plaintiff had taken a proper remedy and therefore should not be barred by this Statute Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion for he said if another received Mony to his use due upon Bond the Receipt makes the Party subject to the Action and so is within the Statute But by the Opinions of the other Iustices Iugdment was given for the Plaintiff Major versus Grigg In Banco Regis THE Plaintiff brought an Action Covenant to save harmless and the Plaintiff sets forth no Title in the disturber good after Verdict Cro. Eliz. 914. Cro. Jac. 315 425. Vaugh. 120 121. 2 Sand. 178. Mod. Rep. 66. for that the Defendant Non indempnem conservavit ipsum de concernente occupation̄ quorundam clausorum c. secundum formam agreamenti and sets forth a disturbance by one who commenced a Suit against him in such a Term concernente occupation̄ clausorum praed ' but doth not set forth that the person suing had any Title which it was said ought to have been shewn as if a Man makes a Lease for years and covenants for quiet enjoyment in an Action brought by the Lessee upon that Covenant it must be shewn that there was a lawful Title in the person who disturbed or else the Action will not lie But this being after a Verdict and the Plaintiff setting forth in his Declaration that the disturber recovered per Judicium Curiae the Court now were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff Taylor versus Baker In Banco Regis Payment to the Marshal no discharge to the Plaintiff at whose Suit the Defendant was in Execution Jones 97. THE Case was viz. a Man being in Execution doth actually pay the Mony to the Marshal for which he was imprisoned and thereupon was discharged and whether he should pay it again to the Plaintiff upon a second Execution was the Question Sanders argued that he should not pay it again he said this Case was never adjudged and therefore could produce no Authority in Point to warrant his Opinion but parallel Cases there were many As if the Sheriff take Goods in Execution by vertue of a Fieri Facias whether he sells them or not yet being taken from the party against whom the Execution was sued he shall plead that taking in discharge of himself and shall not be liable to a second Execution though the Sheriff hath not returned the Writ and the reason is because the Defendant cannot avoid the Execution and he would therefore be in a very bad condition if he was to be charged the second time And if the Sheriff should die after the Goods are taken in Execution his Executors are liable to the Plaintiff to satisfie the debt for they have paid pro
gave him the Goods at London by force whereof he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry because by such Gift or Delivery he might justifie the taking any where as well as where the delivery was made 2. That the Declaration was ill for the Agreement was to deliver the Goods at London and the breach was that he left them at London and so but argumentative Aston pl. Red. 62. Herns Pleader 76. Brownl Pleadings 139. But the Court were of Opinion that the Declaration was good and the Plea was naught in substance but if it had been good the Traverse notwithstanding had been ill because the justification was not local 2 Cro. 45 372 though Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Nota Visne altered Propter necessiatem The Plaintiff had leave given by the Court to alter the Visne from London to Middlesex because all the Sittings in London were on a Saturday and his Witness was a Jew and would not appear that day Mendyke versus Stint PRohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London Prohibition to the Sheriffs Court after Verdict and Judgment comes too late The Suggestion was That the Plaintiff was sued in that Court in an Action on the Case and sets forth the Proceedings at large that there was a Verdict against him there and averred that the Contract upon which he was sued there revera was made in Middlesex and so the cause of Action did not arise within their Iurisdiction and upon Demurrer to the Prohibition Serjeant Pemberton argued 2 Inst 229 243 601. West 1. c. 35. F. N. B. 45. b. Hob. 106. 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to any Court as well Temporal as Spiritual where such Courts exceed their Bounds for both those Iurisdictions are united to the Imperial Crown it may be granted to the Dutchy Court if they hold Plea of Lands not parcel of the Dutchy 2. Though the Iury have here found that the Defendant assumpsit modo forma yet such finding as to time and place is not material nor is it any Estoppel in a new Action laid in another County to aver that it was for the same thing 'T is true both time and place may be made material by pleading and so it had been in this Case if the Iury had found the place precisely for it would have been an Estoppel The Verdict therefore is nothing and all they have done is coram non Judice The Case of * Antea Squib and Holt. Squib and Hole he cited as an Authority in point where it was adjudged no Escape in the Officer to let a Man at Liberty who was in Execution upon a Bond sued in an Inferior Court the Bond not being made within the Iurisdiction thereof Ex parte Def. But Maynard Dolben Goodfellow and Sympson Serjeants contra They agreed that where it appears by the Plaintiffs Libel that the Court had no Iurisdiction there a Prohibition lies at any time but if what is in the Declaration is laid infra jurisdictionem there the Party must plead extra jurisdictionem and if they refuse to plead to the Plea a Prohibition will lie after Sentence But here is an Action on the Case brought of which the Sheriffs Court can hold Plea and which is laid to be infra jurisdictionem and not denied by the Plaintiff in his Plea and therefore now after Verdict and Iudgment he comes too late for a Prohibition and upon this difference Prohibitions have been usually either granted or denied to the Spiritual Courts Though the Court hath not cognisance of the Cause yet the Proceedings are not coram non Judice for if it be alledged to be within the Iurisdiction and the Defendant takes no exception to it and then Sentence is given against him he hath there by admitted the Iurisdiction So where a Man sued for a Legacy in the Prerogative Court where the Will was proved Stiles 45. by the Opinion of Rolls C. J. 2 Roll. Abr. 318. and Sentence given and an Appeal to the Delegates and Sentence affirmed and then a Prohibition granted but without notice upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. for that the Parties lived in another Diocess but the Plaintiff having allowed the Iurisdiction in all the former proceedings though the Prohibition was granted the Court would not compel the Party to appear and plead but granted a Consultation Cro. Car. 97. Smith versus the Executors of Pondrel In Hillary-Term 1675. in B.R. between Spring and Vernon and in Michaelmas-Term in 22 Car. 2. B. R. Buxton's Case and in Hillary Term the 22 23 Car. 2. in the same Court between Cox and St. Albon Prohibitions were denied after the Iurisdiction adadmitted by Pleading Mod. Rep. 81. The Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkyns upon the first Argument enclined that a Prohibition ought to be granted because the admittance of the Party cannot give a Iurisdiction where originally there was none but afterwards they were all of Opinion That the Prohibition should not go but said that the Plaintiff in the Inferiour Court ought to have been Non-suited if it appeared upon the Evidence that the Cause of Action did arise extra jurisdictionem In this Case these things were agreed by the Court. 1. Sid. 151. That if any matter appears in the Declaration which sheweth that the Cause of Action did not arise infra jurisdictionem there a Prohibition may be granted at any time 2. If the subject matter in the Declaration be not proper for the Iudgment and determination of such Court there also a Prohibition may be granted at any time 3. If the Defendant who intended to plead to the Iurisdiction is prevented by any Artifice as by giving a short day or by the Attornies refusing to plead it c. or if his Plea be not accepted or is over-ruled in all these Cases a Prohibition likewise will lie at any time And the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustices were of Opinion that after the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction by pleading to the Action especially if Verdict and Iudgment pass the Court will not examine whether the Cause of Action did arise out of the Iurisdiction or not But Atkyns and Scroggs Iustices said nothing to this last point but that many times an advantage given by the Law was lost by coming too late and instanced that a Visne may be changed in time but not if the Party come too late so if the time of the promise be laid above six years from the time of the Action brought if the Statute of Limitations be not pleaded the Defendant cannot take afterwards advantage of it Whereupon a Prohibition was denied and Iudgment was given for the Defendant Birch versus Wilson Plea tho' it amount to a general Issue if it doth disclose matter of Law besides it shall not be demurred unto IN an Action on the Case the Plaintiff declared
the space of 14 days after complaint made then the Sub-Commissioners of the Excise are to determine the same from whom no Appeal doth lye to the Justices of the Peace at their next Sessions which Commissioners of Excise Justices of the Peace and Sub-Commissioners amongst other things are inabled by the said Act to Issue out Warrants under their Hands c. to levie the Forfeitures and so justified the Entry under a Warrant from the Sub-Commissioners three Iustices having refused to hear and determine this Offence To this Plea the Plaintiffs demurred and had Iudgment in the Court of Kings-Bench and a Writ of Inquiry of Damages was Executed and 750 l. Damages given and it was alledged that the Defendant could not move to set aside the Iudgment in that Term it was given because the Writ of Inquiry was executed the last day of the Term and the Court did immediatly rise and that he could not move the next Term because the Iudgment was given the Term before the Writ of Error was brought The Attorny General therefore said that this was a hard Case and desired a Note of the Exceptions to the Plea which he would endeavour to maintain which Mr. Pollexfen gave him and then he desired time to answer them The Exception to the Plea upon which the Iudgment was given was this Viz. The Act giveth no power to the Sub-Commissioners to hear and determine the Offences and so to issue out Warrants for the Forfeitures but where the Iustices or any two of them refuse And though it was said by the Defendant that three refused yet it was not said that two did refuse for there is a great difference between the allegation of a thing in the Affirmative and in the Negative for if I affirm that A. B. C. did such a thing that affirmation goes to all of them but negatively it will not hold for if I say A. B. C. did not such a thing there I must add nec eorum aliquis So if an Action be brought against several Men and a Nolle prosequi is entred as to one and a Writ of Enquiry awarded against the rest which recites That the Plaintiff did by Bill implead naming those only against whom the Inquiry was awarded and leaves out him who got the Nolle prosequi this is a variance for it should have been brought against them all 'T is true where a Iudgment is recited 't is enough to mention those only against whom it is had but the Declaration must be against all so in a Writ of Error if one is dead he must be named and so the Iustices ought all to be named in this Case viz. that the three next Iustices did not hear and determine this Offence nec eorum aliquis Wells versus Wright In Communi Banco DEBT upon Bond conditioned Bond with an insensible Condition good that if the Obligée shall pay 20 l. in manner and form following that is to say 5 l. upon four several days therein named but if default shall be made in any of the Payments then the said Obligation shall be void or otherwise to stand in full force and vertue The Defendant pleads that tali die c. non solvit 5 l. c. and upon this the Plaintiff demurred Barrel Serjeant The first part of the Condition is good which is to pay the Mony and the other is surplusage void and insensible but if it be not void it may be good by transsposing thus viz. If he do pay then the Obligation shall be void if default shall be made in Payment then it shall be good and for Authority in the Point the Case of Vernon and Alsop was cited Sid. 105. 1 Sand. 66. 2 Sand. 79. Hill 14 Car. 2. Rot. 1786. in B. R. Where the Condition was that if the Obligée pay 2 s. per Week until the Sum of 7 l. 10 s. be paid viz. on every Saturday and if he fail in Payment at any one day that the Bond shall be void and upon the like Plea and Demurrer as here it was adjudged that the Obligation was single and the Condition repugnant The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff and the Chief Iustice said that he doubted whether the Case of 39 H. 6. 9 10. was Law Brittam versus Charnock Where the the Heir takes by the Will with a Charge he is a Purchaser and the Lands shall not be Assets DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Heir Vpon Riens per discent pleaded the Iury found a Special Verdict in which the Case was viz. The Father was seized of a Messuage and thrée Acres of Land in Fee and devised the same to his eldest Son the Defendant and his Heirs within four years after his decease provided the Son pay 20 l. to the Executrix towards the Payment of the Testators Debts and then he deviseth his other Lands to be sold for payment of Debts c. The Father dies the Son pays the 20 l. and if this Messuage c. was Assets in the Hands of the Defendant was the Question Cro. Car. 161. Cro. Eliz. 431. 833. Vaugh. 271. That it was not Assets it was said because the Heir shall not take by descent but by Purchase for the Word Paying is no Condition if it should the Heir is to enter for the breach and that is the Defendant himself and for that reason it shall be a Limitation Southcot and Stowel Antea 'T is true where there is no alteration of the Estate the Heir must take by descent but in this Case there is an alteration of the Estate from what is directed by the Law viz. the manner how he shall come by the Estate for no Fee passeth to him during the four years But this was denyed by Serjeant Pemberton for he said if a Devise be of Land to one and his Heirs within four years it is a present Devise and if such be made to the Heir 't is a descent in the mean time and those Words within four years are void so that the Question will be whether the Word Paying will make the Heir a Purchaser and he held it would not He agreed that it was usual to make that a Word of Limitation and not a Condition when the Devise is to the Heir and therefore in a Devise to the Heir at Law in Fée he shall take by descent Styles Rep. 148. But if this be neither a Condition or Limitation 't is a Charge upon the Land and such a Charge as the Heir cannot avoid in Equity North Chief Iustice and Atkins Where the Heir takes by a Will with a Charge as in this Case he doth not take by Descent but by Purchase and therfore this is no Assets Moor versus Pit SPecial Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Surrender of a Copyhold to a Disseisor whether good to extinguish the Right viz. A Copyholder for Life the Remainder for Life he in
new Will and the Grandson should take by the Name of Son And Iustice Atkins relied on the Case of Brett and Rigden in the Commentaries where new purchased Lands passed by a Republication but a Writ of Error being brought upon this Iudgment in the Kings Bench it was reversed Anonymus In Banco Regis MR. Sanders moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court in the Case of the Children of one Collet and Mary his Wife to stay Proceedings there upon a Libel against them that the said Collet had married Anne the Sister of the said Mary They both appear and confess the Matter upon which a Sentence of Divorce was to pass whereas in truth Collet was never married to Ann but it was a contrivance between him and his Wife to get themselves divorced and the Marriage declared void ab initio to defeat their Children of an Estate settled upon them in Marriage with Remainders over by bastardizing them after they had been married and lived together 16 years The Reason why a Prohibition was prayed was because Marriage or no Marriage was to be tried in pais for that the Inheritance and Freehold of Land were concerned in this Case The Court directed that they should suggest this Matter Curia and that it was a Contrivance to obtain a Sentence of Divorce to defeat them of their Estate entailed on them and then to move for a Prohibition Smallwood versus Brickhouse THE Suggestion was Spiritual Courts are proper to determine where a person is capable of making a Will Godolph 276. that B. being under the Age of sixteen years had made a Will and that the Prerogative Court proceeded to the proof of it whereas by the Common Law a person is not capable till 17 years and therefore a Prohibition was prayed And that the Common Law hath determined the time my Lord Coke's Comment upon Littleton was cited 1 Inst 89. b. where 't is said That at 18 years of Age he may make his Testament and constitute Executors and the Age of a person is triable also in pais But the Court said Curia that the Proof of Wills and the Validity of them doth belong to the Ecclesiastical Court and if they adjudge a person capable the Court will not intermeddle for 't is within their Iurisdiction to adjudge when a person is of Age to make a Will and sometimes they allow Wills made by persons of 14 years of Age and the Common Law hath appointed no time it depends wholly on the Spiritual Law and therefore a Prohibition was denied Joan Bailies Case NOTA. One Joan Bayly being in Execution Administration was committed to the Debtor in Execution the Plaintiff dyed intestate and the Right of Administration came to her and a Motion was made for a Habeas Corpus to bring her from the Compter into this Court for that having administred to her Creditor she might be discharged but it was denyed for she could not be thus discharged because non constat de persona neither can she give a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge satisfaction therefore let her renounce the Administration and get it granted to another and then she may be discharged by a Letter of Attorny from such Administrator Anonymus Mandamus MAndamus to swear one who was elected to be one of the Eight Men of Ashburn Court it was denyed because it is incertain for it ought specially to be inserted what the Office is and what is the place of one of the Eight Men of Ashburn Court that it may appear to the Court to be such a place for which a Mandamus doth lye and though such a Writ hath been granted for one of the approved Men of Guilford yet it was specially set forth what his Office was Birch versus Lingen Trin. 34 Car. 2. in B. R. Discontinuance where amendable JVdgment was obtained upon a Bond 25 years since and in one of the Continuances from one Term to another there was a blank The Executors of the Defendant now brought a Writ of Error and the Plaintiff in the Action got a Rule to amend and insert the Continuance suggesting to the Court that it was a Iudgment of a few Terms and so aided by the Statute of 16 17 Car. 2. cap. 8. Hughes Abr. tit Costs 480. 2 Sand. 289. Moor 710. Cro. Eliz. 320 489 553 619. Cro. Jac. 211 353 528. Vpon this Rule the Plaintiff fills up the Blank and the Record was certified so filled up into the Exchequer-Chamber And Mr. Pollexfen moved for the Defendant that the Record might stand as it did at first and that the Rule was got by a trick and on a false Suggestion it being a Iudgment before the Restoration of this King and a Discontinuance not amendable for 't is the Act of the Court and for an Authority in the Point the Case of Friend and Baker was cited where after a Record certified Stiles 339. a Motion was made to amend it because day was given over to the Parties from Easter to Michaelmas-Term and so Trinity-Term left out where by the Opinion of Roll Chief Iustice that the giving of a day more than is necessary is no Discontinuance but where a day is wanting 't is otherwise But Sanders for the Plaintiff said that this was only a Misprision of the Clerk and no Discontinuance but amendable The Clerks commonly leave Blanks in the Venires and if they neglect to fill them up 't is only a Misprision and amendable by the Court and the Record being now filled up by the Rule of the Court ought not to be razed to make an Error The Chief Iustice was of Opinion That this was not a discontinuance but an insufficient continuance and an omission of the Clerk only who if he had filled up this Blank himself without Rule it could not afterwards be set aside But Iustice Jones was of another Opinion That it was such a misprision of the Clerk as was not amendable by the Statute of H. 6. since it was not the same Term and all the Proceedings being in the Breast of the Court only during the Term it ought not to be altered but left in Blank as it was for where Iudgment is entred for the Plaintiff the Court may upon just cause alter it the same Term for the Defendant but not of another Term the whole Term being but one day in Law And though the Writ of Error be returned into the Exchequer that will make no alteration for the Record it self remains still here and 't is only a Transcript that is removed thither Sed Adjornatur Anonymus TRespass for breaking of his Close The Defendants plead Power where 't is coupled with an Interest is assignable That the place where were c. the Lands of one Martin who made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff and did thereby except the Trees growing on the same In which Lease the Plaintiff did Covenant with the said Martin his
Habens legale jus titulum need not shew what Title the disturber had after Verdict 213 In a Bond to pay 40 l. when an Accompt is stated by two Attornies to be chosen between the Parties 't is a Covenant and not a solvendum 266 Breach is assigned relating to three Covenants and concludes sic Conventionem fregit 't is good 311 Where an Agreement to pay will amount to a Covenant 269 Covenants reciprocal cannot be pleaded in bar to each other 34 75 76 309 Breach where assigned and not necessary to aver performance on the part of the Plaintiff 309 Court Inferiour the cause of Action must arise within the Jurisdiction 30 Judgment therein arrested because the Damages were laid to 30 l. 101 102 For not saying that the Jurors were electi ad triand ' 102 Taliter processum fuit and the proceedings not set forth at large well enough in a Plea but not in a Writ of Error 102 195 Vi armis contra pacem whether good or not 102 Cannot hold Plea for work done without the Jurisdiction though the Promise be made within 141 Cause of Action must appear to be within the Jurisdiction to oust the Courts above 197 Where it doth not appear that the Court was held either by Grant or Prescription good 197 198 If the cause of Action doth not appear to be within the Jurisdiction though there is a Judgment recovered below yet an Action of Trespass will lye and false Imprisonment upon the taking out of that Judgment 197 If upon Evidence it appear that the cause of Action did arise extra Jurisdictionem the Plaintiff must be non-suit 273 If Jurisdiction be admitted in pleading and Verdict and Judgment thereon t is too late for a Prohibition Ibid. Court Ecclesiastical In what Case a Bishop shall administer an Oath in Temporal Matters 118 Custom One cannot be pleaded in bar to another 105 In pleading it must be strictly alledged 41 Where 't is a reasonable Custom for the Lord to have derelict Lands 107 D. Day Vide Plea WHere 't is excluded being alledged in the Declaration it makes the Plea ill 146 'T is but punctum temporis and of no consideration in the Law 281 Release of all demands usque 26 April a Bond dated that day is not released 281 Debt Upon the Sheriffs Bond will be good though the Statute be not pleaded 36 Will lye upon the Contract where the whole Term is assigned 174 175 176 Whether it will lye for a Fine set by a Steward for 't is ex quasi contractu 230 It must be upon the Contract or ex quasi contractu 262 Deed. Where 't is lost the Party must make Oath of it to entitle himself to a Bill in Equity to have it performed in Specie 173 Demand Must be made where an Interest is to be determined 264 Devise To a Man and his Heirs if the Devisee die in the Life time of the Devisor his Heir takes nothing 313 Republication makes it a new Will ibid. To the Heir at Law makes a Limitation and not a Condition 7 To an Infant in ventre sa mere if there is a sufficient description of him 't is good 9 Where the word paying makes a Fee where not 26 To him till he be of Age then to him in Fee he dyed within Age yet a Free-hold vested in him presently 289 To him in Fee when of Age if he dye before then to the Heirs of the Body of R. and their Heirs he died living R. within Age his Sister and Heir shall take by way of Executory devise 289 Executory devise how it differs from a contingent Remainder at Common Law ibid. Construction of words therein 290 Departure From his Plea 31 Disability By a Statute where it ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office 299 Discharge By Parol good before the breach of promise but not afterwards 259 Discontinuance Where amendable 316 In pleading the Plaintiff declared of taking several things the Defenant justifies as to part and saith nothing of the residue 259 In the Adjournment of a Court where a day certain is not given 59 Distress Cannot be of Sheaves of Corn in Shocks for Rent 61 Distribution Shall be equally made amongst the Children of the whole and half Blood 204 205 206 Disturbance Coactus fuit to pay is a sufficient Disturbance 55 E. Escape THE Plaintiff declared upon Process in an Inferiour Court and the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem the Action would not lye 29 30 Debt thereon lies against the Warden of the Fleet as Superior where the Grantee for Life is insufficient 119 After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Capias ad satisfaciendum or Scire facias at his Election 136 Whether it will lye against the Sheriff for taking insufficient Bail 181 Election In disjunctive Conditions where the Election is in the Obligor 201 304 'T is at the Plaintiffs Election to have a Ca. Sa. or Scire facias after an Escape 136 Enclosure Where a Custom is good to Enclose in a Common Field 105 Entry Not necessary to avoid an Estate in case of a Limitation 7 Error Where a Writ of Error will lye upon a Fine in the Old Bayly 219 Error in Fact cannot be assigned in the Exchequer-Chamber 194 If one be dead after the Judgment he must be named in a Writ of Error 285 Where a Judgment shall be avoided by a Plea without a Writ of Error 276 Estate Where the word Body makes an Estate for Life and no Tail 16 Estoppel Good by a Fine levied by a Remainder man in Tail 90 No Uses can be declared of a Fine by Estoppel 90 One who has no Estate levies a Fine 't is good by Estoppel 115 Evidence A Decree in Chancery or Sentence in in the Ecclesiastical Court read as Evidence of the fact 231 232 Excuse If one Man doth not perform his Covenant 't is no Excuse for the breach on the other side 75 76 What is a good Plea by way of Excuse and what not 27 28 29 Executor De son tort cannot retain 51 Where the Judgment shall be de bonis Testatoris 108 What is requisite to make an Executor 147 What must be done when he refuseth Ibid. De son tort where he may be of a Term but not of a Term in futuro because he cannot enter 175 Cannot plead non detinet where the Testator could not plead nil debet 266 Executor of an Executor de son tort where not liable at Law 293 294 Where he pleads a Judgment kept on Foot by fraud 36 Explain A Man grants Tenementa praedicta then follows totum quicquid habet whether these subsequent words shall explain or enlarge the Grant 112 113 c. Execution Payment of the Mony to the Marshal the Defendant may be taken again in Execution at the Suit of the Plaintiff 212 213 Executory Decree Is of no force in Equity 232 Existen
Authorities with great exactness and nicety yet this Matter of Livery upon Endorsements of Writing was always favourably expounded of later times unless where it plainly appeared that the Authority was not pursued at all Sid. 428. as if a Letter of Attorney be made to thrée joyntly and severally two cannot execute it because they are not the Parties delegated they do not agreé with the Authority And Iudgment was given accordingly Richards versus Sely. THIS was a Special Verdict in Ejectione firmae for Lands in the County of Cornwal The Case was this viz. Covenant made to enjoy a Copy-hold de anno in annum 't is a Lease and so a Forfeiture Thomas Sely was seised of the Lands in question for life according the Custom of the Mannor of P. and he together with one Peter Sely were bound in a Bond to a third person for the payment of 100 l. being the proper Debt of the said Thomas who gave Peter a Counter-bond to save himself harmless And that Thomas being so seised did execute a Déed to Peter as a Collateral Security to indempnifie him for the payment of this 100 l. by which Deéd after a recital of the Counterbond given to Peter and the Estate which Thomas had in the Lands he did covenant grant and agree for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns with the said Peter that he his Executors and Administrators should hold and enjoy these Lands from the time of the making of the said Déed for seven years and so from the end of seven years to seven years for and during the term of 49 years if Thomas should so long live 2 Cro. 301. In which Déed there was a Covenant that if the said 100 l. should be paid and Peter saved harmless according to the Condition of the said Counterbond then the said Déed to be void The Question was whether this being in the Case of Copyhold Lands will amount to a Lease thereof and so make a Forfeiture of the Copyhold Estate there being no Custom to warrant it Ex parte Quer. This Case was argued this Term by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and in Trinity Term following by Serjeant Maynard on the same side who said that this was not a good Lease to entitle the Lord to a Forfeiture It hath béen a general Rule that the Word Covenant will make a Lease though the Word Grant be omitted nay a Licence to hold Land for a time without either of those Words will amount to a Lease much more when the Words are to * 2 Cro. 92 398. Noy 14. 1 Roll. Abr. 848 849. Cro. Car. 207. have hold and enjoy his Land for a Term certain for those are Words which give an Interest and so it hath béen ruled in Tisdale and Sir William Essex's Case which is reported by several and is in Hob. 35. and 't is now setled that an Action of Debt may be brought upon such a Covenant And all this is regularly true in the Case of a Fréehold But if the construing of it to be a Lease will work a Wrong then 't is only a Covenant or Agreément and no Interest vests and therefore it shall never be intended a Lease in this Case because 't is in the Case of a Copyhold Estate for if it should there would be a Wrong done both to the Lessor and Lessée for it would be a Forfeiture of the Estate of the one and a defeating of the Security of the other It has beén generally used in such Cases to consider what was the intention of the Parties and not to intend it a Lease against their meaning for which there is an express Authority 2 Cro. 172. in the Case of Evans and Thomas Noy 128. in which Howel covenants with Morgan to make a Conveyance to him of Land by Fine provided that if he pay Morgan 100 l. at the end of thirtéen years that then the use of the Fine shall be to the Congnisor and covenants that Morgan shall enjoy the said Lands for thirtéen years and for ever after if the 100 l. be not paid The Assurance was not made and this was adjuged no Lease for thirtéen years because it was the intent of the Parties to make an Assurance only in the nature of a Mortgage which is but a Covenant And this appears likewise to be the intention of the Parties here because in the very Deed 't is recited that the Lands are Copihold It also sounds directly in Covenant for 't is that Peter shall or may enjoy without the lawful let or interruption of the Lessor All Agreements must be construed secundum subjectam materiam if the Matter will bear it and in most Cases are governed by the intention of the Parties and not to work a Wrong and therefore if Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for Life it shall be taken for his own Life and yet if before the Statute of Entails he made such Lease he being then Tenant in Fée-simple it had been an Estate during the Life of the Lessée but when the Statute had made it unlawful for him to bind his Heir then the Law construes it to be for his own Life because otherwise it would work a Wrong Hob. 276. Co. Lit. 42. So in this case it shall not amount to a Lease for the manifest inconveniency which would follow but it shall be construed as a Covenant and then no injury is done On the Defendants part it was argued by Serjeant Newdigate that though this was in the Case of a Copyhold Ex parte Def. that did not make any difference for the plain meaning of the Parties was to make a Lease But where the Words are doubtful and such as may admit of diverse constructions whether they will amount to a Lease or not there they shall be taken as a Covenant to prevent a Forfeiture So also if they are only Instructions as if a Man by Articles sealed and delivered is contented to demise such Lands and a Rent is reserved and Covenants to repair c. Or if one covenants with another to permit and suffer him to have and enjoy such Lands 1 Rol. Abr. 848. these and such like Words will not amount to a Lease because as hath béen said the intention of the Parties is only to make it a Covenant but here the Words are plain and can admit of no doubt But for an Authority in the Point the Lady * 2 Cro. 301. Mountagues Case was cited where it was adjudged that if a Copyholder make a Lease for a year warranted by the Custom sic de anno in annum during ten years 't is a good Lease for ten years and a Forfeiture of the Copyhold Estate Vide Hill 15 16 Car. 2. Rot. 233. the Case of Holt and Thomas in this Court The Court inclined that it was a good Lease Curia and by consequence a Forfeiture of the Copihold and that a Licence in this
Assurances c. of Land not being the Lands of the late King Queen Prince c. and not being Land sold for any pretended Delinquency since the first of June 1641. and all Statutes and Judgments suffered by the Offenders from being impeached from which it appears that the Parliament lookt upon entailed Lands as forfeited for if Estates made to others upon a valuable consideration had need of a Proviso to save them from Forfeiture à fortiori the Estates out of which those are derived have need of such a saving and therefore must be forfeit by the Act for which Reasons these Lands are forfeited As to the great Objection which hath been made and insisted on the other side and which is Trudgeons Case 22 Eliz. 1 Inst 130. Where Tenant in Tail was attainted in a Praemunire and it was adjudged that he should forfeit his Land but during his Life for though the Statue of 16 R. 2. cap. cap. 5. Enacts That in such Case their Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels shall be forfeited to the King yet that must be understood of such an Estate as he may lawfully forfeit and that is during his own life and therefore being general Words they do not take away the force of the Statute de donis so that his Lands in Fee-simple for life c. shall be forfeited but the Land entailed shall not during his life But the Answer is plain For in the Reign of R. 2. when the Statute of Praemunire was made Estates Tail were under a Perpetuity by the said Statute de donis which Statute is now much weakened in the Point of Alienation and the Law is quite altered since that time and 't is apparent by multitude of Presidents that such strict Constructions have not been made since that time to preserve Estates Tail from Forfeitures without special and particular Words 4 Co. 164. and therefore in the Case of Adams and Lambert which is a Case in Point the Iudges there construed Estates Tail to be forfeit for want of special Words in the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. to save it and that was only a Law made for suppressing of superstitious Vses upon a politick consideration but this is a much greater Offence intended to be punished by this Act in which there are demonstrations both from the Words and intent of the Law-makers to make this Estate forfeited to the Crown than in that Case so much relied on And Iudgment was given accordingly Wyld died before Iudgment was given but Iustice Twisden said he was of that Opinion and Jones Iustice concurred Basset versus Salter After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Ca. Sa. or Sci. Fa. against the Sheriff IN an Action for an Escape the Question was whether the Plaintiff may take out a Ca. Sa. or have a Fi. Fa. against the Defendant after the Sheriff or Gaoler voluntarily suffer him to escape but the Court would not suffer it to be argued because it had been lately settled that it was at the Election of the Plaintiff to do either and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber the Iudges there were of the same Opinion But in the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan's time the Court of Common Pleas were divided but 't is since settled 1 Roll. Abridg. 901 902. If there be an Escape by the Plaintiffs consent though he did not intend it the Law is hard that the Debt should be thereby discharged as where one was in execution in the Kings Bench and some Proposals were made to the Plaintiff in behalf of the Prisoner who seeing there was some likelyhood of an Accomodation consented to a Meeting in London and desired the Prisoner might be there who came accordingly and this was held to be an Escape with the * If it had been by the consent of the Sheriff he could never take him again but the Plaintiff might Sid. 330. consent of the Plaintiff and he could never after be in Execution at his Suit for the same Matter Peck versus Hill In Communi Banco Bond good given in discharge of another Mod. Rep. 221. DEBT upon a Bond brought against the Defendant as Administrator who pleads that he gave another Bond in his own Name in discharge of the first Bond and upon Issue joined it was found for the Defendant and it was moved that Iudgment might not be entred hereupon because it was a bad Plea But North Chief Iustice and Wyndham and Scroggs Iustices were of Opinion that it was a good Plea because there was other Security given than what the Plaintiff had before for upon the first Bond he was only lyable de bonis Intestatoris but now he might be charged in his own Right Co. Lit. 122. b. which may be well said to be in full satisfaction of the first Obligation for where the Condition is for payment of Mony to the Party himself there if he accept any collateral thing in satisfaction 't is good If a Security be given by a Stranger it may discharge a former Bond and this in effect is given by such And 't is not like the Case in Hobert where a Bond was given by the same Party upon that very day a former Bond was payable and adjudged not a good discharge for the Obligee was in no better condition than he was before Iustice Atkins doubted but inclined that one Bond cannot be discharged by giving another though the Discharge be applied to the Condition of the Bond and for this he cited Cro. Car. 85. Cro. Eliz. 716 727. which was a Case adjudged so in Point and therefore this Plea upon Demurrer should have been over-ruled yet since Issue was taken upon it and a Verdict for the Defendant the Plea is helped by the Statute of Jeofails 32 H. 8. here being a direct Affirmative and Negative But as to that the Chief Iustice and Scroggs Iustice replied that an immaterial Issue no ways arising from the Matter is not helped as an Action of Debt upon a Bond laid to be made in London and the Defendant saith that it was made in Middlesex and this is tried 't is not aided by the Statute but there must be a Repleader But because it was sworn that the Obligor who was the intestate was alive four years after the time that the second Bond was given and for that reason it could not be given upon the accompt of the Defendants being liable as Administrator but must be intended a Bond to secure a Debt of his own therefore a new Trial was granted Cook and others versus Herle Covenant will lie in the personalty tho' the Grant be executed by the Statute of Uses which makes a Distress the proper remedy Mod. Rep. 223. IN Covenant the Case was this Charles Cook made a Iointure to Mary his Wife for life and died without Issue the Land descended to Thomas Cook his Brother and Heir who grants an Annuity or Rent Charge of 200 l. per
concluded that he had not paid it and therefore they would not admit him to wage his Law without bringing sufficient Compurgators to swear that they believed he swore Truth but such not appearing the Defendant defecit de Lege and Iudgment had been given against him but he offered to bring the Mony recovered and the Costs into the Court and to go to a new Tryal it being a very hard Case upon him at the former Trial where the Demand was of a Quit-Rent of 18 d. per annum the Defendant promised that if the Plaintiff would shew his Title and satisfie him that he had a Right to demand it he would pay him the Rent and at the Tryal express Oath was made of a Promise to pay upon which the Verdict was obtained whereas it was then urged that the Freehold would come in question upon that Promise and so the inferior Court could have no Iurisdiction And afterwards the Chief Iustice said that it hath béen adjudged in the Kings Bench that an inferior Court cannot hold Plea on a quantum meruit for Work done out of the Iurisdiction though the Promise be made within and that he knew where a Person of Quality intending a Marriage with a Lady presented her with a Iewel and the Marriage not taking effect he brought an Action of Detinue against her and she taking it to be a Gift offered to wage her Law but the Court was of Opinion that the property was not changed by this Gift being to a specifical intent and therefore would not admit her to do it Quod nota Styleman versus Patrick AN Action on the Case was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for eating of his Grass with his Sheep Costs allowed so that he could not in tam amplo modo enjoy his Common there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and it was now moved that he should have no more Costs than Damages because this was a Trespass in its own nature and the Iudge of Assise had not certified that the Title of any Land was in question Bur the Court were all of Opinion Curia that this Case was not within the Statute For it was not a frivolous Action because a little damage done to one Commoner and so to twenty may in the whole make it a great Wrong if the Cause were frivolous the Iudge of Assize may mark it to be such by vertue of the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 6. and then there shall be no more Costs than Damages and though in this Case the Plaintiff hath in his Declaration set out a Title to his Common yet the Title of the Land cannot possibly come in question and therefore not to be certified as in Cases of Trespas neither is there any need of a Certificate if it appears by the Pleading that the Title of the Land is in question The Court being against the Defendant as to the Costs his Council then moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Plaintiff sets forth his Right to the Common only by way of Recital with a cumque etiam Postea c. that he had a Right to Common in such a place sed non allocatur for 't is affirmative enough and afterwards he is charged with doing the Plaintiff damage and so the Case is not like to an Action of Trespas quare cum he did a Trespass for there the sense is imperfect DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 28 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco James versus Johnson IN Trespass Que Estate where 't is pleadable Mod Rep. 231. the Defendant justified by a Prescription to have Toll and Issue being joyned thereupon the Iury found a special Verdict in which the Case upon the Pleadings was viz. Before the dissolution of Priories the Mannor now in the possession of the Defendant was parcel of the Priory of B. which came to the Crown by the said dissolution and the King made a Grant thereof to Sir Jervas Clifton in Fee together with the said Toll adeo plene as the Prior had it and the Defendant having brought down a Title by several mesne Assignments claims by vertue of a Lease from Sir Jervas for seven years then in being alledging that the said Sir Jervas and all those whose Estate he had might take Toll and whether this Pleading by a Que Estate to have Right of Toll was good in Law the Iury doubted Baldwin Serjeant for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. argued that the Iustification was not good because there are two sorts of Toll viz. Toll through and Toll traverse and is in the Kings High Way and the other in a Man 's own Soil and it doth not appear for which the Defendant hath justified If it be for the first then he ought to shew that he did make a Causeway or some other thing that might be an advantage to the Passengers to entitle himself to a Prescription but if it be for the other then he must also shew it was for passing upon his Soil which implies a Consideration 22 Assize Kelw. 148. Pl. Com. 236. Lord Berkley's Case 1 Cro. 710. Smith versus Sheppard by which Cases it appears that the justification ought to be certain Then as to the point in Question he said that Toll cannot be appurtenant to a Mannor and so the Pleading by a Que estate is not good but if that should be admitted yet the Mannor being vested in the Crown by the dissolution the Toll then became in gross and could never after be united to the Mannor or appurtenant thereunto But it was argued for the Defendant by Maynard Serjeant and the whole Court were clear of Opinion that the Issue was upon a particular point and the Title was admitted and that nothing remained in question but the Point in pleading And as to what had been objected That Toll cannot belong to a Mannor 't is quite otherwise for an Advowson a Rent a Toll or any Profit apprender may be appurtenant to it T is true a Man cannot prescribe by a Que Estate of a Rent Advowson Toll c. but he may of a Mannor to which these are appendant 't is likewise true that if the Defendant had said this was Toll for passing the Highway he must shew some cause to entitle himself to the taking of it as by doing something of publick advantage But this general way of pleading is the most usual and so are the Presidents and it ought to come on the other side and to be alledged that the Defendant prescribed for Toll in the High-way and in this Case though the Mannor came to the Crown the Toll remained appurtenant still and so it continued when it was granted out The difference is between a thing which was originally a Flower of the Crown and other things which are not as Catalla Felonum c. if such come again to the King they are merged in the Crown but 't is otherwise in cases of a Leet Park Warren
Toll c. which were first created by the King 9 Co. Abbot de Strata Marcella's Case So that this Toll is not become in gross by the dissolution whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Sir William Turner's Case Amendment not after issue joyned DEbt qui tam c. for 100 l. against Sir William Turner being a Iustice of Peace in London for denying his Warrant to suppress a seditious Conventicle of one Mr. Turner in New-street This Cause was to be tried by Nisi prius this Term before the Chief Iustice And now the Plaintiff moved to amend one Word in the Declaration wherein he was mistaken for he had laid the Meeting to be at Turner's Mansion House and upon Enquiry he understood the place of Meeting was not at his Mansion House but at a little distance from it and so prayed the word Mansion might be struck out But the Chief Iustice said that after Issue joyned Curia and the Cause set down to be tried and this being a penal Statute no President could be shewn of an Amendment in such case and therefore would not make this the first and so Leave was given to the Plaintiff to discontinue upon payment of Costs Brown versus Johnson IN Accompt The Plaintiff declares against the Defendant Time where 't is made parcel of the issue not good for that upon the first of March 22 Car. 2. abinde to the first of May 27 Car. 2. he was his Bayliff and Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead The Defendant pleads that from the said first day of March 22 Car. 2. to the first day of May 27 Car. 2. he was not the Plaintiffs Bayliff or Receiver of the said 80 Piggs of Lead hoc paratus est verificare To this the Plaintiff demurred and assigned specially for cause that the times from the first of March to the first of May are made parcel of the Issue which ought not to be because the Plaintiff in his Declaration must alledge a time for Form sake but the Defendant ought not to tye him up to such time alledged for he might have said he was not Bayliff modo forma And for this the Case of Lane and Alexander was cited where the Defendant by Ejectment makes a Title by Copy of Court Roll granted to him 44 Eliz. and the Plaintiff replies his Title by the like Grant 1 Junii 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintains his Barr and traverseth that the Queen 1 Junii 43 year of her Reign granted the said Land by Copy and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the traversing of the day is matter of substance which being made part of the Issue is naught But on the other side it was objected that time is material and that in Actions of Accompt 't is proper to make it parcel of the Issue for a Man may be Bayliff for two but not for three years and a Release may be pleaded from such a time to such a time Fitz. Accompt 30. Rast Entry f. 8. 19 pl. 1. f. 20. pl. 6. f. 22. pl. 2. 1. Then Exceptions were taken to the Plea first for that the Plaintiff having charged the Defendant as Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead the Defendant pleads and that he was not Receiver thereof but doth not say of any part thereof for which reason the Court held the Plea ill because he might retain 79 and yet not 80 Piggs but to plead generally ne unques Receptor is well enough though it was urged that if it had been found against him upon such an Issue that he had received any parcel of the Lead he should have accompted 24 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. 3. 14. 32 H. 6. 33. Fitz. Accompt 16. Cro. Eliz. 850. Fitz. Accompt 14. Rast Entry 18 19 20. 2. The Defendant concludes hoc paratus est verificare whereas it should be de hoc ponit se super patriam but the Court doubted of this because it was not specially assigned Postea 3. The Plaintiff charged the Defendant as his Bayliff upon the first of March and the Defendant pleads that he was not his Bayliff from the first of March so he excludes that day and this the Court held to be incurable and likewise that the time ought not to be made parcel of the Issue 2 Sand. 317 318. and so Iudgment was given quod computer Abraham versus Cunningham Administrator sells a Term afterwards an Executor appears and renounces yet the Sale was adjudged void Jones 72. 1 Vent 303. IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Case upon the Pleadings was Viz. Sir David Cunningham being possessed of a Term for years made his Will and therein appointed his Son Sir David Cunningham to be his Executor and dyed Sir David the Executor in the year 1663. made his Will also and therein appointed David Cunningham his Son and two others to be his Executors and dyed those two Executors dye and B. a Stranger takes out Administration cum Testamento annexo and continues this Administration from the year 1665. to the year 1671. in which time he made an Assignment of this Term to the Lessor of the Plaintiff for which he had received a thousand Pounds And in the year 1671. the surviving Executor of Sir David the Executor made Oath in the Archbishops Court that he never heard of his Testators Will 'till then nor ever saw it before and that he had not medled with the Estate nor renounced the Executorship 6 Co. Packmans Case Then a Citation goes to shew cause why the Administration should not be repealed and Sentence was given that it should be revoked upon which the Executor enters and the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon him This Case was argued by Saunders for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. and Levints for the Defendant And first it was said in behalf of the Plaintiff that the Authorities in the Books were strong on his side that the first Administration was well granted 'T is true if a Man make a Will and Administration is granted and that Will is afterwards proved such Administration is void as in Greysbrook and Foxes Case Pl. Com. But in this Case after the death of Sir David Cunningham the Executor his Testator is dead Intestate for to make an Executor there must be first the naming of him then there must be some concurring act of his own to declare his assent that he will take onus executionis upon him for no man can make another Executor against his will so that if after the death of the first Executor those other Executors appointed by him had made such a Declaration as this surviving Executor hath since done their Testator had dyed Intestate 7 E. 4. 12 13. The Executor is made by the Testator and the Ordinary is empowered by the Statute to make the Administrator where the person dies Intestate so that 't is plain there cannot be an Executor and Administrator both together If he who is
By the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. the Ordinary is to grant Administration to the Widow of the Intestate or to the next of his Kin or to both as by his discretion he shall think good and in Case where divers persons claim the Administration as next of Kin which be in equal degree the Ordinary may commit Administration to which he pleaseth and his power was not abridged but rather revived by this late Act by which 't is Enacted 22 23 Car. 2. That just and equal distribution shall be made amongst Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degree or legally representing their Stocks pro suo cuique jure and the Children of the half Blood do in the Civil Law legally represent the Father and to some purposes are esteemed before the Vncles of the whole Blood 'T is no Objection to say that because the Law rejects the half Blood as to Inheritances therefore it will do the same as to personal Estates because such Estates are not to be determined by the Common but by the Canon or Civil Law and if so the half Blood shall come in for distribution for this Act of Parliament confirms that Law Winnington Sollicitor General contra He agreed that before this Act the half Blood was to have equal share of the Intestates Estate but that now the Ordinary was compelled to make such distribution and to such persons as by the Act is directed for he had not an original power to grant Administration in any case that did belong to the Temporal Courts Sid. 370 371. but it was given to him by the Indulgence of Princes not quatenus a Spiritual Person Hensloes Case 9 Co. Bendl. 133. And if he had not power in any Case he could not grant to whom he pleased But admitting he could his power is now abridged by this Statute and he cannot grant but to the Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degrée or legally representing their Stocks Now such legal representation must be according to the Rules of the Common and not of the Civil Law for if there be two lawful Brothers and a Bastard eigne and a Question should arise concerning the distribution of an Intestates Estate the subsequent Marriage according to the Law in the Spiritual Court would make the latter legitimate and if so a legal Representative amongst them but this Court will never allow him so to be But the Court were all of Opinion that in respect of the Father the half Blood is as near as those of the whole and therefore they are all alike and shall have an equal distribution and that such Construction should be made of the Statute as would be most agreeable to the Will of the dead person if he had devised his Estate by Will and it was not to be imagined if such Will had been made but something would have been given to the Children of the half Blood And thereupon a Consultaion was granted Anonymus In C. B. FAux Judgment viz. Serjeant Turner took this Exception that the Plaintiff in the Court below had declared ad damnum 20 l. whereas it not being a Court of Record and being sine Brevi the Court could not hold Plea of any Sum above 40 s. and for this Cause the Iudgment was reversed DE Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Southcot versus Stowel Intrat ' Hill 25 26 Car. 2. Regis Rot. 1303. IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was Covenant to stand seised how it differs from a Conveyance at the Common Law Mod. Rep. 226. Thomas Southcot having Issue two Sons Sir Popham and William and being seised in Fée of a Farm called Indyo the Lands now in question did upon the Marriage of his eldest Son Sir Popham covenant to stand seised of the said Farm to the use of the said Sir Popham Southcot and the Heirs Males of his Body on Margaret his Wife to be begotten and for want of such Issue to the Heirs Males of the Covenantor and for want of such Issue to his own right Heirs for ever Sir Popham had Issue begotten on his Wife Margaret Edward his Son and five Daughters and dies Thomas the Covenantor dies Edward dies without Issue And whether the five Daughters as Heirs general of Thomas or William their Vncle as special Heir Male of Thomas per formam doni shall inherit this Land was the Question Two Objections were made against the Title of William the Vncle. 1. Vaugh. 49. Because here is no express Estate to Thomas the Covenantor for 't is limited to his Heirs Males the Remainder to his own right Heirs so that he having no Estate for Life the Estate Tail could not be executed in him and for that reason William cannot take by descent 2. He cannot take by Purchase for he is to be Heir of Thomas and Heir Male the Limitation is so but he cannot be Heir for his five Nieces are Heirs In answer to which these Assertions were laid down 1. That in this Case Thomas the Covenantor hath an Estate for Life by implication and so the Estate Tail being executed in him comes to William by descent and not by purchase for though the Covenantor had departed with his whole Estate and limited no Vse to himself yet he hath a Reversion because he can have no right Heir while he is living and therefore the Statute of 27 H. 8. Hob. 30. creates an Vse in him till the future use cometh in esse and by consequence the right Heirs cannot take by purchase for wherever the Heir takes by purchase the Ancestor must depart with his whole Fee for which reason a Fee cannot be raised by way of purchase to a Mans right Heirs by the name of Heirs either by Conveyance of Land or by Vse or Devise but it works by descent 1 Inst 22. b. And that Vses may arise by Implication by Covenants to stand seized the Authorities are very plentiful Moor 284. 1 Co. 154. Lord Paget's Case cited in the Rector of Cheddington's Case Cro. Eliz. 321. 1 Roll. Rep. 239 240 317 438. Lane vers Pannel Cor. Car. And in the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood in a Devise there was the same limitation as this the Case was Thomas being seised in Fee had Issue Francis and William by several Venters and devised Land to Francis his eldest Son for Life then to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of William and the Heirs Males of their Bodies for ever and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Devisor then he made a Lease to William for 30 years to commence after his death and dies William Enters and Surenders this Lease to Francis who Enters and makes a Lease to the Defendant and dyes without Issue and William Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff it was adjudged for William because he being
and so North Chief Iustice said that it had been lately ruled in the Common Pleas. Afterwards the Court of Kings-Bench was moved for a Prohibition in this Case and it was denied so that in this Case there was the Opinion of all the three Courts This matter was so much laboured because twenty four Quakers were reported to be concerned in the Rate and they were unwilling to pay towards the Building of a Church Paget versus Vossius In B. R. A Trial at the Bar in Ejectione Firmae Judgment given upon the Construction of words in a Will Jones 73. 1 Ventris 325. in which the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was Viz. That Dr. Vossius the Defendant being an Alien and a Subject of the States of Holland falling into Disgrace there had his Pension taken from him by Publick Authority Afterwards he came into England and contracted a great Friendship with one Dr. Brown a Prebendary of Windsor Then a War broke out between England and Holland and the King issued forth his Proclamation declaring the said War and the Hollanders to be Alien Enemies Dr. Brown being seised of the Lands now in question being of the value of 200 l. per Ann. and upwards made his Will in these words in Writing Inter alia Viz. Item I give all my Mannour of S. with all my Freehold and Copyhold Lands c. to my dear Friend Dr. Isaac Vossius during his Exile from his own Native Country but if it please God to restore him to his Country or take him out of this Life then I give the same immediately after such restoration or death to Mrs. Abigal Hevenigham for ever A Peace was afterwards concluded between England and Holland whereby all Intercourses of Trade between the two Nations became lawful but Dr. Vossius was not sent for over by the States nor was there any offer of kindness to him but his Pension was disposed of and given to another That the Doctor might return into his own Country when he pleased but that he still continued in England And whether he or the Lessor of the Plaintiff Mrs. Heveningham had the better Title was the question Nota Dr. Vossius was enabled to take by Grant from the King Ex parte Quer. Pemberton Serjeant for the Lessor of the Plaintiff argued that the Estate limited to the Defendant is determined which depended upon the construction of this Devise He did agree that the Will was obscure and the intent of the Devisor must be collected from the circumstances of the Case and it is a Rule That according to the * 2 Cro. 62 371 416. intent of the Parties a Will is to be interpreted 'T is plain then that the Devisor never intended the Defendant an Estate for Life absolutely because it was to depend upon a Limitation and the Words are express to that purpose for he devises to him during his Exile c. Now the Question is not so much what is the genuine and proper sence and signification of those Words as what the Testator intended they should signifie 1. Therefore the most proper signification of the Word Exile is a penal Prohibiting a person from his Native Country and that is sometimes by Iudgment or Edict as in the case of an Act of Parliament and sometimes 't is chosen to escape a greater Punishment as in cases of Abjuration and Transportation c. But he did not think that the Testator took the Word Exile in this restrained sense for Dr. Vossius was never formally or solemnly Banished if that should be the sense of the Word then nothing would pass to the Doctor by this Will because the Limitation would be void and like to the Case of a Devise to a Married Woman durante viduitate and she dies in the life-time of her Husband or to a Woman Sole during her Coverture or of a Devise to A. the Remainder to the right Heis of B. and A. dies living B so that this could not be his meaning 2. The Word Exile in common parlance is taken only for absence from ones Native Country but this is a very improper signification of the Word and nothing but a Catachresis can justifie it and therefore the Testator could not intend it in this sense 't is too loose and inconsiderable an Interpretation of the Word for the Iudgment of the Court to depend on unless there were circumstantial Proofs amounting almost to a Demonstration that it was thus meant But it plainly appears by the following Words this was not the meaning of the Testator for 't is said If it please God to restore him to his Country which shews that there was some Providence or other which obstructed his return thither and so could not barely intend a voluntary absence for if so he might have expressed it viz. during his absence from his Country or till his return thither or whilst he should stay in England and not in such doubtful Words 3. By the Word Exile is meant a persons lying under the displeasure of the Government where he was born or of some great persons who have an Influence upon the Government or have an Authority over him which makes him think convenient considering such circumstances to withdraw himself and retire to some other place and this is a sense of the Word between both the former and even in the Common Law we are not strangers to the acceptation of the Word in that sense There is a Case omni exceptione major in the Writ of Waste which is fecit vastum de domibus venditionem de boscis exilium de hominibus 't is in the Register and in the Writ on the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. where by the exilium de hominibus is meant the hard usage of Tenants or the menacing of them whereby they flie from their Habitations 2 H. 6. 11. 'T is found in this Case that the Defendant was under the displeasure of his Governours the War broke out and therefore it might not then be safe for him to return and for that reason he might think it safe for himself to abide here and this Dr. Brown the Testator might know which might also be the reason of making the Will But now all acts of Hostility are past and so the Defendants recess is open and it hath pleased God to restore the Doctor but he is not pleased to restore himself for the Iury find he is not returned now if a Man hath an Estate under such a Limitation to do a thing which may be done when it pleaseth the party in such case if he neglect or refuse to do the thing the Estate is determined 15 H. 7. 1. If I grant a Man an Annuity till he be promoted to a Benefice and I provide a Presentation for him and he will not be Instituted and Inducted the Annuity ceases so shall the Estate in this Case because the Devisor seems to appoint it to the Defendant till he may return
upon the Statute and then the Defendant might have pleaded the Act of Indempnity of which he might have the benefit but if not he may be let into the Equity of the Statute of the 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which gives liberty to Purchasers to have contribution and to plead sufficient matter if they have any in discharge of the Debt Ex parte Quer. But on the other side it was said that the Replication was good for if the Sale was after his being Receiver though before he became indebted yet by the Statute of the 13 Eliz. the Lands are subject to a Debt contracted afterwards because it hath a Retrospect to the time he was first Receiver Pl. Com. 321. Dyer 160. By the Common Law both the Body and Lands of the Kings Debtor were lyable from the time he became indebted but because such Debtors oftentimes sold those Lands which they had whilst they were Officers and so the King was defeated therefore was this Statute made to supply that defect of the Common Law by which Statute all the Lands he had at any time during his continuance in the Office were made lyable And though it may be objected That because of this Inquisition the King is limited to a time Viz. that inquiry should be made what Lands Havers had in the 20th year of the King yet it was said the Inquiry may be general The Elegit anciently left out the time because the Law doth determine from what time the party doth become lyable so that the question is about the King's Title which if it appear to precede that of the Ter-tenant then the King's Hands are not to be amoved and thereupon Iudgment was prayed for him Bro. Prerogative 59. Curia adversare vult Barker versus Keat IN a Special Verdict in Ejectione firmae Reservation of a Pepper Corn a good consideration to raise an use to make a Tenant to the Praecipe Mod. Rep. 262 the Iury made a special Conclusion by referring to the Court whether there was a good Tenant to the Praecipe or not which was made by a Bargain and Sale but no Mony paid nor any Rent reserved but that of a Pepper Corn to be paid at the end of six Months upon demand and the Release and Grant of the Reversion thereupon was only for divers good Considerations The Question was if this Lease upon which no Rent was reserved but that of a Pepper Corn be executed by the Statue of Uses or not if it be Cro. Jac. 604. Jones 7. 1 Cro. 110. 5 Rep. 124. b. then there is no need of the Entry of the Lessee for the Statute will put him in actual possession and then the Inheritance by the Release or Grant of the Reversion will pass But if this Lease be not within the Statute because no Vse can be raised for want of a Consideration then it must be a Conveyance at the Common Law Lit. Sect. 465. Co. Lit. 46. b. and so the Lessee ought to make an actual Entry as was always usual before the making of the Statute Serjeant Waller and Maynard argued that here was no Consideration to raise an Vse for the reservation of a Pepper-Corn is no profit to the Lessor 't is not a real and good Rent For so small and trivial a matter is no Consideration for that which must be a good Consideration ought to be Mony or some other valuable thing Then this Conveyance is not executed by the Statute of Vses and if so 't is not good at the Common Law it being only a Lease for years and no Entry without which there can be no possession and if not then there can be no Reversion upon which the Release may operate 't is only an interresse termini and so was the Opinion of my Lord Coke since the Co. Lit. 270. making of this Statute 1 Leon. 194 195. And that no Vse was raised here the Case of my Lord Paget was cited to which this was compared My Lord being seised in Fee Covenanted to stand seised to the Vse of Trentham and others in consideration of payment of his Debts out of the Profits of his own Estate this was adjudged a void Vse because there was no consideration on Trentham's part to raise it the Mony appointed to be paid being to be raised out of the Profits of my Lords Estate The Words of the Lease are Demise Grant c. which are Words at the Common Law Co. Lit. 45. b. and 't is not possible that a future executory Consideration should raise a present Vse for the Pepper Corn is not to be paid till the end of six Months and as this Consideration is executory so it is contingent too for the Lessor might have released before the expiration of the six Months If the Case of * Cro. Jac. 604. pl. 32. Lutwitch and Mitton be objected where it was resolved by the two Chief Iustices and Chief Baron that upon a Deed of Bargain and Sale of Lands where the Bargainee never entred and the Bargainor reciting the Lease did grant the Reversion expectant upon it Cro. Car. 110 400. that this was a good grant of the Reversion from which the Possession was immediately divided and was executed and vested in the Bargainee by virtue of the Statute of Vses This is no Objection to the purpose because in that Case the Bargainor was himself in actual possession So that if there be no good Tenant to the Precipe in this Case though all that joyn in it are Estopped to say so yet the Tenant in Tail who comes in above is not barred 5 H. 5. 9. But on the othe side it was said that the Lessee was in possession by the Statute for the Word Grant being in the Lease and the reservation being a Pepper Corn that will amount to a Bargain and Sale though it hath not those precise words in it 8 Co. 94. Pl. Com. 308. Dyer 146. b. contra But if it should not yet another Vse may be averred than what is in this Lease like Bedel's Case 7 Co. 40. b. Where a Man in consideration of Fatherly Love to his eldest Son did covenant to stand seised to the Vse of him in Tail and afterwards to the use of his second Son there though the consideration respected his eldest Son only in Words yet a consideration which is not repugnant to it may be averred and though an Entry is not found yet it shall not be intended since the Iury have not found the contrary North Chief Iustice At first when this sort of Conveyance was used the Lessee upon the Lease for a year did always make an actual Entry and then came the Release to convey the Reversion but that being found troublesome the constant Practice was to make the Lease for a year by the Deed of Bargain and Sale for the consideration of five shillings or some other small sum and this was held and is so still to be good
that he was seised of a Mesuage and several Lands in the Parish of Dale and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have right of Common for all Commonable Cattle Levant and Couchant upon the Premisses in a certain Meadow there called Darpmore Meadow and in a certain place called Cannock Wood. That the Defendant praemissorum non ignarus had enclosed the said places in which the Plaintiff had right of Common and likewise put in his Cattle as Horses Cows Hoggs Geese c. so that he could not in tam amplo beneficiali modo enjoy the same The Defendant as to the Inclosure and putting in of his Hoggs and Geese pleaded Not Guilty And as to the residue That the Lord Paget was seised of a Mesuage 300 Acres of Land 40 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture and likewise of Darpmore Meadow and Cannock Wood and being so seised did by Deed of Bargain and Sale enrolled in consideration of 2000 l. convey the said Mesuage 300 Acres of Land 40 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture to the Defendant and his Heirs and by the same Deed did Grant unto him all Waies Commons and Emoluments whatsoever to the said Mesuage and Premisses belonging or therewithal used occupied or enjoyed or taken as part parcel or member thereof virtute cujus the Defendant became seised of the Premisses and that the same were leased and demised for years by the said Lord Paget and all those whose Estate he had a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit and that the Tenants or Occupiers thereof a tempore cujus c. used to have Common in Darpmore Meadow and Cannock Wood for all commonable Cattle Levant and Couchant upon the Premisses and used to put in their Cattle into the said places in which c. virtute cujus the Defendant having Right did put in his said Cattle into the said Places to take Common there and averred That there was Common sufficient both for the Plaintiff and himself To this Plea the Plaintiff Demurred This Case was argued by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Weston for the Defendant Ex parte Quer. and for the Plaintiff it was said That it was no good Plea but rather a design to introduce a new way of Common The Reasons offered why the Plea was not good were 1. Cro. Car. 419. That the Defendant could not prescribe because of the Vnity of Possession for the Lord Paget had the Premisses in and to which c. and therefore he hath prescribed by a collateral matter Viz. by alledging that the Land was usually let to Tenants for years but doth not say whether they were Tenants by Copy of Court Roll or not neither doth he make out any Title in them In some Cases where a Man is not privy to the Title he may say generally that the Owners and Occupiers used to do such a thing c. and this way of Pleading may be good but here the Defendant claiming under them ought to set forth their Title or else he can have no Right to the Common 2. By this Plea he intended that the Lord Paget had made a New Grant of this Common for he sets forth That he granted the Premisses and all Commons used with the same and so would intitle himself to a Right of Common in those two places as if Common had been expressly granted to him there which if it should 't is but argumentative and no direct affirmance of a Grant upon which the Plaintiff might have replied non concessit for no Issue can be joyned upon it 3. He ought to have set forth That the Tenants lawfully enjoyed the Common there but he lays only an usage to have Common which may be tortious 4. He doth not say That there is sufficient Common for all the Commoners but only for the Plaintiff and himself 'T is true the Owner of the Soil may feed with his Tenant who hath a Right of Common but he cannot derogate from the first by streightning the Common by a second Grant and so leave not sufficint for the Tenant 5. This Plea amounts to the General Issue Cro. Car. 157. and the Plaintiff hath specially assigned that for a Cause of Demurrer for he saith That the Defendant without any Title put in his Cattle by which the Plaintiff had not sufficient Common and the Defendant pleads he put in his Cattle rightfully and the Plaintiff had Common enough which if it signifie any thing must amount to Not Guilty Ex parte Def. But on the other side the last Objection was endeavoured to be answered first because if that hold yet if the Plea be never so good in Substance the Plaintiff would have Iudgment It was agreed that this Plea doth amount to a General Issue and no more but that every Plea that doth so is not therefore bad for if it otherwise contain reasonable matter of Law which is put upon the Court for their Iudgment rather than referred to the Iury there is is no cause of Demurrer for it is the same thing to have the doubt or question in Law before the Iudges in Pleading as to have it before them upon a Special Verdict In 2 R. 2. 18. A Retainer was pleaded specially by an Administrator which is no more than Plene Administravit yet no Demurrer but the Book saith that the Court ought to be moved 2. The Plea is good as to the matter of it for the Defendant claims the same Common by his Grant which had been used time immemorial and alledges it to be of all Common used with the Premisses and this was a Common so used In Trespass the Defendant justified that Godfrey was seised in Fee of a House and of 20 Acres of Land and that he and all those c. had Common in the place where c. to the said Messuage belonging and that he made a Feoffment to Bradshaw of the same who made a Lease thereof to the Defendant with all Profits and Commodities thereunto belonging vel occupat vel usitat cum praedicto Mesuagio It was adjudged that though the Common was gone and extinct in the Hands of the Feoffor by the unity of the Possession yet those Words were a good Grant of a New Common for the time granted in the Lease and that it was quasi a Common in the Hands of Godfrey the Feoffor Cro. Eliz. 570. Godfrey versus Eyre And though it hath been objected That this Plea is not formally pleaded because it ought to have been direct in alledging a Grant whereas it was only argumentative and brought in by a side Wind he said That as bad as it was 't was drawn by that Serjeant who argued against him and who did very well know that the Averment of sufficiency of Common was needless Curia The Court were all of Opinion That though the Plea did amount to the general Issue yet for that
particular Estate to support it for it shall descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen 't is not like a Remainder at the Common Law which must vest eo instanti that the particular Estate determines but the Learning of Exeecutory Devises stands upon the Reasons of the old Law wherein the intent of the Devisor is to be observed For when it appears by the Will that he intends not the Devisee to take but in futuro and no disposition being made thereof in the mean time it shall then descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen but if the intent be that he shall take in praesenti and there is no incapacity in him to do it he shall not take in futuro by an executory Devise Sid. 153. pl. 2. A Devise to an Infant in ventre sa mere is good and it shall descend to the Heir in the mean time for the Testator could not intend he should take presently he must first be in rerum natura 3 Co. 20. a. 1 Inst 378. a. If an Estate be given to A. for Life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. this is a contingent Remainder and shall be governed by the Rules of the Law for if B. dye during the Life of A. 't is good but if he survive 't is void because no Body can be his right Heir whilst he is living and there shall be no descent to the Heir of the Donor in the mean time to support this contingent Remainder that so when B. dies his right Heirs may take In this Case a Fée did vest in Benjamin presently and therefore after his death without Issue the Defendant is his Heir and hath a good Title if not as Heir at Law yet she may take by way of Executory Devise as Heir of the Body of her Father which though it could not be whilst he was living because nemo est haeres viventis yet after his death she was Heir of his Body and was then of Age at which time and not before she was to take by the Will That Elizabeth the general Heir had only an Estate for years till Benjamin should or might be of Age And so by the Opinion of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Evered versus Hone. SPecial Verdict in Ejectment wherein the Case was thus viz. A Man hath Issue two Sons Thomas his eldest and Richard his youngest Son Thomas hath Issue John Richard hath Issue Mary The Father devised Lands to his Son Thomas for Life Constructi-of Words in a Devise and afterwards to his Grandson John and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Issue Male then to his Grandaughter Mary in Tail and charged it with some Payments in which Will there was this Proviso viz. Provided if my Son Richard should have a Son by his now Wife Margaret then all his Lands should go to such first Son and his Heirs he paying as Mary should have done Afterwards a Son was born and the Question was whether the Estate limited to Thomas the eldest Son was thereby defeated And the Court were all clear of Opinion that this Proviso did only extend to the Case of Mary's being intituled and had no influence upon the first Estate limited to the eldest Son Anonymus IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor Executor of an Executor de son tort not liable at Law the Lord Treasurer and two Chief Iustices the Case was thus viz. The Plaintiff had declared against the Defendant as Executor of Edward Nichols who was Executor of the Debtor The Defendant pleads that the Debtor died intestate and Administration of his Goods was granted to a Stranger absque hoc that Edward Nichols was ever Executor but doth not say or ever administred as Executor for in truth he was Executor de son tort The Plaintiff replies that before the Administration granted to the Stranger Edward Nichols possessed himself of divers Goods of the said Debtor and made the Defendant Executor and dyed and the Defendant demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff but reversed here for an Executor of an Executor de son tort is not lyable at Law though the Lord Chancellor said he would help the Plaintiff in Equity But here Administration of the Goods of the Debtor was granted before the death of the Executor de son tort so his Executorship vanished and nothing shall survive The Lady Wyndham's Case IF Flotsam come to land and is taken by him who hath no Title the Action shall not be brought at the Common Law and no Proceedings shall be thereon in the Court of Admiralty for there is no need of Condemnation thereof as there is of Prizes By the Opinion of the whole Court of Common Pleas. Rose versus Standen Action where misconceived by the Plaintiff and Verdict against him no Barr to a new Action IN Accompt for Sugar and Indigoe the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit a quantum meruit and an insimul computasset for 100 l. due to him for Wares sold to which he pleaded Non assumpsit and that there was a Verdict against him and then averrs that the Wares mentioned in that Action are the same with those mentioned here in the Action of Accompt The Plaintiff demurred and it was said for him that he had brought his former Action on the Case too soon for if no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case on the Insimul computasset will not lye and so the former Verdict might be given against him for that Reason Ex parte Def. But on the contrary the Defendant shall not be twice troubled for the same thing and if the Verdict had been for the Plaintiff that might have been pleaded in Barr to him in a new Action Curia 2 Cro. 284. But the Court were of another Opinion that this Plea was not good and that if the Plaintiff had recovered it could not have been pleaded in Barr to him for if he misconceives his Action and a Verdict is against him and then brings a proper Action the Defendant cannot plead that he was barred to bring such Action by a former Verdict Antea Putt and Roster Postea Rosal and Lamper Ante. because where 't is insufficient it shall not be pleaded in Barr as in Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleaded another Action upon the same Bond and the Iury found Non est factum the Entry of the Verdict was that the Defendant should recover damages eat inde sine die but not quod Querens nil capiat per Breve so no Iudgment to barr him 2 Cro. 284. But pending one Action another cannot be brought for they cannot both be true If no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case upon an Insimul computasset would not lye the Insimul computasset implies an Accompt and upon Non assumpsit pleaded the Defendant might have given payment in Evidence and for that
reason the Iury might find for him 'T is true he might have pleaded Plene computavit which is the general Plea But it may as well be presumed that the Verdict was against the Plaintiff because the Action would not lye and the Matter being in dubio the Court will intend it against the Pleader he not having averred to the contrary and so they held the Plea to be ill DE Termino Paschae Anno 30 Car. II. in Communi Banco Osborn versus Wright ACtion on the Case for words Viz. The Plaintiff declares that she was unmarried but about to marry one J. S. and that the Defendant to hinder her Marriage spoke these Words of her Viz. She is a Whore a Common Whore and N's Whore per quod maritagium amisit The Iury found the Defendant guilty of speaking the Words but that she did not lose her Marriage thereby and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that these Words are not actionable being only Scolding and of that Opinion was all the Court and Iudgment was arrested Hambleton versus Justice Scroggs alios In Camera Scaccarii Serjeant at Law whether Priviledge to be Sued only in the Common-Pleas AN Assault and Battery was brought against the Defendants in the Kings-Bench to which one of them pleaded that he was a Serjeant at Law and so ought to have his Priviledge to be sued by Bill in the Common Pleas and in no other Court To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given in my Lord Chief Iustice Hales's time by the Opinion of him and the whole Court of Kings-Bench That a Serjeant at Law might be sued there and was not suable in the Court of Common-Pleas only 2. That in this Action the Defendant should not have his Priviledge because it was brought against him and another And afterwards a Writ of Error was brought upon this Iudgment returnable before the Lord Chancellor and Chief Iustices of the Kings-Bench and Common-Pleas and the Errors were argued before the two Chief Iustices at Serjeants-Inn in Chancery Lane Mr. Holt for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error Ex parte Quer. That a Serjeant at Law is to be sued only in the Court of Common-Pleas and not elsewhere because there is an absolute necessity of his Attendance there He is sworn and no other person can plead at that Bar and therefore if he should be sued in any other Court Vaugh. 155. it would be an Impediment to the Business of that Court where not only the Officers but their Servants have Priviledge In the 11th of E. 4. 2. There was some discourse about the Priviledge of Serjeants at Law where it was held that he is not to be sued in that Court by Bill but by Original but either way he is to have his Priviledge So the Servant of an Officer is not to be sued by Bill Cro. Car. 84. but he is still to have the Priviledge of the Court and so had Serjeant Hedley's Clerk in the Reign of King Charles the first The Serjeants receive a kind of Induction to the Bar and have a place assigned them and that they ought to have Priviledge the very Words of the Writ are observable Viz. mentioning a Serjeant at Law ex officio incumbit in Curia illa And though it hath been said and given as an answer to that Case in Cro. Car. That where the Serjeants Clerk was Arrested in an Inferior Court as in that Case he was there he shall have Priviledge but not against the other great Courts in Westminster-Hall this is a difference never yet taken notice of in any Book nor doth the Writ warrant this distinction 2. He shall have his Priviledge though he be joyned with another because the Action is joynt and several and the one may be found guilty and the other acquitted and it would be an easie way to oust a Man of his Priviledge if it might be done by joyning him with another who hath none 14 H. 4. 21. But the Person with whom the Serjeant is joyned may be sued in the Common-Pleas likewise so that he shall not hinder him from having Priviledge who of right ought to have it 10 E. 4. 15. Offley contra As to the first point Ex parte Def. the Court of Kings-Bench agreed that a Serjeant at Law shall always have the Priviledge of the Court of Common-Pleas against all Inferiour Courts but not against the other Courts in Westminster Hall for he may be sued in any of them A Serjeant is not like the Common Officers of the Court for they are to be attendant there and no where else but a Serjeant at Law is not confined to that Court alone he may be assigned of Council in any other Court and doth usually put his hand to Pleas both in the Kings-Bench and the Exchequer but a Philazer or Attorny of that Court cannot practise in his own Name in any other All Cases of Priviledge ought to be taken strictly And that which was cited concerning the Priviledge of a Serjeants Clerk is not like this because the Arrest was in an Inferiour Court In the 11 E. 4. 2. b. The Chief Iustice of the Kings-Bench came to the Common-Pleas Bar and told a Serjeant who he had assigned for a Pauper That if he would not come into that Court and plead for his Clyent he would forejudge him so that if he could be fetch'd out of the Common Pleas and carried to the Kings-Bench he is not confined to that Court alone In the 5 H. 5. nu 10. Complaint was made that the Subjects of the King were not well served in his Courts the Parliament thereupon Ordered that one Martin and others should take upon them the Dignity of Serjeants at Law so that it appears that their Business lies in other Courts as well as in that of the Common-Pleas 2. As to the second Point Here is a joynt Action for any thing that appears to the contrary 2 Rol. Abr. 275. pl. 4. and the Plaintiff may proceed against one in the Kings-Bench and therefore the other shall be ousted of his Priviledge if he have any in the Common-Pleas Moor 556. 20 H. 6. 32. North Chief Iustice said That he always took it to be an uncontroverted point That a Serjeant at Law should be sued only in the Court of Common-Pleas by Bill he is bound by Oath to be there and when he brings a Writ of Priviledge 't is always out of that Court and no other Curia advisare vult The Attorny General versus Sir John Read In Scaccario INformation A special Verdict was found Disability by a Statute ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office The Case was thus Viz. Sir John Read 1 Apr. 24 Car. 2. was by Sentence in the Spiritual Court divorced a Mensa Thoro and for Non payment of Alimony was excommunicated Afterwards it was Enacted by the Statute of 25 Car. 2.